If the sun has a period of greater intensity, what do the science denying Climate Cultists propose we do to combat it?

mundus

Duke status
Feb 26, 2018
36,724
15,942
113
30 years of following the politics of the issue closely. A healthy dose of skepticism and a boatload of common sense.

What are yours?
A shred of scientific literacy, admit it you got all the talking points on the issue from Limbaugh. You do realize the fossil fuel industry admitted it was causing climate change in the 70s?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hump and hal9000

GromsDad

Duke status
Jan 21, 2014
54,153
16,170
113
West of the Atlantic. East of the ICW.
try following a few hundred years of the science of the issue.
Science can't even tell us with any degree of accuracy what the earth's climate was 50 years ago let alone 100, 1,000, or 100,000 years ago let alone make any credible claims of cause and effect on a global scale of the earth's climate. Its nothing more than a theory......and a pretty flimsy one at that.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Hump

hal9000

Duke status
Jan 30, 2016
55,665
16,359
113
Urbana, Illinois
Science can't even tell us with any degree of accuracy what the earth's climate was 50 years ago let alone 100, 1,000, or 100,000 years ago let alone make any credible claims of cause and effect on a global scale of the earth's climate. Its nothing more than a theory......and a pretty flimsy one at that.
you’re incorrect on multiple levels.
 

mundus

Duke status
Feb 26, 2018
36,724
15,942
113
I know that there is no scratching the surface of your cult like fervent religious belief in what you've been brainwashed into believing about the climate. I'm an infidel in your eyes for even daring to question your magical thinking.
The perfect illustration of Dunning-Kruger
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hump

Mr Doof

Duke status
Jan 23, 2002
24,860
7,755
113
San Francisco, CA
Science can't even tell us with any degree of accuracy what the earth's climate was 50 years ago let alone 100, 1,000, or 100,000 years ago let alone make any credible claims of cause and effect on a global scale of the earth's climate. Its nothing more than a theory......and a pretty flimsy one at that.
I do not understand this claim.

Science probably can tell you what the climate was like for a period of time, maybe not just for a particular date in the past 50 to 100 years but we absolutely have weather records that do. (I don't know if I would say that recording weather is "science"; a better term might be 'recording observations'.) Why would these records be inaccurate?

Different disciplines of science certainly can tell you what the climate was like 1,000 and 100,000 yrs ago.
Lake and climate

Rocks and climate

Tree rings and climate
Ice/glacier cores and climate

Volcanic eruptions and climate

Galactic position of Earth and climate

The biggest problem the science world has about proving if humankind is or isn't the driver for climate change (from C02 emissions) is we won't have another planet to do experiments with.

In lieu of that option, we do our best with simulations that should be based on what we have been able to discern from a wide variety of research studies.

And yes, simulations can be crap. Which is why peer reviewed science is presently the best option. These science folk are a lot more competitive than people think....I mean, who wouldn't want to crush Einstein into the ground and have their name up in lights by proving E doesn't equal MC^2? Peer review gets the egos involved to better pick out the flaws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: afoaf

GromsDad

Duke status
Jan 21, 2014
54,153
16,170
113
West of the Atlantic. East of the ICW.
Different disciplines of science certainly can tell you what the climate was like 1,000 and 100,000 yrs ago.
Not to any real degree of accuracy.....only in generalities........certainly not in 10ths and hundredths of a degree to the extent they are using to make claims that we are all going to fry or drown under the sea in 20, 30, 50 years.......... Its all theory and guess work and models but that is certainly not how it is presented to the public.
 
  • Haha
  • Dislike
Reactions: afoaf and Hump

mundus

Duke status
Feb 26, 2018
36,724
15,942
113
Not to any real degree of accuracy.....only in generalities........certainly not in 10ths and hundredths of a degree to the extent they are using to make claims that we are all going to fry or drown under the sea in 20, 30, 50 years.......... Its all theory and guess work and models but that is certainly not how it is presented to the public.
Learn this listening to talk radio?
 

Surfdog

Duke status
Apr 22, 2001
21,768
1,988
113
South coast OR


Back in 1990, this linear trend was supposed to spike up off this chart by 2020 according to many in the AGW hype industry (2-3 feet for the metric challenged).

Now they're doubling down on 1-3 feet by 2030, and 3-6 feet by 2050. Some predict much, much worse.

Whatever it takes to spook the uninformed sheep of AlGreta and the Green Church of the Most High Prophet.

BTW, this chart shows a massive increase of sea level since 1990 of.....wait for it......

Less than 2 inches (as of today, due to cooler, thermal contracting La Nina conditions).

STILL, an un-interrupted trend of about 6-8 inches per 100 years. Same as we've seen for many 100's of years (if not 1000's since last Ice Age).

But don't worry, We'll keep praying for the hockey stick spike we've been promised the last 35+ years to prove the cultist right.



Keep the faith.

Just Believe.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Hump