Colder winter or warmer? fear mongers -vs- old timer voodoo

[redrumloa]

The photo of three submarines visiting the North Pole in May 1987 shows the North Pole in a stretch of open water

The truth is out there.

 

[redrumloa]

The photo of three submarines visiting the North Pole in May 1987 shows the North Pole in a stretch of open water

The truth is out there.

 

[redrumloa]

The arctic is an island. LINK

The North Pole has become an island for the first time in human history as climate change has made it possible to circumnavigate the Arctic ice cap.

They agree the computer models are WRONG!
"The rate of change is clearly faster than nearly all the models predict, which has huge implications for climate change and how to tackle it."
-- Oops but wrong in the opposite way the anti-GW crowd claims.

Junk science. Come now faethor, if the truth was a snake it would bite you :wink:

http://green-agenda.com/greenland.html

In AD 1000, the Earth was experiencing an episode of climate warming similar to that of the present day. Temperatures in many parts of the world seem to have risen by at least two or three degrees Fahrenheit. Although the scale of this "global warming" may seem small, its effects on human societies were profound. In Europe, several centuries of long hot summers led to an almost unbroken string of good harvests, and both urban and rural populations began to grow. These centuries are known as the Medieval Warm Period. One of the more dramatic consequences of the Medieval Warm Period was the expansion of Viking settlements in the North Atlantic. From their Icelandic base (established in AD 870), the Norse people began to move west and north to Greenland, Canada, and eventually above the Arctic Circle.
LINK:
http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/Author/ ... cerpt.html

etc, etc

The Medieval Warm Period coincides with the Vikings' settlement of Greenland, Iceland and possibly North America. Farmsteads with dairy cattle, pigs, sheep and goats were prevalent in Iceland and along the southern coast of Greenland. Even England was able to compete economically with France in wine production. On the other hand, agriculture steadily declined at higher latitudes during the Little Ice Age, while mortality rates and famines increased. By 1500, settlements in Greenland had vanished and the inhabitants of Iceland were struggling to survive.
LINK:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba450/

In 10-20 years you won't hear a peep about "Global Warming", just like you don't hear a peep about a modern "Ice Age" scare as you did in the 70's or the "Hole in the Ozone" scare of the 80's.

 

[redrumloa]

The arctic is an island. LINK

The North Pole has become an island for the first time in human history as climate change has made it possible to circumnavigate the Arctic ice cap.

They agree the computer models are WRONG!
"The rate of change is clearly faster than nearly all the models predict, which has huge implications for climate change and how to tackle it."
-- Oops but wrong in the opposite way the anti-GW crowd claims.

Junk science. Come now faethor, if the truth was a snake it would bite you :wink:

http://green-agenda.com/greenland.html

In AD 1000, the Earth was experiencing an episode of climate warming similar to that of the present day. Temperatures in many parts of the world seem to have risen by at least two or three degrees Fahrenheit. Although the scale of this "global warming" may seem small, its effects on human societies were profound. In Europe, several centuries of long hot summers led to an almost unbroken string of good harvests, and both urban and rural populations began to grow. These centuries are known as the Medieval Warm Period. One of the more dramatic consequences of the Medieval Warm Period was the expansion of Viking settlements in the North Atlantic. From their Icelandic base (established in AD 870), the Norse people began to move west and north to Greenland, Canada, and eventually above the Arctic Circle.
LINK:
http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/Author/ ... cerpt.html

etc, etc

The Medieval Warm Period coincides with the Vikings' settlement of Greenland, Iceland and possibly North America. Farmsteads with dairy cattle, pigs, sheep and goats were prevalent in Iceland and along the southern coast of Greenland. Even England was able to compete economically with France in wine production. On the other hand, agriculture steadily declined at higher latitudes during the Little Ice Age, while mortality rates and famines increased. By 1500, settlements in Greenland had vanished and the inhabitants of Iceland were struggling to survive.
LINK:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba450/

In 10-20 years you won't hear a peep about "Global Warming", just like you don't hear a peep about a modern "Ice Age" scare as you did in the 70's or the "Hole in the Ozone" scare of the 80's.

 

[redrumloa]

The arctic is an island. LINK

The North Pole has become an island for the first time in human history as climate change has made it possible to circumnavigate the Arctic ice cap.

They agree the computer models are WRONG!
"The rate of change is clearly faster than nearly all the models predict, which has huge implications for climate change and how to tackle it."
-- Oops but wrong in the opposite way the anti-GW crowd claims.

Junk science. Come now faethor, if the truth was a snake it would bite you :wink:

http://green-agenda.com/greenland.html

In AD 1000, the Earth was experiencing an episode of climate warming similar to that of the present day. Temperatures in many parts of the world seem to have risen by at least two or three degrees Fahrenheit. Although the scale of this "global warming" may seem small, its effects on human societies were profound. In Europe, several centuries of long hot summers led to an almost unbroken string of good harvests, and both urban and rural populations began to grow. These centuries are known as the Medieval Warm Period. One of the more dramatic consequences of the Medieval Warm Period was the expansion of Viking settlements in the North Atlantic. From their Icelandic base (established in AD 870), the Norse people began to move west and north to Greenland, Canada, and eventually above the Arctic Circle.
LINK:
http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/Author/ ... cerpt.html

etc, etc

The Medieval Warm Period coincides with the Vikings' settlement of Greenland, Iceland and possibly North America. Farmsteads with dairy cattle, pigs, sheep and goats were prevalent in Iceland and along the southern coast of Greenland. Even England was able to compete economically with France in wine production. On the other hand, agriculture steadily declined at higher latitudes during the Little Ice Age, while mortality rates and famines increased. By 1500, settlements in Greenland had vanished and the inhabitants of Iceland were struggling to survive.
LINK:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba450/

In 10-20 years you won't hear a peep about "Global Warming", just like you don't hear a peep about a modern "Ice Age" scare as you did in the 70's or the "Hole in the Ozone" scare of the 80's.

 

[redrumloa]

The arctic is an island. LINK

The North Pole has become an island for the first time in human history as climate change has made it possible to circumnavigate the Arctic ice cap.

They agree the computer models are WRONG!
"The rate of change is clearly faster than nearly all the models predict, which has huge implications for climate change and how to tackle it."
-- Oops but wrong in the opposite way the anti-GW crowd claims.

Junk science. Come now faethor, if the truth was a snake it would bite you :wink:

http://green-agenda.com/greenland.html

In AD 1000, the Earth was experiencing an episode of climate warming similar to that of the present day. Temperatures in many parts of the world seem to have risen by at least two or three degrees Fahrenheit. Although the scale of this "global warming" may seem small, its effects on human societies were profound. In Europe, several centuries of long hot summers led to an almost unbroken string of good harvests, and both urban and rural populations began to grow. These centuries are known as the Medieval Warm Period. One of the more dramatic consequences of the Medieval Warm Period was the expansion of Viking settlements in the North Atlantic. From their Icelandic base (established in AD 870), the Norse people began to move west and north to Greenland, Canada, and eventually above the Arctic Circle.
LINK:
http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/Author/ ... cerpt.html

etc, etc

The Medieval Warm Period coincides with the Vikings' settlement of Greenland, Iceland and possibly North America. Farmsteads with dairy cattle, pigs, sheep and goats were prevalent in Iceland and along the southern coast of Greenland. Even England was able to compete economically with France in wine production. On the other hand, agriculture steadily declined at higher latitudes during the Little Ice Age, while mortality rates and famines increased. By 1500, settlements in Greenland had vanished and the inhabitants of Iceland were struggling to survive.
LINK:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba450/

In 10-20 years you won't hear a peep about "Global Warming", just like you don't hear a peep about a modern "Ice Age" scare as you did in the 70's or the "Hole in the Ozone" scare of the 80's.

 

[redrumloa]

The arctic is an island. LINK

The North Pole has become an island for the first time in human history as climate change has made it possible to circumnavigate the Arctic ice cap.

They agree the computer models are WRONG!
"The rate of change is clearly faster than nearly all the models predict, which has huge implications for climate change and how to tackle it."
-- Oops but wrong in the opposite way the anti-GW crowd claims.

Junk science. Come now faethor, if the truth was a snake it would bite you :wink:

http://green-agenda.com/greenland.html

In AD 1000, the Earth was experiencing an episode of climate warming similar to that of the present day. Temperatures in many parts of the world seem to have risen by at least two or three degrees Fahrenheit. Although the scale of this "global warming" may seem small, its effects on human societies were profound. In Europe, several centuries of long hot summers led to an almost unbroken string of good harvests, and both urban and rural populations began to grow. These centuries are known as the Medieval Warm Period. One of the more dramatic consequences of the Medieval Warm Period was the expansion of Viking settlements in the North Atlantic. From their Icelandic base (established in AD 870), the Norse people began to move west and north to Greenland, Canada, and eventually above the Arctic Circle.
LINK:
http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/Author/ ... cerpt.html

etc, etc

The Medieval Warm Period coincides with the Vikings' settlement of Greenland, Iceland and possibly North America. Farmsteads with dairy cattle, pigs, sheep and goats were prevalent in Iceland and along the southern coast of Greenland. Even England was able to compete economically with France in wine production. On the other hand, agriculture steadily declined at higher latitudes during the Little Ice Age, while mortality rates and famines increased. By 1500, settlements in Greenland had vanished and the inhabitants of Iceland were struggling to survive.
LINK:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba450/

In 10-20 years you won't hear a peep about "Global Warming", just like you don't hear a peep about a modern "Ice Age" scare as you did in the 70's or the "Hole in the Ozone" scare of the 80's.

 

[redrumloa]

The arctic is an island. LINK

The North Pole has become an island for the first time in human history as climate change has made it possible to circumnavigate the Arctic ice cap.

They agree the computer models are WRONG!
"The rate of change is clearly faster than nearly all the models predict, which has huge implications for climate change and how to tackle it."
-- Oops but wrong in the opposite way the anti-GW crowd claims.

Junk science. Come now faethor, if the truth was a snake it would bite you :wink:

http://green-agenda.com/greenland.html

In AD 1000, the Earth was experiencing an episode of climate warming similar to that of the present day. Temperatures in many parts of the world seem to have risen by at least two or three degrees Fahrenheit. Although the scale of this "global warming" may seem small, its effects on human societies were profound. In Europe, several centuries of long hot summers led to an almost unbroken string of good harvests, and both urban and rural populations began to grow. These centuries are known as the Medieval Warm Period. One of the more dramatic consequences of the Medieval Warm Period was the expansion of Viking settlements in the North Atlantic. From their Icelandic base (established in AD 870), the Norse people began to move west and north to Greenland, Canada, and eventually above the Arctic Circle.
LINK:
http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/Author/ ... cerpt.html

etc, etc

The Medieval Warm Period coincides with the Vikings' settlement of Greenland, Iceland and possibly North America. Farmsteads with dairy cattle, pigs, sheep and goats were prevalent in Iceland and along the southern coast of Greenland. Even England was able to compete economically with France in wine production. On the other hand, agriculture steadily declined at higher latitudes during the Little Ice Age, while mortality rates and famines increased. By 1500, settlements in Greenland had vanished and the inhabitants of Iceland were struggling to survive.
LINK:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba450/

In 10-20 years you won't hear a peep about "Global Warming", just like you don't hear a peep about a modern "Ice Age" scare as you did in the 70's or the "Hole in the Ozone" scare of the 80's.

 

[faethor]

In AD 1000, the Earth was experiencing an episode of climate warming similar to that of the present day.

Antedotal evidence would be in your favor. However these antedotes are in the Northern hemisphere. The Southern hemisphere during the same period of time appears varied with periods of heating and cooling. The Pacific appears to have experienced cooling during this time while that Atlantic was heating. Thus the nice curve for the warmer period, if applicable, applies to the Atlantic areas of the Northern hemisphere only, not the globe. Looking at glacerial records we're warmer now then during the Medieval Warming Period. NOAA indicate we are hotter now.

Even England was able to compete economically with France in wine production

There's grapes growing in England today. Comparing competition of markets today vs 1000AD is a bit different the markets are magnitudes larger.

Do you believe the 95% of Climatologists that back man-made factors contributing to Global Warming are skipping looking at the MWP in their data?

The big question the scientists should be answering is are factors which lead up to the Medieval Warming Period the exact same events in the warming period of today? Just because we have 2 warming events doesn't mean that all of the reasons for the occurance are due to exactly the same factors.

 

[faethor]

In AD 1000, the Earth was experiencing an episode of climate warming similar to that of the present day.

Antedotal evidence would be in your favor. However these antedotes are in the Northern hemisphere. The Southern hemisphere during the same period of time appears varied with periods of heating and cooling. The Pacific appears to have experienced cooling during this time while that Atlantic was heating. Thus the nice curve for the warmer period, if applicable, applies to the Atlantic areas of the Northern hemisphere only, not the globe. Looking at glacerial records we're warmer now then during the Medieval Warming Period. NOAA indicate we are hotter now.

Even England was able to compete economically with France in wine production

There's grapes growing in England today. Comparing competition of markets today vs 1000AD is a bit different the markets are magnitudes larger.

Do you believe the 95% of Climatologists that back man-made factors contributing to Global Warming are skipping looking at the MWP in their data?

The big question the scientists should be answering is are factors which lead up to the Medieval Warming Period the exact same events in the warming period of today? Just because we have 2 warming events doesn't mean that all of the reasons for the occurance are due to exactly the same factors.

 

[faethor]

In AD 1000, the Earth was experiencing an episode of climate warming similar to that of the present day.

Antedotal evidence would be in your favor. However these antedotes are in the Northern hemisphere. The Southern hemisphere during the same period of time appears varied with periods of heating and cooling. The Pacific appears to have experienced cooling during this time while that Atlantic was heating. Thus the nice curve for the warmer period, if applicable, applies to the Atlantic areas of the Northern hemisphere only, not the globe. Looking at glacerial records we're warmer now then during the Medieval Warming Period. NOAA indicate we are hotter now.

Even England was able to compete economically with France in wine production

There's grapes growing in England today. Comparing competition of markets today vs 1000AD is a bit different the markets are magnitudes larger.

Do you believe the 95% of Climatologists that back man-made factors contributing to Global Warming are skipping looking at the MWP in their data?

The big question the scientists should be answering is are factors which lead up to the Medieval Warming Period the exact same events in the warming period of today? Just because we have 2 warming events doesn't mean that all of the reasons for the occurance are due to exactly the same factors.

 

[faethor]

In AD 1000, the Earth was experiencing an episode of climate warming similar to that of the present day.

Antedotal evidence would be in your favor. However these antedotes are in the Northern hemisphere. The Southern hemisphere during the same period of time appears varied with periods of heating and cooling. The Pacific appears to have experienced cooling during this time while that Atlantic was heating. Thus the nice curve for the warmer period, if applicable, applies to the Atlantic areas of the Northern hemisphere only, not the globe. Looking at glacerial records we're warmer now then during the Medieval Warming Period. NOAA indicate we are hotter now.

Even England was able to compete economically with France in wine production

There's grapes growing in England today. Comparing competition of markets today vs 1000AD is a bit different the markets are magnitudes larger.

Do you believe the 95% of Climatologists that back man-made factors contributing to Global Warming are skipping looking at the MWP in their data?

The big question the scientists should be answering is are factors which lead up to the Medieval Warming Period the exact same events in the warming period of today? Just because we have 2 warming events doesn't mean that all of the reasons for the occurance are due to exactly the same factors.

 

[faethor]

In AD 1000, the Earth was experiencing an episode of climate warming similar to that of the present day.

Antedotal evidence would be in your favor. However these antedotes are in the Northern hemisphere. The Southern hemisphere during the same period of time appears varied with periods of heating and cooling. The Pacific appears to have experienced cooling during this time while that Atlantic was heating. Thus the nice curve for the warmer period, if applicable, applies to the Atlantic areas of the Northern hemisphere only, not the globe. Looking at glacerial records we're warmer now then during the Medieval Warming Period. NOAA indicate we are hotter now.

Even England was able to compete economically with France in wine production

There's grapes growing in England today. Comparing competition of markets today vs 1000AD is a bit different the markets are magnitudes larger.

Do you believe the 95% of Climatologists that back man-made factors contributing to Global Warming are skipping looking at the MWP in their data?

The big question the scientists should be answering is are factors which lead up to the Medieval Warming Period the exact same events in the warming period of today? Just because we have 2 warming events doesn't mean that all of the reasons for the occurance are due to exactly the same factors.

 

[faethor]

In AD 1000, the Earth was experiencing an episode of climate warming similar to that of the present day.

Antedotal evidence would be in your favor. However these antedotes are in the Northern hemisphere. The Southern hemisphere during the same period of time appears varied with periods of heating and cooling. The Pacific appears to have experienced cooling during this time while that Atlantic was heating. Thus the nice curve for the warmer period, if applicable, applies to the Atlantic areas of the Northern hemisphere only, not the globe. Looking at glacerial records we're warmer now then during the Medieval Warming Period. NOAA indicate we are hotter now.

Even England was able to compete economically with France in wine production

There's grapes growing in England today. Comparing competition of markets today vs 1000AD is a bit different the markets are magnitudes larger.

Do you believe the 95% of Climatologists that back man-made factors contributing to Global Warming are skipping looking at the MWP in their data?

The big question the scientists should be answering is are factors which lead up to the Medieval Warming Period the exact same events in the warming period of today? Just because we have 2 warming events doesn't mean that all of the reasons for the occurance are due to exactly the same factors.

 

[smithy]

Spot on it's the numbers, so let's consider some numbers:

Those 7 billion humans you mention, weigh on average, 70kg each. So that's 490 billion kg of human mass. Or 490,000,000 metric tonnes.

The Earth's mass is 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes.
Earth's atmosphere has a mass of 5,148,000,000,000,000 tonnes.

That means humans, despite taking hundreds of years to shake all their hands, make up only 0.000000000008% of our planet. We are insignificant beyond belief. Religion, especially the Climate Change religion will try to convince you otherwise, but really we are about as significant than one grain of sand on Fraser Island's Ninety Mile Beach.

smithy is accosted by an armed assailant one night who then demands money. The man, he astutely estimates, is about 70kg. Ergo he is being confronted by a mass of merely 1.2 x 10^-23 that of earth. He is calmed by this, then he realizes that his luck is even greater because the only thing that he really need pay attention to is the bullet in the gun that's pointing at his heart. It weighs in at a little under 10 grams - why that's only 1.7 x 10 -27 or 1.7 x 10 -25 %

It is clear now that there is no conceivable danger because the mass of the apparent threat is far too puny.

Before he realizes that he might be looking at things the wrong way he is struck by lightning which you would have thought would have been safe, being virtually massless - but no!!!

--
Yes, it's more of a parody than a parable but I'm sure you see the point.

Nice one

The difference between a bullet or lightning, and the climate is simple: we understand bullets and lightning: we can do tests in a lab that are repeatable with demonstrable results.

You can do none of that with the climate. It's vastly more complicated, with thousands of extra elements than a bit of medieval science that covers bullets and lightning involve.

With the climate, we have no hard evidence, we can't do any experiments, we can't model it, we don't really understand it, and the 'science' is subject to an huge amount of manipulation by politics.

Like the Loch-ness monster and the exitence of UFOs, I'm keeping an open mind until someone comes up with some evidence.

 

[smithy]

Spot on it's the numbers, so let's consider some numbers:

Those 7 billion humans you mention, weigh on average, 70kg each. So that's 490 billion kg of human mass. Or 490,000,000 metric tonnes.

The Earth's mass is 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes.
Earth's atmosphere has a mass of 5,148,000,000,000,000 tonnes.

That means humans, despite taking hundreds of years to shake all their hands, make up only 0.000000000008% of our planet. We are insignificant beyond belief. Religion, especially the Climate Change religion will try to convince you otherwise, but really we are about as significant than one grain of sand on Fraser Island's Ninety Mile Beach.

smithy is accosted by an armed assailant one night who then demands money. The man, he astutely estimates, is about 70kg. Ergo he is being confronted by a mass of merely 1.2 x 10^-23 that of earth. He is calmed by this, then he realizes that his luck is even greater because the only thing that he really need pay attention to is the bullet in the gun that's pointing at his heart. It weighs in at a little under 10 grams - why that's only 1.7 x 10 -27 or 1.7 x 10 -25 %

It is clear now that there is no conceivable danger because the mass of the apparent threat is far too puny.

Before he realizes that he might be looking at things the wrong way he is struck by lightning which you would have thought would have been safe, being virtually massless - but no!!!

--
Yes, it's more of a parody than a parable but I'm sure you see the point.

Nice one

The difference between a bullet or lightning, and the climate is simple: we understand bullets and lightning: we can do tests in a lab that are repeatable with demonstrable results.

You can do none of that with the climate. It's vastly more complicated, with thousands of extra elements than a bit of medieval science that covers bullets and lightning involve.

With the climate, we have no hard evidence, we can't do any experiments, we can't model it, we don't really understand it, and the 'science' is subject to an huge amount of manipulation by politics.

Like the Loch-ness monster and the exitence of UFOs, I'm keeping an open mind until someone comes up with some evidence.

 

[smithy]

Spot on it's the numbers, so let's consider some numbers:

Those 7 billion humans you mention, weigh on average, 70kg each. So that's 490 billion kg of human mass. Or 490,000,000 metric tonnes.

The Earth's mass is 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes.
Earth's atmosphere has a mass of 5,148,000,000,000,000 tonnes.

That means humans, despite taking hundreds of years to shake all their hands, make up only 0.000000000008% of our planet. We are insignificant beyond belief. Religion, especially the Climate Change religion will try to convince you otherwise, but really we are about as significant than one grain of sand on Fraser Island's Ninety Mile Beach.

smithy is accosted by an armed assailant one night who then demands money. The man, he astutely estimates, is about 70kg. Ergo he is being confronted by a mass of merely 1.2 x 10^-23 that of earth. He is calmed by this, then he realizes that his luck is even greater because the only thing that he really need pay attention to is the bullet in the gun that's pointing at his heart. It weighs in at a little under 10 grams - why that's only 1.7 x 10 -27 or 1.7 x 10 -25 %

It is clear now that there is no conceivable danger because the mass of the apparent threat is far too puny.

Before he realizes that he might be looking at things the wrong way he is struck by lightning which you would have thought would have been safe, being virtually massless - but no!!!

--
Yes, it's more of a parody than a parable but I'm sure you see the point.

Nice one

The difference between a bullet or lightning, and the climate is simple: we understand bullets and lightning: we can do tests in a lab that are repeatable with demonstrable results.

You can do none of that with the climate. It's vastly more complicated, with thousands of extra elements than a bit of medieval science that covers bullets and lightning involve.

With the climate, we have no hard evidence, we can't do any experiments, we can't model it, we don't really understand it, and the 'science' is subject to an huge amount of manipulation by politics.

Like the Loch-ness monster and the exitence of UFOs, I'm keeping an open mind until someone comes up with some evidence.

 

[smithy]

Spot on it's the numbers, so let's consider some numbers:

Those 7 billion humans you mention, weigh on average, 70kg each. So that's 490 billion kg of human mass. Or 490,000,000 metric tonnes.

The Earth's mass is 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes.
Earth's atmosphere has a mass of 5,148,000,000,000,000 tonnes.

That means humans, despite taking hundreds of years to shake all their hands, make up only 0.000000000008% of our planet. We are insignificant beyond belief. Religion, especially the Climate Change religion will try to convince you otherwise, but really we are about as significant than one grain of sand on Fraser Island's Ninety Mile Beach.

smithy is accosted by an armed assailant one night who then demands money. The man, he astutely estimates, is about 70kg. Ergo he is being confronted by a mass of merely 1.2 x 10^-23 that of earth. He is calmed by this, then he realizes that his luck is even greater because the only thing that he really need pay attention to is the bullet in the gun that's pointing at his heart. It weighs in at a little under 10 grams - why that's only 1.7 x 10 -27 or 1.7 x 10 -25 %

It is clear now that there is no conceivable danger because the mass of the apparent threat is far too puny.

Before he realizes that he might be looking at things the wrong way he is struck by lightning which you would have thought would have been safe, being virtually massless - but no!!!

--
Yes, it's more of a parody than a parable but I'm sure you see the point.

Nice one

The difference between a bullet or lightning, and the climate is simple: we understand bullets and lightning: we can do tests in a lab that are repeatable with demonstrable results.

You can do none of that with the climate. It's vastly more complicated, with thousands of extra elements than a bit of medieval science that covers bullets and lightning involve.

With the climate, we have no hard evidence, we can't do any experiments, we can't model it, we don't really understand it, and the 'science' is subject to an huge amount of manipulation by politics.

Like the Loch-ness monster and the exitence of UFOs, I'm keeping an open mind until someone comes up with some evidence.

 

[smithy]

Spot on it's the numbers, so let's consider some numbers:

Those 7 billion humans you mention, weigh on average, 70kg each. So that's 490 billion kg of human mass. Or 490,000,000 metric tonnes.

The Earth's mass is 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes.
Earth's atmosphere has a mass of 5,148,000,000,000,000 tonnes.

That means humans, despite taking hundreds of years to shake all their hands, make up only 0.000000000008% of our planet. We are insignificant beyond belief. Religion, especially the Climate Change religion will try to convince you otherwise, but really we are about as significant than one grain of sand on Fraser Island's Ninety Mile Beach.

smithy is accosted by an armed assailant one night who then demands money. The man, he astutely estimates, is about 70kg. Ergo he is being confronted by a mass of merely 1.2 x 10^-23 that of earth. He is calmed by this, then he realizes that his luck is even greater because the only thing that he really need pay attention to is the bullet in the gun that's pointing at his heart. It weighs in at a little under 10 grams - why that's only 1.7 x 10 -27 or 1.7 x 10 -25 %

It is clear now that there is no conceivable danger because the mass of the apparent threat is far too puny.

Before he realizes that he might be looking at things the wrong way he is struck by lightning which you would have thought would have been safe, being virtually massless - but no!!!

--
Yes, it's more of a parody than a parable but I'm sure you see the point.

Nice one

The difference between a bullet or lightning, and the climate is simple: we understand bullets and lightning: we can do tests in a lab that are repeatable with demonstrable results.

You can do none of that with the climate. It's vastly more complicated, with thousands of extra elements than a bit of medieval science that covers bullets and lightning involve.

With the climate, we have no hard evidence, we can't do any experiments, we can't model it, we don't really understand it, and the 'science' is subject to an huge amount of manipulation by politics.

Like the Loch-ness monster and the exitence of UFOs, I'm keeping an open mind until someone comes up with some evidence.

 

[smithy]

Spot on it's the numbers, so let's consider some numbers:

Those 7 billion humans you mention, weigh on average, 70kg each. So that's 490 billion kg of human mass. Or 490,000,000 metric tonnes.

The Earth's mass is 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes.
Earth's atmosphere has a mass of 5,148,000,000,000,000 tonnes.

That means humans, despite taking hundreds of years to shake all their hands, make up only 0.000000000008% of our planet. We are insignificant beyond belief. Religion, especially the Climate Change religion will try to convince you otherwise, but really we are about as significant than one grain of sand on Fraser Island's Ninety Mile Beach.

smithy is accosted by an armed assailant one night who then demands money. The man, he astutely estimates, is about 70kg. Ergo he is being confronted by a mass of merely 1.2 x 10^-23 that of earth. He is calmed by this, then he realizes that his luck is even greater because the only thing that he really need pay attention to is the bullet in the gun that's pointing at his heart. It weighs in at a little under 10 grams - why that's only 1.7 x 10 -27 or 1.7 x 10 -25 %

It is clear now that there is no conceivable danger because the mass of the apparent threat is far too puny.

Before he realizes that he might be looking at things the wrong way he is struck by lightning which you would have thought would have been safe, being virtually massless - but no!!!

--
Yes, it's more of a parody than a parable but I'm sure you see the point.

Nice one

The difference between a bullet or lightning, and the climate is simple: we understand bullets and lightning: we can do tests in a lab that are repeatable with demonstrable results.

You can do none of that with the climate. It's vastly more complicated, with thousands of extra elements than a bit of medieval science that covers bullets and lightning involve.

With the climate, we have no hard evidence, we can't do any experiments, we can't model it, we don't really understand it, and the 'science' is subject to an huge amount of manipulation by politics.

Like the Loch-ness monster and the exitence of UFOs, I'm keeping an open mind until someone comes up with some evidence.