What Is Climate Change?

[Deluge]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

That's right, majority votes and political negotiation have nothing to do with consensus.

Since you seem to insist a vote did take place could you should be able to provide some of that empirical testing, observation, and falsification you're talking about and prove it.

They were paid off, or they're activists pretending to be scientists, or it's both; whatever it is, it stinks of 100+ year rot and it's time to say bye-bye to the idea of man-made climate change. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Deluge

[Hodad]

On 6/29/2026 at 7:05 AM, Barquentine said:

What, you can't read? Can't even look around?

1000 dead in France from yet more record heat, more severe droughts, more floods, fish species moving or disappearing, rising oceans swallowing small island countries, insurance companies not selling policies to affected areas, food insecurity, species dying off, more wildfires, tropical disease moving northward, etc...

Don't look up!

[eyeball]

27 minutes ago, Deluge said:

They were paid off, or they're activists pretending to be scientists

You used empirical testing, observation, and falsification to determine this?

I'm guessing you didn't have your conclusions peer reviewed but you have every opportunity to prove that as well.

That would be a two-fer and an excellent demonstration of the scientific process in action - establishing the truth of something on the truth of something else that's been established.

Just don't neglect to show your work.

37 minutes ago, Deluge said:

it's time to say bye-bye to the idea of man-made climate change.

Sez who?

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, Goddess said:

Yes, regions can warm at different rates. Yes, local climate dynamics matter. But when the media turns every regional study into the same fear headline, it stops looking like careful science communication and starts looking like narrative management.

Narrative management sounds like orchestration and psy-op dudes.

Without empirical studies, data and falsifiability, orchestration and psy-op dudes sounds bat-shit crazy. 

[LinkSoul60]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

They were paid off, or they're activists pretending to be scientists, or it's both; whatever it is, it stinks of 100+ year rot and it's time to say bye-bye to the idea of man-made climate change. 

Do you really believe that...  You can't be this ignorant to think that man isn't the main cause of climate change, are you?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Do you really believe that...  You can't be this ignorant to think that man isn't the main cause of climate change, are you?

It really doesn't matter.  The question isn't the cause of this point, the question is whether or not it's a crisis that we need to address as an urgent and existential threat to our existence.

And the answer appears to be no. And virtually nobody despite being asked billions of times on this platform and others have ever come up with even the tiniest little bit of science to show that it's a crisis or that anything that we can do about it will make a difference that will avert that crisis

And you and your kind simply keep coming back to the absolute nonsense that the question here is does the climate change. There is no substantial body of people that seriously believes the climate doesn't change.

But there doesn't seem to be any data that supports the idea of a radical action that destroys our economy in order to save things. In fact it looks like adaptation to climate change followed by the adoption of new technologies as they become available is the most reasonable and prudent course of action

[LinkSoul60]

46 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It really doesn't matter.  The question isn't the cause of this point, the question is whether or not it's a crisis that we need to address as an urgent and existential threat to our existence.

And the answer appears to be no. And virtually nobody despite being asked billions of times on this platform and others have ever come up with even the tiniest little bit of science to show that it's a crisis or that anything that we can do about it will make a difference that will avert that crisis

And you and your kind simply keep coming back to the absolute nonsense that the question here is does the climate change. There is no substantial body of people that seriously believes the climate doesn't change.

But there doesn't seem to be any data that supports the idea of a radical action that destroys our economy in order to save things. In fact it looks like adaptation to climate change followed by the adoption of new technologies as they become available is the most reasonable and prudent course of action

No, the answer is not 'no', because it does matter.

Using your logic is akin to saying "I have X cancer but it's not a crisis right now so I'll wait to start any type of treatments". Climate change is costing us today and will cost future generations a hell of a lot more if we don't something about it, which we are.  Can more be done yes, but at what cost and in the world as it is today.  

My 'kind' is the actual climate scientists who have studied this subject for years and have unequivocally agreed that climate change is man made.  Given that we know greenhouse gases are not good for the atmosphere it makes a least a bit of sense to reduce them as much as we responsibly can, don't you think?

Radical actions have destroyed our economy....  dramatic much?

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

No, the answer is not 'no', because it does matter.

It really doesn't. Either climate change is happening at a crisis level and is an existential threat to human life and we can do something about it or it isn't a crisis and we can't do something about it. 

Nothing else matters unless you're trying to turn this into a political opportunity and don't actually care about the subject

3 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Using your logic is akin to saying "I have X cancer but it's not a crisis right now so I'll wait to start any type of treatments"

That's one of your stupidest statements and it was up against some pretty stiff competition.

It would be more akin to saying "Is this cancer? and if so is there a treatment?'" Which are two logical questions. And a person who was concerned about cancer would seek those answers first and have in hand evidence that it is cancer and that it is treatable or evidence that it wasn't cancer or if it is there's nothing we can do about it anyway

That's what a reasonable and sane person would do. Yet it is not what you and your courts have done. Despite numerous requests you still cannot provide any evidence that there is a crisis or that any proposed solution would have any significant effect

5 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

My 'kind' is the actual climate scientists

No, you haven't presented a single thing from a actual climate scientist or even a non-climate scientist. Despite being asked billions of times at this point. Let's try again, provide the scientific research specifically that shows that climate change is a crisis and that there's something we can do about it that would substantially avoid that crisis. It can be more than one paper,it can arrive at those conclusions without perhaps using those precise words as long as it's clear that there is a huge danger to mankind and that we can fix it with one or another proposed solution

I'll wait.

7 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Radical actions have destroyed our economy....  dramatic much?

Nope and I actually just went through this with someone else. It's sadly not dramatic. It's sadly actually true

What's dramatic is suggesting that much of humanity will die or that our civilizations will fall or that 2 billion people will come streaming across our borders and we won't be able to stop it, etc etc even on this very board as well as other places

I'm afraid you've got the drama queen title all wrapped up kiddo  

[Legato]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

Have you sought the opinion of any scientists or are you just going with your own feeling?

Why, what did you base your choice on - did you try something like this?

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the vast majority of active, qualified experts on a conclusion in a specific scientific discipline.^[1] Scientific consensus results from the self-correcting scientific process of peer review, replication of the event through the scientific method, scholarly debate, meta-analysis, and publication of high-quality review articles, monographs, or guidelines in reputable books and journals to establish facts and durable knowledge about the topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

BTW, you won't find any mention of voting on what facts or theories win. That's up to science.

A consensus only exist until it does not. You should join the flat earth people, they have a consensus.