Snow on the ground on April 15

On the contrary, your approach is ‘faith based’. You understand nothing, have tried to learn nothing....but believe. And anybody who doesn’t believe or is agnostic about the extent of climate change is a ‘denier’. There’s a religious term if ever there was one.....straight out of the Inquisition playbook.

I accept any addition to CO2 adds to the greenhouse effect, that’s obvious and not in dispute, it’s the extent that’s at issue. And it’s the extent that the models have consistently overestimated.

So I repeat in your state of unshakable reverent belief in science which has just proven again how fallible it is, do you have idea how much man made CO2 is adding to the Greenhouse effect?  

@mozart

Looking at your article from Patrick J. Michaels he's citing a paper by Viktoria Eyring.

The paper is located here if you want to take a look

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0355-y.epdf?author_access_token=MU8B_eOqWLV2L5OMWA-Wx9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PzkEDioUqskgpo7x3ex--5krh9okuTVjJbaEGpr3WxetEor8Y-ssGIY1kcSNkkf1pAjP6CVA_fEbyLn3haIIOI1TLloSrPt4emsYBoJ3C0gA%3D%3D

While the paper does indeed point out issues with climate models, the gist of the paper is largely about how to improve modelling with modern techniques. The author of this paper is yet again a proponent of man made climate change.

A quote from her about the paper she wrote.

"The new paper is motivated by a need to rapidly increase the speed of progress in dealing with climate change. It is now clear that humanity needs to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide very rapidly to avoid crashing through the global warming limits of 1.5oC and 2oC set out in the Paris agreement. However, adapting to the climate changes that we will experience requires much more detailed information at the regional scale. "The pieces are now in place for us to make progress on that challenging scientific problem,"

Also looking around the net I discovered another paper published by the author Jianbin Huang of the paper where that article you posted got that graph from. The paper was entitled Recently amplified arctic warming has contributed to a continual global warming trend.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321169109_Recently_amplified_arctic_warming_has_contributed_to_a_continual_global_warming_trend

Climate skeptics are very adept at selectively picking parts of studies/papers or quoting research that they believe supports their viewpoints, while selectively ignoring the parts that don't support their viewpoints.  

"We are in a warming period after the ice age. Every major trend ....glaciers receding, temperatures modestly increasing, sea levels rising ....was in place before any significant effects from the industrial revolution."

True except the data is showing these processes are now occurring at accelerating rate.

No doubt the very modest increases in the greenhouse effect caused by man have increased temperatures. But how much? Satellite data shows much less warming than land based thermometers....heat island effect? And to assume that there is zero underlying natural increase when it’s been a trend for 20000 years is BS.

Except satellite data is inline with land based readings.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-a-match-satellite-and-ground-measurements-agree-on-warming/

There has been issues with some satellite data showing significantly different readings from land based readings but these have been attributed to readings that didn't account for various factors such as the orbital decay of the satellite among other things. Land base measurements go through a series of adjustments over time to correct for issues, such as missing data, changes in instrumentation, movement of stations, and human or technical error, and this applies to satellite data even more so as there is a greater number of factors that have to be taken into account.

Are you seriously suggesting that Climate scientists are ignoring natural causes of climate change when conducting their research, that they don't factor it in at all, their that incompetent ?

"So we have a 1.2 degree increase in 150 years. Which might be more like a 0.7 degree increase if we had satellite data for the period. And then we need to subtract about 0.4 degrees of natural increase if we extrapolate the trend from 1600.

So perhaps the man made effect is about 0.3 degrees. A bit speculative for sure, but no more speculative than the nutty ideas out there, like reversing  the Gulf Stream with climate change."

The thing that cracks me up is man made climate change hoaxers don't believe their own nonsense..

These woke celebrities travel the globe by private jet. The Paris treaty allows huge polluters like India and China  to continue to do their thing. 

Frauds like AL Gore and Hussein Obummer, great advocates of man made climate changed and worried about rising sea levels, both have mansions by the sea. 

Plant life is very happy for any increase in CO2.

 Moz no doubt will school poor sharkvirus and young Stav about just how little CO2 makind is responsible for. 

Perhaps he may also mention the level of the Sun's activity. 

The climate change hoax is a very dangerous hoax as the absurd 93 trillion dollar USA Green New Deal  clearly demonstrates. 

The fact is no country gives it anything more than lipservice. They all know real science proves man made CO2 is making barely any difference to tempretures. 

So a couple of decades ago we all had to panic about global cooling. Then it was global warming. That didn't work so they called it climate change as they were smart enough to know the climate always changes. 

As Moz said these fraudsters models are as bad as the Wuhan Virus fraudster models. 

The Economist is now saying the death rate for the Wuhan Virus is 0.1% ie the same as the flu. 

Beeno of course tried to warn board clowns like sharkvirus but he and his ilk are always so easily duped. HAHAHAHAHAHA. 

By the way Stav how is the European utopia going. Macron I see is warning of a possible EU breakup and the rise of the populists/nationalists. 

They must be giving away Phds these days. Stav probably majored in gender studies.

Man's influence reaches much further than greenhouse gas emissions...ignored...CO2, CO2...CO2 ad nauseam ...slight of hand magician stuff.

1. A hole in the Ozone layer exists
2. Coronavirus exists
3. Rapidly melting icebergs in the last 20 years when compared to the last 10,000 years. The environment is changing radically, when compared to the last 10,000 years. 
4. The rate of extinction and endangered species is accelerating. 
   

By the way, almost unbelievably it snowed again last night, the ground is white. In thinking about local effects I recalled the prevailing view on the likely effects of Warming on the Great Lakes. Here is a typical conclusion:

‘Reading through the many reports on this subject, most climate models suggest that we may see declines in lake levels over the next 100 years; one suggests that we may see declines of up to 2.5 meters (8.2 feet). Granted, this is hardly conclusive; another model that suggests a “wetter” future climate over the Great Lakes projects a small increase in lake levels. The truth is likely somewhere in between, with water levels falling between 0.23 meters and 2.5 meters.’

But now that the Great Lakes are at the highest levels since the 1980s we read ClimateChange will cause ‘fluctuations’ in water levels. As if the Lakes haven’t been fluctuating for centuries..  

Amazing phenomenon this Climate change, whatever the facts, they can be explained by Climate Change. 

1. Hole in the ozone exists.
2. Coronavirus exists
3. Ice caps are melting rapidly in the last 20 years, when compared to the average over the last 10,000 years. 
4. The rate of extinction and endangered species is accelerating. 

Shark, how many times during earth's history have natural events that would've killed off most/ all humanity occurred?

Take that to it's natural conclusion...If you can.

So if a model says 3.4% of people infected by the Wuhan Virus will die and The Economist says the real Wuhan Virus death rate is 0.1 %it make no difference because the Wuhan Virus exists.

You blundering, blithering jackass sharkvirus is there no end to your stupidity. Bwhahahahahahaha what a mampara, what a bone head this twit is!!!

Moreover when models are all over the place sane folk rightly view them with huge scepticism. The climate change models and Wuhan Virus models illustrate the problem superbly and show how dangerous it can be to act upon their results alone. 

I can create model that says faeces does not come out of the human mouth.

Then Shark starts talking.

Rugby Legend

5531 posts

I can create model that says faeces does not come out of the human mouth.

Then Shark starts talking.

@mozart

"A ‘proponent of climate change’.....but a proponent that accepts the models are woefully wrong. It’s not black and white Stavie, like most things in life it’s shades of grey."

Woeful is your choice of words not the authors of the those papers.

Why do you think those researchers behind these papers are not coming to the same conclusions as you? It's because they are not cheery picking only the models that proved to be inaccurate, nor are they conflating inaccuracies with one specific models or models that are specific to one region., with multiple global models.  Even in the articles I linked to about various climate models, some of them where not accurate, mistakes will be made, factors overlooked etc, no one is claiming a 100% track record of success. but the majority of them have proven to be correct.

"So the Satellite data shows a different result, so it has  to be corrected....typical."

That's another standard error of armchair climate skeptics, I'll quote Carbon Brief on this one.

A criticism sometimes levied at the surface temperature record is that it goes through a series of adjustments to correct for issues, such as missing data, changes in instrumentation, movement of stations, and human or technical error.

This process is known as homogenization and, despite being a well-understood scientific practice, has been used by some climate-skeptic commentators as evidence that scientists are "fiddling" the data to overstate the amount of warming we’ve seen.

But while the surface data routinely receives interrogation, the fact that the raw satellite data goes through a far more extensive “adjustment” process often goes undiscussed, says Zeke Hausfather from Berkeley Earth, a group set up in in 2010 to independently assess the surface temperature record. He tells Carbon Brief:

Adjustments to the satellite data to account for these issues are just as necessary as those to the surface record, says Hausfather. But the uncertainty in the measurements is much higher and varies between the two different groups collecting the satellite data. He explains:

Historically, the satellite record has changed much more than the surface record ever has, Hausfather tells Carbon Brief. In other words, he says:

Man made CO2  has  a minuscule role in the greenhouse effect......0.117%.....basically one in a thousand......insignificant, within the range of natural variation.

To get this tiny little change to explode temperatures, the models have to have feedback loops and explosive reactions. Which they do. Which is also why they have been wrong.

Believe this stuff  if you like. It’s more likely that other factors have been causing recent modest  warming......solar, temperature momentum, the effect of cosmic rays on lower level cloud formations as proposed by Japanese and Finish scientists.

And I repeate until the models can predict things like the hiatus and the end of the hiatus, they are fatally flawed.

Sb virus go and look at my post re the Dow being up 31%.

I mention the Stanford University study. 

I will post details of the study tomorrow Also look at far left ABC reporting that the far left The Economist says Wuhan Virus death rate is 0.1%.

Guess who got it right when you never had a clue. How history repeats itself! 

"Man made CO2  has  a minuscule role in the greenhouse effect......0.117%.....basically one in a thousand......insignificant, within the range of natural variation."

So yes you are recycling CO2 is only a trace gas, therefore it can't be responsible for anything significant argument...yawn. Even before additional man made CO2 is added in, naturally occurring  CO2 is still just a trace gas, surely it can't have significant any effect on the planet. Its so trivial that if we removed it from the other greenhouses gasses no one would even notice.. oh wait all plant life on earth is dead and a by product of that is so are we shortly there after.

To get this tiny little change to explode temperatures, the models have to have feedback loops and explosive reactions. Which they do. Which is also why they have been wrong.

Who is talking about exploding temperatures or explosive reactions? Again your terms, not terms climate scientists use. As for feedback loops, going by some of your previous posts on climate change your argument is basically, feedback loops can't exist because they can't exist. Wow there Aristotle before you blow me off my chair.!

"Believe this stuff  if you like. It’s more likely that other factors have been causing recent modest  warming......solar, temperature momentum, the effect of cosmic rays on lower level cloud formations as proposed by Japanese and Finish scientists."

No matter how many times you say it, climate science is not a matter of belief, its a matter of evidence, research, data and facts. These other factors that could potentially affect climate change have been looked at and ruled out as the causes of climate warming, for example solar irradiance levels have largely been static and recently gone into decline during the same period the temperatures have been shown to be rising.

If I go to the trouble of looking up what those Japanese and Finnish scientists proposed would I once again find they are also proponents of man made climate change, I don't suppose you checked this either?

And I repeate until the models can predict things like the hiatus and the end of the hiatus, they are fatally flawed.

Fantastic, you will be thrilled to hear, that the climate hiatus or climate pause has already been explained.

Your literally just reading off the standard checklist of armchair climate skeptic arguments without not doing a modicum of your own research of fact checking. The reason your not doing any of that is because the climate skeptic arguments suit your own political and ideological biases and you don't want them to be wrong. Furthermore you're propagating them behind a false sense of authority that your believe you qualification entitles you too, it doesn't.

Stav you simpleton. Your open borders globalist outlook has so blinded you that you  have believed this climate change hoax that was nothing more than a plot to wreck the economies  Europe and the USA and advantage your globalist commie allies. As is of course the Green New Deal; a similar attempt to wreck the USA economy and benefit China. 

Amazing how the demonrats are supporting China AGAINST THE USA. See how that works out for them. 

By the way Drunker is now having a go at Merkel. The Wuhan Virus is doing a great job wrecking the Globalist ruled failed EU project. 

For the sake of the European nation states one hopes the EU collapses. 

By the way young Stav why if climate change is the biggest threat mankind faces can major polluters like China and India exempt. 

Trump seeing what BS all this was and what a danger it represented to the USA wisely withdrew. 

Stav sadly you are the person who has not been doing your homework. I’m damn sure you had no idea man made CO2 was such a tiny percentage of the greenhouse effect. I’m sure you had no knowledge of the Finnish theory. I’m sure you had no idea the models are that wrong. I’m sure you had no idea the Greenland ice has been retreating for 20000 years and the sea level has been rising for 400 years.

But every time I opened a new aspect you ran off to the internet and frantically looked for contrary evidence. How do I know this? Well in several case you respond to another poster after a post of mine and then take hours to respond to me, with long, obviously researched posts.

But not one aspect caused you any pause and why would it when you just believe. Still now at least you know a few relevant facts and honestly you are a little more educated. 

No need to say thanks. Unlike you I’m not angry, I have rather enjoyed schooling you.

Hey SB, 

“ However, a natural curve should have a consistent curve, or get more extreme gradually. “ 

I could start of by telling you to revisit your statement and check out how little sense it makes, but I’ll try to be nicer  

That graph that Draad posted........ you see that green curve on there? 

Now, I do not have a PhD and I don’t have a Masters degree in internet trolling either.  I studied personnel management, and because it is a B Comm degree I had to suffer through Statistics I in 1980, or Statistics 101 as it is called nowadays. I had no choice, just like I had no choice whether I wanted to take Accountancy I either. Despite the fact that Accountancy had nothing to do with Personnel Management. 

Back to the graph and the green curve..... Even me, with my humble and probably hopelessly inefficient knowledge, of statistics can remember what that green line represents. I’m sure that one do not even have to have a shitty remembrance of 1980s stats to work out for yourself what that green line is. 

Hint: You have two choices. Ask Moz to explain it. He should be able to do it much better than me. Or, Google “smoothing”. IIRC, that is the term of how to arrive at that green curve on that graph. 

Yes, Shark

You absolutely bulldozed that model with the imperical evidence that you continue to provide.

Next I'd like to plot a chart that details expected quantities. I feel that more hours watching BBC will see a higher production of oral manure. 

Please continue to assist us in this regard.

Kindly, 

What I'd like to know is what everyone's solutions are.

It all gets so heated and the argument tends to stop at whether climate change is our fault, partially our fault or entirely unstoppable as a natural cycle of the earth.

What's the goal and what does a win for humanity look like?

Do we develope CO2 balancing technology, cut emissions through restrictive legislation, rely more heavily on and create further "green" technology...

Great. Then what? 

Will earth see another ice age? Yes, unless we subvert natural cycles. Are humans still at risk of mass extinction? Yes because asteroids, supervalcanoes, solar flares, viruses and other dangers still exist. All of which have occurred previously and will certainly occur again. It's just a matter of time.

To me, a win looks like developing technology that solves all of these problems as quickly as possible. What it doesn't look like is allowing climate change to take centre stage as the only perceived threat to the human gene pool. 

@mozart

"Stav sadly you are the person who has not been doing your homework. I’m damn sure you had no idea man made CO2 was such a tiny percentage of the greenhouse effect. I’m sure you had no knowledge of the Finnish theory. I’m sure you had no idea the models are that wrong. I’m sure you had no idea the Greenland ice has been retreating for 20000 years and the sea level has been rising for 400 years."

Well I admit I didn't know the exact percentage but I knew it very small some where under 0.1%. I also knew man made CO2 accounts for less CO2 than what occurs naturally and even when you combine the two CO2 is still only a trace gas, you could remove half of the nitrogen gas that makes up 78% of the green house gasses and CO2 would still only remain a trace gas. This isn't the first online climate discussion I've seen or heard. The argument that because man only accounts for a tiny % of the greenhouse effect it can't possible have significant consequences has been around for many years and its been refuted for just as many years.

No I don't have any knowledge of the Finnish theory, though I think I might have heard something about it a few years back I can't recall any details, whats your point?. Do you know absolutely every single theory and model both for and against man  made climate change. Can you refute the models that have proven to been accurate? I did also know Greenland ice has been melting naturally for years and sea level have been rising before man made climate change because again the same arguments come up over and over in the climate debate. Even if I didn't know its completely irrelevant, the fact that two events have been occurring naturally once again does not preclude the possibility that man made causes could be accelerating the process.

"But every time I opened a new aspect you ran off to the internet and frantically looked for contrary evidence. How do I know this? Well in several case you respond to another poster after a post of mine and then take hours to respond to me, with long, obviously researched posts."

That's because every time I refute a point your making or offer evidence to refute a point, you don't offer a credible rebuttal, you will say something that shows your lack of understanding of the scientific process like "So the Satellite data shows a different result, so it has  to be corrected....typical.", then you go off and a make a new aspect. Your the one contantly moving the goal posts.

But if you prefer we could stick to just one aspect and debate that until one of us agrees on a point or agree to say say the evidence is inconclusive and agree to move on. I'd be happy to do that?

Again what point are you trying to make, when you say I'm looking what your saying up as if that's cheating, I didn't realize I was doing an exam!, I'm not denying I'm looking what your saying up, that's like what your supposed to do when having a discussion. What am I suppose to take everything you say at face value?

As for the other posters, I'm only interacting with DbDraad and his posts simply don't require as long to respond too or fact check/research as your posts do. Sharkbok is debating with you, not me, Plum is debating with Sharkbok not me, and Beeno as usual is not worth responding too.

"But not one aspect caused you any pause and why would it when you just believe. Still now at least you know a few relevant facts and honestly you are a little more educated. 

@Plum

"What's the goal and what does a win for humanity look like?

Do we develope CO2 balancing technology, cut emissions through restrictive legislation, rely more heavily on and create further "green" technology..."

A win for humanity would be keeping temperature well below 2 degrees above pre-industral level.

I'd imagine the solution is a combination of what your suggested.

"Great. Then what? 

Will earth see another ice age? Yes, unless we subvert natural cycles. Are humans still at risk of mass extinction? Yes because asteroids, supervalcanoes, solar flares, viruses and other dangers still exist. All of which have occurred previously and will certainly occur again. It's just a matter of time.

Redrooi makes a disastrous reappearance. This half baked loon is only matched by sbvirus for childishness. 

These two are the chief clowns on the board!!! They don't mean to be but they are. 

Poor Redrooi has always been desperately jealous of Dr Moz. He almost expired some years ago when he learnt of Dr Moz's tremendous success. Yes it almost led to Redrooi'demise!!!!

 To make matters worse Redrooi's best buddy on the board at that time was a guy named Sharkie. They used to attack Moz saying Moz was lying about his car etc. On learning the truth Sharkies dropped poor Redrooi like a hot coal and started attacking Redrooi and supporting Moz. 

This lead to Redrooi being even more bitter. 

Today poor Redrooi is consumed with jealousy and bitterness. Get rid of it Redrooi it's doing you no good at all. 

Although young Stav knows climate models are useless he still thinks he knows the earth is warming, why and at what rate. How did he ever get a PhD!!!! Possibly bought it online from Timbuktu "University". 

@star

I wish i could put super volcanos and asteroids to the back of my mind they way that you are able to.

Mentioned viruses on here some months prior to Covid. At at the time I speculated that designer viruses were a massive threat. A threat that will increase as technology improves. How long before what is available to governments and big pharmaceutical companies is available to terrorists?

Here we are now, not too long later and a virus has spread around the world and shut us all down. Luckily, it's not a very deadly one.

Using your reasoning, pre-covid, it may have appeared reasonable to say that medical technology has evolved to the point where pandemics aren't such a threat anymore and it had been close to a century since we saw a true global pandemic have serious affect anyway. You'd reasonably have been able to argue that countries control their bioweapon labs strictly but that even if they failed the WHO is well funded and would shield us from such an eventuality.

Something isn't a problem until it is. Focusing only on the problem in front of you means you're less prepared for the one around the corner.

But let's look at a few potentially catastrophic events and see which one is the most taxable.

Asteroids

Viruses

Solar flares

Supervolcanos

Global warming

Nuclear war

Which one is the most taxable? You know the answer. And my guess is that is exactly why we see/hear so much about it. 

As far as asteroids go, do some research. They're only now launching programs which they "hope" will identify 90% of the potentially dangerous ones. There is one(520m in size) that they are relatively sure will strike earth within 80 years. And it's 1/10 the size of the one that killed the dinosaurs. It will wipe out the continent it lands on, shift the earth's rotational axis, likely disrupt tectonic plates and result in a bunch of catastrophic knock on effects. Are there bigger ones that may strike earth sooner? Possibly, we simply dont know.

Tectonic movements triggering supervalcanos are entirely unpredictable too. Even without outside influence. What we do know is that the volcanos themselves are primed and if they go off, it shrinks you 100k year ice age figure down to a few weeks. Are they a solvable problem? One would assume that mining technology as it stands could go some way, provided funding is available, to minimising the risk of full scale eruptions.

Sunspots? If you pay attention, there are dangerous spikes in solar activity almost annually.

The point being, we know that there are events coming that will draw a red line under us as a species.

But we can't seem to stop the arguments about the most taxable one while the rest hardly get a mention and are not nearly receiving funding proportionate to the risk involved. 

I accept you analogy and I raise you my own.

While we're all arguing about pellet guns killing us through death by a thousand shots, there are snipers with 50cal rifles in the hills, just waiting for us to be still for a moment. 

As it stands, a large portion of new asteroids are discovered by amateurs in their back gardens. That one statistic scares the bajezuz outta me.

For me a win looks like identifying every last potentially catastrophic event and funding organisations to the hilt in order to minimise those threats. Competent oversight and international cooperation should be a given.

Whoosh...Sheepbok.

Hoe donders dom is die Vissie eindelik, huh Draad?

Like really, there seems to be no limit.

Not dom, brainwashed...glad to see you aren't. 

@rooinek

Its human nature isn't it. In these kinds of discussions you often find one party is completely convinced they are right and not only that but they openly mock and belittle the person holding the opposing argument in a condescending and arrogant manner and have likely been doing so for a long time.

Regardless of the evidence they can't admit to being wrong, because its one thing to be wrong which some might be able to handle, but its another to realize that if they were wrong then their manners and actions have been over a long period of time been proven to be completely unjustified. People can't handle that, so they would rather go down with the ship then get in the lifeboat and lose face. Human ego is a fragile beast.

What an apt description of Shark's behavior/dilemma 

Don't lie Shark.

You were never brainwashed at church.

It was the tele wot got you.

This is obviously a vey interesting discussion - but is entirely based on theories by people and perhaps not on exact scientific models taking into account some variables as -

The natural warming and cooling cycles that has occurred over millions of years,  the last Ice Age was between 25000 years and 10 000 BC and the warming period started after the Ice Age reached its Peak at about 18 000 BC - why is that aspect ignored by scientists - and why can they not use past models to calculate an approximate date when cooling would commence?

The second issue that I believe scientist are shying away from is the issue of the increase in the world human population on the issue of climate change?   There is never much so about that issue -  but years ago Bill Gates claimed that the ideal world population should be 500 million - not the 7,2 billion it is at present.   What effect does gross over-population have on climate change.  That should also be factored into science models.

The fact is that specific predictions such as New York being underwater in 20 years time by al Gore in 2000 has never been materialized,  

I am not a climate change sceptic - would prefer comprehensive report with realistic steps to deal with the issue,   What is to be avoided like a plague is political ideology being a factor, 

By the way - much was said about Greenland,   It always baffled me why was Iceland given that name - while the country is not under a permanent ice cap and the island that has been covered to a large extend by such ice cover has been called Greenland.

The following is perhaps significant.   

*    Iceland was probably discovered by the Vikings and perhaps some Catholic Priests in the time between 800  and 900 AD,   The Vikings started settlements there and the present  population is from Nordish descent,  There must have been some areas not under Ice used for agricultural purposes and the name Iceland might have been given because of initial impression of the Vikings,

*     The fact is that by about 800 AD Greenland was settled by Eskimos and around about 900 AD Vikings arrived and settled on the East Cast of Greenland - the environment must have been substantially better than it was in Iceland - hence the name Greenland given to this island.  There were church records from Iceland which referred to wheat and vegetable planting by the Viking settlement in Greenland,  However, the following is very interesting:-

" These Icelandic settlements vanished during the 14th and early 15th centuries.[41] The demise of the Western Settlement coincides with a decrease in summer and winter temperatures. A study of North Atlantic seasonal temperature variability during the Little Ice Age showed a significant decrease in maximum summer temperatures beginning in the late 13th century to early 14th century — as much as 6 to 8 °C (11 to 14 °F) lower than modern summer temperatures.[42] The study also found that the lowest winter temperatures of the last 2000 years occurred in the late 14th century and early 15th century. The Eastern Settlement was likely abandoned in the early to mid-15th century, during this cold period."

Was the "Little Ice Age" not a stimulant for glaciers which are now melting and allowing Greenland to go back to where it was in about 900 AD?   

     .         

Stav there is no proof,  just unproven hypotheses. When I wrote my PhD dissertation I was able to  support my hypothesis with an extensive mathematical induction proof....then I wrote a simulation model which showed that in practice you always got the result the mathematics predicted. That’s proof.

What we have in Climate Change is a raft of empirical observations connected by some low brow mathematics. It can’t be proven mathematically and the empirical results undercut the theory, they show the models are too aggressive.

So we keep getting new supporting evidence.....rivers are drying up, glaciers are melting, polar bears are dying, hell the Gulf Stream might reverse......all nonsense. All seen to be needed because there is no proof. That failure is also why any ‘denier’ or ‘agnostic’ is attacked with Inquisition like fervor. 

Science is supposed to be skeptical, to challenge ideas and findings. Which is the cycle that makes ideas stronger. In the process many ideas are discarded as wrong......Einstein’s ‘cosmological constant’ for example, a huge blunder by one of the greatest minds in history.

Religion by contrast is a state of belief....without any attempt to challenge or verify those beliefs. What I see among so many of the Climate Change acolytes is a religious state of belief, which has no place in science.

In the meantime the goal posts shift forward in time .....Gore’s 12 years to save the planet become Cortez’s new 12 years to save the planet. Nobody audits the rubbish that has gone before.

And just when we thought the modern generation of social scientists couldn’t be more incompetent.....we get the virus models.

So sonny when you tell your elders they have no right to comment on something, do make sure that you have that right to comment first. And by the way ‘your’ is not the abbreviation for ‘you are’, Google it!

Abounding irony!...amazingly oblivious to it too....

"Its human nature isn't it. In these kinds of discussions you often find one party is completely convinced they are right and not only that but they openly mock and belittle the person holding the opposing argument in a condescending and arrogant manner and have likely been doing so for a long time.

Regardless of the evidence they can't admit to being wrong, because its one thing to be wrong which some might be able to handle, but its another to realize that if they were wrong then their manners an d actions have been over a long period of time been proven to be completely unjustified. People can't handle that, so they would rather go down with the ship then get in the lifeboat and lose face. Human ego is a fragile beast.

Stav there is no proof,  just unproven hypotheses. When I wrote my PhD dissertation I was able to  support my hypothesis with an extensive mathematical induction proof....then I wrote a simulation model which showed that in practice you always got the result the mathematics predicted. That’s proof.

What we have in Climate Change is a raft of empirical observations connected by some low brow mathematics. It can’t be proven mathematically and the empirical results undercut the theory, they show the models are too aggressive.

Oh for the love of monkeys, no proof. I'm not going to dignify that with an answer, google is indeed your friend.

Rooinek I see what you mean about self-important. Science supported by NASA is underpinned by low brow mathematics, yes I'm sure all NASA's mathematicians are crap what would they need to know about maps, no instead we should all bow and worship at the altar of Mozarts PhD.

So we keep getting new supporting evidence.....rivers are drying up, glaciers are melting, polar bears are dying, hell the Gulf Stream might reverse......all nonsense. All seen to be needed because there is no proof. That failure is also why any ‘denier’ or ‘agnostic’ is attacked with Inquisition like fervor.

Inquisition like fervor? Ah yes another defense mechanics from climate skeptics, the persecution complex. Correcting armchair climate skeptics errors, junk science, lack of understanding of scientific processes and in some cases outright lies is in no ways persecution. Its like a student who didn't study fails an exam then claims a teacher is picking on him for failing him.

Science is supposed to be skeptical, to challenge ideas and findings. Which is the cycle that makes ideas stronger. In the process many ideas are discarded as wrong......Einstein’s ‘cosmological constant’ for example, a huge blunder by one of the greatest minds in history.

We can agree on this, just you need to apply that skepticism equally to your side of the argument.

Religion by contrast is a state of belief....without any attempt to challenge or verify those beliefs. What I see among so many of the Climate Change acolytes is a religious state of belief, which has no place in science.

Something about a dead horse and flogging it here.

In the meantime the goal posts shift forward in time .....Gore’s 12 years to save the planet become Cortez’s new 12 years to save the planet. Nobody audits the rubbish that has gone before.

They are politicians and just like your they are not climate scientists. Them being wrong doesn't undermine actual climate science.

So sonny when you tell your elders they have no right to comment on something, do make sure that you have that right first. And by the way ‘your’ is not the abbreviation for ‘you are’, Google it!

I guess your proof that age doesn't necessarily lead to wisdom.

But thank you for clarifying your and you are, I have habit of getting them mixed up. I stand corrected and will try to remember.

@DbDraad

"Regardless of the evidence they can't admit to being wrong"

If your directing that at me, can you clarify what I got wrong?

Google "Pens en Pooitjies"....ek verlang Stilbaai