You make an important point. Regardless of the cause, climate does go through epic cycles of change, but slowly. Humans are good at adapting, which is why we've survived so long.

While I'm a skeptic regarding how much human activity is a driver of changing climate, I support many of the efforts to reduce air pollution that cleans up urban centers. It's the hysteria demanding radical, costly uprooting of our economic base that I object to.

I think many of us in the Gulch need to be a little less abrupt in our up/down votes. You and I are often on opposite sides of an issue, but this post I considered a thoughtful, balanced discussion, and voted you up.

As you say, "Climate models using the Greenhouse proposition are useless at predictions, badly wrong." That's probably why the "validation" results are hard to find, because they don't support the hypothesis for human-driven climate change.

Your last paragraph reminds me of the "Kyoto Protocol." It was a 1997 international treaty/commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. My teacher told us the U.S. abandoned the treaty because China and India didn't sign it (which isn't true, they did sign it but they just don't follow it... I think). I fully support that decision. Why would we reduce GHG if the largest producers of them won't? Throughout the rest of the year, my peers complained about America's decision. Some even claimed they have clinical "anxiety" over it.

The "Weather War" study sounds really interesting, along with the letter to the UN. Do you know if the letter is available to read online? I just looked it up but only articles supporting the global warming theory pop up.

Laughing...

Dr Z. Yes Yes.
But in your para Ask your professors - this validation step has been done. Climate models using the Greenhouse proposition are useless at predictions, badly wrong. Some of the models using solar radiation are better.
Available data sets are quite poor. For solar radiation, sun-spot activity is taken as the first indicator. Temperature records are both poor and hard to interpret, on top of that there has been widespread alteration of data, they call it homogenization, the real word is fraud. Some agencies have destroyed data sets of actual data replacing with adjusted data sets.

Forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject:

Even if the two proposed arguments aren't equal in validity, I do think it's worth investigating both sides.
If I reach the same conclusion as you and believe the global warming theory is a sham (which I'm highly inclined to believe), then I want to know who's specifically pushing that agenda and why they are. Is it being pushed by government officials or certain businesses? Both? Who would reap the benefits?

That's what I intend to research and I think it's important to do so. There are definitely sides. It's the value of the two arguments that aren't equal in weight- and that's what I want to verify.

Also, I'm not very optimistic about future political exploitation. If the global warming theory is being shoved down my generation's throat and it turns out to be wrong- I can't even imagine what the next wave of politicians will be like :')

Many run into the same problem...they don't want an answer and science itself refuses to look at natural cycles, even though they are self evident through geological history like clock work. Ben at Suspicious Observers and many honest scientist have investigated and relayed the forces behind these cycles...he is well respected in the "non-political" scientific community.

No, mankind is the major cause (if you myopically exclude all those other major causes.)
:)

A big problem,Too much of this idea of “climate change” acts like a polarized religion not an actual science. There are the faithful believers who become crusading warriors of the cause, and then there are the deniers who dare question the faith, thus must be excluded.

Thanks, I'll definitely check it out.

Some good sites for climate change data:

https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/gr...

http://climatedepot.com

See: suspicious0bservers.org
Ben also has a channel on youtube...it's free.
Learn how the sun controls our climate and much more...then go teach your class the truth!

Carbon is only .03% of our atmosphere. The most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor.

They always mix up climate with environment...the environment does not cause climate: weather patterns over a long period of time.
Has government, crony politicians and unelected bureaucrats ruined our environment?...YEP!..but that has NOT changed the weather nor the climate.

Grand Solar Minimums, (maunder minimum was the last one (a 400 year natural cycle)
Turns out magnetic pole reversals happen in a natural cycle also; 12,000 years or so.

Mankind can't cause it and can't prevent it either...prepare or bend over and kiss yourself goodby.

It is and also a distraction to what nature really has in store. Look up Maunder Minimum and Magnetic Pole reversals...

Get informed at: suspisious0bservers.org also on youtube - Free

It's the sun silly...(not poking fun at you but poking fun at the warming creatures)...oh, don't throw out your winter woolies.

Nothing mankind can do to cause it and nothing mankind can do to stop it...except prepare for the worst like our surviving ancestors tried to do.

See: suspicious0bservers.org and agenda 2030 on youtube.
It ain't warming and we are about to enter a 400 year cycle called: The Grand Solar Minimum or Little ice age as it was called the last time: Maunder Minimum.

However, we have bigger problems we all should be working on to survive; a 12,000 year cycle; Magnetic pole reversal and a probable micro nova from the sun...it seems we have a global civilizationl reset on a fairly regular basis...not many survives last time...remember the flood?
See a 23 part series on Earth Catastrophe Cycle on the Observers site.

“I plan to research "both sides" in the future.”
I don’t think it’s a thing that has sides. It’s like creationists who want to “teach both sides of the evolution controversy.” There’s no controversy, just science vs people post hoc rationalizing what that wish were true.

There is a legitimate controversy about how to deal with it. It’s a tough problem because it’s hard to calculate the exact cost of emitting greenhouse gases. Scientists don’t know how much emissions contribute to global warming. Some of it is part of the natural cycle of deglaciation/glaciation. It’s even harder to figure out the exact costs of global warming.

Working out the details is complicated by there being enormous political pressure to deny the problem because so much economic activity produces greenhouse gases. To make it even more complicated, politicians never let a crisis go to waste. The worst example is politicians wrapping a big green bow around socialistic policies in “the green new deal”.

I tend to be optimistic, though. I don’t think politicians will exploit it any worse than any other issue that comes up. Carbon emissions per unit GDP are going down thanks to technology. The worse predictions of wars and deaths related to climate change won’t come true, I think, because the change will happen slow enough for people to react. People may invent geoengineering technology that not only stops climate change but allows us to alter climate in ways beneficial to human interests.

Climate change is and always has been real. It's a natural process spanning millennia.
The notion that humanity is having any meaningful impact on it is farfetched at best, tyrannical at worst.
That said, if climate change ever does begin to threaten mankind's existence, we should have contingencies in place that allow us to survive.

I think it's probably a big sham.

The refrain you will undoubtedly hear is that "97% of all the world's climate scientists agree that humans are the greatest force driving climate change," and that statement is one big fat lie. That statistic comes from a single poll that was sent to a group of three thousand scientists who had peer reviewed papers about climate change. It turned out that only about 120 papers discussed the human contribution, and of those, only 79 responded, with 75 of them supporting the human induced theory. Now that's 95%, so even the 97% figure is a lie. The truth is that only 75 scientists were used as a representation of "all the world's climate scientists."

By contrast, more than 34,000 climate scientists signed a letter to the UN, protesting that their climate change report greatly exaggerated the human effect on climate. That shows a much greater opposition to the hysteric claims of impending doom than support.

Ask your professors if any of the accepted climate models have been verified by starting them 150 years back, to see if they accurately produce anything close to the current climate. To the best of my knowledge, no one has taken this validation step, which makes any model result extremely untrustworthy.

During my military service, I participated in a study called the "Weather War." The purpose of the study was to determine what it would take to change local weather patterns to make them favorable to US military operations. We used validated meteorological models in our research. What we learned from the exercise was a mind bender: no matter how much material we dispersed (up to a million tons of particulates), the weather was unaffected, let alone long term climate. To illustrate, a category 5 hurricane unleashes the equivalent energy of a 250 megaton nuclear weapon (five times bigger than the biggest hydrogen bomb ever tested). We found that an attempt to break up such a weather event with a nuclear weapon would be counterproductive, possibly resulting in an increase of the storm's power by adding to the ocean thermal energy, which is the fuel that drives a hurricane.

You might also ask your professors if even draconian measures (as proposed under the Paris Accord) to reduce the US carbon output would offset the carbon production of China, India, and all the developing countries, none of which were to be restrained. If they say yes, it's a bald faced lie. China is already the biggest producer of carbon emissions, and they are not required to do anything to reduce its production (which continues to climb) until 2030.

Of course they teach you the opposite. The tragedy is that you have to parrot it in order to get good grades. A terrible crime committed against the thinking younger generation.

There is no scientific data supporting climate change.

If you do your research you will see the contradictions and manufactured evidence very early.

I have scientific background and familiar with modeling in theory and practice. The models used by climate "scientists" (first by the UN body that came out with the "findings") are based on models, not actual data.

The climate change movement is a useful tool for the left to regain control, most of it lost when communism failed in Europe and the Soviet Union.

It is not by accident that the global left embraces climate change and keeps it as the primary goal in its agenda. Climate change and man made global warming are two different things, that the left bakes into one.

Climate change is independent from human activities and it is happening during our times, as it has many times during the lifecycle of the Earth.

Human made global warming is nonexistent to the extent the left is trying to make it a case for Armageddon.

Another problem I have with this,
Most of us have a little expertise in the kind of science that would be required to show proof of why the climate changes the way it does. What most of us can do is look at how the different sides use their expertise to examine the data to determine facts, to reach their truth.
Real science requires methodically following the scientific method to any conclusion. Any side that rejects or does not use the scientific method should be suspect. Any side they cannot provide their methods of how they collected all raw data to their conclusion, should be suspect. Any side that actively refuses to look at opposing data or hear opposing viewpoints, or considers these “too dangerous”, should be suspect.
Many times determining what is true can be hard, but determining what is false can be easy.