Climate continues to change.

[Hal9000_]

Again, you are using data to show facts (climate change) and you are using data to "prove" a theory (ACC). And you don't even realize your mistake.

Are you still trying to claim that tidal power is eco friendly? Tell that to the fish and marine environments that will be decimated. Tell it to the Prophet Gore when he wonders why weather patterns and climate are being changed by the tidal generators when you told him they would FIX everything.

Goodnight, love. I'm going to bed.

How is historical climate change a "fact"? You weren't there. You have a hypothesis based on empirical evidence. It is generally regarded as truth based on consensus. Just like ACC. Same historical evidence, same consensus.

How do you know that tidal and wave power will "decimate" marine environments?

Energy generation diversification is never a bad thing.

Good night.

 

[gunthernehmen]

How is historical climate change a "fact"? You weren't there. You have a hypothesis based on empirical evidence. It is generally regarded as truth based on consensus. Just like ACC. Same historical evidence, same consensus.

How do you know that tidal and wave power will "decimate" marine environments?

Energy generation diversification is never a bad thing.

Good night.

And there you go, falling back on the church teachings again!

It's a shame.

 

[phrodeau]

I'm going tell you all a major secret about CO2 that many Earth science researchers know, but it's not polite to talk about in mixed company because it so amazingly counter-intuitive. It'd be like talking to grandmum about gay sex positions. You just don't go there.

It's the big trade secret, really. Oh, the geeks talk about it all the time in hushed tones among themselves, heatedly debating the details and the mind-boggling implications, while huddled in their research ship's mess hall over shitty coffee. Especially the "paleos". You know, the paleolimnologists, the paleodendrochonologists, paleontologists, paleoclimatologists, glaciochemists, paleoatmospherics dudes and the paleobotanists, et al. Ah, fuck, who am I kidding? You fuckers never heard of this shit, right?

Sometimes one of these paleo geeks has too much to drink, after a tour of duty in Greenland, down at the local pub while hanging with GCM geeks from JPL or NASA or Berkeley or Hadley Centre in Exeter and voices are raised. That's how I learned about, over a lot of drinks in Exeter. But usually they never talk to ordinary laypeople and never, ever, never to the media. God no! You'd lose your cushy research job at the MET office. This is eyes only shit, man.

Here's the big secret:

A long, long time ago when the Earth was younger, its outer crust was thinner and so there was a lot more volcanism and this produced a constant stream of CO2 into the atmosphere, but over the course of the last, oh say, 300 million years the core of the Earth has been cooling, the crust thickening and the volcanism slow receding. The amount of CO2 being added to the climate has been in decline for a very long time.

And then there are plants and animals. Especially plants like oceanic foraminifera and corals that produce trillions of tons of CaCO3 in the form of tiny shells made from CO2 extracted from the atmosphere. When they die their micro-shells sink to the depths of the ocean and are compressed and stored forever as limestone and marble, with only a tiny portion subducted, melted and returned to the atmosphere, in part, as CO2-rich gases spewed from a volcano, a cyclical process that could take 500 millions years to complete and is slowing down all the time.

Other kinds of plants subtract CO2 from the atmosphere too, die and are deeply buried, compressed into coal, gas and oil, the fossil fuels.

You see what is going on here? Over the last some hundreds of millions of years the Earth's climate is slowly being scrubbed of CO2 by plants. The net addition of CO2 by volcanic activity is no longer keeping pace with what is being used and buried by plants. It's just a tiny, tiny imbalance but it adds up over the course of eons. Of course, it hasn't been a steady decline, major volcanic episodes and the errand asteroid or two cracking open the Earth's shell led to new spikes in CO2 emission, resetting the clock. But still the CO2 decline is relentless.

So the fuck what, you say? Good. Carbon is pollution.

Actually, no. No, it is not.

About 75 million years ago the level of atmospheric CO2 was in the 1000's of parts per millions range. Commercial greenhouse operations today typically boost CO2 to 3000ppm to accelerate healthy plant growth. Even during ancient glaciation periods CO2 levels were often many times what they are today.

By the beginning of the industrial age, CO2 levels were quite literally at geologically the lowest levels EVER! Well, maybe, nobody really knows for sure. But it is reckoned that in 1850, CO2 levels were bottoming out at about 240-250ppm.

The earth's crush had become too thick, the core is cooling, the resulting slowdown in volcanic activity had allowed organic sequestration of CO2 to get ahead of CO2 emissions on a scale of millions of years.

At about 220ppm plants begin to die of CO2 starvation.

Evolution had been working overtime the last 75 million years to produce new ways to photosynthesize using the chronically lower levels of CO2. The great global carboniferous forests the dinosaurs loved all but disappeared in the new low CO2 regime. Grasses evolved because the don't need as much CO2 as earlier weeds and that allowed the ruminant megafauna to coevolve as well, helping to reduce the sequestration of CO2 by recycling it back into the atmosphere via mega-farts and mega-dung piles.

In fact, CO2 levels had fallen so low that by 13,000BP things were looking grim. Some paleo-scientists reckon that had the decline continued the Earth was facing a new era of massive desertification due to lack of CO2 to support many plants. That would have led to a massive CO2-starvation fauna extinction event unlike anything experience in the past 250 million years.

Luckily, we were saved by the YDI in ~12850 BP. Naturally, you Warmist peasants have never heard of the YDI event, because that's just the kind of esoteric mystery the high priesthood only reveals to the initiated. You must never repeat any of this, OK?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-38089-y

The Younger Dryas Impact (named after a pretty flower that was a favourite treat of Mastodons) was a comet that broke up and struck the Earth in probably >100 locations globally creating several mega-craters 10 to 70 kilometres in diameters, and many Tunguska-like events wiping out most animal life larger than about 80kg by basically burning the planet down. It also added a shitload of CO2 to the atmosphere, thus resetting the levels up into the 280ppm range.

YDI event created massive climate change, instant -4c to -8c shifts that lasted about 100 to 200 years then bounced back ~ 8c in the course of a few decades. Talk about serious climate change, YDI is the mother of all climate disruptions. In the end, though, as long as you were NOT a member of the megafauna clades everything turned out for the better. We were saved from CO2 plant starvation for the next 12,000 years.

By 1850, shit was looking pretty grim again. CO2 levels continued to decline down to about 250ppm, dangerously low, if you like trees and flowers. We probably had only another 200 to 1,000 years left before a major extinction event.

Then capitalism mysteriously happened and with it, techno-evolution. Western civilization discovered it could access all that fossilized sunshine (coal) to power cotton and steel mills, etc. Of course, that was barely scratching the surface. Even the high priests at the IPCC don't think fossil fuel usage got enough steam up to start driving CO2 levels higher until well after WWII. But now with the whole friggin' world in on the act, CO2 levels are climbing back into a healthy range for plants.

In fact - and this is another one of those impolite secrets the paleobotanists aren't allowed to mention - plants are now growing 30% faster today than they were in 1900. Yup, Google it. It might be hard to find on Google; their algorithms are designed to bury this kind of fact. Better yet, higher levels of CO2 mean that plants use water far more efficiently in photosynthesis. Yup, that's right bubba, the Earth is in a historic desert reclamation cycle now as you read these words. It's the bloody Greening of Planet Earth on a level not seen in a 100 million years!

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22030

You can see why my paleo buddy in Exeter had to have a few drinks before he could get this secret off his chest. He'd lose his cushy job if he talked to the Daily Mail about this shit.

The bottom line is everything you have ever been told about CO2, everything they are teaching kids in school, everything you see on TV or hear Congress critters ranting on about is one big fucking, twisted Orwellian lie of a magnitude never before attempted in human history. True, most people are just innocent useful idiots, they don't know what they preach.

Capitalism is greening the Earth. The internal combustion engine has saved us from CO2 starvation by releasing trillions to the nth power tons of stored CO2 into the atmosphere thanks to our technologies that have allowed us to dig up fossil deposits and turn them into energy. We are still only at 400ppm CO2. At the current rate it will take 200 years to double that and at 800ppm CO2 the warming effect might be 1.2c. A small price to pay to have saved Gaia. Of course, we'll never double the CO2 level because new technologies are evolving to replace fossil fuels and global human populations are likely to be much lower in the future.

* * *

Here's where it gets really wickedly weird... I've told you about the fundamentalist Evangelical Warmist Millenarian religion. They're like the Bible thumping Southern Baptists, holy rollers with mega-churches. They do lie. They want to tax you to support their lifestyle.

But there is also a new emerging gnostic ecohumanist mysticism too. Right now, it is still shrouded in secrecy because only the paleo-scientists and the general circulation modelling geeks have the esoteric knowledge to put all the pieces together. I'm no authority here - much less a believer - still, from what I gleaned from my sources, the emergent world view among the literati goes something like this:

It starts with two big cognitive leaps that I don't expect you to try at home.

First, is that a "strong" version of James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis is reality. That means Gaia (the Earth's entire Bio-geosphere) is a single living being about 750 million years old. Think of Gaia as an amazingly complex and ancient Sequoia tree. She has been evolving that whole time working on developing self-conscious awareness. Why does a living planetary being want self-conscious awareness? So that it can take control of its, up until now, fully autonomous feedback cycles some of which have decaying orbits before since the start of our present ice age. (Oh, fuck, you guys wouldn't know, but we are and have been in the latest of one of Gaia's three great ice ages for millions of years now. An ice age is a bit like having a flu for Gaia.)

Humanity, our evolution, is purposeful. We are Gaia's self-awareness system. We evolved to be the mind's eye that Gaia can observe and measure herself with and then make adjustments. That's why we just happened to appear "magically" just now, at this critical point in geologic history, just in time to boost declining CO2 levels back to safe comfortable levels for Gaia. A million years ago we would have been too early. 1,000 years from now, we would have been too late. We humans are happening at just the perfect moment. That's weird, huh?

But Gaia has even bigger plans for us. We are destined to stop the rain of terror that asteroids and comets have caused Gaia her whole life. She's sick of that Oort cloud shit. No more set-backs to her evolution. But the really big thing that she wants is to have children. Gaia "thinks" like a giant tree. It's time for her to go to seed and spread baby Gaias out into the solar system and beyond.

Hey, I'm not sayin' any of this ecohumanist Gaia stuff is true, just that it is out there and the people who told me about it believe it will be THE narrative by, say, 2040.

The second part of the new gnostic eco-humanism is so esoteric and secret that I probably shouldn't mention it, because I don't understand myself. I've been told that Normals should not be allowed to know anything about it at this point in human history. Too early. I shall say no more on this topic for fear of having already said too much. Still, wtf, I've gone this far, so I'll just point you in one little direction, which I am sure you'll fail to grasp the implication of. I know I did.

https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

Well, no.

Historically, CO2 levels have fallen on the billon-year scale, but have not been falling for the last few million years, as you suggest. Those poor plants were in no danger of running out of CO2.

The YDI hypothesis (not established theory) timeframe was not accompanied by a significant or long-lasting spike in CO2 levels.

Some plants do grow better in higher CO2 concentrations, but do much worse in the extreme weather that higher concentrations cause.

You might do better to research climate science yourself instead of relying on overheard drunken conversations.

 

[Conager]

Well, no.

Historically, CO2 levels have fallen on the billon-year scale, but have not been falling for the last few million years, as you suggest. Those poor plants were in no danger of running out of CO2.

The YDI hypothesis (not established theory) timeframe was not accompanied by a significant or long-lasting spike in CO2 levels.

Some plants do grow better in higher CO2 concentrations, but do much worse in the extreme weather that higher concentrations cause.

You might do better to research climate science yourself instead of relying on overheard drunken conversations.

Laughs at you "established theory" vs. Hypothesis.

Your "established theories" are not falsifiable amirite?

LOL about "research climate science yourself." Not only have you never done any such thing you haven't even ever given any consideration to anything outside of your "established theory" liturgy. They're only reason you give a s*** at all about "the climate" is because it gives you a chance to assuage your feelings of intellectual inferiority by lording your supposed sperior knowledge over other people because you're on the "correct" side of a highly charged political issue.

You have absolutely zero specialized training or knowledge of the subject yet here we are 4,000 posts later of you hosting a thread that is no different than the other Frodo's religious thread. I think it's absolutely hilarious that we have two Frodo's who are devoutly religious on the board.

 

[von_Bismarck]

*points and laughs at Que-nager's lame attempt at trolling*

 

[someoneyouknow]

https://i.imgur.com/efbNO4X.jpg

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1912-article-global-warming/

 

[phrodeau]

Laughs at you "established theory" vs. Hypothesis.

Your "established theories" are not falsifiable amirite?

LOL about "research climate science yourself." Not only have you never done any such thing you haven't even ever given any consideration to anything outside of your "established theory" liturgy. They're only reason you give a s*** at all about "the climate" is because it gives you a chance to assuage your feelings of intellectual inferiority by lording your supposed sperior knowledge over other people because you're on the "correct" side of a highly charged political issue.

You have absolutely zero specialized training or knowledge of the subject yet here we are 4,000 posts later of you hosting a thread that is no different than the other Frodo's religious thread. I think it's absolutely hilarious that we have two Frodo's who are devoutly religious on the board.

It is not a political issue. It is an ecological issue that involves major industries with substantial political influence.

 

[gunthernehmen]

https://i.imgur.com/efbNO4X.jpg

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1912-article-global-warming/

Snopes is fine for Urban legends, like blue ice falling onto a barn, but for anything religious, like global warming or politics, it's worse than useless.

 

[Conager]

It is not a political issue. It is an ecological issue that involves major industries with substantial political influence.

Lol.

Yeah, your "hypothesis" about substantial political influence is trumped by "established theory" of this being a major, highly politicized issue.

Always amusing the way you insist that "THEY" don't want the "truth" on climate change to be known when billions of dollars are available to the "they" you do listen to for preaching to your choir, selling you hymnal and holy scripture, holding revival meetings for the literal jet-set, and retrofitting your houses of worship with redundant energy sources using materials that are mined for, grown, or manufactured using. . .fossil fuels.

Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to make the NH4NO3 and how much actual petroleum diesel it takes to blow up a single bench of over-burden just to get a few yards closer to the material you are after?

 

[phrodeau]

Lol.

Yeah, your "hypothesis" about substantial political influence is trumped by "established theory" of this being a major, highly politicized issue.

Always amusing the way you insist that "THEY" don't want the "truth" on climate change to be known when billions of dollars are available to the "they" you do listen to for preaching to your choir, selling you hymnal and holy scripture, holding revival meetings for the literal jet-set, and retrofitting your houses of worship with redundant energy sources using materials that are mined for, grown, or manufactured using. . .fossil fuels.

Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to make the NH4NO3 and how much actual petroleum diesel it takes to blow up a single bench of over-burden just to get a few yards closer to the material you are after?

Got links to these attributions you’re laying on me?

 

[Shelly2inme]

Did you know...

Did you know that bones from Wooly Mammoths have been found in states like Iowa? Scientists say they lived in the Midwest 16,000 years ago. But they died off due to global warming.

Yes, shocking as it may sound, the earth has had "ice ages."

I imagine the ice melted from all the green house gas being produced by cars. There were cars back then were there not? No? Hmmm. Well then it seems like Earth has always had cycles of heating and cooling long before cars and cow farts.

On a different topic, anyone know how much electricity Al Gore uses in his three homes? He thinks we should ride bikes. Hmmm. Now that would be convenient.

 

[Conager]

Got links to these attributions you’re laying on me?

Sure:

Well, no.

Historically, CO2 levels have fallen on the billon-year scale, but have not been falling for the last few million years, as you suggest. Those poor plants were in no danger of running out of CO2.

The YDI hypothesis (not established theory) timeframe was not accompanied by a significant or long-lasting spike in CO2 levels.

Some plants do grow better in higher CO2 concentrations, but do much worse in the extreme weather that higher concentrations cause.

You might do better to research climate science yourself instead of relying on overheard drunken conversations.

It is not a political issue. It is an ecological issue that involves major industries with substantial political influence.

 

[lustatopia]

Well, no.

Historically, CO2 levels have fallen on the billon-year scale, but have not been falling for the last few million years, as you suggest. Those poor plants were in no danger of running out of CO2.

Well, true. I can't prove shit I heard hanging out with JPL and Hadley geeks, other than that, yeah, CO2 levels were until recently at about as low as they can possibly go without causing major ecological dislocations due to photosynthesis inefficiency. That's a fact, dude. Yeah, I know it's not part of the Global Warming narrative. No one wants you to know this stuff.

But that's why the recent rises in CO2 levels have caused plants to grow 30% more efficiently. The planet really was in the lower end of the CO2 levels or that huge gain in plant growth would not have been possible.

It's almost impossible to overstate how big a 30% increase in the growth rates for all the Earth's photosynthetic capacity is, especially when you consider oceanic algae. What a boon that is for humans and the Earth. You'd think everyone would be thrilled. But no. The facts (and excitement) are buried in dull agricultural journals, not splashed around on CNN or NYTimes.

But for me, I'm really over arguing with evangelicals about how best we can repent and save ourselves from DOOOOOOOOM. You can't change the minds of true believers. I'm OK with you believing the end is near lest we absolve our sins.

What I find fascinating is the counter-narrative that is evolving underground inside our most elite institutions because of all the new insights unleashed by research that is being done on the topic of climate change and computer modeling. Now, I have made clear that these ideas are underground because of the oppressive dominance of the current AGW theory. These are secret cliques working privately. The powers that be can stop the new narratives from being published in Nature, but it can't stop curious minds from exploring new ideas, often after hours, stealing the odd moment on the institution's mainframes.

My friends at these places saw that CO2 production - because of long term declining volcanic activity - was falling behind the rate of CO2 sequestration by the biosphere, and believed this was going to be a long term major bio-diversity decline issue for the planet.

I tend to believe that Gaia's system of complex negative feedbacks would have corrected the imbalance somehow (waves hands in air.) My contacts agreed, however, they believe that Gaia's solution to the problem of ever declining CO2 levels leading to mass extinction was...wait for it...Humanity.

We were the only possible solution to the long term over sequestration of CO2, they are proposing. Think about that for a moment. That's a big statement.

Now, I did push back on that idea. And still do. Essentially their argument is that is exactly what happened. It's simply a fact. No one doubts that.

We fixed the problem of a low CO2 Earth. Problem is now solved. Thus, we are the de facto agent that Gaia created to solve the problem. Yeah, I know that seems teleological, but (so I have been "schooled") it's not if you think in terms of mathematically modeling stuff, such as the climate. That's how models work. If you don't want to believe that's how "reality" works, fine. But you can't prove it, because the outcomes look exactly the same. The difference is that models can be built, but a version of a non-teleological reality can't. So, mathematically they are ontologically the same class of phenomena. Got that?

 

[Conager]

This particular pablum for the masses isn't specifically designed to get people thinking collectively rather than about the benefit of the individual but leftists love that it does have that effect.. It's a conditioning thing.

These people True Believers don't care about the benefits that burning fossil fuels have had for humankind, much less plant life. Individual doesn't matter at all. They're not even concerned about raising entire civilizations out of poverty through energy consumption. Eric J consumption is the best marker for the prosperity of a given population. Instead of finding ways to help others third world countries find exploit and utilize their energy resources in order to better themselves they'd rather that they wallow in abject poverty.

A lot of this stuff is counterproductive as well. Humans that live in poverty tend to be fairly prolific breeders. Tye wealthier they become the less children they have because they don't need them to care for them in their old age.

They'll of carbon sequestration schemes unless it's having actual plants sequester the carbon because they're flourishing with all the carbon.

 

[thør]

If all ya'll were slapped with a board in the face you'd be arguing about whether it was birch or beech.

Does it really make a difference?

 

[phrodeau]

I had no idea that burning fossil fuels can make me rich. It only seems to make industrial CEO’s rich.

 

[von_Bismarck]

For the record, Gaia--even understood merely as a self-regulating ecological system--is marginal science. Compelling (I think), but nevertheless marginal.

 

[von_Bismarck]

This particular pablum for the masses isn't specifically designed to get people thinking collectively rather than about the benefit of the individual but leftists love that it does have that effect.. It's a conditioning thing.

These people True Believers don't care about the benefits that burning fossil fuels have had for humankind, much less plant life. Individual doesn't matter at all. They're not even concerned about raising entire civilizations out of poverty through energy consumption. Eric J consumption is the best marker for the prosperity of a given population. Instead of finding ways to help others third world countries find exploit and utilize their energy resources in order to better themselves they'd rather that they wallow in abject poverty.

A lot of this stuff is counterproductive as well. Humans that live in poverty tend to be fairly prolific breeders. Tye wealthier they become the less children they have because they don't need them to care for them in their old age.

They'll of carbon sequestration schemes unless it's having actual plants sequester the carbon because they're flourishing with all the carbon.

Could you rephrase this mess in the form of a language?

 

[lustatopia]

Some plants do grow better in higher CO2 concentrations, but do much worse in the extreme weather that higher concentrations cause.

You forgot to mention the plagues of locust.



I'm glad you brought up the extreme weather BS.

If you look at an NOAA graph of US hurricanes (as a proxy for accumulated cyclonic energy) you'll see no increase in "extreme weather." Looks pretty random, much the same as always.

No one in any scientific community believes there is any significant increase in extreme weather globally. But still it is a popular myth among the faithful. Just like Catholics believe in saints, I guess.

Extreme weather is declining slightly. That makes sense, because the cause of extreme weather is the interface between COLD and hot air masses. If you warm the COLD air mass, even just a little bit, the resulting storm energy slope between the air masses is that much lower, thus less extreme. Duh.

Even the goddamn physics behind the Global Warming hypothesis predicts less extreme weather globally, but don't let your own hypothesis get in the way of a good Old Testament style fire and brimstone tale! Fuck, you can't go around telling people there are less tornadoes today than in the past because global warming. How is that going scare people into voting for the Green New Deal?

But back to cyclonic energy and how satellites tilt the data.

If you adjust for the fact that before we had satellites, the number and intensity of hurricanes was based upon sightings of those hurricanes that crossed over shipping lanes or made landfall, then total accumulated cyclonic energy is significantly lower today then in 1900.

Again, this totally makes sense to the AGW theory, which postulates most of the warming should occur at the higher latitudes, NOT in the tropics. Thus, the temperature gradient is less extreme. Less extreme gradient, less extreme weather.

With satellites even a very minor storm that reaches cyclonic force for a mere 30 minutes in the middle of the Pacific with no one around is counted from space. Not so in the past...Thus the number of hurricanes recorded before satellites is unrepresented.

So in reality, the number of hurricanes today is lower than in the recent past. And the landfall trends back that up too, showing a slight decline. The same goes for tornadoes.

Often evangelicals will push numbers showing the value of damage done by extreme weather is at all time highs. Duh. But that has nothing to do with an increase in extreme weather and everything to do with the massively increased amount and value of urban coastal property that is in the way of extreme weather.

 

[phrodeau]

Nice bar graph. Did you draw it yourself?

 

[lustatopia]

The YDI hypothesis (not established theory) timeframe was not accompanied by a significant or long-lasting spike in CO2 levels.

You're a bit behind the curve on the Younger Dryas Impact hypothesis. So is Google. The latest research has pretty much settled the argument for the impact. The details are still a bit vague. For instance, not all the craters have been found yet.

There is a lot of research going back decades that supports a major impact event at 12,800BP, but the latest research totally cinches it. There is actually no credible alternative theory left standing.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-38089-y

As an evangelical warmist with a penchant for catastrophes of Biblical proportions you should love the Younger Dryas. I guess maybe there is no human guilt in it to manipulate people with, huh? Still, it's fucking scary as shit to think about how it could happen again tomorrow. You could scare people with it. That's great fun for warmists. I hear Greta is coming to tell us all we should literally PANIC!

Fuck, man. I tell you what. I'm a lot more afraid of asteroids than Goblular Warming.

Btw, a research team is right now on the way home from northern Greenland after taking samples at the Hiawatha glacier impact site. I understand they believe they have collected evidence the impact is exactly 12,800 years old.

Your CO2 information is also out of date and low rez. Of course, there was a huge spike in CO2 produced by the Younger Dryas if for no other reason than about 50% of the Earth's forests were incinerated. When you burn shit you produce CO2.

There was a spike in volcanism at this time too.

 

[phrodeau]

We’ll just have to take your word for it.

 

[neci]

science does not lie. follow the math.

people with lined pockets do. follow the bank accounts.

 

[lustatopia]

Nice bar graph. Did you draw it yourself?

Congratulations! That's what we in the sciences call a critical thinking skill. Do you see what you did? The first thing you thought of when you looked at my nice little bar graph was: is this data any good? What is its source?

That's call skeptical thinking. It's how researchers think. They ask questions about where the data and how the data they are using to build a hypothesis was gathered and whether it is reliable.

What they don't do is cherry pick only the data which supports their hypothesis.

That's what I suspect you do. It's the same thing good Christians do too. They look out into the world and in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, if they are a good and proper Christians, they maintain their faith in Jesus.

That's actually the very definition of Faith: To believe something that there is strong evidence for it not being thus. That's faith. It's not faith to believe shit for which there is strong evidence. That's just common sense.

To have faith you have to have your faith challenged and been found not wanting. This takes a special kind of stupid. Just like when Abraham was asked by Jehovah to kill his son. The fucking dude was gonna do it too. Damn, he had a bad case of the faith!

Hey, but I'm wrong to talk down spiritual faith. I don't mean to diss Christians. In the right epistemological framework faith is a good thing. Keep the faith, man. Faith can get you through some really tough spots in life.

It's just that in the special epistemological framework of science, faith isn't just stupid. It simply doesn't exist. No such concept. That's why we keeping making the point that AGW theory isn't really science, 'cause you got to have the faith of Abraham to believe.

Me? I got no faith. I don't have a clue what the weather is going to be like in 100 years.

You have faith. You know for sure what the weather will be doing in 100 years.

BTW, here's the link you asked for:

https://i2.wp.com/www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/fig33.jpg

 

[Hal9000_]

Me? I got no faith. I don't have a clue what the weather is going to be like in 100 years.

If atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to rise, all evidence points to one observation.

Of course, events could occur which would be temporary. Volcanic activity. A big meteor strike. Anything which screens the sun.

Sun dimming. Has that been thought of?

https://www.hoover.org/research/sunscreen-planet-earth-0


Even Edward Teller, father of the neutron bomb, despite his neutral position in this article, saw the need for mitigation of CO2 emissions.


Pump out trillions of gallons of oil and natural gas and burn it, and nothing will happen. Seems logical. And very faithful.