[/QUOTE] Although after the nth number of experiments with the SAME outcome you can expect that the next experiment will follow the pattern
And I also laugh because they refuse to consider any possible cause other than humans. Meanwhile, being a life long "geology nut", I have been tracking something else for decades. Specifically, the rise in vulcanism. Does this chart look familiar at all if one removes from the equation what it is tracking? https://volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?question=historicalactivity I bring this up because I have lately been tracking more volcanoes than ever. The Yellowstone hot spot is showing increased activity, Hawaii is going through the largest eruptions in recorded history, Iwo Jima is bulging like crazy and has had several eruptions in the last decade, and four volcanos in Alaska are erupting at this time. In addition to the evacuations going on in Iceland, Mount Etna erupting again, and the Long Valley Caldera in California appearing to be waking up yet again. But when people have all of this data available and simply reject every single thing other than one, that is not the "scientific method". That is manipulating data to fit a model they want to believe is true.
Hey! The use of the “tobacco industry playbook” by companies like Exxon is a well documented fact https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/13/business/exxon-climate-change-harvard/index.html https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...usg=AOvVaw2FVvKPvRQEncZU8oRN03lv&opi=89978449
Have you published your findings? Have you submitted this to the IPCC? Oh! And BTW just to worry you more increased volcanism can be caused by climate change https://www.livescience.com/25936-climate-change-causes-volcanism.html https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00445-022-01562-8 though I am surprised you did not discover this yourself with a literature review
An increase in volcanic activity caused by a few tenths of a degree celsius? ssssssuuuuuuurrrrrreeeeeee
Not to mention, the age old question of the chicken or the egg. Does the increased vulcanism cause temperatures to rise, or do the rising temperatures cause vulcanism? Of course, then you have another even more simply explanation. How much of the "increase" is not even real in the first place? It is simply that we are now aware of them, where even one or two hundred years ago such events would not have been noticed at all by anybody? Iwo Jima is a perfect example. It has been an active volcano for well over 2,000 years. And even though it was discovered in the 16th century, it was never inhabited until the 20th century when the main purpose was to extract sulfur (Iwo Jima literally means "sulfur island). And we now know of at least 13 eruptions on the island since WWII. So, are the number of eruptions really increasing, or are we simply more aware of them now? This is the problem with the non-scientific people who simply refuse to accept anything that does not follow their beliefs. Their inability to think logically is something I always find frustrating, especially as they are normally the ones screaming about others not being "scientific". Hence, the extreme irony of this very thread. Oh, and I particularly find it funny when they do not even bother to read their cherry picked references. https://www.livescience.com/25936-climate-change-causes-volcanism.html So what, were humans causing these changes over the last million years? What in the frack does this million year long trend have to do with the huge spike in the last century? This is what I mean by the ultimate in being a denier of science. The very fact that their references do not actually confirm what they are claiming is what I find amazingly hilarious. The article is talking about the impact of long term glaciation and then the end of it, over periods of tens of thousands of years. Not what has happened in the last century. Yet, I guess that is what some want us to believe, because to them everything is because of humans. In fact, if looking at it in a period of a million years, I would actually more start to consider the simple accumulation and elimination of over forty billion tons repeatedly might very well be much more of a cause than simply the latest in a series of such events.
No, because we have seen that they can "find" whatever they are paid to find and journal editors are told to publish. Decisions need to be made on the basis of logical and defensible analysis. That would not include anti-fossil-fuel hysteria. Bingo. But you will find there are a lot more screamers on the anti-fossil-fuel hysteria side, and their screaming is a lot less rational. They are the ones claiming, absurdly, that continued use of fossil fuels will extinguish the human species.
Sigh - where is your literature search? Volcanism is NOT “completely ignored” as anyone doing a 10 second search on google scholar would discover and NO I am not blaming increased volcanism on humans but on the fact that melting ice and rising sea levels will alter pressure on the planet. This rise in volcanism has been seen before with the end of ice ages. IF you had been “studying it” you would have performed at least a cursory literature search https://scholar.google.com.au/schol...d+by+climate+change&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1 Oooh! Lookee! Research papers showing that the eruption of the Tongan volcano impacting the global temperature https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13351-022-2013-6 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-022-2034-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01568-2 https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2301994120 Still think scientists are ignoring volcanoes?
https://www.climate-change-guide.com/facts-on-climate-change.html And Yep! I am aware of volcanisms impact and previous role in climate change that is because I have done a LITERATURE REVIEW I
There is no scam, only your evasion. NTZ of course gets criticized by defenders of climate orthodoxy. Regardless, they can't change the fact that NTZ cites peer-reviewed research and links the entire paper so readers can judge for themselves. Ironic that the "climate science denier" in this thread turns out to be the thread's author.
Glaciers. It's not "religion" to give the most weight to the most accurate and reliable data we have on a subject. No, I know that CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, and when multiple sites show similar numbers with similar variations over time, it's extremely unlikely to be due to local effects like volcanic emissions.
But somehow neglect to identify them...? Suuuure you have.... Speaking of scams, there is a difference between "attacked" and "discredited."
Absurdly and disingenuously calling climate realists "deniers" is what anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers agree on.
Anti-fossil-fuel scaremongers -- not climatologists worthy of the name -- have contrived ways to factor the sun out, such as by refusing to use or even consider any index of solar activity other than TSI, because they know in advance that it does not vary enough to have any substantial effect on the earth's surface temperature. Anti-fossil-fuel scaremongers -- not the scientific community -- have tried to stop anyone from noticing the big ball of plasma (not gas) in the sky.
Have you ever considered the possibility that you are the one being played by the fossil fuel industry? Are you both intelligent enough to understand an economic argument and honest enough to consider its implications? The elasticity of both supply and demand for fossil fuels is quite low. That means that cet. par., a small change in quantity either demanded or supplied results in a large change in price. I.e., if supply is reduced by even a small amount, fossil fuel companies can make much larger profits while producing less product. As it happens, it is much easier politically to control the supply of fossil fuels than the demand for them. So what do we see? Policies demanded by anti-fossil-fuel scaremongers that restrict production of fossil fuels, causing large increases in prices and huge increases in fossil fuel companies' profits. Coincidence...?
Find the last time I quoted FOX. I dare you. Ironic you'd question MY citing of "conspiracy websites" while you continually do so.
until you're looking at the University of keyhole and thinking you have the entire picture. it is to jump to crazy conclusions based on the tiniest little sliver of data. again you're looking at the universe through keyhole and thinking you have the entire picture no you don't.
And the contradictory claims. Like most, going on and on about doom and gloom. Then when challenged about vulcanism suddenly crapping out an article that blames an eruption for a temperature rise of 1.5c. Now tell me, are the "climate experts" they cite over and over taking that into account, and actually attributing things to anything other than humans? No, of course not. This is what I mean by ultimately unscientific. They cherry pick bits and pieces to try and fit their narrative, and I laugh as it is simply a disjointed bowl of pasta, or contradictory. And they don't have the ability in logic apparently to realize that they are simply proving my point. And no matter what kind of events happen, nothing seems to affect the climate other than humans. And of course the largest offender is the US, even though China craps out over twice the amount of "greenhouse gasses" than the US does. But they get a free pass for... reasons. And also, they never seem to want to discuss doing actual things that would help stop the rise. Like actual reforestation projects and other natural methods that have worked countless times through the history of the planet. Instead they want to chase stupid bullcrap "solutions" that are pointless. Want to really stop the rise of greenhouse gasses? The answer is quite simple, put a bullet in the head of about 2/3 of the human population. Anything else is nothing but mental masturbation and people trying to impress everybody with their bullcrap virtue.
