Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 15 Sep 2016 06:18

NRao wrote: On BS, that is how everything starts.

Max Planck was told he was BS because theoritical physics was non existent.

You're comparing Max Planck the great physicists to the BS con artistry of global warming - where the evidence proves elusive despite decades & billions of dollars.

How about delivering the evidence sir?

Once again - Why is the terminology being quietly changed from global warming to climate change? Why hasn't global warming been proven as a fact. The spin given in place of proof makes global warming science one of the great jokes on earth.

G0lobal warming researchers after having drained the pockets of taxpayers are now quietly doing a career make over and transitioning to the new bogus banner of climate change - where just about any claim can be made with no proof required. How else can taxpayer grants keep coming if year after year, evidence of global warming cannot be produced?

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 15 Sep 2016 06:31

Amber G. wrote:
panduranghari wrote:
BUT where most of the scientists agree is global warming, and its cause (CO2 - Green house effect) etc, This consensus, I believe, is among Indian Scientists also.

There is no consensus and researchers with any reputation left have begun distancing themselves from the terminology global warming altogether.

Climate change is now the new banner for bogus science and hoards of researchers who made good money from grants promoting global warming have flocked over. Now the boondoggle is beginning anew.

This time however, they have been careful not to pick a name for a trend that might require scientific proof - hence the ambiguous sounding climate change.

The fact is all you need is an Excel spread sheet with a few years of global raw temperature data that has hopefully not been tampered with by the likes of global warming scientists at the University of East Anglia of Climategate fame. With those 2 things alone, global warming can be proven or dis-proven.

Its kind of like banking where they introduce ever more fancier terminology to baffle the people with BS. Strip it away and you'll find its nothing more than financial chicanery from slick talking shysters who are 1) counterfeiting money and 2) price fixing - mainly for their cronies.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 15 Sep 2016 09:34

Neshant wrote:

Climate change is now the new banner for bogus science and hoards of researchers who made good money from grants promoting global warming have flocked over. Now the boondoggle is beginning anew.

Neshantji - you are not alone, where I live (US) many like - virtually all the republican presidential candidates including Trump, think that Global Warming is a hoax created by Chinese. The same guys also in presidential debate told us Vaccines too are not safe/necessary, so now there are people in some parts of USA do not want vaccines. Reminds me of Pakistan and Polio vaccine and the grand conspiracy theory.

I don't know what scientists like us and our "cronies" get our of this conspiracy theory which you say we are peddling. (I am not an expert but know enough physics and science that I will stake my reputation on the basic facts about global warming, and I have checked enough data to convince myself). Trust me, we are not paid by China, on unsavory forces, in fact there are people who are ready to donate money to any "skeptics".. and why will India will lead the way it is leading if it's scientists are able to see if this was a hoax..???

But this got my attention

The fact is all you need is an Excel spread sheet ..[to figure out the hoax etc..]

Just curious if you have scientific or mathematical background? I have a challenge for you - a high-school level problem which is simple enough to check if the answer is correct. This is what I ask to bright high-school level students with the expectation that no calculators or computers to be used.
I am posting the problem below. You are free to use computers, any internet resource. You can take help from any of your fellow scientist who thinks that global warming is a hoax. Humor me if you can solve the problem. I will let you have 4 days and wait. Hope you put the answer.

This, of course, is to see if you have necessary math background if I decide to put any scientific arguments here --

The problem is:

Find three integer factors of (5^1985-1) each of which is greater than 10^60 (or a 60 digit number, such that when they are multiplied together gets you (5^1985 - 1))

Edited later:-Problem slightly changed from what was originally posted.

(Problem slightly later)

(As said, a person with good mathematical background will be able to solve it in a short time even without a computer --- good scientists would be able to solve it without much difficulty if they are allowed to consult with their resources/ use computers or books. I hope you will take the challenge. - best of luck)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Sep 2016 10:15

The global climate crisis calls for fewer children

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Sep 2016 10:57

Neshant wrote:
NRao wrote: On BS, that is how everything starts.

Max Planck was told he was BS because theoritical physics was non existent.

You're comparing Max Planck the great physicists to the BS con artistry of global warming - where the evidence proves elusive despite decades & billions of dollars.

On those lines I will nominate you for a prize when you, if you live long enough, change your mind. Which you will just the way the people did of Planck (which was the point).

How about delivering the evidence sir?

Like what? What is it that you do not understand?

Once again - Why is the terminology being quietly changed from global warming to climate change?

Repeating: It has NOT changed!! It has always been "Climate change". "Global warming" was introduced in 1975 and is a subset of "climate change". (I explained this in my earlier post.)

Cannot get more clear than that. Sorry.

Why hasn't global warming been proven as a fact. The spin given in place of proof makes global warming science one of the great jokes on earth.

Spin on what?

G0lobal warming researchers after having drained the pockets of taxpayers are now quietly doing a career make over and transitioning to the new bogus banner of climate change - where just about any claim can be made with no proof required. How else can taxpayer grants keep coming if year after year, evidence of global warming cannot be produced?

Have no idea. May be the climate change has effected them. Dunno. But more than possible. Probable.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 15 Sep 2016 11:12

Amber G. wrote: The problem is:
Find two integer factors (other than 1 and the number it self) of (5^1985-1)/4

Do we get a series of integer factors here?? 2, 3, 6, 31, 156 and so on..??

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Sep 2016 11:44

sudarshan wrote: my point is, that the local tide level changes have been constant for so long, like I said, 200 years+ in some cases. I haven't looked at every single station, only like 15 of them, but I can automate that process. But when there is no discernible change in local tide level data, ranging from Asia to Europe to the Americas to Australia and Africa, then what sense does it make to claim that the global sea level is rising faster than ever before? Shouldn't you be seeing a change somewhere in the local patterns if the global pattern is now claimed to be different from before?

I have seen your posts where you have produced a few graphs supporting this. I have not seem the data as yet. Thus my silence on that particular matter.

I have provided data from NOAA, that shows an increase is local sea levels (tidal) in MOST cases, across the globe. ???????

As I stated earlier, the localized data cannot be an added/subtracted to arrive at global sea levels. It just does not work that a way. Perhaps you should look into how they compute global sea levels and temperatures (thinking)? The methodology is not based on localized data, as far as I know.

Just BTW, I noticed that IBM in 2014 provided access to Watson for such research. I have not dug into the matter, but have not seen any results from that effort as yet.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 15 Sep 2016 12:05

JayS wrote:
Amber G. wrote: The problem is:

Do we get a series of integer factors here?? 2, 3, 6, 31, 156 and so on..??

oops.. Sorry this is what happens when the problem poster is careless and makes problem TOO easy... so I took the liberty to change it a little and made it harder. .. (I want just three factors of 5^1985 with the condition that each factor is 60 digit or larger..

Also a simple request to others, please stop posting hint/solutions for 3-4 days (or post the discussion in math dhaga), This is a challenge for Neshant.

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 15 Sep 2016 12:59

Thanks all about information regarding Lithium. I also found that the scientists are substituting Li for Mg. Mg gives 2 electrons compared to 1 for Li. So twice the punch. This is kind of off-topic anyway.

Amber G Madam,
You cant be ancient. You are very smart enough to keep abreast of changes, that makes you very young in my eyes.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 15 Sep 2016 14:37

Amber G. wrote:
JayS wrote:
Do we get a series of integer factors here?? 2, 3, 6, 31, 156 and so on..??
oops.. Sorry this is what happens when the problem poster is careless and makes problem TOO easy... so I took the liberty to change it a little and made it harder. .. (I want just three factors of 5^1985 with the condition that each factor is 60 digit or larger..
Also a simple request to others, please stop posting hint/solutions for 3-4 days (or post the discussion in math dhaga), This is a challenge for Neshant.

SO I was thinking how come its so easy even for a math Abdulla like me and still be a test for indicating Good mathematical skills...

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 15 Sep 2016 20:14

Neshant wrote: The fact is all you need is an Excel spread sheet with a few years of global raw temperature data that has hopefully not been tampered with by the likes of global warming scientists at the University of East Anglia of Climategate fame. With those 2 things alone, global warming can be proven or dis-proven.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 7/387i.pdf

http://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/3154295/ ... 943d84782b

http://www.psu.edu/ur/2014/fromlive/Fin ... Report.pdf

http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.n ... enDocument

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 5/7934.pdf

All these reports find no evidence that the science behind AGW has been undermined by the emails.

What sort of specific evidence from the emails have you uncovered that proves the contrary?

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 15 Sep 2016 20:30

I think India's policy initiative is a good one.

Nuclear and coal as the biggest sources of base-load power.

Methanol/Dimethyl ether production medium/long and long term battery tech for energy security.

Continue strengthening institutions within the country and unshackle the economy.

Wherever we can afford to lower emissions, simply do it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it's very practical and most, if not all, countries accept this.

Found this link that gives some insight into Saraswat's thinking.

Energy security is paramount and not emissions cuts. (Good thing. Let the West do most of the work.)

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 15 Sep 2016 20:40

Currently India's oil import bill is close to $70 billion dollars and will go back up again to $120-130 billion.

It's not a conspiracy that we have to purchase US debt to place orders through NYMEX to get the oil.

This is madness.

We will have to develop alternatives to this and give ourselves more flexibility to be environmentally friendly through cost saving.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 15 Sep 2016 21:48

in popular usage - It is still global warming but since folks started making fun of it whenever there was harsh winter - climate change started being used.

harsh winter extremes are also caused by weakening of jet stream due to warming induced change.

tandav · Post by **tandav** » 15 Sep 2016 22:00

https://xkcd.com/1732/

A visualization of Climate change based on current scientific thought. May be useful for layperson.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 15 Sep 2016 22:09

JayS wrote:
SO I was thinking how come its so easy ....

Thanks. It still remains to be seen that will all those hints, if Neshant will have enough interest/seriousness to put an answer.

Meanwhile from the news, one of Britain’s leading denier Nigel Lawson did sort of U-turn. This is someone who once called the scientific consensus on climate change ‘mumbo jumbo’ and talked about the virtues of pumping more carbon into the atmosphere. Speaking to Economic Affairs Committee he is being quoted as, he now does not "question for a moment” that carbon dioxide was a greenhouse gas, global warming is real etc..

He still does not wants UK to stop burning fossile fuel and India, China to do something ityadi. I think he should have courage to do the right thing,

Link: Leading climate change sceptic admits global warming is real

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 16 Sep 2016 08:06

Wondering if Neshantji is going to comment on my challenge to him.

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 16 Sep 2016 21:33

NRao wrote:
sudarshan wrote: my point is, that the local tide level changes have been constant for so long, like I said, 200 years+ in some cases. I haven't looked at every single station, only like 15 of them, but I can automate that process. But when there is no discernible change in local tide level data, ranging from Asia to Europe to the Americas to Australia and Africa, then what sense does it make to claim that the global sea level is rising faster than ever before? Shouldn't you be seeing a change somewhere in the local patterns if the global pattern is now claimed to be different from before?
I have seen your posts where you have produced a few graphs supporting this. I have not seem the data as yet. Thus my silence on that particular matter.

I have provided data from NOAA, that shows an increase is local sea levels (tidal) in MOST cases, across the globe. ???????

As I stated earlier, the localized data cannot be an added/subtracted to arrive at global sea levels. It just does not work that a way. Perhaps you should look into how they compute global sea levels and temperatures (thinking)? The methodology is not based on localized data, as far as I know.

Just BTW, I noticed that IBM in 2014 provided access to Watson for such research. I have not dug into the matter, but have not seen any results from that effort as yet.

NRao, the plots I showed were from the Global Seal Level Observation System (GLOSS), which, so far as I know, is the same as the database supplied by NOAA. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

This is the link to the GLOSS website from NOAA:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gosic/acronyms/gloss

If you follow the link to GLOSS from this site, you will end up in the site which I referenced three pages ago. This GLOSS site is where I got the data which I plotted. The NOAA site has this to say:

http://www.oco.noaa.gov/tideGauges.html

The term "tide gauge" is really a bit of a misnomer in current usage, since the instruments actually measure changes in sea level rather than just tides, which are only one contributor to sea level fluctuation. Because tides are now well understood their contribution can be accounted for, thereby permitting accurate observation of sea level variability and change attributable to other causes.

NRao wrote:I have provided data from NOAA, that shows an increase is local sea levels (tidal) in MOST cases, across the globe. ???????

I am not disputing that this data shows an increase in sea levels across the globe. My plots also show that. I am saying that this increase has been steady for 150 to 200 years, and there is no evidence of any acceleration in this increase. If there is any acceleration, then that may be attributed to global warming. But I don't see it in the limited sample I plotted. I can try to see if there's any acceleration evident in the rest of the data (I think there are 289 stations overall, of which I've looked at 16 so far).

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 17 Sep 2016 01:40

Just posting some data for New Delhi - May be of interest to some..
Local Climate Change: 28.13 N, 77.27 E

History of Temperature Stations:

Mean of Daily High Temperature

Mean of Daily Low Temperature

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 19 Sep 2016 12:18

Amber G. wrote:
Neshant wrote:

Just curious if you have scientific or mathematical background? I have a challenge for you - a high-school level problem which is simple enough to check if the answer is correct.

I have both a scientific and engineering background. I also have a strong background in unravelling BS.

Global warming is easy to prove. Merely indicate a continual warming trend from the numerous weather stations that maintain a daily record of temperature around the world. There is no other fancy footwork required to prove global warming.

If you say a room is warming up, it should show an upward trend in temperature. However global warming jokers unable to substantiate their claims have been doing all kinds mathematical and theoratical gymnastics to claim that temperature going up means global warming and temperature going down ALSO means global warming!

The sheer ridiculousness of the claim reached a crescendo at Climategate when the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia (which the UN relies on for its climate data) had one prominent global warming scientists proclaim :

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.

That in addition to cooking the books and trying to limit access to the raw temperature data from weather stations.

Global warming is the largest pseudo scientific boondoggle of the 20th century with zero evidence proving the claim. Hence the reason for the change in terminology to the more ambitious and no evidence required climate change.

If you want to debate me, post the universal consensus with proof that Earth is warming. Show me how you have figured out man's supposed contribution to this trend and how it has been distinguished from warming due to planetary or solar energy output. If already there is consensus as you claim, then past historical changes in the Earths climate prior to human habitation must have already been successfully modelled and explained I would assume.

Now let's see your scientific background in explaining how these so called global warming scientists who can't even show the warming trend and have zero ability to model past climate warming/cooling trends arrive at a conclusion that man is causing warming. This should be interesting...

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 19 Sep 2016 12:34

NRao wrote:
Once again - Why is the terminology being quietly changed from global warming to climate change?
Repeating: It has NOT changed!! It has always been "Climate change". "Global warming" was introduced in 1975 and is a subset of "climate change". (I explained this in my earlier post.)

It has been changed because the earlier claim that the earth is warming has run amuck.

Simple question - Has it been proven after multiple billions of dollars in studies that the globe is warming and if so has it been proven man is causing this warming?

Someone here claimed there is consensus across the board on global warming.

Also what scientific basis is proposed action on Climate Change based on? How is the action taking place ahead of even the most basic understanding of Earths climatic past and what changed global temperatures in the absence of man? I keep hearing we need to "combat Climate Change" which incidentally was the same nonsense I heard about combatting global warming till that ran amuck.

I'm trying to separate fact from fiction here.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 19 Sep 2016 23:59

Neshant wrote:
Amber G. wrote:..Just curious if you have scientific or mathematical background? I have a challenge for you - a high-school level problem which is simple enough to check if the answer is correct. This is what I ask to bright high-school level students with the expectation that no calculators or computers to be used.
I am posting the problem below. You are free to use computers, any internet resource. You can take help from any of your fellow scientist who thinks that global warming is a hoax. Humor me if you can solve the problem. I will let you have 4 days and wait. Hope you put the answer.

This, of course, is to see if you have necessary math background if I decide to put any scientific arguments here --

The problem is:
Find three integer factors of (5^1985-1) each of which is greater than 10^60 (>a 60 digit number), such that when they are multiplied together gets you (5^1985 - 1))

.
I have both a scientific and engineering background. I also have a strong background in unravelling BS.
< <snip> ..for rest of the post see the original post >

Thanks for the response. I do not see any solution of the math problem from you, neither here nor in math dhaga. BTW some people have given some valuable hints in math dhaga but I have not seen any solution from you. Please do note that, as I pointed out, the original problem was supposed to be solved in an exam environment, but I was curious if you could do it even with the help of computers, and using other resources, including asking your experts.

You chose not to answer.The answer if you had given, can easily be checked if it is correct or not.

If you want to debate me, post the universal consensus with proof that Earth is warming. Show me how you have figured out

Now let's see your scientific background in explaining how these This should be interesting...

Sorry to disappoint you. I have zero interest in this kind of "debate". Things which I know well I generally explain those things only. And that too to people who are willing to learn (and have intellectual honesty) and do have necessary mathematical background.

All the best, please carry on. Math problem, if you choose to, can be discussed in the Math dhaga. (and I can participate there)

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 21 Sep 2016 17:56

Scientists May Have Just Solved A Riddle About Antarctica - And You're Not Going To Like The Answer

disha · Post by **disha** » 21 Sep 2016 22:39

The core content of the long well written article sourced from WaPo is:

And thus, the new work suggests that if we keep pushing the system, we'll not only have to worry about the loss of Greenland's and West Antarctica's ice, but also major losses from the biggest ice sheet of them all, East Antarctica.

Basically a partial re-run of the movie water world

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Sep 2016 00:33

Revealed: The renewable energy scam making global warming worse

The largest source of "clean" energy is not reducing carbon emissions by as much as official figures claim – and it is causing immense harm to the poor and to wildlife

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... ing-worse/

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Sep 2016 02:11

Neshant wrote:
NRao wrote:
Repeating: It has NOT changed!! It has always been "Climate change". "Global warming" was introduced in 1975 and is a subset of "climate change". (I explained this in my earlier post.)
It has been changed because the earlier claim that the earth is warming has run amuck.

(Some emoticons are fun!!)

I am not sure where the disconnect is. Reboot:
1) "Climate Change" was the original, from about late 1950 or early 1960
2) The same group that proposed "Climate Change" (as a name), also proposed "Climate Modification" to refer to increasing temperatures across the globe
3) ALL that - again - between 1960 and 1975.
4) In 1975, there was a Prof (in some eastern seaboard school) that proposed changing "Climate Modification" to "Global Warming"

As a clarification:
5) "Global Warming" refers to the rise in temperatures across the globe (air and water) and its contributing factors
6) "Climate Change" includes a rash of things: acidity in the sea, impact of plants, animals, health issues, what happened a million years ago (literally), etc. GB is a subset of CC. A Climate Change guy may or may not deal with Global Warming

IF you still do NOT get it, then:

Sorry.

Simple question - Has it been proven after multiple billions of dollars in studies that the globe is warming and if so has it been proven man is causing this warming?

First and foremost, it is NOT simple, on the contrary. Actually, categorizing it as such exposes oneself.

Let me put it this way: Science broadly falls under binary system (yes/no) and quantum (yes/no/maybe)(sorry for borrowing that term, but what I want to say is that it can take on a range of discrete values). Climate Change and Global Warming fall under "quantum". I sense you are expecting a binary answer. Too bad, you ain't getting one. And, you will have to live with that - that is nature of that beast. Wish it was otherwise - it would have been so simple that we would have solved it by now.

Someone here claimed there is consensus across the board on global warming.

And rightly so. The fact it can take on a range of values, leads to the need for "consensus". The analogue in binary world would be agree/disagree.

Also what scientific basis is proposed action on Climate Change based on? How is the action taking place ahead of even the most basic understanding of Earths climatic past and what changed global temperatures in the absence of man? I keep hearing we need to "combat Climate Change" which incidentally was the same nonsense I heard about combatting global warming till that ran amuck.

I'm trying to separate fact from fiction here.

I am not aware of "fiction", except among skeptics.

The model is rather simple (to explain): certain gases that are released into the atmosphere create a barrier that prevents the suns radiation from escaping back into space. The trapped energy is the basic cause of the rise in temp in the air and the oceans.

On humans contributing, they broadly fall under mobile and point/stationary - while gasoline cars are mobile sources, electric cars are point (where the electricity is generated - nuclear is an exception). Add to that the estimates of natural cycles - which is challenging - and you have a decent picture of the total contributions. (this topic - contribution from nature is very interesting. It includes things like cutting trees - which realse the stored CO2 -to hydrated natural gas which is realsed when the surrundings get warmer.) On the other side of the equation is presence of CO2, acidity in the ocean and glacial melting.

Key to all this is to remember that rise in temp or sea level is NOT global. Some places WILL record the opposite.

Anything beyond that goes into modeling, etc. Not worth it here - plenty on the net.

But, let me state this: with so many glaciers melting - especially in regions where there is no or very, very little pollution activities, with rising acidity in the oceans, etc, someone will have to answer to the political leadership. It has gone way beyond "it is a hoax" for such leaders to turn a blind eye any more. Water is the next commodity that nations will go to war and people to migrate in huge masses. Lack of water = war, too much water = migartion (BD is a great example).

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 22 Sep 2016 07:27

^^^ Thanks for the above post. Quite informational and appriciate the time and effort you took to post it here.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Sep 2016 10:03

!! Any time. There is more if need be.

Meanwhile, this is a tough nut to crack.

Hundreds Of Scientists Blast Donald Trump's Stance On Climate

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Sep 2016 18:00

PM Narendra Modi to talk climate change with American TV host David Letterman

Even as the hubbub over Indian news channels getting exclusive interviews with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi settles down, American talk show host David Letterman is joining the list of the PM’s interlocutors.

Modi will soon appear with American talk show host David Letterman on "Years of Living Dangerously", a documentary series on climate change put together by the National Geographic channel.

The sneak preview shows an excited Letterman preparing notes for his interview with Modi and declining sandwiches on the side. There's a shot of a peacock thrown in, just so the viewers are left in no doubt that this is indeed India.

In the promo, Letterman says that he’s not looking for a controversial interview. “I don’t want to just have a boom boom, thank you goodnight,” he says. “So my goal here is a conversation, containing several points both personal and with regard to environmental issues and climate change.”

So Letterman is seen asking Modi if the millions in India who don't have electricity can directly transition to solar power. Considering India launched the International Solar Alliance at the CoP21 Climate Conference in December last year, the question was to be expected. Modi replies in Hindi that if the world helps with technology and resources, he'd be the first person to make the move from coal to clean energy.

The Emmy Award winning series, which has been on air since April 2014, has featured an impressive star cast, from American actor Jessica Alba to M Sanjayan, global conservation scientist.

The weekly episodes feature celebrity investigators and experienced journalists traveling to different parts of the world, talking to ordinary people as well as experts on climate change. The second episode of Season 1, had America Ferrera (best known for playing Betty in "Ugly Betty") travel to Kansas, in the United States, to report on how public policy has led to the growth of wind and solar power in the state.

Episodes 8 and 9 were focused on Bangladesh and how climate change affects developing nations. American President Barack Obama made an appearance, speaking on the long-term challenge that global warming poses.

Letterman is also expected to travel to villages in India to explore the power crisis and the role of the United States in India's energy future. The episode is set to air on October 30.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 25 Sep 2016 04:47

Neshant wrote: Simple question - Has it been proven after multiple billions of dollars in studies that the globe is warming and if so has it been proven man is causing this warming?

NRao wrote: First and foremost, it is NOT simple, on the contrary. Actually, categorizing it as such exposes oneself.

NRao wrote: The model is rather simple

Don't you just love contradictions....................

NRao wrote: Let me put it this way: Science broadly falls under binary system (yes/no) and quantum (yes/no/maybe)(sorry for borrowing that term,

Has global warming pseudo-science now evolved into a Schrödinger's cat explanation - where the Earth's mean temperature is both warming and cooling at the same time.

The cat is both dead and alive at the same time.

There is a rising trend among global warming scientists of creating incomprehensible (more like nonsensical) theories in an attempt to baffle the crowd.

But we know one question they dare not give a straight answer to :

"Has it been proven after multiple billions of dollars in studies that the globe is warming and if so has it been proven man is causing this warming?"

If its not been proven (and surely it hasn't), how is "combating global warming" or the even more nonsensical agenda of "combating climate change" (what does that even mean?) being pushed ahead of establishing the facts?

I don't expect a straight answer because it would destroy a great number of careers.
Many so called Global Warming scientists (soon to be quietly re-christianed Climate Change scientists) would be living under a bridge if dared to answer that honestly.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Sep 2016 05:17

^^^^^

I love contradictions.

1) The "not simple" related to your "Simple question", and
2) The "simple model (to explain)" related to your "what scientific basis is proposed action on Climate Change based on?"

I see none here.

Unless of course if one were to take things out of context.

Is the cat is both dead and alive at the same time.

The next time I meet Mr. Schrödinger, I will ask him.

But two questions we know they dare not give a straight answer to :

Considering there are answers out there, I have no idea what a cockeyed answer is (related to this matter). So, if you can give me an example I can perhaps try and explain (beyond what I did in my earlier post). Now, your expectations better be beyond the binary. Science does go beyond the binary. And, if I may add, science also allows conclusions by negation - thin about that one.

On the amounts spent thus far, I would venture to guess either the skeptics or those opposed to the study have spent more. FAR more.

I think the problem is that skeptics (in general) are unable to grasp the topic (which is normal). Not all of us have the ability to understand everything.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Sep 2016 06:05

Here try this out:

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Sep 2016 06:13

I also did a dirty google search and found that billions have indeed been spent. From my back-of-the envelop analysis, not much on "Global Warming".

Part of the problem: confusion between "Climate Change" and "Global Warming". Even Forbes is part of this problem. They also confuse "Clean Energy" with "Global Warming".

The picture I am seeing is one of confusion among the debaters - most do not have their terms/definitions right. Internet does tend to do that - infuse confusion, since we have free web sites and anyone can say anything they want. And, with hashtags, what else is needed to introduce tangential confusion?

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 25 Sep 2016 23:45

India to ratify Paris Agreement on October 2: PM Narendra Modi

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 28 Sep 2016 09:09

Despite the first debate, I think Mr. Trump is going to win the US election. I wonder how that'll affect the Paris Agreement.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Sep 2016 13:31

Avarachan wrote:Despite the first debate, I think Mr. Trump is going to win the US election. I wonder how that'll affect the Paris Agreement.

Short answer:

The current state of the US presidential race has many other countries worried, however, Meyer says. Republican nominee Donald Trump has vowed to abandon the Paris Agreement if he wins the White House in November. If the agreement has already entered into force, it would be four years before the US could formally withdraw, under the terms of the agreement, Meyer explains. But that's not the big question. The big question is, would a President Donald Trump take any action to live up to the US commitments under Paris?

“The answer, from his statements, seems to be no,” Meyer says. “He would not push to decarbonize the US economy, to shift away from coal and other fossil fuels to renewables, and all the other steps that President Obama has been taking. ... So, it’s not whether he would formally withdraw the US from the agreement, it's whether he would lift a finger to live up to our commitments under it.”

Need to wait and see what are the reactions within the Fed and State communities.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Oct 2016 08:04

Avarachan wrote:Despite the first debate, I think Mr. Trump is going to win the US election. I wonder how that'll affect the Paris Agreement.

India ratifies Paris climate agreement

EU is expected to ratify. When that happens the treaty will be in force for at least 4 years. Trump can disrupt things within the US, but cannot pull out of the agreement.

Fortunately. Very.

Rammpal · Post by **Rammpal** » 21 Oct 2016 06:39

http://www.downstreamtoday.com/news/art ... a_id=54000 !!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Nov 2016 04:24

Ok. Here we go. Plenty of material for this thread.

Climate change denier is leading Trump's EPA transition team

Rammpal · Post by **Rammpal** » 14 Nov 2016 08:22

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ate-change

“A Trump presidency might be game over for the climate,” said Michael Mann, a prominent climate researcher. “It might make it impossible to stabilize planetary warming below dangerous levels.”