The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

We started to burn fossil fuels around 1850, and that is what is causing the rapid changes in the climate.

The hockey-stick curve? Here's a video that pins it all on one Frenchman:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djB9oK6pkbA

He contrasts French, English and American 'machine thinking' and says the American strain was jump-started by Thomas Jefferson. The one guy, Vaucanson's, claim to fame wasn't the lathe-turned metal shaft that allowed extraction of power via steam &etc., but a automata duck that pooped. It sounds like he'd fit right in in modern times.

[All Darc]

A patent everyone would like to have...

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by All Darc

A patent everyone would like to have...

But, of what possible use can it have because every time it's put it on the ground it just ROLLS away???

[niky]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

...and I thought it was because tropical coastal places are so pleasant that people were content to eat coconuts and bananas. It's the cold climates we have to struggle to survive. Then we need something to occupy our attention while the sun is hiding, and the environment forbidding.

There is that, actually.

Colder climes with a set growing season means that you have a flurry of agricultural productivity for one season, and then a harsh winter in which people are stuck indoors doing nothing but drinking and inventing sewing machines and atom bombs.

Tropical places have longer growing seasons, but unpredictable weather means more famines, more disasters

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Why I love print.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0345272099/

Once it's out there it's rather difficult to delete.

That's not a scientific paper. It's a paperback. Not peer reviewed. Not verified.

If we're going by published books, may I refer you to my favorite crackpot, Velikovsky? Worlds in Collision is always good for a laugh.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That's fix the UN has come up with.
Tax the US, put it in a UN black hole fund with no accountability.
But ignore china.

Nobody's ignoring China.

Actually, China is funneling more and more money into the UN as the US pulls back.

Money that goes to the UN is influence. The more money you put in, the more influence you have on policy.

When you pull out money because policy doesn't go your way... that won't make policy go your way...

-

[All Darc]

I think you need a shave...

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

But, of what possible use can it have because every time it's put it on the ground it just ROLLS away???

[sendler]

Patrick Michaels gives an alternative view.
.
https://youtu.be/frviKqDWRl4

[oil pan 4]

The US by far puts the most money and man power into the UN and then they try to screw us every way possible.

China is being ignored.
Maybe some one can find a report of where the UN asks china for a ludicrous amount of money to fix their global warming?
I think that would be like trying to find cheap solar power.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by niky

That's not a scientific paper. It's a paperback. Not peer reviewed. Not verified.

If we're going by published books,

-

I know it's not a scientific paper.
It's a sign of the times. Because you or Neil maybe both have insisted that the global cooling scare was limited to one or 2 out of context magazine articles.
Well it kind of looks like people were writing books about it too.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That's like 2 married people who aren't married to each other caught in bed naked together and saying "it's not what it looks like".
I'm sure it's not exactly what it looks like.
They were just doing it for the good of man kind.

You are making a straw man argument, that has nothing to do with reality.

What 3 changes to data are you accusing scientists with making?

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by Xist

Neil, how much fossil fuels did humans burn in 1850 compared to now? This says there were 1.2 billion people. So, 168 years ago 1.2 billion people started burning fossil fuels?

https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...tml#post578893

https://www.ecowatch.com/chatham-hou...288764699.html


This says that coal has about the same energy content per pound as wood, but has half the volume. However that article describes how coal is more convenient in other ways.

Those sources say that coal is not any dirtier than wood, just more convenient, and that convenience is responsible for global warming?

Trees grow by pulling carbon from the air, so when it is burned, OR when it rots - that carbon goes back into the air. So, it does not change the climate.

Coal is carbon that has been underground for million and millions of years. When it is burned, it increases the level of carbon in the air - and therefore it changes the climate.

At the point that we add carbon to the air more quickly than it can be weathered out, it will lead to climate change.