~| Climate Change Is A Scam |~

What does the normal climate look like?

After all, it's continually changed.

Normal climate looks like stable levels of CO2 and a change in climate based solely on orbital forcing and its related biogeochemical feedbacks.

+1. Couldn't have put it better myself.

There's a great debate in academic circles as to whether or not we live in a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene as opposed to the Holocene, citing that human influences have changed the planet over the last 100 years as much as other sources (orbital geometry, extraterrestrial inputs etc.) do in thousands of years, in terms of climate, biodiversity and resource extraction. The recognition of the Anthropocene should go some way to silencing climate deniers.

Yet we've had constant variations in atmospheric CO2 since the dawn of time.

So what's stable CO2 levels?

This was actually the precise topic of my EPQ! I'll be surprised if the ICS doesn't formalise the Anthropocene (despite the fact that they're infamously traditionalist), I think the difficult question is deciding when it started.



There's a slight difference between carbon dioxide periodically oscillating between 200-300ppmv over a 40,000-100,000 year cycle and a change in over 100ppmv in just over a century when the concentration should be stable or decreasing.

Alas, we've seen co2 concentration much higher than that in the past.

My issue with a lot of this is that we're using complex computer models on unknowns and say 'look, the computer says this. It must be true.'

What about polar shift? I've seen one paper say that it is a contributing factor towards climate change and another saying that it's happening because of climate change. ( WO be tide any scientist who puts his head above the parapet on that one.)

Anybody who has claimed the sun has had an effect on climate change has been denounced as a heratic.

Yes, CO2 levels have been higher than they are now. When the planet was 3 degrees warmer and the sea level about 30m higher.
And no, we're not just using computer models. Computer models are important for projections but you have to understand, people don't just come up with these models and then use the values. Before a model can be used, you test it against the past. We understand relatively decently how the climate has changed over relatively recent geological history. We input known values from a given time period, plug them in to the model and see if it managed to end up with the modern climate. If it does, it's probably a good model and we can use it. If it doesn't, we don't use it. These models are stringently tested, they're not just used with no factual background.

You're going to have to elaborate what you mean by polar shift.

Anyone who has claimed the sun has an effect on climate change will not be denounced as a heretic. Anyone who claims that the sun has a significant effect on the climate change we are seeing at the moment will be denounced as an idiot because the changes in solar intensity are orders of magnitude too small to explain the changes seen today. If anything, the solar intensity has been decreasing as the earth has been warming. The sun isn't causing the warming we're seeing at the moment. That doesn't mean the sun can't cause climate change because it can, but it's not responsible for the currently observed effects.

Yet we've had constant variations in atmospheric CO2 since the dawn of time.

So what's stable CO2 levels?

Stable as in explained totally by natural feedback mechanisms - getting locked up in plants, released in eruptions etc.

Stable as in can't be defined as stable. It's forever going up and down. It's been higher with more plants on the planet.

And let's not forget plants like CO2.

That has literally nothing to do with my point. CO2 right now is not in keeping with natural forcing, we're adding ridiculous quantities to the atmosphere (whilst destroying the plants you mention which like CO2).

We're not. Developing nations are.

The developed world has been unite constant in it's output.

You're seriously suggesting we're not polluting well beyond our means? And that developing countries who produce all of our stuff are to blame?

Stable as in can't be defined as stable. It's forever going up and down. It's been higher with more plants on the planet.

And let's not forget plants like CO2.

Plants also like water, does that make floods a good thing?

If they're geared up for wet conditions they are. But the medieval warm period was a positive event from that perspective.

Those models have been run, yet have often failed to predict future events. Hence the reason why the IPC continually time their reports down.

Polar shift, geomagnetic reversal is when the north pole flips over on its axis.

http://www.physics.org/facts/frog-magnetic-field.asp

http://www.brockpress.com/2014/10/scientists-warn-that-our-poles-may-switch-sooner-than-expected/

A perfectly natural phenomena.

But don't worry. The environmental lobby have now jumped in this and aimed its man made through image change.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24755-earths-poles-are-shifting-because-of-climate-change.html#.VHUixokgHCQ

So we have scientists talking about the sun going through a manic period with high amounts of solar activity. Environmentalists saying it hasn't, yet the sun is so quiet that the Met office has decided to actually study the impact of solar activity.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/oct/03/met-office-space-weather-forecast

This of course is already being done by a British scientist called Piers Corbyn. But he's been poo poo'd because he claims that the sun is driving climate change.

Possibly one of the stupidest conspiracy theories in the history of conspiracy theories.

Climate change is backed by overwhelming scientific evidence. Imagine what would need to be involved in any scam - there is no way in hell that thousands of scientists from many different countries from many different countries and many different research institutions publishing thousands upon thousands of studies would be able to organise any sort of "scam". It would simply be impossible. It would be impossible to even organise it simply within 1 country, let alone the whole world.

Anyone who believes the conspiracy theory that climate change is a scam organised by the left wing hive mind, feminists, the BBC and probably the honey monster are on the same level intellectually as those who deny evolution.

Can guarantee it is not a scam. This video summarises it nicely.

[video="youtube;cjuGCJJUGsg"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg[/video]

You're using the word scientist way too liberally, if a whole generation of climatologists educates another generation of climatologists and no one challeneges the foundations critically, usually because they get called a 'denialist' as though it were some sort of cult, despite the fact climate change theories seem to make few, if any accurate predictions and are based on data only collected in recent times, then yes it is possible.