Scientists may have figured out why a potent greenhouse gas is rising. The answer is scary.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Can we just discuss one-on-one what this quibble is about statistics being a scientist? I can't see how this would have any impact on a discussion of climate change. 

There's this thing called correlation, used in linear regression to make predictions. And they use it fairly well to predict temperatures. So it's not like statistics negates climate change. 

 

The discussion is related to WCM's inability to prove anything about climate science cause all he knows is statistics and often pretends that is enough to be expert in physical SCIENCES like vaccines or climate.

[robosmith]

23 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

https://www.survivalworld.com/outdoors/33-climate-predictions-that-never-happened-a-history-of-inaccuracy/

No one ever said the models used to predict global warming are perfect.

But they ARE getting better all the time, which is why citing inaccurate predictions IN THE PAST is NOT a strong indicator that they always will be.

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The discussion is related to WCM's inability to prove anything about climate science cause all he knows is statistics and often pretends that is enough to be expert in physical SCIENCES like vaccines or climate.

Well first of all, good luck trying to prove anything with statistics.  Second of all, you can't prove or disprove climate change definitively.

Statistics can be available tool. Like I said, they have used it to build a case for anthropogenic climate change. 

So it's just a tool. It doesn't prove or disprove anything.

[Legato]

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

A real scientist would not embarrass themselves by posting a 10 yo article by a journalist that cites as EVIDENCE much older data.

2024 WARMEST ON RECORD LMAO

Current data:

Climate change: global temperature

 

 

 

 

 

 

So Mr. Dimbledumble the industrial revolution started about 1870. According to your graph between 1870 and 1940 the average temp was below the mean baseline.

Also the graph shows a integrated output, show a graph with differentiated output and the mean would be at an approximation of zero.

Now stop feeding your cows on zucchini and they won't be belching into the night.

[Nationalist]

38 minutes ago, robosmith said:

No one ever said the models used to predict global warming are perfect.

But they ARE getting better all the time, which is why citing inaccurate predictions IN THE PAST is NOT a strong indicator that they always will be.

Lol...no one eh?

Such chickenshit.

[WestCanMan]

47 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Can we just discuss one-on-one what this quibble is about statistics being a scientist? I can't see how this would have any impact on a discussion of climate change. 

There's this thing called correlation, used in linear regression to make predictions. And they use it fairly well to predict temperatures. So it's not like statistics negates climate change. 

The main things going against a reasonable man's belief in AGW:

1. the litany of predictions which all failed to come to pass: depending on which "scientifically proven" prediction you want to believe, we're already dead several times over
2. the litany of lies supporting the alleged scientific conclusions: the "hockey stick" lie, the "97% consensus" lie, the polar bear BS, etc
3. the insistence on taking laymen's words for it over those of esteemed climatologists with differing views on AGW, eg our media treats hypocrites like Leo DiCaprio, John Kerry, Greta like experts while calling esteemed climatologists kooks if they are outspoken against climate change hysteria
4. lies about the frequency and strength of hurricanes and other storms in recent years vs over the past centuries
5. massive exaggerations claiming that every weather event of the past ten years is "the result of global warming - we've never seen anything like this before"
6. fake news teams covering meteorological events and lying about the extent of flooding (eg AC Cooper standing in a ditch, by some reeds, and pretending to be standing at grade)
7. the fact that the biggest liars on the planet are the biggest pushers of climate change. Basically the people who said "mostly peaceful protests" or "young people should be forced to take the jab" or "215 bodies and a genocide" or "the religion of peace" are the ones who scream "kill the energy sector" the loudest. The most vocal advocates of climate change are always the ones who can't spell it. 

Thirty years ago if it was 25° out the weatherman's chart would still be green and it would say "25°", now the map is bright red and says "HEAT WAVE!!!!!!!!"

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

So Mr. Dimbledumble the industrial revolution started about 1870. According to your graph between 1870 and 1940 the average temp was below the mean baseline.

Don't you understand that is due to how the mean baseline was computed?

1 hour ago, Legato said:

Also the graph shows a integrated output, show a graph with differentiated output and the mean would be at an approximation of zero.

No it would not, because it has been getting warmer above the baseline for at least the last 30 years, setting numerous record highs along the way.

1 hour ago, Legato said:

Now stop feeding your cows on zucchini and they won't be belching into the night.

Where did you get your degree in Cowology?

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...no one eh?

Such chickenshit.

If you believe someone said climate models are perfect, PROVE IT.

We know that certainly was NOT a climate scientist. Duh

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Don't you understand that is due to how the mean baseline was computed?

No it would not, because it has been getting warmer above the baseline for at least the last 30 years, setting numerous record highs along the way.

Where did you get your degree in Cowology?

If you believe someone said climate models are perfect, PROVE IT.

We know that certainly was NOT a climate scientist. Duh

Dude we just had to explain to you that statistics is a scientific field of study. I'm afraid you're not qualified to have an opinion on any of the rest of that crap. You're too uneducated for this conversation

[robosmith]

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The main things going against a reasonable man's belief in AGW:

1. the litany of predictions which all failed to come to pass: depending on which "scientifically proven" prediction you want to believe, we're already dead several times over
2. the litany of lies supporting the alleged scientific conclusions: the "hockey stick" lie, the "97% consensus" lie, the polar bear BS, etc
3. the insistence on taking laymen's words for it over those of esteemed climatologists with differing views on AGW, eg our media treats hypocrites like Leo DiCaprio, John Kerry, Greta like experts while calling esteemed climatologists kooks if they are outspoken against climate change hysteria
4. lies about the frequency and strength of hurricanes and other storms in recent years vs over the past centuries
5. massive exaggerations claiming that every weather event of the past ten years is "the result of global warming - we've never seen anything like this before"
6. fake news teams covering meteorological events and lying about the extent of flooding (eg AC Cooper standing in a ditch, by some reeds, and pretending to be standing at grade)
7. the fact that the biggest liars on the planet are the biggest pushers of climate change. Basically the people who said "mostly peaceful protests" or "young people should be forced to take the jab" or "215 bodies and a genocide" or "the religion of peace" are the ones who scream "kill the energy sector" the loudest. The most vocal advocates of climate change are always the ones who can't spell it. 

Thirty years ago if it was 25° out the weatherman's chart would still be green and it would say "25°", now the map is bright red and says "HEAT WAVE!!!!!!!!"

Who ever said their predictions are "scientifically PROVEN"?

Are you sure they didn't say it was BASED ON known SCIENCE?

I'm sure you're just making up BULLSHIT if you're claiming it was a PhD climate scientist.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Who ever said their predictions are "scientifically PROVEN"?

Are you sure they didn't say it was BASED ON known SCIENCE?

I'm sure you're just making up BULLSHIT if you're claiming it was a PhD climate scientist.

So far you've claimed that the models are inaccurate, you've claimed that nothing has been proven and you are now claiming that it's based on science but not actually science

So remind me again why we are calling it a climate emergency? It seems more like a fairy tale when you describe it

[Legato]

55 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Don't you understand that is due to how the mean baseline was computed?

No it would not, because it has been getting warmer above the baseline for at least the last 30 years, setting numerous record highs along the way.

Where did you get your degree in Cowology?

If you believe someone said climate models are perfect, PROVE IT.

We know that certainly was NOT a climate scientist. Duh

Next time I will lower the altitude so might not go over your head.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Don't you understand that is due to how the mean baseline was computed?

No it would not, because it has been getting warmer above the baseline for at least the last 30 years, setting numerous record highs along the way.

Where did you get your degree in Cowology?

If you believe someone said climate models are perfect, PROVE IT.

We know that certainly was NOT a climate scientist. Duh

Lol...ur such a fcking liar.

[Aristides]

These guys are the frog in the pot. When it finally stars boiling they will blame the Libbies.

[Nationalist]

19 minutes ago, Aristides said:

These guys are the frog in the pot. When it finally stars boiling they will blame the Libbies.

^ He exclaimes with a hopeful glee...

No Dingleballs. I would start by halting cloud seeding operations, deregulate our current and only viable source of energy, and finance research in other energy sources. THAT is how a rational being deals with "potential" future issues.

Now...run along and play...

Edited July 15, 2025 by Nationalist

[Aristides]

21 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

^ He exclaimes with a hopeful glee...

No Dingleballs. I would start by halting cloud seeding operations, deregulate our current and only viable source of energy, and finance research in other energy sources. THAT is how a rational being deals with "potential" future issues.

Now...run along and play...

What cloud seeding? Oh of course, you are one of those chemtrail loons as well.

[Nationalist]

11 minutes ago, Aristides said:

What cloud seeding? Oh of course, you are one of those chemtrail loons as well.

https://sciencenotes.org/cloud-seeding-what-it-is-and-whether-it-works/

Cloud seeding.

You're welcome.

Edited July 15, 2025 by Nationalist

[Aristides]

25 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

https://sciencenotes.org/cloud-seeding-what-it-is-and-whether-it-works/

Cloud seeding.

You're welcome.

Cloud seeding has been around since the 1940's to try and induce rainfall in drought areas. Why you think that has anything to do with climate change is beyond me.

From your link.

Quote

Basically, cloud seeding does work, but not reliably and not particularly well.

 

Edited July 15, 2025 by Aristides

[User]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

These guys are the frog in the pot. When it finally stars boiling they will blame the Libbies.

Sure... except you are also a frog in the same pot living your life like it isn't as bad as you claim it is...

[Aristides]

12 minutes ago, User said:

Sure... except you are also a frog in the same pot living your life like it isn't as bad as you claim it is...

Yes I am but at least I don't deny the outcome. 

[CdnFox]

35 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Yes I am but at least I don't deny the outcome. 

Sure you do. You are a fan of the carbon tax. It did nothing but you're still a fan.You have a liberal. The outcome of the liberals last 10 years was zero. No climate change fought. Yet you deny this and vote for them again.

Are you mad at us because we actually do look at the outcome and say what the hell is the point to this

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, Legato said:

Next time I will lower the altitude so might not go over your head.

Next time provide some EVIDENCE for your SPECULATION. 💡

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...ur such a fcking liar.

Even if I was lying, you never know the truth by which to judge me because you're IGNORANT DROPOUT.

But unlike you, I have been tracking the record breaking temps since at least 2004.

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

^ He exclaimes with a hopeful glee...

No Dingleballs. I would start by halting cloud seeding operations, deregulate our current and only viable source of energy, and finance research in other energy sources. THAT is how a rational being deals with "potential" future issues.

Now...run along and play...

Are you really so IGNORANT that you don't know there many viable sources of energy? I am reading about more on a monthly basis, though who knows how many of the innovative new approaches will actually come to market.

Have you ever heard about the new hydrogen sources? Then there is natural gas, full electric, gasoline, nuclear, coal, etc

I see Japan has developed a truck container sized nuclear generation plant that can power a whole town for years and it's in trials NOW.

[Nationalist]

6 hours ago, Aristides said:

Cloud seeding has been around since the 1940's to try and induce rainfall in drought areas. Why you think that has anything to do with climate change is beyond me.

From your link.

 

It's a bad practice to fck with weather.

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

Even if I was lying, you never know the truth by which to judge me because you're IGNORANT DROPOUT.

But unlike you, I have been tracking the record breaking temps since at least 2004.

I'm sure you have...