I had no problem believing the DATA from modern science, It was always the interpretation of that DATA that I always disagreed with.
I have always thought the standard model was the zenith of science ignorance.

UNTIL all the academic/government DATA was exposed as RIGGED. When challenged, they conveniently lost the raw data. That confirms the fraud. And when we put the unadulterated data back in......the study arrives at a different conclusion.
The raw data of many studies is now missing. A study now days is an exercise in changing raw data to get the wanted result.

Academia and government pervert each other and enjoy it.
We don't get data and facts from academia or our government, we get grubering.

ALL of this organized deceit is funded with your money.
All of our schools have a political agenda now, comrade.

Does burning fossil fuel add to global climate change? Yes. Enough to matter? Not in a million years.

 

I think most of the AGW crowd would call me a skeptic, and mean it in a pejorative way. If not accepting a hypothesis without good data makes you a skeptic, then fine, I'm a skeptic. Merely challenging the data in support of the AGW hypothesis will get you labeled a skeptic, or worse. Sounds like "criminal" is what some would call it.

The AGW hypothesis is simple to describe, compelling because CO2 is undeniably rising, and always presented as super scary. (The worst case scenarios are always discussed and even exaggerated. The upsides get dismissed completely.) These features of a hypothesis make it a good one, but they don't make it right. Only the data can do that. So far I'm unimpressed with the data and VERY unimpressed with the behavior of some of the pseudo-scientists pushing an agenda other than science.

The most vocal proponents of the AGW hypothesis support it for political reasons and have admitted so. It was a policy that came out of the political world as a tool to "punish" developed countries in favor of the developing world. This was recognized as a valuable tool and huge amounts of money were poured into supporting the hypothesis, not evaluating it. Dissenting work was squelched and defunded. Data sets have been fudged. Every time you look, the past gets colder. The process has become junk science at a global scale.

 

I planted an oak tree last year...actually a squirrel planted it, but I like the location and put some protection around it. It was 4 inches tall.
As I mowed the lawn yesterday I realized that it was growing fast. It was at knee height, about 24 inches.
20 inches of growth in 6 months since Christmas. For an Oak!
They never grow that fast. CO2 is plant food.
What will floor the world (like Noah) is when the trillions of tons of methane hydrate ice on the ocean floor melts and enters the atmosphere. Methane is truly a greenhouse gas and not plant food.
But no worries right now. The suns face is blemish free currently and putting us in a cool down period.

 

Tell that to the residents of Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/us/resettling-the-first-american-climate-refugees.html?_r=0

Okay?

What about the billion plus people throughout history who have made mass migrations out of their ancestral homelands to escape climate shifts in their regions that brought about massive famines, droughts and other unfavorable long term weather changes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines

and

http://www.ranker.com/list/the-wors...5czXEw.5&utm_referrer=https://www.google.com/

and by the numbers alone.

https://ourworldindata.org/famines/


(BTW this is the how and why behind my ancestors imigrating to America. )

Or do they not count being they packed their own stuff up and paid their own way to leave Vs getting someone else's tax dollars to do it?

 

Tell that to the residents of Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/us/resettling-the-first-american-climate-refugees.html?_r=0

No is my answer to the OP question but this is the reason those people are moving,

For over a century, the American Indians on the island fished, hunted, trapped and farmed among the lush banana and pecan trees that once spread out for acres. But since 1955, more than 90 percent of the island’s original land mass has washed away. Channels cut by loggers and oil companies eroded much of the island, and decades of flood control efforts have kept once free-flowing rivers from replenishing the wetlands’ sediments. Some of the island was swept away by hurricanes.

What little remains will eventually be inundated as burning fossil fuels melt polar ice sheets and drive up sea levels, projected the National Climate Assessment, a report of 13 federal agencies that highlighted the Isle de Jean Charles and its tribal residents as among the nation’s most vulnerable.

 

I'm skeptical of anyone who thinks the rise in atmospheric CO2 and the rise in average global temperature in the last century is a coincidence.

 

I'm skeptical of your skepticism.

 

I'm skeptical of anyone who thinks the rise in atmospheric CO2 and the rise in average global temperature in the last century is a coincidence.

Me to. But then Al Gore sends me a check every month.
Siemens sends me another so I'll help them with their wind turbine sales.

 

Climate refugees ... Nice political theater.

There was no way other than "climate change" to account for the rising waters in the Gulf of Mexico. Part of the panhandle of Florida eroded away.

There was a Loran station at Cape San Blas Florida. Storm erosion caused a loss of 500 feet of beach between 1994 and 2013. I don't know how much was lost between 1980 and 1994.

How much of the land depicted was loss due to storms? What is the height of the land presently?

 

I'm skeptical of your skepticism.

How can one argue with that?

 

Then there is the problem of supposed sea level rise yet every picture found from over 100 years ago of any seaside stone outcroppings stone docks or retaining walls or other hard slow to erode structures when compared to present day photos shows absolutely no discernable change anywhere in the world that didn't have land subsidence events between then and now.

Such as here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/01/if-sea-level-was-rising-wouldnt-someone-have-noticed/

And that can be seen in many photos of famous sea ports and such all over the world where they have photos of the past compared to today.

 

If not for global warming most of north Americal would be under a mile or two of ice.

I don't have a problem with global warming.

 

If not for global warming most of north Americal would be under a mile or two of ice.

I don't have a problem with global warming.

No, but I think your children will.

 

Yes I'm a skeptic. Here is the Isle de Jean Charles from google earth.

Here is mother nature work at Chatham MA

I did a video screen capture for both of these today.

 

No, but I think your children will.

I doubt that. At present people live in regions that pass the 120+ F temperature every summer many times (some even pass 130+) and yet they are still alive.

I live at the mid point of the NA continent and we still spend half our year below freezing so do you really think we are going to complain about the local average temp going up by any amount? You could add 30 degrees F to every single day of the year here and we would still be below the peak temps of the hottest inhabited regions of the planet as they are now.

The thing is ~95% of the world's population lives on ~5% of the world's habitable land so it's not like there are no places they can pack their crap up and go to that are more than likely far more habitable than where they are now.

All of Northern Siberia and Northern North America have a poop ton of largely uninhabited land that's even at today 'blistering world temps' are for the most part 'still too friggin cold' to appeal to any percentage of the population.

As for building new cities, I see absolutely no reason it can't be done being none of our present large population centers existed as they do now 100 years ago let alone given the 200 - 300 year minimum time frame estimates for any of the worst case scenario rapid sea level and or temperature rises to reach a point of being worthy of any degree of marginal concern.

Heck at 15 feet of sea rise New York city will have at best a lower level area that lives similar to present Day New Orleans and New Orleans will have a similar dike systems as does the Netherlands now.

 

I doubt that. At present people live in regions that pass the 120+ F temperature every summer many times (some even pass 130+) and yet they are still alive.

I live at the mid point of the NA continent and we still spend half our year below freezing so do you really think we are going to complain about the local average temp going up by any amount? You could add 30 degrees F to every single day of the year here and we would still be below the peak temps of the hottest inhabited regions of the planet as they are now.

The thing is ~95% of the world's population lives on ~5% of the world's habitable land so it's not like there are no places they can pack their crap up and go to that are more than likely far more habitable than where they are now.

All of Northern Siberia and Northern North America have a poop ton of largely uninhabited land that's even at today 'blistering world temps' are for the most part 'still too friggin cold' to appeal to any percentage of the population.

As for building new cities, I see absolutely no reason it can't be done being none of our present large population centers existed as they do now 100 years ago let alone given the 200 - 300 year minimum time frame estimates for any of the worst case scenario rapid sea level and or temperature rises to reach a point of being worthy of any degree of marginal concern.

Heck at 15 feet of sea rise New York city will have at best a lower level area that lives similar to present Day New Orleans and New Orleans will have a similar dike systems as does the Netherlands now.

I guess in Miami it is coming backwards up the storm drains and the limestone.
No dike or levies for them. Of course they can just move up a floor in some of the most expensive real-estate in the world.
http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/blog/2014/10/03/sea-level-rise-in-miami/

 

Of course they can just move up a floor in some of the most expensive real-estate in the world.

Well, that basically what the lowest parts of Seattle Washington did about 125 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Underground

http://www.weirdus.com/states/washington/road_less_traveled/seattle_underground/index.php

 

Well, that basically what the lowest parts of Seattle Washington did about 125 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Underground

http://www.weirdus.com/states/washington/road_less_traveled/seattle_underground/index.php

From what little I've seen, that appears to be one of the approaches in Miami as well. I never knew that about Seattle.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/27/dem-party-platform-calls-for-prosecuting-global-warming-skeptics/

the liberals welcome any dissenting view, as long as it is consistent with theirs.

Pretty soon, no one can think outside of the liberal lines,

 

Yes I'm a skeptic. Here is the Isle de Jean Charles from google earth.

Here is mother nature work at Chatham MA

I did a video screen capture for both of these today.

Joe,
What am I looking for?