On Apr 16, 2021 at 5:28:10 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote

What matters is the evidence with science, not individuals.

Correct: though the experts will generally side with the evidence (if
they did not they would not be the experts!)

Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with the
recent less than predicted rate of world temperature change.

Do you mean the hand picked specific areas where it was less even as the
world beat the predictions?

Nope, the world as a whole didnt beat predictions.

Would love to see the peer reviewed research you are referring to. Usually
when I hear people speak of this type stuff they mean this debunked info:

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/n...-isnt-cooling/

But happy to see what you have.

At this point there is no internationally recognized scientific group
that still denies the evidence.

Science isnt about voting. At one time the vast majority of scientists
denied free radicals but then the evidence showed that they are real.

If the evidence showed it then over time the view of most scientists
likely changed. It is not like our knowledge does not grow.

And thats just as true of purported man made climate change.

Yes, we keep leaning more.

And we are finding that we cant predict what the world climate will do.

Not with exact specificity but we have very good models.


https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/s...ections-right/

Where are you hearing otherwise?



Its obvious that climate does change, thats obvious from the ice ages
etc, but its much less clear how much of the change we have seen is man
made.

The models show it to be between about 95% and 105% if I recall correctly.

Thats bull**** and the models clearly dont predict what actually
happened, so the models are clearly a long way from being useful.

Again: source?

This says 110%... but I have seen a few percent above and below:


https://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-judith-curry/

So, yes, there is some disagreement.

And they are hopeless at predicting what will happen. .

The evidence says otherwise.

It wasnt that long ago that most scientists were hyperventilating about
global cooling.

"Never" was neither long ago nor not long ago. It did not happen.

Bull****. Same with the mindless hyperventilation about world population.

Of course you have a source, right?

Most times people refer to a single Times story... and it was not even
accurate.


https://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/cr...h-and-galileo/

Yes, we can certainly measure a substantial hike in atmospheric
CO2 levels, but its much less clear how much effect that actually
has on world temperatures, let alone climate change.

We can quibble over exact amounts but there is no question it accounts for
a huge percentage of the warming we see.

Thats mindless bull**** too. We havent in fact seen anything
even remotely like the same effect on world climate as we
have measured in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Again: source?

And its even less clear whether lots more 'renewable' energy
will make any useful difference to world climate or whether
it makes much more sense to have lots more nukes and
dramatically reduce the addition to world CO2 levels and
stop wasting fossil fuels on power generation now that it
is clear that we are consuming them at a far greater rate
than they are being laid down.

Solar is not perfect but it is a lot less harmful.

Nukes arent harmful.

I assume you mean nuclear power. It is an option -- but we do not have a good
way to deal with the fallout. I mean the spent rods. The current plan of
burying them in the most seismically active mountain range is pretty daft. And
look at Russia and Japan for the issues it can cause.

But it is true no solution is without risk. Even solar has risks with the
building.

And solar ****s power distribution
and isnt useful at higher latitudes and is ****ed in the
sense that its only useful for part of the day even at the
lower latitudes.

That is complete and utter nonsense. Look at Germany.

Please try to use evidence.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.