Extreme global weather is 'the face of climate change' says leading scientist

[chuckChuck]

Chuck, could you please address this issue of labelling myself as a denier? What is it that you think I am denying?

You seem to accept that the climate change is occurring but you do not seem to believe that humans have any impact on climate change. Is that correct?

[jazz]

You seem to accept that the climate change is occurring but you do not seem to believe that humans have any impact on climate change. Is that correct?

The earth has warmed and cooled on its own many times in the past. Humans have put carbon into the atmosphere, that is not debatable. But what is debatable is whether that has contributed at all to any observations nor has it been established that its a catastrophe in the making. The lack of apocalyptic events over the past years show the flaws in the models and that there are crucial variables not being properly considered.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

You seem to accept that the climate change is occurring but you do not seem to believe that humans have any impact on climate change. Is that correct?

I will take the bait. It would be preposterous to claim that humans are not having any effect on climate or weather. We have been releasing particulate emissions into the atmosphere for centuries, Creating Smog which affects sunlight distribution, The pollution particlulates affect precipitation formation and patterns, And when that pollution lands on a white surface like snow, it affects the absorption of sunlight. We have been damming rivers, creating reservoirs, drying up lakes and rivers, all of which affect precipitation and weather. We are growing millions of acres of respirating crops, Where there used to be grassland or deserts, Proven to affect precipitation and temperatures faraway. We prevent naturally occuring forest fires, Which create their own weather. We've created urban heat islands with far ranging effects. We have increased beneficial CO2, Which has caused the earth to green, All of that increased photosynthesis is affecting weather patterns. We perform cloud seeding . We have cause desertification. The list goes on and on, all of these things affect the weather, Over the long-term weather is climate. Some beneficial some detrimental, Some yet to be determined.

But if you are referring to the cyclical warming which has been occurring since the depth of the little ice age(which doesn't exist according to Micheal Mann), There is no definitive evidence that humans have been a significant contributor To this beneficial period of warming. Is that what makes me a denier? Humanity was well on our way to solving most of the very real pollution and environmental problems when we got sidetracked by the carbon dioxide as a pollutant issue.

[mustardman]

The earth has warmed and cooled on its own many times in the past. Humans have put carbon into the atmosphere, that is not debatable. But what is debatable is whether that has contributed at all to any observations nor has it been established that its a catastrophe in the making. The lack of apocalyptic events over the past years show the flaws in the models and that there are crucial variables not being properly considered.

No apocalyptic events!! Seriously dude you should turn on your radio

[AlbertaFarmer5]

No apocalyptic events!! Seriously dude you should turn on your radio

Please provide even one unprecedented apocalyptical event.

[chuckChuck]

I will take the bait. It would be preposterous to claim that humans are not having any effect on climate or weather. We have been releasing particulate emissions into the atmosphere for centuries, Creating Smog which affects sunlight distribution, The pollution particlulates affect precipitation formation and patterns, And when that pollution lands on a white surface like snow, it affects the absorption of sunlight. We have been damming rivers, creating reservoirs, drying up lakes and rivers, all of which affect precipitation and weather. We are growing millions of acres of respirating crops, Where there used to be grassland or deserts, Proven to affect precipitation and temperatures faraway. We prevent naturally occuring forest fires, Which create their own weather. We've created urban heat islands with far ranging effects. We have increased beneficial CO2, Which has caused the earth to green, All of that increased photosynthesis is affecting weather patterns. We perform cloud seeding . We have cause desertification. The list goes on and on, all of these things affect the weather, Over the long-term weather is climate. Some beneficial some detrimental, Some yet to be determined.

But if you are referring to the cyclical warming which has been occurring since the depth of the little ice age(which doesn't exist according to Micheal Mann), There is no definitive evidence that humans have been a significant contributor To this beneficial period of warming. Is that what makes me a denier? Humanity was well on our way to solving most of the very real pollution and environmental problems when we got sidetracked by the carbon dioxide as a pollutant issue.

So you don't believe that the greenhouse gases of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxides are contributing to global temperature increases? Do you accept that carbon dioxide levels are over 400 ppm?

[Oliver88]

Please provide even one unprecedented apocalyptical event.

You might have to let him know what the definition of an “apocalyptical event” is first.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So you don't believe that the greenhouse gases of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxides are contributing to global temperature increases? Do you accept that carbon dioxide levels are over 400 ppm?

How many more times do you need me to acknowledge that the beneficial gas, CO2, has increased due to human activities. 400 ppm is a quantifiable, and verifiable measure of the average CO2 ( it is not constant in either time or place) in the atmosphere today. Unlike the unprovable and largely discredited hypothesis that increased CO2 will correlate with, let alone cause increased temperatures, on any statistically significant scale. I do however keep an open mind to the possibility, should the evidence change, I am not so dogmatic about a belief that changing circumstances would not affect my views. Which is a notable difference between realists /unbiased professionals, and alarmists.
Much of the evidence indicates that the world should be entering a cooling phase imminently, which should last for decades, if tthat fails to materialize, I will be forced to reevaluate. And please don't contort my words, I am not predicting a return to the ice ages, just a continuation of the cyclical temperatures such as we saw as recently as the 70's.
What is your line in the sand, that would cause you to reconsider your beliefs( your word, not mine, I don't believe in anything, I leave that to warmists and other religious fanatics).

[AlbertaFarmer5]

You might have to let him know what the definition of an “apocalyptical event” is first.

I'd settle for unprecedented in a negative way.

[jazz]

You might have to let him know what the definition of an “apocalyptical event” is first.

Mass people killed or displaced due to an single climate event.

The forest fires in the US hardly qualify.

The global warmers stated heat waves that would kill hundreds of thousands, massive drought where millions would starve, ice sheets breaking off and causing tsunamis, massive sea level rise, entire coastline reclaimed by the ocean overnight, instant melting of mountain glaciers, more invasive species taking over ecosystems, mass wildlife and fauna extinction, desertification of major ag prodcing areas, more killer tornadoes and hurricanes, etc etc.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So you don't believe that the greenhouse gases of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxides are contributing to global temperature increases? Do you accept that carbon dioxide levels are over 400 ppm?

So, as usual, you refuse to acknowledge a response to your post. I left a detailed and direct response to both parts of your question, and posed another question, to which I also listed my own response. And all we hear is crickets in return.

Once again, you prove that if you can't just label someone as an ignorant denier, then you really don't have any other original thoughts to continue the debate. Then you wonder why we won't invest a bunch of time refuting your cut and paste propaganda with facts, when you never acknowledge anything that doesn't fit your agenda?