Your explanation is meaningless. What trend could I not dismiss as simply being part of your cycles?

There are many fish populations which are on the brink -- but not to worry, we don't need to worry about overfishing, fish populations are cyclical. We don't need to worry about CFCs, the ozone hole is clearly just part of an atmospheric cycle.

Rather than breezy armchair theories, about how about finding some plausible evidence that climate scientists are making this all up?

It’s used against economics as well. “The free economy just has cycles. It’s naturally regulating. No external factors need to help right depressions. (Etc)” political economy moved away from that mindset, initially, after the Great Depression. It ultimately took a world war to pull the US out.

> Rather than breezy armchair theories, about how about finding some plausible evidence that climate scientists are making this all up?

Too easy.

The lack of accurate prediction capabilities of their models. Also the lack of consistency with their models. In contrast, Solar Physicist Valentina Zharkova accurately predicted the sun going into a minimum using a Double Dynamo model with 4 eigenvectors which cohere & interfere. Her model also accurately predicted the cooling that occurred in the past few years due to the approaching solar minimum. In her free time, she created a more accurate model than anything the IPCC ever produced.

https://accordingtohoyt.com/2018/12/12/the-latest-on-the-dou...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NI1bQe8I4A

The lack of experimental evidence. The Electric Universe theory has experimental evidence with plasma interacting with atmospheric gasses. Also experimental evidence of cosmic radiation with heating water, seeding clouds, etc.

See Henrik Svensmark's reproducable physical experiments. It's not just a bunch of computer code which ultimately means nothing without experiment or predictive capabilities.

https://principia-scientific.org/strong-evidence-that-svensm...

Despite Henrik Svensmark having compelling physical experimental evidence, which the IPCC models lack, he somehow lost his institutional funding. He is now independently funded.

Perhaps the science is not "settled" after all...Is that what the authorities told Galileo when he dared to claim that the Earth was not the center of the Universe?

I clicked on the youtube link -- and you found a solar physicist who supports your claims and aha, that proves the climate scientists are all wrong? Why does it seem that skeptical physicists are always taken as credible sources, yet climate scientists are subject to hyperskepticism?

The funny thing is that the Koch brothers funded Berkeley physicist and climate change skeptic Rich Muller a few years back. Muller, being an egotistical physicist, was sure that he was smarter than the muddle headed climatologists and would disprove their models and find all sorts of errors. After a year, Muller wrote up his summary ... find that indeed, AGW was a real thing, and the various correction factors that had been used by climatologists for thins like urban heat island effect were both justified and reasonable.

So, to make this more concise, why do you find that Solar Physicist Dr. Valentina Zharkova is to be trusted than the IPCC reports? You claim her model is far more accurate than anything the IPCC has done ... yet your link says her model was presented in 2015. Second, the IPCC models have be wrong only in that they have intentionally been conservative in their estimates (for political reasons). If you believe that the IPCC models have overestimated warming effects, then you have bought into a popular lie.

The are many other problems with your claims, but it would take more time than I care to invest in it considering the information is already presented in the IPCC reports and you refuse to accept them.

This is a fantastic gish gallop of dubious claims backed by dubious sources.

It seems like the power structure would want to keep things going as they are now: more production, more consumption. Human-induced climate change instead would prompt fundamental changes which might threaten the current power structure. Furthermore, many environmentalist concepts seem to be bottom-up, local, and independent, not authoritarian.

Even if climate change was not man-made, the effects are already so drastic that we would have to man-make the climate, to offset whatever other forces are threatening life in many areas of the planet.

Or just do what we do best: adapt and overcome

The last time global temperatures averaged 4 degrees higher there were palm trees at the arctic. At 8 degrees, clouds no longer form. Some estimates have us headed for the 3.2-3.5 range as an optimistic outcome. (Uninhabitable Earth)

The climate is getting colder & the Antarctic glaciers are growing, so no worries about palm trees in Antarctica. We will have lower food production (there goes the "green revolution"), more volcanic eruptions, more earthquakes, a magnetic pole reversal, with a weakened Heliosphere & Magnetosphere making us less protected against space weather though, so at least you will have that to be alarmed about.

BTW, ancient people around the world had some interesting & consistent art that looks strikingly like plasma discharge reproduced in laboratories. Maybe they were smarter than what we give them credit for?

I'm confused because you seem to have read a different article. In the one I read, people have no influence on the climate. It says ice-age cycles are inevitable. That humanity can adapt by building levees. There is no talk about political control.

The rest of your post is pseudoscientific woo about natural "cycles".

That's true in a literal sense since the article was from the 1950s. I'm mainly speaking to today's politics.

> The rest of your post is pseudoscientific woo about natural "cycles".

Please enlighten me on what "real science" is then. If there are no cycles in the climate, is it purely driven by randomness, exponential or asymptotic growth? How did Earth's climate even get into a state of stasis? Why do ice ages & warm periods occur & cycle back? Why/how do warming & cooling trends eventually reverse?

Does science not utilize models? Is there not experiments & observations to back up models? What about the Philosophy of Science? Does our preconceptions influence how we model phenomena?

The evidence is overwhelming that the climate change is being driven by human activity. There are all kinds of natural cycles and non cyclical events that affect the climate, but that's neither here nor there in our current predicament.

Prove it. How about with a physical experiment? How about a model with accurate predictive capabilities over a long time period?

Nobody serious in the scientific community is making the counter argument anymore. The evidence is well presented, if you're not convinced feel free to peruse it. It's not my job to persuade you.

Sorry, but that is opinion & not a proof. It sounds more like a committee rubber stamped a policy & declared it as "settled". Similar to Galelio's time with a Geocentric universe model being the "settled science".

I don't need to persuade you either. You can have the wrong idea & it does not affect me unless you manage to convince enough people to take away my rights to free speech & property. The "high road" "let's not dignify their arguments" does not work if your models fail to predict anything & if the "Emperor has no clothes"; which is one of the reasons why we are seeing increased censorship.

Re: proof, think of it this way. If this has been so obviously proven, why are you unable to produce any evidence of the proof? Why are the standard climate models wildly divergent, under constant modification, & still unable to predict phenomena? One would expect consistency & predictability, like Newtonian Mechanics or Maxwell's Equations. Until then, it is at best, a tenuous, model that over time is becoming increasingly unbelievable as alternative models better fit the data & have physical experiments backing them. Also, "the map is not the territory".

Lol! What about the dodos, they've been riding your cycles to?

Yeah, we don't find cycles in nature at all. Heartbeats? Rotations? Orbits? Sound waves? Electromagnetic waves? Coherence? Interference? Maxwell's Equations? Fourier Transforms? pfft

Nothing cyclical about the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, nor the amounts that continue to be added.

Not sure why this would be downvoted.

because it is nonsense disguised as deep science. there are some cycles in climate yes, but there are also many unique events, and stochastic ones.

Sounds like an ideological difference to me.

Because "The Solar System travels through the Galaxy, creating cycles" is meaningless drivel.