global warming

[Handlebars]

"I'm sorry, but you have to convince me that what I am seeing and experiencing directly just isn't happening. And I have a hard time with that."

But that's your big mistake; relying on what your eyes tell you when you cannot directly see the past, leads you into error on exactly your most favored evidence - glaciers. And so you then miss the context of, or comparison to, what you've been seeing.

 

[Air2air]

I'm sorry, but you have to convince me that what I am seeing and experiencing directly just isn't happening. And I have a hard time with that.

Twenty or more years ago, I could ski every month of the year here and usually find very good skiing (September was the hardest month). Now that is rare and many of the former best places for high-elevation skiing in August and September no longer have year-round snow. One of my favorite places for a summer ski was on one of several north-facing pocket glaciers on a ridge northeast of Mount Baker. There is nothing but dirt and rocks there now, the glaciers are gone.

On the other side of it, last July my house was overrun by a wildfire and my hot tub caught on fire. Now, there are a lot of factors in why wildfires are happening more often, but a big one is that typical fuel moistures are much lower. Small increases in average temperatures can cause dramatic decreases in fuel moisture regimes. Just before the Cub Creek 2 fire ran over my house the fuel moisture in timber close by was 2 percent. Your typical sheet of newsprint has a 3 percent fuel moisture.

So you guys can go on pretending it is all "fake". I'll use my eyes and ears and brain and draw my own conclusions.

Coffee I applaud you for taking the scientific method of direct observations.

And you're right; it's warmer than it was in 1850. Both sides have always agreed on that.

We never pretended it is "fake"...that comes from the media.

What we do object to is the non-scientific politics, financial theft and absurd exagerration: Photoshops of the Statue of Liberty underwater, plundering of $13 billion per year from medical and environmental research, and taxation schemes such as the new worldwide 15% tax planned at COP 26.

Then you look at the historical data to find that the world is not ending; we are in a completely normal cycle. There are no hockey sticks and never were. We've been much hotter than now, many times before - without CO2 as a driver. And the predictions of the vaunted "scientific consensus" have proven to be as wildly wrong as the hundreds of other warming/cooling media predictions made through the 20th century.

University of Mainz:

 

[scrambler]

If you are being honest, then you seriously need to educate yourself on ALL the details.
If you are being disingenuous... Well there is no cure for that....

 

[dodgeman]

Me personally, I don’t buy into global warming. Is it possible? Yes but how long have we been tracking temperatures in an accurate matter, 125 years maybe. Are we experiencing normal ups and downs? The “experts“ say otherwise but they don’t know in spite of what they say. I might respect the experts more if they used the word maybe more often.

On the other hand, I feel it would be a good idea to reduce pollution. That’s a good thing.

 

[Air2air]

If you are being honest, then you seriously need to educate yourself on ALL the details.
If you are being disingenuous... Well there is no cure for that....

So no then. You won't give further comments or details on your quote:

No worry, Humans will go extinct sooner or later, out of shear stupidity and selfishness.
The planet will recover and make place for a better iteration of this failed experiment

 

[scrambler]

Me personally, I don’t buy into global warming. Is it possible? Yes but how long have we been tracking temperatures in an accurate matter, 125 years maybe. Are we experiencing normal ups and downs? The “experts“ say otherwise but they don’t know in spite of what they say. I might respect the experts more if they used the word maybe more often.

On the other hand, I feel it would be a good idea to reduce pollution. That’s a good thing.

Again, the devil is in the details.
Green House gases (all of them) are well understood. Their levels in the atmosphere are easy to measure, and their long term effect are easily and accurately predictable.

Ignore that and pay the price.

 

[Mulezen]

There are more ways of tracking temperature than thermometers, many more. It’s not a matter of belief, its a fact like evolution.

 

[Handlebars]

Again, the devil is in the details.
Green House gases (all of them) are well understood. Their levels in the atmosphere are easy to measure, and their long term effect are easily and accurately predictable.

Ignore that and pay the price.

You're already paying the psychological price for not understanding the basics. The argument is not about how much greenhouse gases are there, the argument is regarding climate sensitivity to them.
The main guy in all IPPC sensitivity studies "lost" all the information that his work and all the others who use his work, depended on, where the calculations for sensitivity stem from, when he was asked for the underlying homework.
First he stalled for a year. Then he was informed that his work was being reverse engineered and results would be published soon. He came around and was cooperative. sensitivity bounds were lowered.
Still bogus consensus guesswork, though.

 

[Handlebars]

There are more ways of tracking temperature than thermometers, many more. It’s not a matter of belief, its a fact like evolution.

Evolution as is commonly understood, is a theory that has never been disproven in any way. How it works is another story.