Is Climate Change a Hoax?

[beatriceandrews]

Is climate change a hoax as President Trump claims? Not according to NASA, NOAA, the Environmental Protection Agency, the State Department, the Department of Agriculture, the National Park Service, the Department of Defense - the list goes on...

NASA: "There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause." https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/

NOAA: "We often think about human-induced climate change as something that will happen in the future but it is happening now." https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate/climate-change-impacts

NOAA: Climate Change: Global Temperature https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

Department of Agriculture: Climate Change https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/general-information/staff-offices/office-chief-economist/office-energy-and-environmental-policy/climate-change

State Department: Climate Change https://www.state.gov/policy-issues/climate-change/

Environmental Protection Agency: Climate Change https://www.epa.gov/climate-change

National Park Service: Responding to the Challenge of Climate Change https://npshistory.com/publications/climate-change/briefs/01-CCRP-Program-Brief-FEB-2016.pdf

Department of Defense: Climate Adaptation Plan https://www.sustainability.gov/pdfs/dod-2024-cap.pdf

Evidence Humans are Causing Global Warming Reaches 'Gold Standard' https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2019-02-25/study-evidence-humans-are-causing-global-warming-reaches-gold-standard

How Do We Know that Humans are the Major Cause of Global Warming? https://www.ucs.org/resources/are-humans-major-cause-global-warming

[libertybele]

I'm just answering the headlined question.  YES!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw

[libertybele]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNLnqAye8w8

[roamer_1]

Of course it's a hoax.

You picked the wrong forum to play this game.
All your links or the theories that spawned them have been beat to death a thousand times already

 

[The_Reader_David]

Actually, it's not a hoax, nor is it an established scientific fact that should be the basis of public policy. 

First, "climate change" as the phrase is used is real-world Newspeak, which, unlike Orwell's fictional corruption of language for political ends, does not narrow the meaning of words in the service of Party ideology, rather the real version overloads words with meanings, which can be shifted at need to serve the interests of "the Party" (in the US context that could be the Democrats, or it could be just the professional managerial class):  "climate change" can mean (when needed) the indisputable fact that the earth's climate changes over time, or it could mean the same thing as the more precise standard English meanings of any of the phrases "anthropogenic global warming", "greenhouse gas induced warming", "anthropogenic climate change", and probably a few others as needed for political ends, and what it means can be changed from when the phrase is used with one meaning to when that use is criticized for being false.

Second, even the narrowest meaning -- anthropogenic greenhouse gas induced global warming -- is not a hoax, but a plausible scientific hypothesis, which has not been falsified, even though essentially all of the computer models that have been used to suggest that a run-away version of it imperils humanity and/or the natural world as we know it, have all been falsified by actual measurements.  To be a hoax, those pushing this theory would need to know it is false, which they plainly do not, because it might be true.  (The runaway scenarios always involve something besides just greenhouse gas warming, which is logarithmic in effect -- each doubling of CO2 concentration raises the mean temperature by the same number of degrees as the previous doubling.)

That said, the political uses of the notion involve a lot of fakery: pretending science works by consensus, ignoring countervailing evidence (for the alarmist scenarios), ignoring cost-benefit analyses in pushing favored policies, and so forth.  In this regard, it is worse than a hoax, as a hoax is merely a lie, while the political use of "climate change" is in the definition of Harry G. Frankfurt, "bullsh*t" -- saying whatever is expedient without regard to whether it is true or false -- bullsh*t being a worse enemy of the truth than lying (or hoaxing) since the liar (or hoaxer) has enough regard for the truth to know it and say the opposite for some purpose, while the bullsh*tter has no regard for the truth at all.

[Bigun]

The climate on planet earth has been ever changing since it was formed and will continue to change until it is no more. Can we do anything about it? Absolutely not!

[catfish1957]

Been at this for decades, and was screaming for our advocacy on this matter since the very beginning.  Yes, it is and was a left wing wealth redistribution scam since day 1.

My favorite way to shut them up, was to explain that Greenland was warmer in 1050 than now.  Even conducive for Viking colonization. Watch them stammer.

[Smokin Joe]

Funny how people seem to think the climate is changing on account of humans, and that the planet is warming. That's a pretty heavy load to shift, even for industrialized nations.

But something I noted; the coldest weather I have ever been in, with NWS announced temperatures of -54 degrees F (static air), in both North Dakota and in Wyoming, have, upon investigation (to verify, for bragging rights) become warmer since. One was of late listed at -46 F and the other at -47 F. The unofficial local temperature in North Dakota was -60 F obtained with a 'spirit' thermometer at Alamo, ND.

But, even using the NWS temperatures released via radio at the time, those temperatures warmed by seven and eight degrees Fahrenheit.

There's your global warming. Not some smooth curve caused by internal combustion engines, but by screwing with the data, not on the high end where it would really show, but on the cold underbelly of the climate, where few would even look for tampering with the data.

Not only am I pissed off about having bragging rights removed from the official record (I was out in that, working, with 40 MPH winds cracking across that location, with urine freezing before it hit the ground), and some pantywaist in a climate controlled office somewhere is robbing me of being able to say I have been out in wind chills of One Hundred Forty Six below zero by altering the data.

As a scientist, I'm even more enraged at the idea of altering data to conform with a hypothesis, which is the antithesis of good science.

So, Hell No. I give no credence to the Climate Cult. If they have to tamper with data to make their theory look good, it's a pile of shit.

[catfish1957]

Funny how people seem to think the climate is changing on account of humans, and that the planet is warming. That's a pretty heavy load to shift, even for industrialized nations.

But something I noted; the coldest weather I have ever been in, with NWS announced temperatures of -54 degrees F (static air), in both North Dakota and in Wyoming, have, upon investigation (to verify, for bragging rights) become warmer since. One was of late listed at -46 F and the other at -47 F. The unofficial local temperature in North Dakota was -60 F obtained with a 'spirit' thermometer at Alamo, ND.

But, even using the NWS temperatures released via radio at the time, those temperatures warmed by seven and eight degrees Fahrenheit.

There's your global warming. Not some smooth curve caused by internal combustion engines, but by screwing with the data, not on the high end where it would really show, but on the cold underbelly of the climate, where few would even look for tampering with the data.

Not only am I pissed off about having bragging rights removed from the official record (I was out in that, working, with 40 MPH winds cracking across that location, with urine freezing before it hit the ground), and some pantywaist in a climate controlled office somewhere is robbing me of being able to say I have been out in wind chills of One Hundred Forty Six below zero by altering the data.

As a scientist, I'm even more enraged at the idea of altering data to conform with a hypothesis, which is the antithesis of good science.

So, Hell No. I give no credence to the Climate Cult. If they have to tamper with data to make their theory look good, it's a pile of shit.

The climate cult also fails to report that NWS Met reporting stations were located out in the boonies, back when. they were first built in mostly the '40's and '50's.  In that 70-80 year period since many of these have seen urban encroachment, with associated heat island effect.   

[Smokin Joe]

The climate cult also fails to report that NWS Met reporting stations were located out in the boonies, back when. they were first built in mostly the '40's and '50's.  In that 70-80 year period since many of these have seen urban encroachment, with associated heat island effect.   

https://everythingclimate.com/the-us-surface-temperature-record-is-unreliable/

[Cyber Liberty]

I find it interesting the OP never comments on the threads she posts.  There is a word that describes that behavior.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It is arrogant to the extreme to think that humans can control the environment.

We cannot even stop a single thunderstorm from happening.

The earth under God's direction is in control.  Always has been, always will be.

[roamer_1]

The climate cult also fails to report that NWS Met reporting stations were located out in the boonies, back when. they were first built in mostly the '40's and '50's.  In that 70-80 year period since many of these have seen urban encroachment, with associated heat island effect.   

AND the proliferation of new stations tending toward more tolerable climes, and away from the bitter north... skewing the aggregated average warmer too - All these things have been proven true.

[GtHawk]

I find it interesting the OP never comments on the threads she posts.  There is a word that describes that behavior.

Deja Vu?

[DefiantMassRINO]

Global Climate Change is real.  Big Climate Change's expensive fixes are frauds.

[Wingnut]

I find it interesting the OP never comments on the threads she posts.  There is a word that describes that behavior.

Just checked.  24 thread starter posts.  Zero comments to any post.

Interesting.  Not very engaging.

[escapeefromtaxachusetts]

You need to ask 3 questions..
1) Is it getting warmer?
2) If it is getting warmer, is the cause man made?
3) If it is, is there anything we can do about?

Whenever one of these climate freakos starts in, I ask how we came out of the Ice Age if there was no industrial revolution to create CO2...... Once in a while, it shuts them up.

[Cyber Liberty]

Deja Vu?

"Disruptor."  I don't delete or lock the threads because all y'all like chew toys!

[catfish1957]

Just checked.  24 thread starter posts.  Zero comments to any post.

Interesting.  Not very engaging.

Posting history shows evidence of an enniro-whacko.  Trollz be trollz.

[roamer_1]

I don't see what they think they gain by a drive-by post like this without engagement. But then, if they ever actually do engage they get wrecked, because their world-view is so easily destroyed by little more than common sense... So there's that, I guess... 

[libertybele]

You need to ask 3 questions..
1) Is it getting warmer?
2) If it is getting warmer, is the cause man made?
3) If it is, is there anything we can do about?

Whenever one of these climate freakos starts in, I ask how we came out of the Ice Age if there was no industrial revolution to create CO2...... Once in a while, it shuts them up.

      Cyclical.   The weather is cyclical. 

Did you by any chance @escapeefromtaxachusetts actually watch the video I posted by Senator Cruz???  He shutdown the enviro whacko's both times.  Yes, enviro whacko's....

[Fishrrman]

Cyber observes:
"I find it interesting the OP never comments on the threads she posts.  There is a word that describes that behavior."

I've had her on ignore since "she" first started posting here -- still do.
Interesting that she re-appeared the same time as did that "dexter" guy...

[Free Vulcan]

More like a grift or a trojan horse, or both.

[Kamaji]

Actually, it's not a hoax, nor is it an established scientific fact that should be the basis of public policy. 

First, "climate change" as the phrase is used is real-world Newspeak, which, unlike Orwell's fictional corruption of language for political ends, does not narrow the meaning of words in the service of Party ideology, rather the real version overloads words with meanings, which can be shifted at need to serve the interests of "the Party" (in the US context that could be the Democrats, or it could be just the professional managerial class):  "climate change" can mean (when needed) the indisputable fact that the earth's climate changes over time, or it could mean the same thing as the more precise standard English meanings of any of the phrases "anthropogenic global warming", "greenhouse gas induced warming", "anthropogenic climate change", and probably a few others as needed for political ends, and what it means can be changed from when the phrase is used with one meaning to when that use is criticized for being false.

Second, even the narrowest meaning -- anthropogenic greenhouse gas induced global warming -- is not a hoax, but a plausible scientific hypothesis, which has not been falsified, even though essentially all of the computer models that have been used to suggest that a run-away version of it imperils humanity and/or the natural world as we know it, have all been falsified by actual measurements.  To be a hoax, those pushing this theory would need to know it is false, which they plainly do not, because it might be true.  (The runaway scenarios always involve something besides just greenhouse gas warming, which is logarithmic in effect -- each doubling of CO2 concentration raises the mean temperature by the same number of degrees as the previous doubling.)

That said, the political uses of the notion involve a lot of fakery: pretending science works by consensus, ignoring countervailing evidence (for the alarmist scenarios), ignoring cost-benefit analyses in pushing favored policies, and so forth.  In this regard, it is worse than a hoax, as a hoax is merely a lie, while the political use of "climate change" is in the definition of Harry G. Frankfurt, "bullsh*t" -- saying whatever is expedient without regard to whether it is true or false -- bullsh*t being a worse enemy of the truth than lying (or hoaxing) since the liar (or hoaxer) has enough regard for the truth to know it and say the opposite for some purpose, while the bullsh*tter has no regard for the truth at all.

Very well put!!!

[berdie]

Yes, I think it's a hoax. However, I do believe the "heat islands" created by cities will eventually increase temperature in surrounding areas. I have no scientific proof...just by driving to work (urban) from home (rural).

[rustynail]

No.  The check is in the mail.

[escapeefromtaxachusetts]

     Cyclical.   The weather is cyclical. 

Did you by any chance @escapeefromtaxachusetts actually watch the video I posted by Senator Cruz???  He shutdown the enviro whacko's both times.  Yes, enviro whacko's....

Absolutely, we getting mega snow storms every few years, same w Hurricanes, Galveston, 1938, Diane, Camille, Andrew, Katrina....Sandy....
When it's warm, it global warming. When we have a cold month, it's climate change.. Can't reason with these morons.

[catfish1957]

Here's another point the climate cult doesn't seem to want to understand.....

Fact 1-  Even in the most bat shit crazy leftist enviro-whacko scenario.....    Fossil fuel use can be reduced, but can not be eliminated as they want you to believe. If we did, we would return to a standard of living of the 1800's.

Fact 2- We (USA) are technological leaders of the world in pollution abatement, and advanced controls. I know..... I oversaw some of it back in the day.

When you add one and two, doesn't make sense, if you really wanted to protect the planet, you'd want these hydrocarbon products to be made in the most ecological sound means possible?

Just one more damned reason that this scam has been outed.  And it has been all along a ruse for left wing ideology, and 3rd world wealth redistribution.   I hope the troll who originates these climate cult threads takes this back to her mothership.

[Cyber Liberty]

Here's another point the climate cult doesn't seem to want to understand.....

Fact 1-  Even in the most bat shit crazy leftist enviro-whacko scenario.....    Fossil fuel use can be reduced, but can not be eliminated as they want you to believe. If we did, we would return to a standard of living of the 1800's.

Fact 2- We (USA) are technological leaders of the world in pollution abatement, and advanced controls. I know..... I oversaw some of it back in the day.

When you add one and two, doesn't make sense, if you really wanted to protect the planet, you'd want these hydrocarbon products to be made in the most ecological sound means possible?

Just one more damned reason that this scam has been outed.  And it has been all along a ruse for left wing ideology, and 3rd world wealth redistribution.   I hope the troll who originates these climate cult threads takes this back to her mothership.

It never engages on the threads it spawns.  Leftards never do.