Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

[Belligerent Savant]

.
My last reply (slightly redacted) carried over from the end of the prior page:

.

...

...the core issue here -- once again -- isn't a challenge of climate/weather patterns changing over time, but WHY such changes occur.

The notion that human activities are the PRIMARY factors for "climate change" (and therefore govt 'interventions'/policies will be required to [ostensibly] reverse such patterns) is absurd. THIS is the key point (or at least my key current position here).

Also, Re: Berkeley Earth, a few breadcrumbs:

See that little dot off the west coast of Africa? That's São Tomé and Príncipe. The GISS station data shows no trend but a huge gap in the data. Berkeley Earth fixed this by infilling the data and adding an upward trend based on their "regional expectation" (a.k.a. model).






Berkeley Earth uses "Regional Expectations" to infill and extrapolate missing data for a continent. "Regional Expectations" based on modeling. It's an industry standard so I would guess NASA does the same.

...
Berkeley Earth uses "regional expectations" (based on models) to infill, extrapolate and generally "correct" surface temp data sets. When the spin cycle is done the models match the measured temps match the models. The others are less open about it.
...
Berkeley Earth appears to create data using "Regional Expectations" based on models in areas with little or no information.
...
In July 1936 a "heat dome" of 40°C weather settled over Central North America for eleven days resulting in the deaths of over 6,000 people. There has not been a similar one since despite your assertion (Re: more recent and unprecedented heat surges).
...
Berkeley Earth adjusts and infills temperature data to match their hypothesis (regional expectation) of what they believe the temperatures should have been. They then use the adjusted/infilled to support their hypothesis. Raw GISS data is better.
...
Berkeley Earth claim they have good coverage throughout Africa in 1900.

On closer examination it appears this coverage includes a lot of infilling with presumed regional trends and wishful thinking.

Source: Select commentary by a user that goes by @JeffNor50595241, who appears to assess info by analyzing raw data instead of accepting reports that rely on models and assumptions.

A couple other data points for added consideration --

@RyanMaue
Meteorologist | Hurricane Season | Forecasts and Maps | Look Up | Meteorology
@FloridaState PhD | Michigan

It's been a few years, but global temperatures have returned to the 30-years normal ... starting July 2025 off rather chilly.

Something weird going on with the global weather circulation ...



...

@PaulRoundy1
Professor of Atmospheric Science. I study climate variability of the tropics, and interactions between the tropics and extratropics. My tweets R my own.

The 30 years normal is the normal 15 years ago. That means we've cooled back the level of around 2010.

5:49 AM · Jul 2, 2025
·

And:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/

Daily global surface temperature anomaly estimates from Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) output based on the Global Forecast System (GFS) initialization measurements four times each day are graphed below. Daily estimates since the beginning of 2017 have been derived directly from output provided by the U.S. National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) and prior to that time were provided by the University of Maine (UM) Climate Change Institute (CCI). The graphs below should be updated on most days by 0300 UTC through the previous UTC calendar day. The first graph displays the daily CFSR estimated global surface temperature anomalies over the last 14 months along with the 365-day running average.
...



...

[DrEvil]

Just a quick note on this:

In July 1936 a "heat dome" of 40°C weather settled over Central North America for eleven days resulting in the deaths of over 6,000 people. There has not been a similar one since despite your assertion

There is one in Europe right now. The one in 2003 killed an estimated 70K people. I was in Rome at the time, and it was absolute murder. 115F in the middle of the day. I stayed for one day and promptly fucked off to Paris, which was only 100F. That's really bad when no one has AC, like for instance Americans in 1936, or Europeans today.

Also, no one is disputing that the climate changes naturally. Everyone knows that (I hope). The issue is, and always has been, the speed at which it is changing right now. There are no natural causes that can explain it. The various abrupt changes you've posted about before all happened at the tail end of the last ice age, when things were changing drastically because of the massive amounts of ice melting and occasionally releasing mindbogglingly huge floods of freshwater when an ice dam would burst. That kind of thing will fuck with the climate in all sorts of biblical ways (even the Earth itself: the crust is still rising in many places because of the weight of the ice that used to be on top of it), but there's nothing like that going on right now.

What is going on is human industrialized civilization, and the rise of said civilization and its emissions of heat-trapping gases matches perfectly with the observed warming. The connection is glaringly obvious.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
"there are no natural causes that can explain it." -- this may be the dominant/mainstream take but it certainly doesn't make it true. AND: it presumes the -- flawed, minimally -- data/statistics/models are to be taken at face-value, when the reality is that the extent of variance appears to be far less pronounced than advertised, even if there may well be heat swells (or cold swells) in certain regions. There are numerous natural factors involved that may be primary drivers for these variances. A number of those factors have been posited in this thread (and other related threads).

There may be certain "unnatural" factors involved, as well -- various forms of geo-engineering across disparate regions, for whatever reasons; I wouldn't rule out "Fortean" or "woo" factors as part of it as well, but I don't incorporate such ideas into my current thinking of the topic.

But human-based CO2 (or other everyday-human/animal activities) are not notable contributors to 'climate change'. This is my position, shared by others. We may arrive at this position via different means, and certainly, some may subscribe to this view because it currently may align with certain political leanings, but this alone doesn't make it false. It will, however, cause an entire subset to reflexively rebuke such notions. This may well be part of the reason for the current noise on this topic.

Also: perpetuating division, discord, and generalized confusion about a given topic is a very effective means of large-scale operations, for a variety of reasons (or sometimes for very specific reasons). Manipulations occur in each 'camp', of course. Poisoned wells, compromised/captured actors, and various forms of gaslighting and mis/disinfo abound in these times, across topics.

This is not coincidence. At a minimum, it is a time to pause, reflect, and re-assess previously held belief systems.

[DrEvil]

Also: perpetuating division, discord, and generalized confusion about a given topic is a very effective means of large-scale operations, for a variety of reasons (or sometimes for very specific reasons). Manipulations occur in each 'camp', of course. Poisoned wells, compromised/captured actors, and various forms of gaslighting and mis/disinfo abound in these times, across topics.

This is not coincidence. At a minimum, it is a time to pause, reflect, and re-assess previously held belief systems.

Well, duh. This is what the oil companies have been doing for decades, and that's not a theory, that's a documented fact. They knew climate change was real fifty years ago and set about lying their teeth off. They hired the same people the tobacco companies used to spread division, discord and generalized confusion about the topic of climate change, all so the oil companies could continue on with business as usual a little longer. It's not an accident that if you take basically any prominent climate change skeptic and start digging, you eventually arrive at oil money.

I'm constantly re-assessing my beliefs on the topic, because a) I wish to God it wasn't true, and b) I keep having to wade through mountains of skeptic viewpoints being posted all over this place, and I have yet to see anything compelling to counter the mainstream view. Maybe I'm just set in my ways, but I genuinely haven't seen anything here that made me go "huh, that's weird...".

And just to be clear, I agree with you on many of your points on corporate exploitation of the problem, but I vehemently disagree on your claims that there isn't a problem at all, or that if there is, humanity has nothing to do with it. The first is capitalist fuckery that anyone with half a brain can see happening, the second requires you to ignore the laws of physics.