The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[NeilBlanchard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0x46-enxsA

[oil pan 4]

That's is easy to debunk.
Aus meteorology society started recording temperature records in 1910. How many of those temperature stations are now in the middle of a huge city that was only an insignificant town 100 years ago?

Hottest of all time* for aus.
(* "All time" being 109 years)
Those are some real creationists level bs claims they are throwing around, like saying the earth is only 4,000 years old.

[redneck]

.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q-fK7lEZmwk

>

[freebeard]

http://justacarguy.blogspot.com/2020...ail-storm.html

Two days ago Newfoundland got 50cm of snow. That doesn't sound too bad until you convert to 12 feet.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That's is easy to debunk.
Aus meteorology society started recording temperature records in 1910. How many of those temperature stations are now in the middle of a huge city that was only an insignificant town 100 years ago?

Hottest of all time* for aus.
(* "All time" being 109 years)
Those are some real creationists level bs claims they are throwing around, like saying the earth is only 4,000 years old.

He reports it accurately, and cites all sources - watch the video.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by freebeard

http://justacarguy.blogspot.com/2020...ail-storm.html

Two days ago Newfoundland got 50cm of snow. That doesn't sound too bad until you convert to 12 feet.

It was a huge event - another record smashed: https://weather.com/storms/winter/ne...-snow-st-johns

[redneck]

.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AbKY3fSHGq0

>

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

He reports it accurately, and cites all sources - watch the video.

CPMI5 temperature data was accurate too but it was still junk.
The new data set will only include temperature data collection from 114 stations that haven't had their surroundings change and have accurate maintenance records kept.
Why is accurate temperature data collection bad?

[All Darc]

Not sure if the analogy with cancer it's appropriated. Hundred things causes cancer, but the most relevant, the far more relevant, are smoking, second hand smoking, hard drinking, sedentarism and obesity, bad food (sugar/fat mostly) and genetics. There are other but the risk increasing it's high in the aforementioned ones.

To found what creates global warming it's important to know, since in case is something we can reduce. You can't cure a lung cancer in a patient just by making hin stop smoking, for example, since this works more from prevencion. But you may be able to reduce global warming by making world population burn less fossil fuels.

For me it would be too much of coincidence that global warming started righ after industrial revolution get high power, and speed up with it as it growed more.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Yeah, but you haven't addressed my point about who cares what the cause of warming is? Doesn't matter if it's solar wind, or cow farts... what should be our response to warming is the only interesting topic. If you get cancer, does it matter which of the 4,952,843,374 things known by the state of California to cause cancer, caused your cancer, or if the diagnosis was accurate (second opinion).

What's causing warming is a boring topic; like trying to figure out which of billions of things cause cancer. Everything causes cancer, and everything causes warming. What should we be doing about it?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Not sure if the analogy with cancer it's appropriated. Hundred things causes cancer, but the most relevant, the far more relevant, are smoking, second hand smoking, hard drinking, sedentarism and obesity, bad food (sugar/fat mostly) and genetics. There are other but the risk increasing it's high in the aforementioned ones.

To found what creates global warming it's important to know, since in case is something we can reduce. You can't cure a lung cancer in a patient just by making hin stop smoking, for example, since this works more from prevencion. But you may be able to reduce global warming by making world population burn less fossil fuels.

For me it would be too much of coincidence that global warming started righ after industrial revolution get high power, and speed up with it as it growed more.

Probably increasing CO2 concentration is the biggest factor accelerating global warming, and that accelerated rate of CO2 concentration is probably manmade. My point is that what to do about it doesn't change regardless if it's elevated volcanic activity, or transportation. My point is that if we must reduce the CO2 concentration, or at least slow the increase, what to do is the same in both scenarios.

Like risk factors for cancer, it's foolish to say that everything must be done to avoid it, because that isn't practical. Stopping breathing will drastically reduce cancer risk, since burning energy will cease, which is responsible for DNA damaging free radicals. In the known realm of mitigating cancer risk, there exists a spectrum ranging from obviously worthwhile behavior, such as not handling highly radioactive substances without protection, to obviously worthless behavior like stopping breathing, and everything in between.

The absurdity of the climate change debate is that we mostly only get opinion from people on the "don't breathe" end of the spectrum to the "handle radioactive substances carelessly" end of the spectrum.

Like a supply/demand curve, there should exist curves for various aspects we're concerned with such as standards of living, ecology, economics, meteorology, etc. Somehow those lines must be plotted and a conversation must take place that considers all of these aspects. To say that one thing is good or bad without regard for how it impacts the other values is ignorance at best, and corruption at worst.

A myopic study doesn't account for the whole, just as describing an elephants tail doesn't sufficiently describe an elephant in a meaningful way.