all 7 comments

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[–]platonic1 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Lack of evidence is evidence.

Large international bodies like the IPCC can't be wrong. To say so is like claiming the WHO is lying about the COVID pandemic. And to claim that is to be a conspiracy theorist, aka poopyhead.

[–]dickring 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

WHERE THE FUCK DID YOU LEARN THAT LACK OF EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE?

DID YOU ATTEND THE UNIVERSITY OF DUMB FUCK?

[–]platonic1 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I HAVE FAITH IN SCIENCE, WHICH TODAY CONSIST OF BLINDLY FOLLOWING EXPERTS.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Buddy if you think the IPCC can do no wrong, you missed a few lines in the story.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

These cycles are well known. They aren't being naive, just willfully ignorant. Everyone knows 100 or even 1000 years is a blip of noise on the scale of global temperature. That is why records are always framed carefully, when talking of climate fear rationalized market manipulation.

Everyone knows the last ice age just ended around 16K years ago, with a cycle of about 10K years. So if you frame it at 10K years, it looks like 'OMG global warming'...but frame out to 12 - 16K years and it looks like 'oh, normal long term cycle.'

These fraudsters will talk of melting glaciers being the fault of humans, when pushing some pay-to-pollute regulatory capture scheme, like "carbon tax." Yet they know the Earth was mostly without ice, even at its poles, for most of its history. No ice glaciers on Earth is the norm, while the existence of polar glaciers is the temporary exception to the norm, which we call "ice ages." There are well known 100K, 41K, and 21K cycles involved in this forming of and receding of glacial epochs and inter-glacial periods.

We know we are in an oddly cold period of climate, in the perspective of humankind's Holocene period. We've got a pretty reasonable history of glacial melting and freezing, along with knowledge of several layers of natural cycles that cause them; we should expect lots of melting naturally. You can see how these swing wider and wider over time. Right now, we seem right on mark for some continued, non-human, climate warming.

We also understand the Milankovitch cycles, with their contribution to the "100,000-year problem". This is the observed 100K year temperature cycle predicting massive warming right now.

All science points to this being the normal cycle, not human caused. Only by ignoring most data, for a small amount of framed data, can one attribute warming to humans.

They aren't a cabal of manipulators; scientists are humans. They fall for propaganda, group think, and cave to peer pressure. They understand they will lose their job or funding, and be shunned, slandered, and canceled, if they don't follow the crowd.

What's wrong with rejecting science for a political/corporate narrative, if it mostly urges people to be more environmentally conscious? How much could one more "noble lie" really hurt? How could a few misleading Wikipedia notes hurt? Anyone worthy of knowing the detailed truth and intellectually capable of weighing it without coming to incorrect conclusions (ie not mine), will be able to see past them, since the contradicting data is right there.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

All I know is areas that aren't usually getting hot weather have gotten it more such as the coastline usually is fogged in most of the summer but they have had a lot less 'fog' days (which may be more part of the warming of the oceans then actual climate) and every time just about we are forecasted to get rain or a decent sized storm the mysterious 'squiggly' lines appear across the sky and the storm vanishes from sight. We usually only get 10 percent of whatever rainfall is forecasted. IE: If the GFS model output shows 1-3 inches of rain on week 2 you can pretty much bet we will get only a quarter inch out of it from chem clouds.

I'm sure this goes way beyond your tiny heads though as everything in your mind is 'Media says this so it must be a lie!' and you probably assume I'm a liberal so keep your assumptions to yourself please! I am tired of this shit just because I don't go with the mantra.