If there are more extreme weather conditions, its due to climate change. If there are fewer, that’s also due to climate change.
If arctic ice is getting smaller, it’s climate change. If antartic ice is getting bigger, it’s a non-event.
If it’s getting hotter, it’s due to climate change. If the weather does not get hotter for several decades, then it’s a “pause,” and the heat is gong into the ocean, or into the man in the moon, or somewhere by gosh, and once again, climate change is fine.
Climate change is proven, and no evidence can contradict it. Climate change is non-falsifiable.
Of course there are changes in climate. The question is whether man made activities influence it. I personally do not think we make enough of an impact to alter the nature of weather on our Earth for the long term. Volcanoes erupt and the ash and debris that floats into the atmosphere cools things down by blocking sun rays. That is an impacts climate for a short span. We have only been studying Earth’s climate for a very minute time in relation to its age. There is no way we can know all of the natural cycles of the Earth. We study what has been buried for centuries and make educated guesses about the weather at that place at that time. But we do not have all of the evidence or enough time in studying weather patterns to truly make an assertion that man causes the weather to be altered. I am really sick of hearing about the subject. It is not scientific to make assumptions with so very little data. Nor is it intelligent the teach something as fact that is at the very most a working thesis.
So we get our monthly climate change article yet again. This is driven by the leftists who want people to pay a carbon tax to breathe. I agree Sherinae that the subject has only been studied for a short time and we should not automatically assume that man is responsible for any weather patterns. The hottest year on record in this country was 1936 during the dust bowl era and we have been cooling for the past 18 years, but Al Gore and others continualy think it is man’s fault for anything and everything in the environment.
Thanks for bringing the article forward. There are some cogent points therein.
The sterility of the debate about who or what is causing climate change is depressing to the extreme. What the article is saying quite clearly is that climate change is a reality and in some cases can be clearly identified as contributing to certain weather phenomena that we classify as ‘extreme’. In proper scientific logic, it says that for other types of ‘extreme’ weather events the causal link is less certain. It does not say – ‘hey, extreme weather events are not caused by the impact of human activity, so we don’t need to do anything liek make or cities more resilient, or to harden our infrastructure, or to put in place facilities and services that can sustain civic order in times of extreme chaos and disruption. The costs of preparing for the worst are far less than the costs of trying to recover from the worst.
I don’t think that anyone would argue with the general concept that there is climate change-over the course of the billion years or so that the earth has been spinning, it has warmed and cooled repeatedly.
I think that the rub is the human component and the left has cleverly linked the term “climate change” with human effects on the environment.
So the problem is still that we are using models based upon a very small sample size-the 100-150 years is as a good a measure as any or if they are using older data, then honestly the model should fall apart as there is simply no reliable data that goes back further AND that still fails to objectively attribute any of the changes to human intervention.
If there are more extreme weather conditions, its due to climate change. If there are fewer, that’s also due to climate change.
If arctic ice is getting smaller, it’s climate change. If antartic ice is getting bigger, it’s a non-event.
If it’s getting hotter, it’s due to climate change. If the weather does not get hotter for several decades, then it’s a “pause,” and the heat is gong into the ocean, or into the man in the moon, or somewhere by gosh, and once again, climate change is fine.
Climate change is proven, and no evidence can contradict it. Climate change is non-falsifiable.
Of course there are changes in climate. The question is whether man made activities influence it. I personally do not think we make enough of an impact to alter the nature of weather on our Earth for the long term. Volcanoes erupt and the ash and debris that floats into the atmosphere cools things down by blocking sun rays. That is an impacts climate for a short span. We have only been studying Earth’s climate for a very minute time in relation to its age. There is no way we can know all of the natural cycles of the Earth. We study what has been buried for centuries and make educated guesses about the weather at that place at that time. But we do not have all of the evidence or enough time in studying weather patterns to truly make an assertion that man causes the weather to be altered. I am really sick of hearing about the subject. It is not scientific to make assumptions with so very little data. Nor is it intelligent the teach something as fact that is at the very most a working thesis.
So we get our monthly climate change article yet again. This is driven by the leftists who want people to pay a carbon tax to breathe. I agree Sherinae that the subject has only been studied for a short time and we should not automatically assume that man is responsible for any weather patterns. The hottest year on record in this country was 1936 during the dust bowl era and we have been cooling for the past 18 years, but Al Gore and others continualy think it is man’s fault for anything and everything in the environment.
Thanks for bringing the article forward. There are some cogent points therein.
The sterility of the debate about who or what is causing climate change is depressing to the extreme. What the article is saying quite clearly is that climate change is a reality and in some cases can be clearly identified as contributing to certain weather phenomena that we classify as ‘extreme’. In proper scientific logic, it says that for other types of ‘extreme’ weather events the causal link is less certain. It does not say – ‘hey, extreme weather events are not caused by the impact of human activity, so we don’t need to do anything liek make or cities more resilient, or to harden our infrastructure, or to put in place facilities and services that can sustain civic order in times of extreme chaos and disruption. The costs of preparing for the worst are far less than the costs of trying to recover from the worst.
I don’t think that anyone would argue with the general concept that there is climate change-over the course of the billion years or so that the earth has been spinning, it has warmed and cooled repeatedly.
I think that the rub is the human component and the left has cleverly linked the term “climate change” with human effects on the environment.
So the problem is still that we are using models based upon a very small sample size-the 100-150 years is as a good a measure as any or if they are using older data, then honestly the model should fall apart as there is simply no reliable data that goes back further AND that still fails to objectively attribute any of the changes to human intervention.
‘nuf sed
You’re right. That is enough said. Perhaps you should speak with a scientist before making broad and inaccurate statements.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=climate+change+chart&qpvt=climate+change+chart&FORM=IGRE#view=detail&id=3AD358A40169FED69C2970DF3F18FA97BFD1C9F9&selectedIndex=33
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=million+years+climate+change+chart&id=A870396F2CF9C6A374B8024CEB0E06BB28D17F5E&FORM=IQFRBA#view=detail&id=2929162055E29F07624B359E869F497C7C63155B&selectedIndex=54