GeorgeRux

2.6K posts

GeorgeRux

GeorgeRux

@CAGWfool

Math guy. Proponent of using data and the scientific method. Skeptical about use of “appeals to authority” and “ consensus.” Conservative Constitutionalist.

Texas, USA انضم Eylül 2021
999 يتبع64 المتابعون
GeorgeRux
GeorgeRux@CAGWfool·
It is evident human activity has had an impact due to urbanization, deforestation, and burning of fossil fuels. But the magnitude is unknown. Most importantly, there is no evidence the gradual warming has had any detrimental impact on human flourishing. While we might not have much of an impact. Let’s keep up the good work!
English
3
0
6
131
P a u l ◉
P a u l ◉@SkylineReport·
Climate change isn't a hoax. If the Sun were causing the warming, the atmosphere would warm from top to bottom. Instead, scientists observe the exact fingerprint predicted by greenhouse gases: • Lower atmosphere warming • Upper atmosphere cooling • Oceans storing over 90% of the excess heat • Arctic warming faster than the rest of Earth Natural cycles can't explain that. Physics can. That's why the IPCC concluded it is unequivocal that human activity has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land. The debate ended years ago. The emissions didn't.
P a u l ◉ tweet media
English
97
79
137
3K
GeorgeRux
GeorgeRux@CAGWfool·
Interesting observations. But the observations breaks down when evaluating the differences. Weather models are scientific forecasting changes within bounds of uncertainty. Sadly the Climate Science Alarmists are not scientific when they don’t acknowledge the uncertainty of the assumptions of the two major factors in their forecasts: 1) What is the percentage impact and the uncertainty of the impact of human burning of fossil fuels ( as opposed to natural changes) increasing CO2 concentrations ? 2) What is the percentage impact and the uncertainty of the impact of Increased CO2 concentrations ( as opposed to naturally occurring CO2 ) increasing global temperatures?
English
0
0
1
11
P a u l ◉
P a u l ◉@SkylineReport·
The strongest argument against calling climate science "alarmism" has nothing to do with climate. A weather model predicts a hurricane will turn north. A few days later, reality arrives. The hurricane either turned north or it didn't. The forecast was either good or bad. That's how atmospheric science earns credibility. Not through politics. Not through consensus. Not through authority. Through verification. The same observations, satellites, weather balloons, supercomputers, data assimilation, and atmospheric physics used to forecast hurricanes, floods, turbulence, and wildfires are also used to study long-term climate trends. If those tools are trustworthy when they help planes land safely and communities evacuate storms, why do they suddenly become "politically motivated" only when the forecast extends decades instead of days? The atmosphere doesn't run one set of physics for weather and another for climate. It's the same machine. The same equations. The same reality.
P a u l ◉@SkylineReport

If weather science is "climate alarmism," then stop using hurricane forecasts, flood warnings, aviation turbulence models, wildfire predictions, and winter storm projections. They're built on the same atmospheric physics. Funny how the science is trusted when it protects lives today but called a partisan scam when it warns about risks tomorrow.

English
4
11
28
642
GeorgeRux
GeorgeRux@CAGWfool·
Is there any published science demonstrating that 1) human burning of fossil fuels ( as opposed to natural changes) is responsible for more than 50% of observed increases in CO2 concentrations ? 2) Increased CO2 concentrations ( as opposed to naturally occurring CO2 ) is responsible for over 50% of the increase in global temperatures? This isn’t “crackpot leeching.” You don’t know do you? Your flaws understanding the scientific method are obvious
English
0
0
0
6
Richard Rothwell
Richard Rothwell@M3othra012·
@FPerrefort … Meanwhile in the real world, the crackpots leeching off the hard work of real scientists, do manage to publish. But the flaws are obvious. So they go on right wing podcasts to push their shit.
English
1
0
0
26
Felix Perrefort
Felix Perrefort@FPerrefort·
97 Prozent der Wissenschaftler seien sich einig, dass es einen menschengemachten Klimawandel gebe. Mit dieser Behauptung zementierte die Klimaideologie ihre Macht. Obama postete sie damals. Noch heute geistert diese Mär durch die Kommentarspalten. Das Problem: Sie stimmt nicht. Die Studie (Cook 2013) ist Wissenschaftsbetrug. Die Daten wurden bewusst irreführend verzerrt. In Wahrheit ließ sich nur ein Bruchteil der untersuchten Arbeiten der Position zuordnen, der Mensch verursache den Klimawandel in entscheidender Weise. Weniger als 1 Prozent tat dies. Die Mehrheit – rund zwei Drittel – positionierte sich überhaupt nicht. Man nahm diese Arbeiten einfach aus der Prozentangabe heraus. Sie haben uns belogen und manipuliert. Auch mich. Ich habe es damals geschluckt. Es handelt sich nicht einfach um eine „kontroverse Studie“. Mit ihr wurde kritischer Widerspruch systematisch und skrupellos im Keim erstickt. Ganze Gesellschaften wurden gebrainwasht, Generationen entsprechend sozialisiert. Ein propagandistisches Verbrechen. Und ein Offenbarungseid über die wahre Schwäche ihres Gedankengebäudes. Wie sagen die Linken nicht immer: „Ihr seid noch nicht wütend genug.“ nius.de/politik/mensch…
Felix Perrefort tweet media
Deutsch
120
478
1.4K
24.9K
GeorgeRux
GeorgeRux@CAGWfool·
@medialens Arsonist. Weak analogy. There is evidence when an arsonist sets a match. There is no evidence human burning of fossil fuels has an appreciable impact on increasing global temperatures. Are you unable to see the difference?
English
2
0
0
28
Media Lens
Media Lens@medialens·
As discussed in our alert (below), it's so easy to debunk these comments now: This is the classic 'the climate has always changed' argument. It's a favorite because it relies on a slice of truth to smuggle in a massive misconception. Saying humans can't cause climate change because climate change happened before humans is like a detective looking at a burned-down house and saying, "Well, forest fires caused by lightning have been happening a wee bit longer than matches, so this arsonist couldn't have done it." Climate scientists have never claimed that the climate was static before the industrial revolution. In fact, understanding past climate change is exactly how we know greenhouse gases are so dangerous today. medialens.substack.com/p/invitation-t…
Joe@CupoJoeBlow

@medialens Turns out the climate has been changing a wee bit longer than the instrumental record.

English
36
19
55
4.3K
GeorgeRux
GeorgeRux@CAGWfool·
@ChrisGloninger 4.5 mm per year. So in a thousand years we can expect an increase of about 5 meters? OMG we’re all going to die! lol
English
1
0
1
43
Chris Gloninger, CCM, CBM
Chris Gloninger, CCM, CBM@ChrisGloninger·
You asked for sources — here you go. Satellites (NASA/CNES) have measured sea level continuously since 1993: global mean is up 11 cm, and the rate has DOUBLED from 2.1 to ~4.5 mm/yr. 2024 was the highest ever recorded. NASA JPL Sea Level Change Portal. NOAA Climate.gov. "No sea rise" isn't a take, it's denying the instrument readings.
Peter Clack@PeterDClack

@ChrisGloninger There is no sea rise, no 43%, no climate related dramas. The only dramas come from ignorance, such as you are displaying. Do you not think to check these posts, then cite your sources. You only wrote a few dozen words. Truth is, you didn't even bother. Just click bait.

English
18
9
41
1.3K
GeorgeRux
GeorgeRux@CAGWfool·
@HannoKlausmeier If you define better as most cost effective to the consumer, both are inferior. Which is why adoption of EVs and heat pumps remain paltry
English
0
0
0
2
terry christian
terry christian@terrychristian·
I have been reliably informed by Dave down the pub who spent 12 years at school getting zero academic qualifications - and regularly in the bottom of the class - that he researched this online and found out it's all a hoax. Relax
David Ullrich@DavidUllrich202

Antarctica’s Collapse May Have Already Begun Antarctica is melting and one of its largest glaciers is collapsing from underneath. Thwaites could trigger a wider collapse of the full West Antarctic ice sheet, raising sea levels by 5 meters. Credit: Russell Arnott ― New Scientist

English
36
39
234
6.8K
GeorgeRux
GeorgeRux@CAGWfool·
@medialens The models are just as accurate as a straight line drawn with a crayon. Big deal
English
0
0
0
51
Media Lens
Media Lens@medialens·
When people say models 'have never predicted anything,' they usually point to exaggerated media headlines from the 1980s or 1990s (like 'London will be underwater by 2015'). But if you look at the actual physics-based models published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over the last 50 years, their accuracy is remarkably high. A landmark 2019 study led by scientists at UC Berkeley, MIT, and NASA analysed 17 major global warming models published between 1970 and 2007. They found that 14 out of the 17 models accurately predicted the real-world temperature increases we have since experienced. See here: theguardian.com/environment/20…
aernwyn@aernwyn

@medialens climate alarmists still using flawed computer models that have never predicted anything? ya i thought so pound sand until it turns to glass climate terrorists have stolen enough tax payer money

English
23
14
57
3.9K
GeorgeRux
GeorgeRux@CAGWfool·
@PikettyWIL @anmol_smnch Wow! A three day conference of mostly wealthy leftists to whine about inequality! Hope the hors d'oeuvres were excellent!
English
0
0
2
50
GeorgeRux
GeorgeRux@CAGWfool·
Heat is added and subtracted mostly due to orbital cycles as documented by Milanovitch. Yes, it’s likely human burning of fossil fuels has increased warming slightly. But so what? There is no evidence of any harm to humans the past century during which average temperatures increased 1C.
English
1
0
0
120
Chris Gloninger, CCM, CBM
Chris Gloninger, CCM, CBM@ChrisGloninger·
"We're just recovering from the Little Ice Age." Recovery isn't a mechanism. Climate doesn't drift back to a setpoint, something has to add energy. The Sun? FLAT to declining since 1980. Earth heated up anyway. The two lines diverge. The kicker: if the Sun were warming us, EVERY layer of the atmosphere would warm. Instead the upper atmosphere is COOLING while the surface heats the unmistakable fingerprint of greenhouse gases, the exact opposite of more sunlight.
Robin Monotti@robinmonotti

THE LITTLE ICE AGE - The real reason why climate has been warming of recent is entirely natural: it is because we are still emerging from The Little Ice Age. See painting of a frozen over Thames by Graham Turner. In the winter of 1683/84, the ice was almost a foot thick and the Thames remained frozen for weeks. Boats were fitted with skates and stalls set up with food, shops and games. The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of significant regional cooling, particularly in Europe, characterized by harsh winters, and expanded glaciers. Winter temperatures in Europe dropped as much as 2°C below modern averages. The event lasted from roughly 1300 to 1850, spanning nearly 500 years. It is generally divided into phases: an initial cooling around 1300, a slightly warmer period in the 1500s, and the coldest interval between 1645 and 1715 (known as the Maunder Minimum). The LIA was primarily triggered by the Grand Solar Minima, which caused reduced solar irradiance, and therefore cooling. We are still emerging from the Little Ice Age, and that is the only reason some areas are warmer than centuries ago. This has very little to do with CO2 and everything to do with the Sun. To put it simply, both the activity of the Sun and the Sun-Earth distance changes, and this modulates the amount of both solar irradiance and solar radiation, which affects clouds, and this combined change is what leads to long term changes in climatic temperatures. It's definitely not CO2 causing any of this.

English
37
9
81
3.8K
Richard Rothwell
Richard Rothwell@M3othra012·
@SocialHypocris1 Has anyone noticed that if someone flies an American flag, everyone knows they will lie their faces off.
English
1
0
1
6
Richard Rothwell
Richard Rothwell@M3othra012·
@CO2Coalition When you know you are not smarter than a climate scientist, because senility has set in. Resorts to confabulation to cover it up. Has to resort to making up story about imaginary people. No one real believes CO2 is a deadly poison.
English
4
0
4
64
AukeHoekstra
AukeHoekstra@AukeHoekstra·
For a while "only gas and nuclear can provide needed firm power" was the "serious" position in the US. It's why people like @mzjacobson were attacked as if they were "heretics". Turns out the heretics were right.
AukeHoekstra tweet media
English
45
84
275
13.7K
terry christian
terry christian@terrychristian·
The AMOC is terrifying
Chris Gloninger, CCM, CBM@ChrisGloninger

A patch of ocean south of Greenland has been cooling since the 19th century. A new paper just confirmed why, and it affects every coast on the US East. AMOC has been weakening since the 1930s, now at its weakest in 1,000 years. The warming strip off Cape Hatteras is an AMOC fingerprint. Higher sea levels from Boston to Miami. ExxonMobil knew in 1977. Trump repealed the only law requiring cuts. The ocean doesn't care about politics. #AMOC #ClimateScience #SeaLevelRise #ClimateChange #Atlantic

English
12
6
20
3K
GeorgeRux
GeorgeRux@CAGWfool·
@CoppockRog62072 Was it a vote? And so what? The world has been gradually warming for the past few centuries
English
1
0
0
8
Roger Coppock
Roger Coppock@CoppockRog62072·
The latest data from the US Climate Reference Network show warming. It's a 131 to 9 vote. That's a landslide for warming! The probability that the true mean is not warming is less than 1e-30. It is not likely due to chance. {Some regular stations have not reported yet.}
Roger Coppock tweet media
English
3
0
5
106
Prof. Ryan Katz-Rosene
Prof. Ryan Katz-Rosene@ryankatzrosene·
Good Golly this paper (still not peer reviewed) is something else… “Projections based on the accelerated trend estimates suggest the potential for an additional 0.5–1.0°C of warming within the next decade.” Jesus, Mary and Joseph! That would mean potentially more than 2C warming *before* 2040. Please be wrong! h/t @ProfBillMcGuire
Prof. Ryan Katz-Rosene tweet media
English
51
71
265
17.5K
GeorgeRux
GeorgeRux@CAGWfool·
@terrychristian Tens of thousands of scientists are not lying. But A handful of climate scientists are frauds ( e.g. Michael Mann)
English
1
0
0
105
terry christian
terry christian@terrychristian·
So your theory is that tens of thousands of scientists across dozens of countries are all lying, but random blokes on YouTube are the honest ones
English
91
45
368
10.9K
Miss Meredith
Miss Meredith@Meredith_Bae_·
Fuck this administration. Like seriously. This is the second time this year I’ve had to deal with IRS BULLSHIT because of how this administration mishandles… well, fucking everything. And now instead of working, I’m spending my day on hold and emailing my CPA to fix this shit.
English
3
0
1
155
GeorgeRux
GeorgeRux@CAGWfool·
@archer_rs Mr Archer: do you acknowledge you may never be convinced, may never accept overwhelming evidence and may forever deny there no existential danger form the known reality of climate change?
English
0
0
1
218
RS Archer
RS Archer@archer_rs·
When I see the comments from some people regarding climate change it reminds me some will never be convinced, will never accept the overwhelming evidence, will be denying reality forever. It's the stupidity of Brexit all over again.
English
221
94
903
16.2K

اكتشف

@FPerrefort @medialens @ChrisGloninger @HannoKlausmeier @terrychristian @DavidUllrich202 @PikettyWIL @anmol_smnch