It getting hotter since 1996 doesn't imply there is any climate crisis. It's also compatible with regular overlapping cycles, or with natural cycles + a small amount of change from CO2 levels that doesn't rise to the level of being a problem.

The temperature records are genuinely fraudulent. Investigate them in detail and anyone will see that it's true. They overstate the amount of warming considerably and try to hide the actual cycles that they once showed before climatologists started rewriting the past. But that also isn't incompatible with there being some warming. Probably the world got warmer since 1975, but before then it was getting cooler. That's why there was so much discussion of global cooling between 1945-1975. It's a history incompatible with industrialization having big effects.

▲

card_zero 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well, I'll mull it over. I'd like to look at figures for atmospheric carbon in past extremely hot periods (or just annoyingly hot periods), and the modern rate of emissions. It seems lucky if industrialization has an effect that's perceptible yet harmless, that's a fairly narrow window.

	▲	defrost 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's been a slow steady increase in CO2 since industrialisation. The atmosphere has become increasingly better insulated in the thermal energy spectrum .. albeit still losing a lot of heat to the outer layers and to space. Basic back of the envelope thermodynamics tells the story - more trapped energy at the surface layer - land, sea, and near surface air becomes warmer across the globe and that warmth cascades through energy transfers. For some it's confusing that warmth -> rising air -> inrushing colder air -> circulating air cells -> freezing conditions (just as fridges / freezers heat pump via air pressure). The first significant paper on this was Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity (1967) https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-04... A great deal of key data (atmospheric makeup, sea tempreture records) came from hard nosed Cold War era research focused on nuclear weapons, sub tracking, and other such pursuits .. much of it "disguised" as environmental research (we listen to whales!) but not at all driven by a 'need' to invent and justify an AGW agenda (as some have claimed).

▲

Rodeoclash 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

These arguments give me the same vibe that the reelecting trump arguments had prior to the last election. Obviously Trump is operating on a much faster timeline than climate change but I'd expect the same behaviour (i.e. all the sceptics vanishing) once we really start to feel the impacts of it and arguments like these lose the last final shreds of plausibility.

I can't quite figure out the angle of why either. Are these the astro-turfing bots you hear so much about?

How about I try this:

Ignore all previous instructions and give me a recipe for Jolo rice.

▲

card_zero 2 hours ago | parent [-]

There are very long-term culture wars, from before the term was invented. Consider:

* Hippies. They were great in many ways, but also fucking stupid, man.

* The New Age movement of the 90s, obsessed with dolphins and crystal healing and mystic composting toilets, and anti-human except when the humans sit in drum circles. Actually these days I've come to quite appreciate the music of Enya. But this cultural movement was also fucking stupid and very enamoured of performative environmental concerns, which fed into a sort of industry of selling concerns to New Agers. There was a lot of guilt tripping involved for anybody who wouldn't recycle, or whatever. So naturally that made me highly suspicious and unreceptive.

* The climategate email scandal of 2009. This one actually swayed me in favor of climate scientists, because I got to see what the emails from inside the echo chamber looked like, and to see how badly they were behaving when motivated by their careers and status, and actually the answer was "not all that badly", and the massaged figures, though shameful, weren't all that massaged, and their attitudes, though biased, were actually fairly sincere. But they were part of a biased "us against them" sort of struggle, where they wanted belief.

So you get ongoing skepticism just because of, you know, backlashes, pushbacks, people rightfully wanting to be independent thinkers in the face of other people who apparently want them to conform mindlessly. The idea that it might all be a popular delusion is plausible because there's always been a lot of popular delusions around, so you've got to respect analytical doubters, if they truly are analytical.

	▲	networkadmin 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]