Fox "news" Cannot Be Trusted

[KeithD]

I see no major rebuild done under Trump, he just added in some dollars to the budget ( to keep it simple, the money went I am sure to upgrade infrastructure which would

And is actively trying to steal that money and more to use to build his ineffective border wall.

 

[Sugar Baby Wanted]

Well my last try at this:

First you did not even try to answer me, but, even giving Obama's reduction in military budget dollars, the US military was still the most advanced in the world when Trump was elected, bar none. I see no major rebuild done under Trump, he just added in some dollars to the budget ( to keep it simple, the money went I am sure to upgrade infrastructure which would be needed but it will take years to be finished).

It was the intelligence arm that located the operatives, which I can't see how that ties into your earlier post, but...

"Open borders are an invitation to terrorist".

So what are the Terrorist going to do,sneak in an army?

If I was planning to attack the US I would not use a logistically difficult method of trying to sneak in across the border, it is not like it is not monitored, patrolled and have point of entry controls at the easy access points.

Not to mention the terrorists would have to enter another country first, then the US.

I'm pretty sure I'd blow up something, most likely not even on US soils. It is just to difficult a process, given that terrorists usually lack capital to try and directly attack the US mainland.

Ok to the last point, name all these so called murders that were allowed by the Democrats obstructions?

Oh and can you actually post all that climate change info too you state you have if you not too busy, or shut up about it, one or the other. I don't think that is too much to ask?

There Is No Scientific Consensus on Man Made Global Warming

There is a lot of fog and confusion around the topic of catastrophic man-made global warming, so I want to offer a very simple cut-to-the-chase approach herein.
To support government mandates on CO2 emissions is to imply that (a) man made CO2 emissions have a significant impact on warming, and (b) that the impact will be catastrophic unless those emissions are curbed. If there is no scientific consensus regarding (a), then there is no scientific consensus on the one and only relevant aspect of global warming debate, no matter how much distraction and confusion alarmists try to stir up. If there was a consensus on (a), then it would still be incumbent upon alarmists to prove (b).
If there is no evidence for such a consensus, or if there’s even evidence for an emerging consensus on the opposing hypothesis, then for the sake of the debate regarding CO2 emission limits it doesn’t matter whether or not the globe has warmed or not over the past decades (evidence suggests that it has by a degree or so, as you’d expect after a Little Ice Age, but it doesn’t matter). It doesn’t matter whether the icecaps are melting or not (evidence suggests they are melting in some places, and expanding in others, as they have for millions of years, but it doesn’t matter). It doesn’t matter whether Polar Bears are thriving or not (evidence suggests they are thriving more than ever, but it doesn’t matter). It doesn’t matter whether women are choosing to become prostitutes as a result of warming (I’m not kidding, alarmists have made this claim, but it doesn’t matter). It doesn’t matter whether sea levels are rising fast or slow, or whether there are more or fewer floods, hurricanes, or droughts (evidence suggests there aren’t, and the US Federal Government agrees, but it doesn’t matter). It doesn’t matter whether this or that month was the hottest month on record in 500 years or not.
I could go on and on, and, believe me, there are people who do. The opportunities to distract, obfuscate, and confuse people into submission are endless if you have an agenda.
The only thing that matters is whether or not man made CO2 emissions have a significant impact on the globe’s warming. If they don’t, then curbing CO2 emissions limits are pointless at best, and an artificial and hugely destructive restriction on the world’s industrial capacity at worst.
Ask anyone this question: Can you name one peer-reviewed scientific research paper that concludes that (a) man made CO2 emissions have had a significant impact on global warming, and (b) that the impact will be catastrophic enough to impact our lives, unless those emissions are curbed?
The fact of the matter is that, as far as I’m aware, no such paper exists. If I’m wrong, please do send me a link to the paper and specifically the relevant citation that proves (b).
There is the long debunked claim that “97% of scientists agree.” The truth is that at best they agree that the globe has warmed over the past century (nobody denies this) and that CO2 can have some effect on warming (nobody denies this).
Nor are any of the IPCC‘s political publications to be misconstrued as scientific research papers. These papers were deliberately manipulated by politicians who, via committee, altered the phrasing of critical sentences written by scientists. I don’t need to tell you that such dishonesty and disgusting trickery has nothing to do with science.
But even if we did admit the IPCC report as evidence, and even if there were any peer-reviewed research studies (which may well be the case at one point), one would have to compare those against peer-reviewed studies that conclude that CO2’s impact is negligible, and that other factors are the main drivers of climate change.
It just so happens that there are many such papers, thousands in fact, affirming the latter hypothesis:
Here are some examples (hat tip to NoTricksZone):
From “Multidecadal tendencies in ENSO and global temperatures related to nultidecadal oscillations” (2010) by Joseph D’Aleo and Dr. Don Easterbrook:
We live in a most interesting time. As the global climate and solar variation reveals themselves in a way not seen in the past 200 years, we will surely attain a much better understanding of what causes global warming and cooling. Time will tell. If the climate continues its cooling and the sun behaves in a manner not witnessed since 1800, we can be sure that climate changes are dominated by the sun and that atmospheric CO2 has a very small role in climate changes. If the same climatic patterns, cyclic warming and cooling, that occurred over the past 500 years continue, we can expect several decades of moderate to severe global cooling.
From “Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records” (2012) by Ka-Kit Tung and Jiansong Zhou:
The anthropogenic warming started after the mid-19th century of Industrial Revolution. After a slow start, the smoothed version of the warming trend has stayed almost constant since 1910 at 0.07–0.08 °C/decade.
From “Solar forcing on the ice winter severity index in the western Baltic region” by M.C. Leal-Silva, V.M. Velasco Herrera:
Based on a new method for finding and measuring amplitude–phase cross-frequency coupling in time series with a low signal/noise ratio, we suggest that the ice winter severity index in the Baltic Sea is modulated by solar activity and solar motion in several frequency bands during the last 500 years.
From “The Radiation Budget of the West African Sahel and Its Controls: A Perspective from Observations and Global Climate Models” by Mark A. Miller, Virendra P. Ghate, and Robert K. Zahn:
These quantities were analyzed in two GCMs and compensating errors in the SW and LW clear-sky, cross-atmosphere radiative flux divergence were found to conspire to produce somewhat reasonable predictions of the net clear-sky divergence. Both GCMs underestimated the surface LW and SW CRF and predicted near-zero SW CRE when the measured values were substantially larger (~70 W m−2 maximum).
From “Orbital forcing of tree-ring data” by Jan Esper, David C. Frank, Mauri Timonen, Eduardo Zorita, Rob J. S. Wilson, Jürg Luterbacher, Steffen Holzkämper, Nils Fischer, Sebastian Wagner, Daniel Nievergelt, Anne Verstege & Ulf Büntgen:
These findings, together with the missing orbital signature in published dendrochronological records, suggest that large-scale near-surface air-temperature reconstructions relying on tree-ring data may underestimate pre-instrumental temperatures including warmth during Medieval and Roman times.
From “Marine climatic seasonality during medieval times (10th to 12th centuries) based on isotopic records in Viking Age shells from Orkney, Scotland” by Donna Surge, James H. Barrett:
(…) resulting in the conclusion that the early MCA was warmer than the late 20th century by ~ 1 °C.
From “Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization” by E. Steirou, and D. Koutsoyiannis:
The above results cast some doubts in the use of homogenization procedures and tend to indicate that the global temperature increase during the last century is between 0.4°C and 0.7°C, where these two values are the estimates derived from raw and adjusted data, respectively.
From “Multi-archive summer temperature reconstruction for the European Alps, AD 1053–1996” by Mathias Trachsela et al:
Highest pre-industrial summer temperatures of the 12th century were 0.3 °C warmer than the 20th century.
From “Solar influences on atmospheric circulation” by K. Georgieva et al:
Solar activity is a result of the action of solar dynamo transforming solar poloidal field into toroidal field and back. The poloidal and toroidal fields are the two faces of solar magnetism, so they are not independent, but we demonstrate that their long-term variations are not identical, and the periods in which solar activity agents affecting the Earth are predominantly related to solar toroidal or poloidal fields are the periods in which the North Atlantic Oscillation is negatively or positively correlated with solar activity, respectively.
From “The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24” by Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl, Ole Humlum:
We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.
Over 100 links to solid, well sourced, peer-reviewed climate research papers are available at NoTricksZone. If that list isn’t enough, there’s also one of 1,350+ peer-reviewed papers at Popular Technology.
Of course, for what it’s worth, there’s also the Oregon Petition which 31,487 American scientists have signed, including 9,029 with PhDs, stating that “there is no convincing evidence that human release of (…) greenhouse gases is causing or will cause (…) catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere.”
So much for “scientific consensus.”
I’m not saying that I have the final answer by any means, I’m not a scientist. But what I can conclude and back up with absolute confidence is that there is no scientific consensus on man-made global warming, and that the people who vociferously pronounce such a claim without actually having fact checked it at the most basic level are attention seeking, overconfident, and irresponsible idiots who have no problem condemning millions if not billions of people to poverty and starvation.
Science is not a fact sheet that you ram through via public declaration or majority vote. It’s an ongoing process of comparing theories to reality. It never settles, it’s never satisfied, and it remains open to all available evidence. In many fields of scientific study we can say that an overwhelming plurality of evidence backs a particular conclusion. The area of man-made global warming, however, is not one of them.

 

[icanhelp1]

There Is No Scientific Consensus on Man Made Global Warming

There is a lot of fog and confusion around the topic of catastrophic man-made global warming, so I want to offer a very simple cut-to-the-chase approach herein.
To support government mandates on CO2 emissions is to imply that (a) man made CO2 emissions have a significant impact on warming, and (b) that the impact will be catastrophic unless those emissions are curbed. If there is no scientific consensus regarding (a), then there is no scientific consensus on the one and only relevant aspect of global warming debate, no matter how much distraction and confusion alarmists try to stir up. If there was a consensus on (a), then it would still be incumbent upon alarmists to prove (b).
If there is no evidence for such a consensus, or if there’s even evidence for an emerging consensus on the opposing hypothesis, then for the sake of the debate regarding CO2 emission limits it doesn’t matter whether or not the globe has warmed or not over the past decades (evidence suggests that it has by a degree or so, as you’d expect after a Little Ice Age, but it doesn’t matter). It doesn’t matter whether the icecaps are melting or not (evidence suggests they are melting in some places, and expanding in others, as they have for millions of years, but it doesn’t matter). It doesn’t matter whether Polar Bears are thriving or not (evidence suggests they are thriving more than ever, but it doesn’t matter). It doesn’t matter whether women are choosing to become prostitutes as a result of warming (I’m not kidding, alarmists have made this claim, but it doesn’t matter). It doesn’t matter whether sea levels are rising fast or slow, or whether there are more or fewer floods, hurricanes, or droughts (evidence suggests there aren’t, and the US Federal Government agrees, but it doesn’t matter). It doesn’t matter whether this or that month was the hottest month on record in 500 years or not.
I could go on and on, and, believe me, there are people who do. The opportunities to distract, obfuscate, and confuse people into submission are endless if you have an agenda.
The only thing that matters is whether or not man made CO2 emissions have a significant impact on the globe’s warming. If they don’t, then curbing CO2 emissions limits are pointless at best, and an artificial and hugely destructive restriction on the world’s industrial capacity at worst.
Ask anyone this question: Can you name one peer-reviewed scientific research paper that concludes that (a) man made CO2 emissions have had a significant impact on global warming, and (b) that the impact will be catastrophic enough to impact our lives, unless those emissions are curbed?
The fact of the matter is that, as far as I’m aware, no such paper exists. If I’m wrong, please do send me a link to the paper and specifically the relevant citation that proves (b).
There is the long debunked claim that “97% of scientists agree.” The truth is that at best they agree that the globe has warmed over the past century (nobody denies this) and that CO2 can have some effect on warming (nobody denies this).
Nor are any of the IPCC‘s political publications to be misconstrued as scientific research papers. These papers were deliberately manipulated by politicians who, via committee, altered the phrasing of critical sentences written by scientists. I don’t need to tell you that such dishonesty and disgusting trickery has nothing to do with science.
But even if we did admit the IPCC report as evidence, and even if there were any peer-reviewed research studies (which may well be the case at one point), one would have to compare those against peer-reviewed studies that conclude that CO2’s impact is negligible, and that other factors are the main drivers of climate change.
It just so happens that there are many such papers, thousands in fact, affirming the latter hypothesis:
Here are some examples (hat tip to NoTricksZone):
From “Multidecadal tendencies in ENSO and global temperatures related to nultidecadal oscillations” (2010) by Joseph D’Aleo and Dr. Don Easterbrook:
We live in a most interesting time. As the global climate and solar variation reveals themselves in a way not seen in the past 200 years, we will surely attain a much better understanding of what causes global warming and cooling. Time will tell. If the climate continues its cooling and the sun behaves in a manner not witnessed since 1800, we can be sure that climate changes are dominated by the sun and that atmospheric CO2 has a very small role in climate changes. If the same climatic patterns, cyclic warming and cooling, that occurred over the past 500 years continue, we can expect several decades of moderate to severe global cooling.
From “Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records” (2012) by Ka-Kit Tung and Jiansong Zhou:
The anthropogenic warming started after the mid-19th century of Industrial Revolution. After a slow start, the smoothed version of the warming trend has stayed almost constant since 1910 at 0.07–0.08 °C/decade.
From “Solar forcing on the ice winter severity index in the western Baltic region” by M.C. Leal-Silva, V.M. Velasco Herrera:
Based on a new method for finding and measuring amplitude–phase cross-frequency coupling in time series with a low signal/noise ratio, we suggest that the ice winter severity index in the Baltic Sea is modulated by solar activity and solar motion in several frequency bands during the last 500 years.
From “The Radiation Budget of the West African Sahel and Its Controls: A Perspective from Observations and Global Climate Models” by Mark A. Miller, Virendra P. Ghate, and Robert K. Zahn:
These quantities were analyzed in two GCMs and compensating errors in the SW and LW clear-sky, cross-atmosphere radiative flux divergence were found to conspire to produce somewhat reasonable predictions of the net clear-sky divergence. Both GCMs underestimated the surface LW and SW CRF and predicted near-zero SW CRE when the measured values were substantially larger (~70 W m−2 maximum).
From “Orbital forcing of tree-ring data” by Jan Esper, David C. Frank, Mauri Timonen, Eduardo Zorita, Rob J. S. Wilson, Jürg Luterbacher, Steffen Holzkämper, Nils Fischer, Sebastian Wagner, Daniel Nievergelt, Anne Verstege & Ulf Büntgen:
These findings, together with the missing orbital signature in published dendrochronological records, suggest that large-scale near-surface air-temperature reconstructions relying on tree-ring data may underestimate pre-instrumental temperatures including warmth during Medieval and Roman times.
From “Marine climatic seasonality during medieval times (10th to 12th centuries) based on isotopic records in Viking Age shells from Orkney, Scotland” by Donna Surge, James H. Barrett:
(…) resulting in the conclusion that the early MCA was warmer than the late 20th century by ~ 1 °C.
From “Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization” by E. Steirou, and D. Koutsoyiannis:
The above results cast some doubts in the use of homogenization procedures and tend to indicate that the global temperature increase during the last century is between 0.4°C and 0.7°C, where these two values are the estimates derived from raw and adjusted data, respectively.
From “Multi-archive summer temperature reconstruction for the European Alps, AD 1053–1996” by Mathias Trachsela et al:
Highest pre-industrial summer temperatures of the 12th century were 0.3 °C warmer than the 20th century.
From “Solar influences on atmospheric circulation” by K. Georgieva et al:
Solar activity is a result of the action of solar dynamo transforming solar poloidal field into toroidal field and back. The poloidal and toroidal fields are the two faces of solar magnetism, so they are not independent, but we demonstrate that their long-term variations are not identical, and the periods in which solar activity agents affecting the Earth are predominantly related to solar toroidal or poloidal fields are the periods in which the North Atlantic Oscillation is negatively or positively correlated with solar activity, respectively.
From “The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24” by Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl, Ole Humlum:
We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.
Over 100 links to solid, well sourced, peer-reviewed climate research papers are available at NoTricksZone. If that list isn’t enough, there’s also one of 1,350+ peer-reviewed papers at Popular Technology.
Of course, for what it’s worth, there’s also the Oregon Petition which 31,487 American scientists have signed, including 9,029 with PhDs, stating that “there is no convincing evidence that human release of (…) greenhouse gases is causing or will cause (…) catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere.”
So much for “scientific consensus.”
I’m not saying that I have the final answer by any means, I’m not a scientist. But what I can conclude and back up with absolute confidence is that there is no scientific consensus on man-made global warming, and that the people who vociferously pronounce such a claim without actually having fact checked it at the most basic level are attention seeking, overconfident, and irresponsible idiots who have no problem condemning millions if not billions of people to poverty and starvation.
Science is not a fact sheet that you ram through via public declaration or majority vote. It’s an ongoing process of comparing theories to reality. It never settles, it’s never satisfied, and it remains open to all available evidence. In many fields of scientific study we can say that an overwhelming plurality of evidence backs a particular conclusion. The area of man-made global warming, however, is not one of them.

So what's your point!! LOL

 

[Sugar Baby Wanted]

So what's your point!! LOL

Climate change is a hoax. That's my point. There is other evidence that all the research on global warming fail to go back far enough on their data. If they went back further, they would see that there was a time when it was hotter than right now.

Take the $$$ out of research and quit making others rich form this hoax and it will disappear - faster than greased lightning.

It's all about the money, like usual.

 

[domroger]

Whenever dims got nothing, they criticize the message or messenger.
Just like the last 3 years - do nothing dimwits got nothing but hate. Hate for our country and hate for our President.

I'll take my own beliefs and Roosevelt's over yours any day of the week, including Sundays.

What's the cost of tinfoil these days ?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

There Is No Scientific Consensus on Man Made Global Warming

Umm yes there is. In fact it is at about a 97% acceptance rate among the relevant experts.

I am not going to post individual answers, instead at the end I will post a link to an interactive site, which will dispel every argument you have here in posted.

There is a lot of fog and confusion around the topic of catastrophic man-made global warming, so I want to offer a very simple cut-to-the-chase approach herein.

Thanks for using the term above, it is a much better term than climate change.

To support government mandates on CO2 emissions is to imply that (a) man made CO2 emissions have a significant impact on warming, and (b) that the impact will be catastrophic unless those emissions are curbed

the link will supply confirmation of the above.

If there is no scientific consensus regarding (a), then there is no scientific consensus on the one and only relevant aspect of global warming debate, no matter how much distraction and confusion alarmists try to stir up. If there was a consensus on (a), then it would still be incumbent upon alarmists to prove (b).

I do take exception to the term alarmist, history has often shown people shoot the messenger, only to find out later, the messenger was right. The shooters just didn't like the message.

If there is no evidence for such a consensus, or if there’s even evidence for an emerging consensus on the opposing hypothesis, then for the sake of the debate regarding CO2 emission limits it doesn’t matter whether or not the globe has warmed or not over the past decades (evidence suggests that it has by a degree or so, as you’d expect after a Little Ice Age, but it doesn’t matter).

By this I assume you are referring the Younger Dryas period? An unexplained cooling of North America about 12,000 years ago.

It doesn’t matter whether the icecaps are melting

It sure in the hell does, if you live in country that is only inches above current sea level. This is an issue no matter what the cause. Pick your words better!!

or not (evidence suggests they are melting in some places, and expanding in others, as they have for millions of years, but it doesn’t matter)

"At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth's history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!). Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago. Right at the end of the Younger Dryas period.

It doesn’t matter whether Polar Bears are thriving or not (evidence suggests they are thriving more than ever, but it doesn’t matter).

So you are calling the government of Canada's study on these bears, plus a bunch of other wrong? You best back that up with a fact. Yes in some area's (mainly around human settlements in the north) the bears are adjusting, in others they are vanishing due to lack of sea ice.

The only thing that matters is whether or not man made CO2 emissions have a significant impact on the globe’s warming. If they don’t, then curbing CO2 emissions limits are pointless at best, and an artificial and hugely destructive restriction on the world’s industrial capacity at worst.

I agree with what you said, except, that is not the case. See link at the end.

Ask anyone this question: Can you name one peer-reviewed scientific research paper that concludes that (a) man made CO2 emissions have had a significant impact on global warming, and (b) that the impact will be catastrophic enough to impact our lives, unless those emissions are curbed?

There are thousands out there, peer reviewed. Check the link at the end.

The fact of the matter is that, as far as I’m aware, no such paper exists. If I’m wrong, please do send me a link to the paper and specifically the relevant citation that proves (b).
There is the long debunked claim that “97% of scientists agree.” The truth is that at best they agree that the globe has warmed over the past century (nobody denies this) and that CO2 can have some effect on warming (nobody denies this).

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/maps-tools-...reports/canadas-changing-climate-report/21177

https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science-data/climate-science/ipcc

Nor are any of the IPCC‘s political publications to be misconstrued as scientific research papers. These papers were deliberately manipulated by politicians who, via committee, altered the phrasing of critical sentences written by scientists.

The link is above, which disagree's with what you just said. Not to mention the studies range from numerous university to countries.

I don’t need to tell you that such dishonesty and disgusting trickery has nothing to do with science.

You have a hard time convince me that happens.

But even if we did admit the IPCC report as evidence, and even if there were any peer-reviewed research studies (which may well be the case at one point), one would have to compare those against peer-reviewed studies that conclude that CO2’s impact is negligible, and that other factors are the main drivers of climate change.

What you have said above has been done, just the skeptics refuse to look at the over whelming evidence, since that evidence disagrees with their personal view.

It just so happens that there are many such papers, thousands in fact, affirming the latter hypothesis:
Here are some examples (hat tip to NoTricksZone):
From “
From “Multidecadal tendencies in ENSO and global temperatures related to nultidecadal oscillations” (2010) by Joseph D’Aleo and Dr. Don Easterbrook:
We live in a most interesting time. As the global climate and solar variation reveals themselves in a way not seen in the past 200 years, we will surely attain a much better understanding of what causes global warming and cooling. Time will tell. If the climate continues its cooling and the sun behaves in a manner not witnessed since 1800, we can be sure that climate changes are dominated by the sun and that atmospheric CO2 has a very small role in climate changes. If the same climatic patterns, cyclic warming and cooling, that occurred over the past 500 years continue, we can expect several decades of moderate to severe global cooling.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

From “Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records” (2012) by Ka-Kit Tung and Jiansong Zhou:

The anthropogenic warming started after the mid-19th century of Industrial Revolution. After a slow start, the smoothed version of the warming trend has stayed almost constant since 1910 at 0.07–0.08 °C/decade.

Out of context, let me add in the full context below:

Although there is a competing theory that the observed multidecadal variability is forced by anthropogenic aerosols during the industrial era (33), our present work showing that this variability is quasi-periodic and extends at least 350 y into the past with cycles in the preindustrial era argues it not in favor of it being naturally recurrent and internally generated. This view is supported by model results that relate the variability of the global-mean SST to North Atlantic thermohaline circulation (30, 31, 35) and by the existence of an AMO-like variability in control runs without anthropogenic forcing (28). If this conclusion is correct, then the following interpretation follows: The anthropogenic warming started after the mid-19th century of Industrial Revolution. After a slow start, the smoothed version of the warming trend has stayed almost constant since 1910 at 0.07–0.08 °C/decade. Superimposed on the secular trend is a natural multidecadal oscillation of an average period of 70 y with significant amplitude of 0.3–0.4 °C peak to peak, which can explain many historical episodes of warming and cooling and accounts for 40% of the observed warming since the mid-20th century and for 50% of the previously attributed anthropogenic warming trend (55). Because this large multidecadal variability is not random, but likely recurrent based on its past behavior, it has predictive value. Not taking the AMO into account in predictions of future warming under various forcing scenarios may run the risk of overestimating the warming for the next two to three decades, when the AMO is likely in its down phase.

From “Solar forcing on the ice winter severity index in the western Baltic region” by M.C. Leal-Silva, V.M. Velasco Herrera:


Based on a new method for finding and measuring amplitude–phase cross-frequency coupling in time series with a low signal/noise ratio, we suggest that the ice winter severity index in the Baltic Sea is modulated by solar activity and solar motion in several frequency bands during the last 500 years.

Again full context below.

The Sun is the fundamental energy source of the Earth's climate and therefore its variations can contribute to natural climate variations. In the present work we study the variability of ice winter severity index in the Baltic Sea since the 15th century and its possible connection with solar activity. Based on a new method for finding and measuring amplitude-phase cross-frequency coupling in time series with a low signal/noise ratio, we suggest that the ice winter severity index in the Baltic Sea is modulated by solar activity and solar motion in several frequency bands during the last 500 years. According to our model a strong coupling between the decadal periodicity in the ice winter severity index time series and the secular periodicity of solar activity is present. We found that the ice winter severity index is strongly modulated by solar activity at the decadal periodicity. We also found that the 180 year periodicity of the Barycentre motion modulates the amplitudes of the decadal periodicity of solar activity and the ice winter severity index. This method represents a useful tool to study the solar-terrestrial relationship.

Have you actually read any of these? Or did you just take a cut and paste from an article or website that promotes the view you hold?

I’m not saying that I have the final answer by any means, I’m not a scientist. But what I can conclude and back up with absolute confidence is that there is no scientific consensus on man-made global warming, and that the people who vociferously pronounce such a claim without actually having fact checked it at the most basic level are attention seeking, overconfident, and irresponsible idiots who have no problem condemning millions if not billions of people to poverty and starvation.

So where do these people enter poverty and starve from? A shift in the world economy? Look back in time to when the steam engine replaced maybe 40% of the worlds work force, or when the steam shovels took all the work from the ditch digger. People would benefit from investing combating climate change, even if it was a hoax!! Think about that?? An economy is an area of common market. If the world decided to make that market place Renewable" there would be a place to invest in and create new wealth.

Science is not a fact sheet that you ram through via public declaration or majority vote

And that is not what is occurring, for 50 years this has been on our radar, it's not a surprise. The science is that old. But so too is the denial, by all parties, up until recently when we have hit the time when action is needed.


Note I fact checked your posted studies, they are for the most part incorrect, or out of context, or in the one case, a tool used to study ice thickness. I only bothered rebutting to the first couple.

now the link.

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

 

[icanhelp1]

Climate change is a hoax. That's my point. There is other evidence that all the research on global warming fail to go back far enough on their data. If they went back further, they would see that there was a time when it was hotter than right now.

Take the $$$ out of research and quit making others rich form this hoax and it will disappear - faster than greased lightning.

It's all about the money, like usual.

Climate change and Global warming aren’t a hoax, blaming the whole thing on the human race is what’s suspect. I agree with you. I’ve written about it myself and gave up.

 

[Sugar Baby Wanted]

Climate change and Global warming aren’t a hoax, blaming the whole thing on the human race is what’s suspect. I agree with you. I’ve written about it myself and gave up.

A hoax is a malicious deception. Billions of dollars are at stake in grants, government regulations, sur charges, alternate energy to name but a few.

Of course, the climate changes regardless of our desire to control it.

 

[shellyismymom]

triggered liberals

hahahaha, This. The Trumpettes are just following Vladimir Putin's agenda to sink the United States into chaos.
the mentality of morons.
The result of Durham's investigation and the indictments that result from it will send the Liberals and their media into a frenzy. hahahaha,
Democrats and the Liberal agenda, narrative is toast. My suggestion move to Canada , but why not Mexico? No racism implied but liberals who propose to loath it are the epitome of what the hate.
So if your a liberal on Nov. 3, 2020, have a box of kleenex nearby. I'll send you the cookies. hahaha.
Trump will be re-elected by a landslide , the House will flip red and the Supreme Court will go 6-3. The Liberal agenda DIES . Pack your bags , we're happy to see you go. Sheep brainwashed by media move to Mexico, where climate change has made it too hot to live , hahaha

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Of course, the climate changes regardless of our desire to control it.

It is the rate of change, not the change itself that is the problem.

 

[Cubantripod]

Sorry, CNN is not as far to the left as Fox News is to the Right. If you believe so, you're already in the clutches of rightist propaganda. Objective reviewers have charts that show that. You can find them yourself if you really want to work toward being objective.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/

CNN is about as far left as Fox is far right. CNN used to be the most reputable of the Big 3 cable news and was probably left of center, but very close to the middle. Something happened after Trump. Whether it was a business decision or not, they sacrificed their credibility quite possibly for more viewers.

 

[Cubantripod]

Demon and his minions do that all on their own.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it."

America is a county born out of conflict, but despite that conflict we found compromise. The country is one big compromise and this country can only work when we find compromise.

 

[YDB95]

Nothing you've written above is true. Not a single word.

Think about that...you're wrong. Not by a little...by a lot.

Everything you've said applies to MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, etc.

Saying it doesn't make it so. You do understand that, don't you?

 

[jaF0]

Nothing you've written above is true. Not a single word.

Think about that...you're wrong. Not by a little...by a lot.

Everything you've said applies to MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, etc.

Founded as, designed for and intended to be propaganda:

The channel was created by Australian-American media mogul Rupert Murdoch to appeal to a conservative audience, hiring former Republican Party media consultant and CNBC executive Roger Ailes as its founding CEO.

Fox News has been described as practicing biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party, the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations, and conservative causes while slandering the Democratic Party and spreading harmful propaganda intended to negatively affect its members' electoral performances. Critics have cited the channel as detrimental to the integrity of news overall. Fox News employees have said that news reporting operates independently of its opinion and commentary programming, and have denied bias in news reporting, while former employees have said that Fox ordered them to "slant the news in favor of conservatives".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News

 

[Tigersman]

Fox News is the Trump state channel. It's full of idiots who come up with one conspiracy theory after another.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Fox News is the Trump state channel. It's full of idiots who come up with one conspiracy theory after another.

Says the guy who still thinks the Soviet Union is still around and controlling Trump...LOL

 

[Sugar Baby Wanted]

Nothing you've written above is true. Not a single word.

Think about that...you're wrong. Not by a little...by a lot.

Everything you've said applies to MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, etc.

x 1000

CNN et al alpha bet news led their news casts for 2 1/2 years with Russian Collusion.

Just yesterday they omitted the FISA information reported that exonerates Trump.

They report 95% negative on the president they don't like and treated Obama like a savior.

Those are facts. And they will pay.

 

[icanhelp1]

Well my last try at this:

First you did not even try to answer me, but, even giving Obama's reduction in military budget dollars, the US military was still the most advanced in the world when Trump was elected, bar none. I see no major rebuild done under Trump, he just added in some dollars to the budget ( to keep it simple, the money went I am sure to upgrade infrastructure which would be needed but it will take years to be finished).

Well' just poke your head in any depot rebuild center, plus new ship building, j35 program, on and on it goes. Having a budget lends continuity to programs we haven't had during the Obama regime. Don't forget a nuclear and cyber upgrades.

It was the intelligence arm that located the operatives, which I can't see how that ties into your earlier post, but...

It was a combination of all, the DIA is a very potent intelligence operation.

"Open borders are an invitation to terrorist".

Yes it is!

So what are the Terrorist going to do,sneak in an army?

That's a pretty ignorant statement!

If I was planning to attack the US I would not use a logistically difficult method of trying to sneak in across the border, it is not like it is not monitored, patrolled and have point of entry controls at the easy access points.

We have terrorist cells in our country as we speak, and so do you! Read up on the possibility of an NBC attack by terrorist.

Not to mention the terrorists would have to enter another country first, then the US.

Do you think they're stupid?

I'm pretty sure I'd blow up something, most likely not even on US soils. It is just to difficult a process, given that terrorists usually lack capital to try and directly attack the US mainland.

Our mainland is the gold standard for terrorism!

Ok to the last point, name all these so called murders that were allowed by the Democrats obstructions?

Not sure what that means?

Oh and can you actually post all that climate change info too you state you have if you not too busy, or shut up about it, one or the other. I don't think that is too much to ask?

There are questions as to how accurate the data sets are when it comes to the cause and effects of CO2 and global warming.

 

[millionairenextdoor]

[Please do not post copyright material without citation, and then limit your excerpts to less than 5 paragraphs, per our forum guidelines.].

 

[Fuzzy1975]

There are questions as to how accurate the data sets are when it comes to the cause and effects of CO2 and global warming.

Last announced C0/2 ppm just reached the highest ever recorded. Want to see greenhouse gas in action, look to Venus.

https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2

Originally Posted by Fuzzy1975 View Post
Well my last try at this:

First you did not even try to answer me, but, even giving Obama's reduction in military budget dollars, the US military was still the most advanced in the world when Trump was elected, bar none. I see no major rebuild done under Trump, he just added in some dollars to the budget ( to keep it simple, the money went I am sure to upgrade infrastructure which would be needed but it will take years to be finished).

Well' just poke your head in any depot rebuild center, plus new ship building, j35 program, on and on it goes. Having a budget lends continuity to programs we haven't had during the Obama regime. Don't forget a nuclear and cyber upgrades.

And as I said above, you just agreed.

It was the intelligence arm that located the operatives, which I can't see how that ties into your earlier post, but...

It was a combination of all, the DIA is a very potent intelligence operation.

As I said above, the Intellegence arm is made up of a lot of groups, not just the Military, and you left out the persons response, who said it "was the Military who found and took out..."

Thank you again for agreeing.

"Open borders are an invitation to terrorist".

Yes it is!

Chuckles, ok so which terrorist attacks have come from the open border that Isis, or Al Quada have claimed?>

So what are the Terrorist going to do,sneak in an army?

That's a pretty ignorant statement!

Do you mean as ignorant of the facts of border security, or as ignorant in an insult?

If I was planning to attack the US I would not use a logistically difficult method of trying to sneak in across the border, it is not like it is not monitored, patrolled and have point of entry controls at the easy access points.

We have terrorist cells in our country as we speak, and so do you! Read up on the possibility of an NBC attack by terrorist.

NBC is fake news, I am sure I can go find you saying that elsewhere. If you play fake news, then you cannot back track it when the news organisation backs up your opinion. Though I do think you have a few crazies there planning terrorist stuff, I doubt they sneaked in from Mexico.

Not to mention the terrorists would have to enter another country first, then the US.

Do you think they're stupid?

I think most terrorist are cultivated due to their own ignorance, so you could call them stupid.

I'm pretty sure I'd blow up something, most likely not even on US soils. It is just to difficult a process, given that terrorists usually lack capital to try and directly attack the US mainland.

Our mainland is the gold standard for terrorism!

And exactly how many terorist acts by Isis or Al-Quada have occured on US soils, compared to over seas?

Ok to the last point, name all these so called murders that were allowed by the Democrats obstructions?

Not sure what that means?

You need to read the other person's post, that I answered this too. BTW he ducked this one, least you didn't. Cheers for that.

Oh and can you actually post all that climate change info too you state you have if you not too busy, or shut up about it, one or the other. I don't think that is too much to ask?

 

[YDB95]

'Ford v Ferrari' shows how masculinity can make the world a better place
Why Bloomberg's presidential run doesn't have a hope in hell
De Blasio's Joker-like schemes are making New Yorkers miserable
Columbus Day haters are missing the entire point of the holiday
Trump impeachment saga is pointless reboot of 1999 Bill Clinton effort

I'm guessing these were links to other articles on the same site. Which says it all as far as the perspective in question here.

 

[Sugar Baby Wanted]

Umm yes there is. In fact it is at about a 97% acceptance rate among the relevant experts.

I am not going to post individual answers, instead at the end I will post a link to an interactive site, which will dispel every argument you have here in posted.





Thanks for using the term above, it is a much better term than climate change.




the link will supply confirmation of the above.



I do take exception to the term alarmist, history has often shown people shoot the messenger, only to find out later, the messenger was right. The shooters just didn't like the message.




By this I assume you are referring the Younger Dryas period? An unexplained cooling of North America about 12,000 years ago.




It sure in the hell does, if you live in country that is only inches above current sea level. This is an issue no matter what the cause. Pick your words better!!



"At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth's history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!). Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago. Right at the end of the Younger Dryas period.





So you are calling the government of Canada's study on these bears, plus a bunch of other wrong? You best back that up with a fact. Yes in some area's (mainly around human settlements in the north) the bears are adjusting, in others they are vanishing due to lack of sea ice.




I agree with what you said, except, that is not the case. See link at the end.




There are thousands out there, peer reviewed. Check the link at the end.




https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/maps-tools-...reports/canadas-changing-climate-report/21177

https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science-data/climate-science/ipcc



The link is above, which disagree's with what you just said. Not to mention the studies range from numerous university to countries.



You have a hard time convince me that happens.





What you have said above has been done, just the skeptics refuse to look at the over whelming evidence, since that evidence disagrees with their personal view.





https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/




Out of context, let me add in the full context below:

Although there is a competing theory that the observed multidecadal variability is forced by anthropogenic aerosols during the industrial era (33), our present work showing that this variability is quasi-periodic and extends at least 350 y into the past with cycles in the preindustrial era argues it not in favor of it being naturally recurrent and internally generated. This view is supported by model results that relate the variability of the global-mean SST to North Atlantic thermohaline circulation (30, 31, 35) and by the existence of an AMO-like variability in control runs without anthropogenic forcing (28). If this conclusion is correct, then the following interpretation follows: The anthropogenic warming started after the mid-19th century of Industrial Revolution. After a slow start, the smoothed version of the warming trend has stayed almost constant since 1910 at 0.07–0.08 °C/decade. Superimposed on the secular trend is a natural multidecadal oscillation of an average period of 70 y with significant amplitude of 0.3–0.4 °C peak to peak, which can explain many historical episodes of warming and cooling and accounts for 40% of the observed warming since the mid-20th century and for 50% of the previously attributed anthropogenic warming trend (55). Because this large multidecadal variability is not random, but likely recurrent based on its past behavior, it has predictive value. Not taking the AMO into account in predictions of future warming under various forcing scenarios may run the risk of overestimating the warming for the next two to three decades, when the AMO is likely in its down phase.




Again full context below.

The Sun is the fundamental energy source of the Earth's climate and therefore its variations can contribute to natural climate variations. In the present work we study the variability of ice winter severity index in the Baltic Sea since the 15th century and its possible connection with solar activity. Based on a new method for finding and measuring amplitude-phase cross-frequency coupling in time series with a low signal/noise ratio, we suggest that the ice winter severity index in the Baltic Sea is modulated by solar activity and solar motion in several frequency bands during the last 500 years. According to our model a strong coupling between the decadal periodicity in the ice winter severity index time series and the secular periodicity of solar activity is present. We found that the ice winter severity index is strongly modulated by solar activity at the decadal periodicity. We also found that the 180 year periodicity of the Barycentre motion modulates the amplitudes of the decadal periodicity of solar activity and the ice winter severity index. This method represents a useful tool to study the solar-terrestrial relationship.

Have you actually read any of these? Or did you just take a cut and paste from an article or website that promotes the view you hold?





So where do these people enter poverty and starve from? A shift in the world economy? Look back in time to when the steam engine replaced maybe 40% of the worlds work force, or when the steam shovels took all the work from the ditch digger. People would benefit from investing combating climate change, even if it was a hoax!! Think about that?? An economy is an area of common market. If the world decided to make that market place Renewable" there would be a place to invest in and create new wealth.




And that is not what is occurring, for 50 years this has been on our radar, it's not a surprise. The science is that old. But so too is the denial, by all parties, up until recently when we have hit the time when action is needed.


Note I fact checked your posted studies, they are for the most part incorrect, or out of context, or in the one case, a tool used to study ice thickness. I only bothered rebutting to the first couple.

now the link.

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

Can you define "relevant experts"? I remember when all this started, NASA presented a report refuting global warming. Obama said if you don't get with the program, NASA funding will dry up.

He did the same with the military, if they didn't agree with his policies, they needed to resign. We lost many great generals and the rush to promote unqualified officers has cost lives.

Trump rebuilt the military and their equipment which was apparently not kept up or maintained.

Back to your 97% consensus. I read that and it really didn't say anything meaningful other than if you keep repeating something it must be true. Take away the mighty dollars available from the gov't in grants, and their message will change. That's my belief.

Why is Al Gore worth over $100 million?

 

[millionairenextdoor]

I'm guessing these were links to other articles on the same site. Which says it all as far as the perspective in question here.

Try reading the article of STFU.

 

[YDB95]

[Obama] did the same with the military, if they didn't agree with his policies, they needed to resign. We lost many great generals and the rush to promote unqualified officers has cost lives.

Cite please.

 

[millionairenextdoor]

Cite please.

Investor's Business Daily from 2016 - just one Google search

"The White House in fact was creating this strategic situation by focusing on global warming as America's top threat and engaging in various social engineering projects such as women in combat and integrating transsexuals into the troop ranks, even as some generals warned that they could hurt troop readiness.

He got rid of important defense programs such as the Tomahawk cruise missile and, for a time, the A10 Warthog fighter jet, and dismissed Russia itself as an unimportant "regional power" in March 2014, an undiplomatic remark that reportedly rankled President Vladimir Putin."