Climate Change

[SpontaneousOrder]

You can't watch or listen to anything these days without hearing the words "as a result of climate change....".

Without getting into the whole argument about the causes of climate change what exactly is climate change?

Are natural oscillations in the world's weather patterns climate change? Or is climate change an observable change in the world's weather that can't be attributed to any natural phenomena?

Because if it's the latter, this cannot be statistically proven until the mean global temperature has risen by an amount that can't be explained by random factors alone and ISTR this rise was 1.5 degrees c and we are not there yet.

So, is talking about "climate change" as an absolute given fact bad science / shoddy journalism?

I can't even listen to the RHS podcasts anyomre without somebody sounding like Jo Brand lecturing me about "Climate Change" and I've had enough, to be frank.

If the science was proven, then the model (i.e. the one that works out of the dozens that are used and selectively chosen from) would work backwards. And if someone says that it can't work backwards for long because random chaotic events have happened in the past which the model doesn't account for, then one could just as easily say that the model going forwards is just modelling a random chaotic event that happened in the recent past.

That aside, all you need to do to smash 90% of the credence given to the 'climate change' (warming or cooling or stormy are all too specific to be nailed to the wall) is to read the papers cited by nasa (whom everyone else uses as an authority) regarding the 97% consensus. Nasa claim the papers support a position the papers themselves make no claim to. And the papers themselves are largely bollocks which only make any sense if you acknowledge that a fart constitutes contribution to anthropogenic warming, and indulge in tautological question-begging.

Q) Lets study whether papers think GW is man made.
A) The papers say climate is changing, and we all already know that any warming must be made. Therefore the papers imply that GW is man made.

[DodgyAgent]

Had to laugh when TATA mentioned high energy prices as one of the reasons for getting shot of their steelworks & the resident idiot in the DEC trying to squirm out of answering the questions
De-industrialise the UK by all means , but we'll be driving around in horse & carts

Indeed, but had they factored in that Horse farts cause climate change too?

[Troll]

How is Britain going green? By shutting down industry » The Spectator

Had to laugh when TATA mentioned high energy prices as one of the reasons for getting shot of their steelworks & the resident idiot in the DEC trying to squirm out of answering the questions
De-industrialise the UK by all means , but we'll be driving around in horse & carts

[DodgyAgent]

But James Burke never used to go on about it on his Connections series

Climate change is a project to ethnically cleanse the population of white working class people

How is Britain going green? By shutting down industry » The Spectator

[Troll]

this cannot be statistically proven.

Statistics can be manipulated
Statisticians are clueless fookwits making a living out of doing something similar to Astrology

Put the two together with a political agenda and you have "Climate change"

HTH

[Martin Scroatman]

The climate is always changing

But James Burke never used to go on about it on his Connections series

[DodgyAgent]

The climate is always changing

[Churchill]

Subliminal brainwashing, similar to the blurring of the lines between avoidance and evasion...

[Martin Scroatman]

You can't watch or listen to anything these days without hearing the words "as a result of climate change....".

Without getting into the whole argument about the causes of climate change what exactly is climate change?

Are natural oscillations in the world's weather patterns climate change? Or is climate change an observable change in the world's weather that can't be attributed to any natural phenomena?

Because if it's the latter, this cannot be statistically proven until the mean global temperature has risen by an amount that can't be explained by random factors alone and ISTR this rise was 1.5 degrees c and we are not there yet.

So, is talking about "climate change" as an absolute given fact bad science / shoddy journalism?

I can't even listen to the RHS podcasts anyomre without somebody sounding like Jo Brand lecturing me about "Climate Change" and I've had enough, to be frank.