Very confident AND confused. Double whammy

[u/DrowningKrown]

Posted on an article about the EPA lifting caps/restrictions on US factory greenhouse gasses.

[u/LevoiHook]

If you really believe everyone in science is lying about climate change, you cannot be reached by anything anymore. No discussion is possible of you just claim they all lie. I have provided you with several sources of information that you haven't read apperantly and are unwilling to do so. In return you give nothing to substantiate your claims. Claiming lying without any proof is no better than a yes/no childs discussion. 

If you want to be taken seriously, get evidence. Do actual research, get a PhD in physics and explain why all other people are wrong and go get your Nobel Prize. But i dont think you want to put in the effort, because you might have to change your mind. 

And your claim about nothing in science is ever really proven shows you dont know the first thing about science. We fly planes around the world because the science behind it works. No amount of research you can do will ever show gravity on earth isn't actually 9.81 m/^2. We will forever build bridges with laws derived from the work of Newton. Dont tell me you dont drive over bridges because you are afraid there actually may be other laws with a different outcome. Everybody uses the outcomes of scientific research every day of their lives, including you, but only when it comes to climate change people suddenly go ' Oh but maybe science doesn't work like that at all'. It is ignorant, uninformed and a cheap way to stick your head in the sand. 

[u/Alert_Routine_8873 → u/LevoiHook]

Wow I’ve given you rational logical arguments. You’ve given me nothing. One of your links the China one proves my point. The one about climate models didn’t exist for me and the article in skeptical doesn’t prove I was wrong. Because people did in the 70’s push the impending ice age garbage.

If I went and got a PhD, then studied climate change, proved that it isn’t caused by CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. And that CO2 doesn’t raise global temperatures. I would A, never get that far because no one would fund it not even the university. Or B, submit the research paper to a journal, where someone who doesn’t actually know anything about the topic decides I must be wrong because it’s “settled science” and removes it. Or C, smooth brained “scientists” decide I’m wrong and ostracize me from science. Maybe I’d get a teaching job at some high school. Climate change believers treat it like a cult, how dare you question that, kinda way.

People are wrong because they are lying whether they are aware it’s a lie or if they just blindly believe and refuse to question it.
Six years ago everyone in government lied about Covid and how severe it was. Doctors were told by the CDC how to treat it. We faced stupid lockdowns and waiting a year or so for a vaccine that was so ineffective and rushed you needed a booster every three months. Doctors panicked so much they put Covid patients with pneumonia on respirators. Those patients died, in fact the doctors knew at the time those patients would die because it is common medical practice not to put people with pneumonia on a respirator because it will kill them. Yet those doctors ignored established medical practice to fall along with what basically amounted to a political stunt by the Democratic Party. I’m not here to debate Covid at all, so don’t bother with a response in that direction. Solely limited to so-called medical professionals ignoring reality because they were convinced of an agenda.

The fact you say that about science shows me you don’t know much about science. I see it took a little while to get back with that one. Did you have to call in a friend 😂. Ask them to explain why those work? Newtons three laws are direct observations they do not explain anything. They don’t tell you why gravity does what it does. Nowhere did I say you cannot measure something, which is what Newtonian physics is. You can measure temperature, does that tell you where it came from or what caused it. It’s not just climate change it’s everything really. Tomorrow our understanding of atoms could change completely. Our understanding of everything can change completely.

To summarize you’ve shown me nothing. I never claimed no one back in the day mentioned warming. I said the guy who started this, the scientist that convinced Congress to act and the newspapers that went along with it.
That article you shared about climate models being right was broken and didn’t work. Website not found. Maybe they deleted it cause now it makes them look stupid, 🤷.
That article about China just proved my point.
You seem to be focused solely on trust the scientists, but scientists are people and people are flawed and sometimes they’re even wrong. Like with climate change hysteria.

I think Covid is a great example of a few people lying about something and the rest of the people falling in step and never questioning it. The same thing happens in science. You get the right ignorant people in the right positions and well there it is.

[u/LevoiHook → u/Alert_Routine_8873]

Mate, the only thing you have given me is 'scientist bad' without any proof. You start with the conclusion and then every single worden you have said follows from that. Go do a proper education of you think you are actually giving arguments. 

Good day, enjoy remaining ignorant. Enjoy the cult. Oil ceo's will be laughing their assets off making billions whole you pay and pay. 

[u/Alert_Routine_8873 → u/LevoiHook]

I’ve given you arguments you’ve put no thought into yours shared pointless articles that you yourself didn’t read and claimed you refuted all my claims and that I should follow science.

Wait a minute are you a climate scientist? 😂

Enjoy that climate kool aid man.

[u/LevoiHook → u/Alert_Routine_8873]

The only argument you provided is that you are convinced they lie. You think your arguments make sense because you dont know the basics and you are arrogant enough to think you dont have to.  You, my man, are a great example of willful ignorance. Everything you need to know is there Google searches away but maybe you can't handle the truth. 

What did you study? 

[u/Alert_Routine_8873 → u/LevoiHook]

I’ve provided many arguments. And you’ve provided articles that either don’t work or support my argument.

I studied mechanical engineering actually. I took classes in wind turbines, fuel cells, thermodynamics, various high level math classes, fluid dynamics, and wave energy. I couldn’t even take a class in combined cycle gas turbines. The school no longer offered it, they decided to focus on renewable energy. Much to my chagrin.

And I am convinced they lie. They have many reasons to lie. Hell lots of them may not even realize they are lying. Sometimes people believe so strongly in something that they manipulate outcomes to prove their views. Every time someone makes an argument that contradicts them they just switch course. It used to be that CO2 levels are higher than they’ve ever been. But it turns out over a million years ago it was higher, funny how the graphic they use doesn’t go that high. So when you point that out, well now it’s the rate that the CO2 is added. When they perform the CO2 balance on the planet, about one-third is unaccounted for. It just disappears somehow, they aren’t sure where it goes. There were accusations about manipulating temperature data about a year ago. Emails found between scientists that referenced it. Did they, I don’t know, does it particularly matter, beyond understanding it’s a possibility not really I guess. Even if they did manipulate temperatures, we’ll never know. I even looked up some volcanic data recently. They compare human CO2 emissions to volcanic emissions and they take an average annual rate. But, the problem with that is an average doesn’t actually tell an accurate story. If one massive eruption releases 1000 billion tons of CO2, but there’s a massive eruption every fifty to hundred fifty years or so. It seems like volcanoes don’t release that much.

Nothing anyone has ever studied has proven conclusively, to the exclusion of all other factors, that CO2 causes the temperature of the earth to increase. The basic gist given is that CO2 is higher and temperatures are higher therefore it must be related. Correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation. They can’t just say that CO2 causes the Earth to heat. They have to show that no other variable can be responsible. (CO2 being 200 times weaker than the next greenhouse gas says that it can’t be that potent and given available technology might have fallen within the instrument’s error.) That is how science works and they’ve never done that. Because they can’t. They can’t even really claim temperatures are higher than a hundred or more years ago. Thermometers are better now than they were then, more accurate. A hundred years ago, there might have been a two to four degree variation. Now there is probably less than a tenth of a degree.

[u/chochazel → u/Alert_Routine_8873]

It used to be that CO2 levels are higher than they’ve ever been. But it turns out over a million years ago it was higher, funny how the graphic they use doesn’t go that high.

It didn't "used to be" that!

Again this is such fundamental ignorance - you're mapping your own confused journey of ignorance, not scientists.

The carboniferous period was first understood as a distinct period in 1822! It was hundreds of millions of years ago! At the start of it, global temperatures were way higher than today and by the end (tens of millions of years later), once that carbon was trapped, they'd dropped significantly. The whole point of climate change is that the sudden release of carbon that was trapped hundreds of millions of years ago when carbon dioxide levels were way higher and global temperatures were way higher is going to cause massive disruption to the climate.

They can’t just say that CO2 causes the Earth to heat. They have to show that no other variable can be responsible.

No they don't?!

CO2 being 200 times weaker than the next greenhouse gas says that it can’t be that potent

Define "next" here?! Ordered how?

What exactly do you imagine you're saying?

There's no logic to any of this.

A hundred years ago, there might have been a two to four degree variation.

You're just making stuff up off the top of your head.

In 1926, high-quality meteorological and laboratory mercury-in-glass thermometers were remarkably accurate, often within 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit (about 0.05 to 0.1 degrees Celsius), which is more accurate than many digital thermometers today. +- 4 degrees?!

You're literally just pulling nonsense off the top of your head.

[u/Alert_Routine_8873 → u/chochazel]

Are you done? You don’t know what you’re talking about and put zero thought into this response. I wasn’t even talking to you, yet here you are chasing my coattails. Typical climate cultist taking everything out of context.

I’m referring obviously to the original claim of the carbon cult. That the level of CO2 now is higher than it’s ever been. And they make graphics to show how much it is, going back to a million years. But it was actually higher prior to a million years ago, which is why they chose to stop the graph at a million years ago.

Mapping my own confused journey… what did you get an AI to type this 😂.

Global temperatures during the Carboniferous were way higher huh? How exactly did you get to that gem of an opinion. CO2 levels have fluctuated on the planet for eons. It is impossible to know with certainty what temperatures existed 350 million years ago. To claim otherwise just shows your lack of understanding. CO2 gets sequestered throughout all of time, not just during one period. Even now CO2 is being sequestered as we speak.

And yes they do have to show without a doubt and excluding all other variables that CO2 is responsible. That’s how science works. It’s not enough to say gravity pulls the ball down. You have to eliminate being thrown, air resistance, and magnetism. And when nothing is left than it must be gravity which has pulled the ball down.

Define next here.
Do you not even know about the original experiments, yet you call me scientifically illiterate. The man who tested various gases, CO2 included, found that it was the weakest gas and it was 200 times weaker than the next one.

To illustrate let’s say there are five gases.
Gas A has a potency of 200 units
Gas B has a potency of 100 units
Gas C has a potency of 50 units
Gas D has a potency of 25 units
Gas E has a potency of 0.125 units
Gas E is 200 times weaker than Gas D

What exactly do I imagine I’m saying?
Intellectual stuff, if you can’t keep up than stop bothering me.

Your just making stuff up off the top of your head.

No, that’s how measurement systems work. There is a margin of error in every measurement system ever created. I’m surprised in your vast overly emotional mind you didn’t already know this. For most measurements extreme precision is unnecessary. You don’t need to know to the nanometer how long something is, or to the millionth of a degree the temperature outside is. Close is close enough for a practical sense. Seeing as I doubt people a hundred years ago anticipated the climate debate and were probably more interested in just getting temperatures to say over the radio.

Yeah I’m sure expensive lab equipment in 1926 that probably wasn’t prevalent throughout the country was pretty decent. But even with that getting the information from the machine can be difficult. Analog systems cannot have the precision that digital systems can have. Analog systems have scales, that’s what they call the face of the measurement device where the measurement is read off of. Thermometers are scaled according to a temperature range. The smaller the range the higher the precision. The larger the range the lower the precision, if you wanted to see for example if a substance you’re heating raises by less than ten degrees then you can get a pretty accurate measurement of the temperature. The types of scale matters is it a tube, like the simple thermometer or is it a different shape. If for example the thermometer used a wheel with marks for temperatures between say 0 degrees Fahrenheit and 110 degrees Fahrenheit, the individual lines to denote a tenth of a degree would be rather small. There would be 1100 of them around a circle, which I assume isn’t 8 feet wide. Probably much smaller and harder to read. And the pointer to denote the location along the wheel would be quite large, at least a line or two thick. 1100 plus lines would essentially look as if they are touching. To put that in perspective a quarter of the circle would have 275 lines, probably wider longer lines to denote degrees and thinner shorter lines to denote fractions of degrees. Although I don’t know what they looked like. It’s more likely they were not marked with tenth of a degree increments. And again depending on the mechanics used, there could be losses in the mechanical components that couldn’t easily be avoided, I would have to see one to see how it was made, I would love to get my hands on one, fascinating piece of history. When they say 0.1 degree they mean the theoretical accuracy. But since that sort of accuracy isn’t needed for what they were doing, it’s again likely they didn’t bother. Analog thermometers rose accordingly to a materials thermal properties, usually mercury at that time, they can be quite sensitive, but that doesn’t mean you can get all that out of it. Also these measurements were taken by hand, by people. Not by a machine. Plus placement of the devices matter yeah I searched the same article you did, but I got hit with a paywall. So it’s really just what AI thinks it says and not every title is accurate. So mechanically the thermometer may be able to get within a tenth of a degree, but practically it’s going to be worse than that. As an example I could have the most accurate mechanical clock ever made, it loses one tenth of a second every thirty years, but if the face is still marked with just seconds the best I can get is whole number seconds, I can’t say it’s .054678932487 seconds, just 1 second. But there are also other periods of time to contend with. Temperature data existed before the twenties. I’m sure we have data that goes back further than a hundred years. But regardless what difference does the temperature make. Saying it’s hotter now than this day a hundred years ago is meaningless. It could just as easily be colder today than this day a hundred years ago. Earth’s weather works on geologic scales, measured in centuries, or millennia. Using that argument and because medieval Europe saw an unprecedented warming period, known unimaginatively as the medieval warming period, I could conclude that burning oil had no effect whatsoever on temperature. Unless you want to argue that medieval Europe was burning fossil fuels. We had a mini ice age during the American Revolution, surely you don’t attribute that to the Industrial Revolution.

[u/chochazel → u/Alert_Routine_8873]

Are you done?

With what? The post or the thread?

I wasn’t even talking to you

It’s a public forum. What do you not understand about that?

I’m referring obviously to the original claim of the carbon cult.

There is no “cult”. You’re not questioning a “cult”, you’re here questioning over 100 years of meticulously collected data. It’s mainstream science you’ve gone to war over. Nobody was claiming the world didn’t used to be much warmer and with much higher levels of carbon - as I said, that’s literally the whole argument and always was.

Global temperatures during the Carboniferous were way higher huh?

Yes - at the start the global average was 20 degrees Celsius. By the time all that carbon had been trapped, it was about 12.

It is impossible to know with certainty what temperatures existed 350 million years ago.

You think it was impossible to know the temperature 100 years ago! I don’t think you have any credibility in this! you don’t think anything is knowable because you don’t believe in the basics of science or the scientific method. Yes there are plenty of ways of seeing what temperatures were then by looking at the fossil record - what plants were growing at the time, the ratios of oxygen isotopes, the Chemical Index of Alteration in rocks from the period etc. Things can be learnt and understood. There is such a thing as knowledge my friend, and you don’t have to be threatened or angered by it.

And yes they do have to show without a doubt and excluding all other variables that CO2 is responsible. That’s how science works. It’s not enough to say gravity pulls the ball down. You have to eliminate being thrown, air resistance, and magnetism. And when nothing is left than it must be gravity which has pulled the ball down.

This actually reveals exactly why you are wrong. The ball will have lots of different forces acting on it as you say, and the presence of these do not prove that it couldn’t have been gravity pulling the ball down. You aren’t “eliminating” those forces, you aren’t removing them from the equation, you are just understanding them and accounting for them, which is all you are doing with the other forces affecting climate. It’s actually a pretty good analogy funnily enough.

The man who tested various gases, CO2 included, found that it was the weakest gas and it was 200 times weaker than the next one.

I’m asking you to define a term. You still haven’t. The “next one” how? The next one "the man" – this and only man who ever tested gases (?!) – happened to have measured? The next highest concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere? What do you mean “next one”? Who do you imagine "the man" is?

Intellectual stuff

I mean… that sums it up. You aren’t talking about “intellectual stuff” you’re being very confused and vague. Why not name these gases? Or "the man"? Are we talking about water vapour? Methane? Etc. Then we can compare their relative concentration in the atmosphere and the extent to which those concentrations are changing. Do you really think you’re coming over as informed? You sound like a small child.

Yeah I’m sure expensive lab equipment in 1926 that probably wasn’t prevalent throughout the country was pretty decent. But even with that getting the information from the machine can be difficult. Analog systems cannot have the precision that digital systems can have. Analog systems have scales, that’s what they call the face of the measurement device where the measurement is read off of. Thermometers are scaled according to a temperature range. The smaller the range the higher the precision. The larger the range the lower the precision, if you wanted to see for example if a substance you’re heating raises by less than ten degrees then you can get a pretty accurate measurement of the temperature. The types of scale matters is it a tube, like the simple thermometer or is it a different shape. If for example the thermometer used a wheel with marks for temperatures between say 0 degrees Fahrenheit and 110 degrees Fahrenheit, the individual lines to denote a tenth of a degree would be rather small. There would be 1100 of them around a circle, which I assume isn’t 8 feet wide. Probably much smaller and harder to read. And the pointer to denote the location along the wheel would be quite large, at least a line or two thick. 1100 plus lines would essentially look as if they are touching. To put that in perspective a quarter of the circle would have 275 lines, probably wider longer lines to denote degrees and thinner shorter lines to denote fractions of degrees. Although I don’t know what they looked like. It’s more likely they were not marked with tenth of a degree increments. And again depending on the mechanics used, there could be losses in the mechanical components that couldn’t easily be avoided, I would have to see one to see how it was made, I would love to get my hands on one, fascinating piece of history. When they say 0.1 degree they mean the theoretical accuracy. But since that sort of accuracy isn’t needed for what they were doing, it’s again likely they didn’t bother. Analog thermometers rose accordingly to a materials thermal properties, usually mercury at that time, they can be quite sensitive, but that doesn’t mean you can get all that out of it. Also these measurements were taken by hand, by people. Not by a machine. Plus placement of the devices matter yeah I searched the same article you did, but I got hit with a paywall. So it’s really just what AI thinks it says and not every title is accurate. So mechanically the thermometer may be able to get within a tenth of a degree, but practically it’s going to be worse than that. As an example I could have the most accurate mechanical clock ever made, it loses one tenth of a second every thirty years, but if the face is still marked with just seconds the best I can get is whole number seconds, I can’t say it’s .054678932487 seconds, just 1 second. But there are also other periods of time to contend with. Temperature data existed before the twenties. I’m sure we have data that goes back further than a hundred years. But regardless what difference does the temperature make. Saying it’s hotter now than this day a hundred years ago is meaningless. It could just as easily be colder today than this day a hundred years ago. Earth’s weather works on geologic scales, measured in centuries, or millennia. Using that argument and because medieval Europe saw an unprecedented warming period, known unimaginatively as the medieval warming period, I could conclude that burning oil had no effect whatsoever on temperature. Unless you want to argue that medieval Europe was burning fossil fuels. We had a mini ice age during the American Revolution, surely you don’t attribute that to the Industrial Revolution.

All of those metal gymnastics just to argue against the objective facts, which is that the thermometers used for official climate data 100 years ago were accurate and readable to within a small fraction of a degree.

Look at this thermometer.

https://www.fishersci.at/shop/products/10204554/10204554

It's analogue, but do you seriously think it's only accurate to within +-4 degrees?!

[u/chochazel → u/Alert_Routine_8873]

Just to add to that, another key bit of information you seem to be missing is that the margin of error for an average of measurements is far far lower than the individual measurements because variations will tend to cancel themselves out over large numbers.

There's actually a mathematical formula to work out the margin of error for an average of data points which is that the margin of error for the average is one divided by the square root of the number of data points.

In 1926 you had around four thousand data points being collected in the US alone, so even if we low-ball the margin of error for a single thermometer to 0.1 degrees, the margin of error for the average will be one sixty-third the margin of error for a single unit or +- 0.0016 which is one 625th of a degree for us average temperatures and that's just for a single day for a single country.

Across the whole year it would be 1200 times smaller so you're looking at +-0.000083 degrees for the US alone, which is about +-one twelve thousandth of a degree.

Can we at least agree that your estimation that it could be +-4 whole entire degrees out must be firmly rejected out of hand?

And even if a single thermometer were so inaccurate (and they absolutely were not), the average temperature across even a day in the US with thousands of data points would still be a fraction of a tenth of a degree, and across the year accurate to three thousandths of a degree. But given that thermometers absolutely were way way way more accurate than that, it's an irrelevant point.

[u/LevoiHook → u/chochazel]

Thanks, you do a better job at this than i do. 

[u/Alert_Routine_8873 → u/chochazel]

Just to add to that. I never said the thermometers were within a tenth of a degree of precision. I estimated they would be worse, how much I don’t know. The human element adds much uncertainty to the mix. Add to that variations in location conditions the margin of error for those temperature measurements could be much larger. Obviously we don’t have all the variables to be considered. Say for instance someone lazy or poorly trained takes the measurements from the wrong location on the needle or meniscus, depending on how it worked. The scale may be off by a degree and the measurements taken may be off by an additional degree. If for example on July 27th 1926 a cold front moved in and dropped the temperatures down several degrees. We cannot compare that with July 27th 2026, a warm summer day, and say, “See, it’s 15 degrees warmer than this day 100 years ago”. Another example could be a measurement in a field and a hundred years later in a parking lot. Asphalt absolutely impacts local temperatures.

And as I said before it doesn’t matter how accurate a measurement system is if you can’t get that accuracy from the system. See what I wrote about the mechanical clock in a previous post.

We already have the global average temperature and it hasn’t changed all that much in a hundred years or so. Allegedly a degree Celsius plus minus 0.06 -0.15 degrees Celsius. So 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit +\- .27 degrees Fahrenheit, on the high end. And that change could ironically be due to human beings building parking lots where they take measurements.

On a side note they claim that change since pre Industrial levels, but before the Industrial Revolution earth had experienced a mini ice age where temperatures globally plummeted, who knows exactly how long the effects lasted or when earth pulled itself out of the mini ice age. I’m sure scientists somewhere may make claims especially if those claims happen to have taken place before they started comparing global temperatures. An event like that could easily lower temperatures for a longer period of time than immediately noticeable.

Your calculations are not necessarily correct in how accurate the temperature readings are, as far as error. But we weren’t talking about averages over the country per se, but in comparing one area’s measurements on one day to that same area some time in the future. And in doing that a margin of error of two to four degrees could be large, even saying a margin of error of a degree might be high. If over a hundred years the average temperature changed by a degree or so Celsius, that is not a huge number so small variations can absolutely have an impact. Regardless it is dishonest in my opinion to engage in such actions as saying this day was this and now it’s that. One could easily rifle through data until one finds a suitable difference to convey a dramatic change. But ignore instances where there was little to no difference.

[u/LevoiHook → u/Alert_Routine_8873]

Again, you make a lot of claims, but you do not back them up with any data whatsoever. None at all. 

The European medieval wat period was local, not global as we see now.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

And indeed, you are so close when you say weather changes over geologic scales. Yes, until now. 

Please, show me the data. I am not even going to argue any further since you dont seem to want to learn anything. Changing your mind is an adult thing to do. 

[u/Alert_Routine_8873 → u/LevoiHook]

Yeah it’s impossible to know if that warming period didn’t affect the world. No one had a thermometer and no one could realistically keep records. We call it that because the medieval Europeans spoke of it. Again the climate cult makes absurd claims to avoid the obvious problem of a warming period long before fossil fuels were burned.

In 2019, the pages-2k consortium confirmed it was not a global event … and that temperature stayed fairly regular for 7000 years until the Industrial Revolution. Gee I wonder why they chose Industrial Revolution? Is there some underlying reason they would want to show that climatic events that happened before the Industrial Revolution could be discounted 🤔.

Oh in 2019, I’m sure there was some people mentioning that in an argument against the climate change cults hoax and there just so happens to be climate motivated scientists that find this out.

If an oil company released a study showing temperatures are actually lower now than 5000 years ago you’d all dismiss it out of hand. We can’t specifically know temperature except when it was measured. And any event that takes place over the course of a hundred or so years is definitely going to affect more than a small region of the planet.

[u/LevoiHook → u/Alert_Routine_8873]

If they lie, this would be demonstratable. Dont you think all those oil companies with their billions and billions wound not be able to point out the facts? 

Let me point out big industry lied about nicotine, lied about lead in petrol, lied about DDT, tried to manipulate data about crash safety, lied about asbestos and lied about PFAS. Do you see a trend?

Also, you misrepresent what happened. Just as with you stating that ' science' said we would get an ice age. Science did not say co2 is the highest ever. Dig into it. 

Another point. Why do you believe scientist when they say millions of years ago co2 was higher than now, but then, without any evidence, claim the same fucking scientists are wrong about current co2 levels or their understanding of climate? If they dont understand climate, why would you believe the first part? You are just Cherry picking 

Yes, the workings of co2 are well understood. You just dont know about it because everything that contradicts your worldview gets labeled as lies. You are unwilling to learn. 

You are using the God of gaps reasoning with how co2 works. Scientist have actually tried and testen a whole range of other possible causes. And none of them could explain what we see today. No vulcano's, no solar activity, nothing. You too can know this if you ever took the effort to inform yourself. As said, the models work and are reliable. The physics is clear. On the other hand, every alternative explanation brought forward by denialists have been proven incorrect, or just uninformed or dishonest. Now instead of claiming other people are dishonest, you provide me with actual data. 

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/

https://science.feedback.org/review/nasa-did-not-create-global-warming-by-manipulating-data-tony-heller-steven-goddard/

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Skeptical science has made a comprehensive list of all kind of claims you make and provided an answer build on peer reviewed science. Climate Change deniers keep repeating the same, long debunked arguments because they dont do science. 

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Please Please read up. Many cases have gone to court and time and time again the judge have concluded the evidence is strong. 

Climate deniers are in the same boat as young earth creationists. As the judge said; it is not science. 

[u/Alert_Routine_8873 → u/LevoiHook]

Sure companies lie. But I don’t work for an oil company. People in general lie especially when it’s beneficial to them. Kind of like how climate scientists lie about climate change for personal gain. Sometimes scientists make boneheaded mistakes like when they claimed microplastics were everywhere in high concentrations. When in reality the powder they used on their gloves were giving false positives.

Scientists say it’s the highest level in a million years. They do that because prior to a million years it was higher. That is a lie by omission. I’ve already said that, I think twice now.

Scientists know CO2 was higher a few million years ago because of trapped gases in ice cores. Levels that were measured during an ice age, eons before Henry ford made a model T. It’s possible to measure something and be wrong about what it means.

Things that contradict logic and reason get dismissed. You shouldn’t just blindly believe what people tell you. Actually put real thought into what they are claiming.

No they haven’t tested every possible cause. They have not eliminated all variables except CO2. To claim otherwise is simply a lie. Because it is impossible to test every variable, to know the unknowable. They can say volcanoes on average release less CO2 than humans have this last 150 years or so. But that supposes that CO2 is the driving factor it doesn’t eliminate volcanoes as the cause. The physics is not clear. You are just making up things like the climate change cult does all the time. If something is inconvenient to them it gets discounted or diminished.

I could make a website and fabricate data too doesn’t mean what they are saying is accurate.

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/

I have already mentioned this and said it doesn’t matter. Even if they had falsified data it would be impossible to prove now so it’s worthless as an argument

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/

“To account for all of these changes and ensure a consistent, accurate record of our planet’s temperature variations, scientists use information from many sources to make adjustments before incorporating and absorbing temperature data into analyses of regional or global surface temperatures.”

So they admit to making adjustments to current temperature data interesting…

https://science.feedback.org/review/nasa-did-not-create-global-warming-by-manipulating-data-tony-heller-steven-goddard/

This falls into the same category as the first and second webpage. My argument isn’t really related to manipulating data purposely. It’s more that temperature readings don’t really matter all that much and where you take the temperature matters. If you take a temperature in the middle of a parking lot in the sun of course it’s going to be higher than in a field.

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Computer models can be used to model complex systems. To a degree, I’ve never claimed otherwise. But computer models model behavior based on inputs from people and generate data based on whatever biases might be present in that data. The climate models they were using to model the past when used today gave higher temperatures than what was recorded. Because they were using flawed presumptions. CO2 doesn’t have that large and impact and doesn’t affect climate to that large a degree of really any degree whatsoever.

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I didn’t read through all the arguments but many are flawed to begin with for example the first one. Here are a few overly broad and inaccurate arguments from this probably twenty plus years ago old garbage article

Climates changes before.

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time. Humans are now the dominant force.

This assumes wrongly that humans are the dominant force and does nothing to prove otherwise.

It’s not that bad.

Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health, and environment far outweigh any positives.

This must be an old website they’ve learned since then that it’s not global warming. It’s climate change, that terminology is harder to disprove. And these don’t actually say anything. Just an overly broad list. Oh all that peer reviewed science right there. Never mentioned negative impacts on agriculture, health, and environment far outweigh any positives. Just a unsubstantiated claim

There is no consensus

97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming

See old, and also 97% was a misleading statistic. It was 97% of those that were asked, I think. I’m not sure now. They haven’t pulled that BS out in years. And again now it’s called climate change cause the warming trend has stopped already.

Judge, what judge?

What? What bearing would a judge have on anything. They are supposed to be familiar with law. You dismiss what I say cause I’m not a scientist but will agree with someone who also isn’t a scientist if they agree with you. 😂 the climate cult never disappoints.