So you didn't read the article RTS posted. Got it.

One needs a subscription to read the Rupert Murdoch WSJ article that RTS posted. I do give RTS credit, though, he has moved on to the WSJ from two previous "scientific" claims backed by links to dcclothesline.com.

 

Also, upon further reflection, your claim involving NASA, the Marshall Space Flight Center, Princeton and the AMS Journal is probably the most disingenuous statement posted in this discussion. When you get a moment, provide a link, evidence, whatever, that these institutions hold a view contrary to the prevailing opinion that mankind activities are definitely contributing to climate change occurring today.

(and 200 other scientific organizations, many of which are third world functions that probably get most, if not all their funding from the UN, the same people who back the thoroughly discredited IPCC)

 

There, fixed it.

 

Like the IPCC itself, the '97% myth' has been long discredited.

 

I am open minded on the topic. Please show me, from a credible scientific source, the data and facts that debunk this. Many listed are third world...but many are not and include the American Meteorological Society, American Astrological Society, Geological Society of America, National Academy of Sciences, NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the National Science Foundation.

Back to the original message from nWo.

 

There are things people should prepare for - mainly the disruption of the distribution and supply chains for basic needs such as food and water and heating supplies in the event these are disrupted for an extended period of time.

 

While we debate the origin and impact of long term climate change - and the world is changing for sure - there are events that are not hard to imagine that will cause store shelves to empty and stay empty for an extended period.

 

Earthquakes

 

Most likely the worst case event would the New Madrid fault repeating its 1811 AND 1812 events. Some say the its overdue. If the same thing happens - ouch.

Solar Flare/Geomagnetic Storm

 

It may not look like the end of Knowing but the threat is real and caused impacts in 1859 - The Carrington Event.

 

What If the Biggest Solar Storm on Record Happened Today?

 

BTW - a suspected Carrington level flare occurred recently - it just was not 'Earth-facing'. We missed the proverbial 'Kill shot'.

 

 

Super Volcano

 

Personally, I would rather not like to worry about this one. If it happens all the prep in the world may not help. But its now known that Yellowstone is really the caldera to a giant super volcano. And they say its long over due for an eruption.

 

 

We all love our local supermarket, Walmart, Sam's Club or Costco. But being prepared for a long term disruption to the 'supply chain' that keeps those stocked is probably a good idea. As the recent snow storms showed we can 'weather' a glancing blow of 'climate caused' issues. But some events that can be shown to have occurred in the recent past (historically) could be problematic to the basics of things we take for granted.

Back to the original message from nWo.

 

There are things people should prepare for - mainly the disruption of the distribution and supply chains for basic needs such as food and water and heating supplies in the event these are disrupted for an extended period of time.

 

While we debate the origin and impact of long term climate change - and the world is changing for sure - there are events that are not hard to imagine that will cause store shelves to empty and stay empty for an extended period.

 

 

At the very least, we can agree on that.

I am open minded on the topic. Please show me, from a credible scientific source, the data and facts that debunk this. Many listed are third world...but many are not and include the American Meteorological Society, American Astrological Society, Geological Society of America, National Academy of Sciences, NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the National Science Foundation.

 

All relied on climate models that are now thoroughly debunked. The IPCC created the models and tied them to CO2 levels. The models have all failed to be close to accurate now that time has moved on. Man-made CO2 has dramatically increased (as predicted) the associated events have not happened - not even close. There now dozens if not hundreds articles available on this available with some simple googling. What is worse is the deliberate misrepresentation of the source raw data collected.

 

Things are changing for sure. But the egendas really need to be questioned at this point. CO2 is not a poison. And its level are increasing - with man's help. But does it create the climate change predicted - the answer is currently no. New models are needed. The IPCC models used over the last 20 years are definitely worthless.

 

While focusing on 'greenhouse gasses' the IPCC models ignored - mostly in total - a factor that is now getting more and more attention - the Sun.

 

Very recent published work:

 

Sun has more impact on the climate in cool periods -- ScienceDaily

At the very least, we can agree on that.

 

Yes, I think I picked a bad time to build a pool a few years ago. Seasons are shorter each year.

All relied on climate models that are now thoroughly debunked. The IPCC created the models and tied them to CO2 levels. The models have all failed to be close to accurate now that time has moved on. Man-made CO2 has dramatically increased (as predicted) the associated events have not happened - not even close. There now dozens if not hundreds articles available on this available with some simple googling. What is worse is the deliberate misrepresentation of the source raw data collected.

 

Things are changing for sure. But the egendas really need to be questioned at this point. CO2 is not a poison. And its level are increasing - with man's help. But does it create the climate change predicted - the answer is currently no. New models are needed. The IPCC models used over the last 20 years are definitely worthless.

 

While focusing on 'greenhouse gasses' the IPCC models ignored - mostly in total - a factor that is now getting more and more attention - the Sun.

 

Very recent published work:

 

Sun has more impact on the climate in cool periods -- ScienceDaily

Nuff said.

All relied on climate models that are now thoroughly debunked. The IPCC created the models and tied them to CO2 levels. The models have all failed to be close to accurate now that time has moved on. Man-made CO2 has dramatically increased (as predicted) the associated events have not happened - not even close. There now dozens if not hundreds articles available on this available with some simple googling. What is worse is the deliberate misrepresentation of the source raw data collected.

 

Things are changing for sure. But the egendas really need to be questioned at this point. CO2 is not a poison. And its level are increasing - with man's help. But does it create the climate change predicted - the answer is currently no. New models are needed. The IPCC models used over the last 20 years are definitely worthless.

 

While focusing on 'greenhouse gasses' the IPCC models ignored - mostly in total - a factor that is now getting more and more attention - the Sun.

 

Very recent published work:

 

Sun has more impact on the climate in cool periods -- ScienceDaily

On the same ScienceDaily page is a link to: "Solar activity not a key cause of climate change, study shows."

All relied on climate models that are now thoroughly debunked. The IPCC created the models and tied them to CO2 levels. The models have all failed to be close to accurate now that time has moved on. Man-made CO2 has dramatically increased (as predicted) the associated events have not happened - not even close. There now dozens if not hundreds articles available on this available with some simple googling. What is worse is the deliberate misrepresentation of the source raw data collected.

 

Things are changing for sure. But the egendas really need to be questioned at this point. CO2 is not a poison. And its level are increasing - with man's help. But does it create the climate change predicted - the answer is currently no. New models are needed. The IPCC models used over the last 20 years are definitely worthless.

 

While focusing on 'greenhouse gasses' the IPCC models ignored - mostly in total - a factor that is now getting more and more attention - the Sun.

 

Very recent published work:

 

Sun has more impact on the climate in cool periods -- ScienceDaily

 

But this does not debunk anything on humans playing a role. Per your link:

 

The new knowledge is a small but important piece of the overall picture as regards our understanding of how the entire climate system works, according to Professor Seidenkrantz.

 

"Our climate is enormously complex. By gathering knowledge piece by piece about the way the individual elements work together and influence each other to either strengthen an effect or mitigate or compensate for an impact, we can gradually get an overall picture of the mechanisms. This is also important for understanding how human-induced climate change can affect and be affected in this interaction," she says.

 

 

 

And per @Twotoplace - even the article you are siting contains a link to an article in the same publication that recants this.

Nuff said.

 

Not really.

On the same ScienceDaily page is a link to: "Solar activity not a key cause of climate change, study shows."

Which only further proves there is no consensus. We can do this all day, all week, all month, all year but in the end you can prove nothing any more than I can.

 

The thing I find so laughable is your side always gets so snarky with those of us that don't believe global warming (climate change) is anthropological. You guys attack and belittle, it's hilarious really.

Not really.

Really.

One needs a subscription to read the Rupert Murdoch WSJ article that RTS posted. I do give RTS credit, though, he has moved on to the WSJ from two previous "scientific" claims backed by links to dcclothesline.com.

I don't have a subscription and I read it.

 

I've seen your sources on this subject and others over the last year or so, please don't throw stones in that fragile glass house you're in.

I am open minded on the topic. Please show me, from a credible scientific source, the data and facts that debunk this. Many listed are third world...but many are not and include the American Meteorological Society, American Astrological Society, Geological Society of America, National Academy of Sciences, NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the National Science Foundation.

 

I hope that you meant "American Astronomical Society." There's a BIG difference!

Which only further proves there is no consensus. We can do this all day, all week, all month, all year but in the end you can prove nothing any more than I can.

 

The thing I find so laughable is your side always gets so snarky with those of us that don't believe global warming (climate change) is anthropological. You guys attack and belittle, it's hilarious really.

No equivalency here. Sorry. The vast majority of legitimate scientists -- in the neighborhood of 19 out of 20 worldwide -- acknowledges that mankind is impacting the climate in a negative way.

 

I understand that you and others don't accept man-made climate change for political reasons: You don't like big government, you don't like Al Gore, you despise President Obama, you just bought a new SUV, you live in Ft. Thomas, on and on.

 

Where you fall flat is when you constantly confuse political science with real science.