Uber Drivers Forum banner
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,429 Posts
Tom Skilling used to be the most accurate dude in the country. UofI Meteorology classes used to be taught with Skilling documentaries. You could set your watch to the storms, and temps were within 1 degree.

Since global warming started besetting Chicago with 100 degree days and heat deaths, can't plan anything anymore. Up is down, left is right, cats sleeping with dogs. It's chaos!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
906 Posts
I think the reliability (or lackthereof) has more to do with changing wind direction and speeds more than climate change. No credible, scientific evidence of climate change affecting weather forecasting issues. The negative effects of climate change are maybe generations ahead of us.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,238 Posts
I think the reliability (or lackthereof) has more to do with changing wind direction and speeds more than climate change. No credible, scientific evidence of climate change affecting weather forecasting issues. The negative effects of climate change are maybe generations ahead of us.
97% of scientists would disagree. Winds, and ocean currents, are being affected by the melting of icecaps, and the mixing of more fresh water with sea water. This is happening now.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/indicators.php
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
906 Posts
97% of scientists would disagree. Winds, and ocean currents, are being affected by the melting of icecaps, and the mixing of more fresh water with sea water. This is happening now.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/indicators.php
Science is not a consensus. It isn't a vote. They have no idea of how much of the climate changing is caused by man. The climate is changing. I'm not denying that. It has been so unreliable though. The models those 97% keep predicting come out inaccurate 100% of the time.

We just don't have enough reliable data to project a model in which we can determine even a time-table of when we could see any noticeable difference in our climate.

They just told you "97% of scientists" and you bought it, didn't you? They can't even measure the amount of harm a single volcano eruption does to the climate. They (97% of scientists) are supposed to be able to determine not only the time-table, direction, and relative effect of man to our climate change, but never be able to project an accurate model?
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,054 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Humans have nothing to do with climate change.
Global warming caused by human activity is just a pretext. It's a big business with billions of dollars and too many "activists", "scientists", ngo, are there for a piece.

It's the Sun.
Even small changes in solar activity can impact Earth's climate in significant and surprisingly complex ways.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,238 Posts
Science is not a consensus. It isn't a vote. They have no idea of how much of the climate changing is caused by man. The climate is changing. I'm not denying that. It has been so unreliable though. The models those 97% keep predicting come out inaccurate 100% of the time.

We just don't have enough reliable data to project a model in which we can determine even a time-table of when we could see any noticeable difference in our climate.

They just told you "97% of scientists" and you bought it, didn't you? They can't even measure the amount of harm a single volcano eruption does to the climate. They (97% of scientists) are supposed to be able to determine not only the time-table, direction, and relative effect of man to our climate change, but never be able to project an accurate model?
My best friend's uncle works for the US Geological Survey in Juno. The glaciers and ice caps are melting faster than anyone predicted, according to him.

Sorry to disagree with your position, but 97 percent of climate scientists do agree. You aren't required to agree. But that doesn't change what is evident and measurable.

It's not my argument. It's the consensus of scientists who study this for a living, from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
906 Posts
My best friend's uncle works for the US Geological Survey in Juno. The glaciers and ice caps are melting faster than anyone predicted, according to him.

Sorry to disagree with your position, but 97 percent of climate scientists do agree. You aren't required to agree. But that doesn't change what is evident and measurable.

It's not my argument. It's the consensus of scientists who study this for a living, from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Ok I see where you're coming from.

You're saying climate change is measurable? There is evidence?

Can you provide me with EVIDENCE of how much man contributes to climate change?? Since you say it is measurable, can you please provide evidence of this measurement? Because unless you've actually studied this, you know you are taking someone else's word on the matter. A collective group of scientists who are sometimes PAID to conclude their studies a certain way. Just want you to be aware of that being a factor.

Also, you are saying that after 4.5 BILLION years that Earth has been around, these past 200 years have caused irreparable damage? The effect that humans, particularly after the industrial revolution, is going to cause what is said to be our very own extinction? Think about it. Look up how the Earth was during the Hadean Era. Our Earth is said to have been hit by massive asteroids (some say the size of Mars) to form the moon.

Aren't you curious why it isn't 100% if it is something that is evident and measurable? There wouldn't be a need for a consensus if the findings are evident and measurable, right? Wouldn't you be curious as to why the 3% disagree with this if this is something that, as you say, has solid evidence and is exactly measurable?

I just don't buy the whole thing. I get suspicious when a large group of people try to sell you on something they are constantly wrong on or can not provide solid evidence on.

Temperatures fluctuate in regions for decades. The Earth can fix itself. It will continue to do so until many, many years from now, it begins to die (as a planet) on its own.

By the way, there's this guy Steven Hawking... who is pretty smart right? He says we have about 100 years left on Earth.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,311 Posts
Science is not a consensus. It isn't a vote. They have no idea of how much of the climate changing is caused by man. The climate is changing. I'm not denying that. It has been so unreliable though. The models those 97% keep predicting come out inaccurate 100% of the time.

We just don't have enough reliable data to project a model in which we can determine even a time-table of when we could see any noticeable difference in our climate.

They just told you "97% of scientists" and you bought it, didn't you? They can't even measure the amount of harm a single volcano eruption does to the climate. They (97% of scientists) are supposed to be able to determine not only the time-table, direction, and relative effect of man to our climate change, but never be able to project an accurate model?
When 97% of climate scientists say something is real, and the 3% that don't are employed or paid by fossil fuel companies, of course you don't believe them. <rolls eyes> I'm betting you think the earth is flat, too. Maybe you should ask the people of Miami or Louisiana who are ALREADY being affected by rising sea levels whether or not climate change is real. In fact, even certain government agencies have said climate change is the highest security risk worldwide due to causing droughts that lead to mass starvation. You could always have a conversation with the people of Syria about that. Their civil war is the direct result of the desert being pushed further north causing massive crop failure.

Ok I see where you're coming from.

You're saying climate change is measurable? There is evidence?

Can you provide me with EVIDENCE of how much man contributes to climate change?? Since you say it is measurable, can you please provide evidence of this measurement? Because unless you've actually studied this, you know you are taking someone else's word on the matter. A collective group of scientists who are sometimes PAID to conclude their studies a certain way. Just want you to be aware of that being a factor.

Also, you are saying that after 4.5 BILLION years that Earth has been around, these past 200 years have caused irreparable damage? The effect that humans, particularly after the industrial revolution, is going to cause what is said to be our very own extinction? Think about it. Look up how the Earth was during the Hadean Era. Our Earth is said to have been hit by massive asteroids (some say the size of Mars) to form the moon.

Aren't you curious why it isn't 100% if it is something that is evident and measurable? There wouldn't be a need for a consensus if the findings are evident and measurable, right? Wouldn't you be curious as to why the 3% disagree with this if this is something that, as you say, has solid evidence and is exactly measurable?

I just don't buy the whole thing. I get suspicious when a large group of people try to sell you on something they are constantly wrong on or can not provide solid evidence on.

Temperatures fluctuate in regions for decades. The Earth can fix itself. It will continue to do so until many, many years from now, it begins to die (as a planet) on its own.

By the way, there's this guy Steven Hawking... who is pretty smart right? He says we have about 100 years left on Earth.
You also need to learn the difference between climate and weather. Do you honestly think just 100 years is good? I'd also suggest you look at the past mass extinctions that took place on Earth. As to whether or not man contributes, massive fossil fuel usage releases CO2 into the atmosphere causing ambient temperature to rise, this cause more evaporative action over the oceans which is the direct cause of the superstorm phenomena, a rise in ocean temperature of just 3 degrees throws off entire ecosystems. I refer you to the systemic and pervasive starvation of polar bears in the Arctic. Published this week, ice in the Antarctic is melting 3 times faster than originally estimated. With 7 billion people on this poor beleaguered planet, how can you doubt that climate change is effected by man? Maybe what we need is a mass extinction, once the Earth is rid of the scourge of mankind, it can repair itself. Hopefully, the beings that come after us will be better caretakers.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,433 Posts
Ok I see where you're coming from.

You're saying climate change is measurable? There is evidence?

Can you provide me with EVIDENCE of how much man contributes to climate change?? Since you say it is measurable, can you please provide evidence of this measurement? Because unless you've actually studied this, you know you are taking someone else's word on the matter. A collective group of scientists who are sometimes PAID to conclude their studies a certain way. Just want you to be aware of that being a factor.

Also, you are saying that after 4.5 BILLION years that Earth has been around, these past 200 years have caused irreparable damage? The effect that humans, particularly after the industrial revolution, is going to cause what is said to be our very own extinction? Think about it. Look up how the Earth was during the Hadean Era. Our Earth is said to have been hit by massive asteroids (some say the size of Mars) to form the moon.

Aren't you curious why it isn't 100% if it is something that is evident and measurable? There wouldn't be a need for a consensus if the findings are evident and measurable, right? Wouldn't you be curious as to why the 3% disagree with this if this is something that, as you say, has solid evidence and is exactly measurable?

I just don't buy the whole thing. I get suspicious when a large group of people try to sell you on something they are constantly wrong on or can not provide solid evidence on.

Temperatures fluctuate in regions for decades. The Earth can fix itself. It will continue to do so until many, many years from now, it begins to die (as a planet) on its own.

By the way, there's this guy Steven Hawking... who is pretty smart right? He says we have about 100 years left on Earth.
You're asking for evidence and Beemer gives you links to NOAA and NASA websites and that's still not enough for you. Climate and atmospheric interactions are too complex and variable to be able to predict exactly what will happen on a specific day but it is possible to identify trends, contributing factors and identify probable outcomes. It's like traffic. No one can tell you exactly which cars will be on the street but you can predict that traffic on Michigan Avenue will be heavier at 4 p.m. than at 4 a.m. If 97% of scientists agree, there's a very high probability they are correct. It's a specious argument to demand unanimous agreement before you accept any facts as proven. If that's the case you won't be able to believe in anything. At least 3% of people on the planet believe it's flat. They believe in Bigfoot. They think the moon landings were a hoax. They think the god they worship is the only one. They think Justin Beiber is talented. There's no end to it. Climate change is real and human activity is a major contributing factor.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,238 Posts
Temperatures fluctuate in regions for decades. The Earth can fix itself. It will continue to do so until many, many years from now, it begins to die (as a planet) on its own.

By the way, there's this guy Steven Hawking... who is pretty smart right? He says we have about 100 years left on Earth.
I am not going to continue this debate, for a couple of reasons. They don't tend to end well. You can accept or deny the studies done by climate scientists, if you like.

Just two things left to say: Hawkings is not a climate scientist, but was likely considering climate change as a factor for that statement.

And for a time, in the 30's, 40's and 50's, certain scientists were publishing findings that smoking was beneficial to your health. But, it turned out to be a big lie funded by tobacco interests.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,001 Posts
Question on climate change?

Was it due to fossil fuel usage that the great big glacier that covered the current property that you are sitting on to recede and melt forming the great big lake named after Michigan or the moraines up in Wisconsin?

Was mans activity the primary reason that we had snow in the middle of the summer in the 1800’s and crops failed due to a cooling period during that time?

The so called dark ages: many are under the impression since it was taught in our education system that it was a cultural waste land and that the plagues were strictly the result of mice and rats. But little mentioned was the volcanic activity at that time that actually contributed more to the cooling of that time period that led to crop failures, poor nutrition, and yes a darkened atmosphere.

The so called consensus of scientists has to be examined. Back in the 70’s when Earth day first came about it was due to Global Cooling and Acid rain, after all the consensus of scientists at the time said we were entering a cooling period due to human activity.

Then Mr. Gore and gang said the planet has a fever and New York would be under water right NOW. Some eggheads in the UK came up with a Hockey stick analogy explaining the whole Theory even. Please note Theory. Those same brilliant scientists were actually shown to be falsifying data some time later, but because we are in such a political divide these days no one would like to even consider the reports out showing the evedince of their falsified documents.

The earth historically goes through cycles, many factors are involved. From the Sun to volcanic activity. Ice caps on both poles expand and retreat, currently one is expanding while the other is detracting. Humans on the huge scale of things have only been tinkering with things for a short scope of overall time.

Is there climate change? Yep! Always has been and always will.

Better thing to really look at is to follow the money and power behind the movement to really get a good scope of things.

Remember that great big ball in the sky is a star, and all stars eventually run out of energy. If we all want to freak out we should jump the shark and start hyperventilating about that because that is the big end game of the planet.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,311 Posts
Question on climate change?

Was it due to fossil fuel usage that the great big glacier that covered the current property that you are sitting on to recede and melt forming the great big lake named after Michigan or the moraines up in Wisconsin?

Was mans activity the primary reason that we had snow in the middle of the summer in the 1800's and crops failed due to a cooling period during that time?

The so called dark ages: many are under the impression since it was taught in our education system that it was a cultural waste land and that the plagues were strictly the result of mice and rats. But little mentioned was the volcanic activity at that time that actually contributed more to the cooling of that time period that led to crop failures, poor nutrition, and yes a darkened atmosphere.

The so called consensus of scientists has to be examined. Back in the 70's when Earth day first came about it was due to Global Cooling and Acid rain, after all the consensus of scientists at the time said we were entering a cooling period due to human activity.

Then Mr. Gore and gang said the planet has a fever and New York would be under water right NOW. Some eggheads in the UK came up with a Hockey stick analogy explaining the whole Theory even. Please note Theory. Those same brilliant scientists were actually shown to be falsifying data some time later, but because we are in such a political divide these days no one would like to even consider the reports out showing the evedince of their falsified documents.

The earth historically goes through cycles, many factors are involved. From the Sun to volcanic activity. Ice caps on both poles expand and retreat, currently one is expanding while the other is detracting. Humans on the huge scale of things have only been tinkering with things for a short scope of overall time.

Is there climate change? Yep! Always has been and always will.

Better thing to really look at is to follow the money and power behind the movement to really get a good scope of things.

Remember that great big ball in the sky is a star, and all stars eventually run out of energy. If we all want to freak out we should jump the shark and start hyperventilating about that because that is the big end game of the planet.
In the past when climate change happened it was generally due to a catastrophic event. For instance, the last great mass extinction, the Permian extinction, was precipitated by a meteor hitting earth. Its why you don't have to run from dinosaurs. That being said, the rise in mean temperature worldwide over the last 150 years can be directly attributed to the effect of man on the environment. We are responsible for releasing more fossil fuel emissions in the last 150 years than the entirety of human existence previous to that time. I'm going to withdraw from this discussion because I refuse to discuss this with people who choose to remain ignorant. I'll end with a quote, "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
906 Posts
I’m going to assume that those that buy this climate change thing hook, line, and sinker, are the type that believes everything the internet says a scientist concluded.

If you think that ANY scientist can determine HOW MUCH climate change is caused by man, is FULL OF IT. That is a figure they CANNOT PROVE AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE.

Of course, man has contributed to climate change. But how much?

You say the mean global temperature is up... yeah, duh! It goes up and comes down throughout time. It’s going to go down on its own. This is just a period in time where it is trending upwards. (See the graphs I posted).

I’m saying those that buy the narrative that scientists can come up with a figure as to how much the climate change is caused by man are fools. The Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years.... the last 150 years alone did irreparable damage? It did more damage than all volcanoes ever? The asteroids that it was hit with many, many years ago? You’re saying that the damage caused by mankind is enough to put us on an irreversible course?

Think about it. Science is not a consensus. Anyone that tells you that climate change science is definitive and exact is lying to you. And you’re buying their lies because they’re scientists. Even though their models are wrong OVER AND OVER....

Do you guys just wanna save face and continue to believe in it? Double down on something you haven’t been shown concrete evidence it exists? What about areas where large bodies of water are not rising, but going lower? What about regions where temperatures are steadily becoming colder on average?

Man is not perfect. The scientific experiments are conducted by man. Results are seen and interpreted by man. Man hasn’t always been honest with findings. Man hasn’t always been knowledgeable to properly translate/analyze findings. There is big money in this kind of thing.

If you’re a climate scientist and want a crap ton of money, you’ll say that the climate is changing due to man. If you’re a politician, you’ll want to make it seem like climate change will affect us in the next few hundred years so that you can scare voters into believing in them... and if you scare voters into believing politicians, they get votes. I’m skeptical. It’s sad but scientists can’t prove how much of the change is caused by man. They can’t and they haven’t.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top