3 hours ago, LHookins said:

I was right, but I didn't know why I was right, so I started doing some research.

That's the key, to do your own research.  If one only gets their information from the mainstream fake media, "official" sources like NASA or NOAA, and magazines like Science or Nature, then he/she will never get the full story or opposing points of view vis-a-vis some important scientific matters, as those publications only disseminate the *scientific establishment* narrative.  Add to that the myriad of fake Youtube personalities, who are in reality paid propagandists who only promote a certain theory, and what you have is a massive disinformation machine which has managed to fool millions of people. 

Some people become so brainwashed that they literally cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality any longer and are ripe for more brainwashing.  That's the ultimate goal of the wealthy elites and power brokers behind all this nonsense.

Continue to do your own research.  There are many other websites with valuable insights and information from well-educated and knowledgeable folks that refute the mainstream claims.  It's just not all that easy to find them, but they are out there.  I have links to many of them.

Dave

The vast majority of sources are biased one way or another.  And when we do our research we tend to look for those that support our previous notions.  It is common for someone who disagrees with you on any subject to steer you to his or her sources that agree with them.

My question is, "How do you sort them out?"  

I hesitate to recommend any sources I know about because it will just start a few more agree/disagree replies.

I worked closely with a doctor of atmospheric research when I was a weather forecaster in the Colorado Air Guard.  He was the weather officer for 6th US Army HQ at the Presidio of San Francisco.  He was a reserve officer.  He worked at Lawrence Livermore Labs in California.  He had a doctorate in atmospheric sciences.  We became good friends and when I was sent to the Presidio on official business, or on vacation in California, I was his house guest.  We often discussed climate and atmospheric sciences.  I trusted and believed him so that is my bias.  I know what I know and I know what I believe but am not prepared to share that knowledge or those beliefs in any I'm right and you're wrong forum.

Noel

 

7 hours ago, LHookins said:

I believe the highest temperature ever recorded in Nuuk was 58 degrees

The wiki article says the highest temperature recorded in Nuuk was 26.3 °C (79.3 °F) on 6 July 2008.  Mean daily maximum is 11.1 °C (52.0 °F) in July.  I had gotten my numbers from a weather site, not wiki.  

Quote

The highest temperature ever recorded in Greenland is 30.1 °C (86.2 °F), according to Wikipedia. This temperature was measured on June 23, 1915, at Ivigtut. More recent records, like the one in 2013 at Maniitsoq, reached 25.9°C (78.6°F), according to The Washington Post. While the 1915 record is the highest, the 2013 reading is the highest since official records began in 1958. 

Wife's sister was right, but only for 1915. 😄 

Hook

4 hours ago, birdguy said:

My question is, "How do you sort them out?"

I admit that it's not easy.  I certainly don't trust every source I come across, but I'm especially distrustful of mainstream media and establishment outfits, usually govt.-affiliated and/or govt.-funded, that are primarily concerned with maintaining and increasing their funding and propagating an approved narrative instead of doing real science.

There are many, in the hundreds at least, of bona-fide scientists, to include meteorologists, climatologists, geologists, and physicists, who do not agree with the mainstream narrative.  It is not easy to find them as many have been ostracized and censored, or are afraid to speak out publicly for fear of being ridiculed and outcast, but they are out there.

The science and mathematics involved in trying to understand and forecast such a complex system is far beyond most folks' ability to grasp, so what I do is look at the actual proof.  All of the horrible things that were predicted to happen 20-30 years ago *within the next 10 to 20 years* have not happened.  If you relied on someone's predictions to guide your retirement investments, and all those predictions turned out to be false, would you continue to trust them?

Think about it.

Dave 

8 hours ago, dave2013 said:

so what I do is look at the actual proof. 

 

The scientific consensus is overwhelmingly clear: human activities are the primary driver of global warming. This conclusion is supported by a vast body of data and multiple lines of evidence:
1. Rising Greenhouse Gas Concentrations:
 * Direct Measurements: Since the 1950s, precise measurements of atmospheric CO2 from locations like Mauna Loa, Hawaii, show a steady and dramatic increase in concentration. Current levels are higher than anything seen in nearly a million years, significantly exceeding pre-industrial levels.
 * Ice Cores: Analysis of air bubbles trapped in ancient ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica provides a historical record of atmospheric composition. These cores show that concentrations of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO_2), methane (CH_4), and nitrous oxide (N_2O) have risen sharply since the Industrial Revolution, directly correlating with the increase in global temperatures.
 * Isotopic Analysis: The specific "fingerprint" of carbon in the atmosphere, through isotopic analysis, confirms that the increase in CO2 primarily comes from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), which release ancient carbon that was once stored underground.
2. Global Temperature Increase:
 * Instrumental Records: Global average surface temperatures have been meticulously recorded since the late 19th century, showing a clear warming trend. The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred in the past decade (2015-2024), and the rate of warming has accelerated significantly in recent decades.
 * Ocean Warming: The world's oceans have absorbed a significant portion of the excess heat from global warming, leading to increased sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content.
 * Melting Ice: Widespread melting of glaciers, ice sheets (Greenland and Antarctic), and Arctic sea ice provides strong visual and quantitative evidence of a warming planet. This melting contributes to sea level rise.
3. Observed Impacts Consistent with Warming:
 * Sea Level Rise: Global sea levels are rising due to thermal expansion of warming ocean water and the melting of glaciers and ice sheets. This is leading to increased coastal flooding and erosion.
 * Extreme Weather Events: There's an observed increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, including heatwaves, heavy rainfall, prolonged droughts, and more powerful storms and hurricanes. While no single event can be attributed solely to climate change, the overall pattern is consistent with a warming climate.
 * Ocean Acidification: The absorption of excess CO2 by the oceans is leading to ocean acidification, which threatens marine ecosystems.
4. Ruling out Natural Factors:
 * Solar Activity and Volcanic Eruptions: Scientists have carefully analyzed natural factors that influence climate, such as variations in solar activity and volcanic eruptions. While these factors can cause short-term temperature fluctuations, they cannot explain the sustained warming trend observed over the past century. In fact, natural forcings alone would have led to a slight cooling in recent decades.
5. Climate Models:
 * Simulations: Sophisticated climate models, based on fundamental laws of physics, can accurately reproduce observed climate changes only when human emissions of greenhouse gases are included. When models are run with only natural factors, they fail to replicate the observed warming.
6. Scientific Consensus:
 * Overwhelming Agreement: There is an overwhelming consensus among actively publishing climate scientists (over 99.9% of peer-reviewed studies) that human activities are the primary cause of the observed global warming. Major scientific organizations worldwide, including NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, and national academies of science, all affirm this conclusion.
In essence, the "data that tells us we are responsible for warming" comes from a convergence of evidence showing that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, are significantly increasing the concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, leading to an unprecedented and rapid rise in global temperatures and associated climate impacts.

 

 

Edited July 13, 2025Jul 13 by martin-w

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds - NASA

If CO2 emissions start dropping the reverse will happen less greening less FOOD. And mankind existence could be under threat.

9 hours ago, dave2013 said:

  All of the horrible things that were predicted to happen 20-30 years ago *within the next 10 to 20 years* have not happened. 

 

 What horrible things, within just 10 years,  and by whom? I know of no climatologist that has done that.

 

"There are many, in the hundreds at least, of bona-fide scientists, to include meteorologists, climatologists, geologists, and physicists, who do not agree with the mainstream narrative. "

 

Climatologists are the experts, not geologists and weather men. 

Did you bother to check who funds them?

 

Edited July 13, 2025Jul 13 by martin-w

Deleted in accordance with moderator wishes. Which everyone else is ignoring.

I suggest any further climate change debate is done by PM. 

 

 

Edited July 13, 2025Jul 13 by martin-w

Check how many big corporations fund climate change experts. forcing people and governments to buy tomorrows technology is big business.

3 minutes ago, G-RFRY said:

Check how many big corporations fund climate change experts. forcing people and governments to buy tomorrows technology is big business.

 

If you want a response I'm open to a PM. We've been told that Hangar might be shut down completely if we continue to ignore moderators. 

The search function will reveal that over the years I've addressed every climate change myth there is. 

Well you will push threads down a path that according to you your the only expert on the subject. Science is theory not fact when it`s a fact it`s no long Science.

8 minutes ago, G-RFRY said:

Well you will push threads down a path that according to you your the only expert on the subject. Science is theory not fact when it`s a fact it`s no long Science.

 

Im not an expert in climate science, nothing like it. I've just been arguing with deniers for literally decades. So have encountered the many myths countless times and had to evaluate if those myths had merit.

As for scientific theory... you may be getting mixed up with a layman's theory. A layman's theory is more like a scientific hypothesis. A scientific theory is closer to fact. Although nothing can be regarded as 100% definitive fact.

And no.... I don't push threads down the climate change path. Others instigate it first, I respond if I think they are wrong. 

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

There is an overwhelming consensus among actively publishing climate scientists (over 99.9% of peer-reviewed studies) that human activities are the primary cause of the observed global warming.

This is why I stopped discussion.  Do you believe that number is accurate?  Do you believe that number is reasonable?  Do you believe that number is even possible? 

I don't think you made the number up yourself.  It's quite believable that someone published it somewhere.  Probably even someone with valid credentials.  That's kinda how that community works.

I think we live in different universes. 

Hook

PS.  "Nine out of ten dentists recommend Ipana toothpaste.  'Tastes good, too!'"

Edited July 13, 2025Jul 13 by LHookins

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

Others instigate it first, I respond if I think they are wrong. 

"Come to bed, Dear.  It's getting late."

"I CAN'T!  Someone on the Internet is wrong!!"

(Caption on a comic)

Hook

On 7/11/2025 at 1:56 AM, martin-w said:

Its this 1,280 humans left that suprised me. Why not 1000 or 1,500 or 2000? Quite how they can be that specific alludes me.

"There were between 1000 and 1500 individuals remaining."

"So, 1275?"

"Um... that sounds too specific."

"OK, how about 1280?  Is that better?"

Hook