Climate change ?

[chrsplmr]

I don't see it.

[Zygomorphic]

Global warming (now called climate change), is pushed by the media and politicians, with actually very little scientific background for it. The problem with the temperature diagram is "How do you define normal?". If we had accurate temperature readings from 1200 AD till now, and only now the cycle warmed up, then yes, that might be logical. However, we really don't, and if we take some of the writings from the 1200s, it appears that it was abnormally cold then. Notice the scale on the plot. it's got a total dynamic range of 1degree C.

[Zka17]

The climate is absolutely changing constantly! We/humans maybe can influence it in some extent, but we won't really be able to change it's "change"…

But what's wrong with the climate changing?! We're going to adapt to it anyway… or not...

[Antronman]

Long-term climate change has been happening for a long time. To say that this "global-warming" bs is happening, and because of all the smog coming out of China and the U.S. (Alright, just China. Not to be racist but have any of you ever seen photos of Bejing? They have televisions there that show the sunrise. It's that bad.)

[chrsplmr]

As I thought. ... Normal. .c.

[Myk_SilentShado]

lol you always have ROG toys to play with Viz 😛

And i'd have to say, in my State in Aus, the weather is really weird. it's Summer right now, we're nearly 2/3 of the way through it, yet, where I live it's barely been hot. Sure there have been some hot days, but in total...we've had like 1 week of hot weather and right now, it's 18 outside and raining quite hard. Though next Monday it's a forecast 35 Degrees, 38 for Tuesday and 34 and wet on Thursday lol.

[Mandangalo18]

We actually have a pretty good idea of what temps were 1200 years ago, in fact there's a whole field of science dedicated to the investigation of it: paleoclimatology. We can get a good idea of ancient temps from reading ice cores and dendrochronology.
Asking what is defined as "normal" doesn't really have anything to do with climate science, it's generally just a measure of change, without a normative assumption. The change in temps that we are seeing right now is unprecedented in its speed given similar conditions.
Global warming models are still just as valid now as they were in the 30's. It has not been falsified. Whether or not convention calls it global warming is irrelevant, the alarm is referring to the same thing.

And the consensus is indeed that global warming is anthropogenic, there's even a peer-reviewed meta-study (the most rigorous kind of study) that studies a volume of the peer-reviewed literature that comes to this conclusion. It makes me scratch my head when someone says that there is no meaningful consensus, given all the evidence of consensus. The National Academy of Science accepts anthropogenic global warming, as does nearly every peer-reviewed climatology paper that's been accepted for publication, and nearly every meteorological and climatology organization. The verdict is in the peer-reviewed literature, there is a 97% consensus.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782
http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

And it's certainly true that you wouldn't trust research on broccoli paid for by broccoli farmers, and that's why empirical methodology has rigorous built-in systems to exclude any kind of financial or emotional bias; it's kept out by definition at the most fundamental level. It's quite simply just how scientific research works.

[DooRules]

Glad none of you guys actually make policy that's for sure.

[Arne_Saknussemm]

There was a 99.99% consensus that the earth was flat once too...sustained by the same kind of dogma. Didn't make it science, didn't make it true. When politicians put money and jobs behind showing what they want to show this is not science either. Lots of pretty paid for graphs aren't science...and shouting down disent is not science either.

[X-ROG]

Arne Saknussemm wrote:
There was a 99.99% consensus that the earth was flat once too...sustained by the same kind of dogma. Didn't make it science, didn't make it true. When politicians put money and jobs behind showing what they want to show this is not science either. Lots of pretty paid for graphs aren't science...and shouting down disent is not science either.

It was scientists that said it wasn't. That's why it was called the Dark Ages when they were persecuted. Peer reviewed journals and modern technology are somewhat different than looking out and going 'yep, it's flat'.

Also todays' XKCD is great:

[Arne_Saknussemm]

MarshallR@ASUS wrote:
It was scientists that said it wasn't.

That is exactly my point 😉

lots of mediocre minds living comfortably sustaining the party line...but in its real definition of the word that is not science. There are scientists and scientists and universities and universities. It is only a certain political bent that tries to claim all scientists are of equal merit or academic standing or their work is equally valid. This politics is what promotes the UEA for example.Take a look at the list of the "worlds top 2000 scientists" sometime.

There is a raging ball of fusing elements 96000000 miles away from us; even from this distance it has the power to burn the very skin off your body. It drives almost all life on the planet. Personally I would look there for the root cause of temperature changes.
The interior of this planet is a molten mass of rock and iron and a poorly understood system. we float above this on a thin crust! I would look there too.
I would not look at the tiny percentage of a naturally occurring gas, essential to life, that is produced by humans in a year. Even were I to look at this gas I would look at the huge proportion of it produced by nature.
There are many far more serious pollution problems and population problems on the planet that are receiving no attention at all and that pose a far greater problem for the planet and our species.