Climate Change News collection

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
Nolte is sure it is hoax.
Click to expand...
I found the article to be pretty bad, especially as the author conceded the very point he’s arguing against: increased CO2 is responsible for global warming.

Due to this new study we now know that Global Warming has occurred at “various times in the past” due to increased CO2 levels.

I don’t think we actually do know this, given that CO2 concentrations have historically followed a temperature rise, and not precipitated one. Having said this doesn’t mean I think MMGW isn’t a hoax, just that this argument is a really bad one.
 
Yes.

Which arguments against Nolte address the sky high CO2 levels in the past?
 
Cathoholic said:
Yes.

Which arguments against Nolte address the sky high CO2 levels in the past?
Click to expand...
The responses by Marcus Badger, Michael Henehan, Mark Richards, and to some extent Richard Betts all addressed this very “argument” in the Climate Feedback piece. I put “argument” in quotes because Nolte did not make an argument in the scientific sense. What he did was state a fact, which has been known by the scientific community for at least 32 years (per the paper by Barnola, J.M., D Raynaud, Y.S. Korotkevich, and C. Lorius of 1987) and then pretend that this fact, that was already well known for a long time, somehow implied that global warming was a hoax. But he did not actually make the argument. He couldn’t because there isn’t any. And that’s what the scientists who criticized his conclusions said.
 
Last edited:
I agree the title to Nolte’s April 9th 2019 article is painfully bad (but I didn’t cite THAT article).
“Nolte: Scientists Prove Man-Made Global Warming Is a Hoax”
Click to expand...
But the rebuttals dealt with the title and not with the argument Nolte made IN the article.

Here is the essence of what Nolte said in his article.

Nolte in essence said . . . .
3 million years ago the CO2 levels were the same as today.

How can that be without cars, etc.?

(The implication here is there are OTHER things causing CO2 rise.

And a CO2 of today’s levels did not “toast” the earth then.)

Do YOU think CO2 levels of today are going to toast the earth?
Click to expand...
Because if you do think that you are making Nolte’s point (even in his title).

Every single rebuttal focused on the title and not the article’s question Nolte raises.

LeafByNiggle . . . .
The responses by Marcus Badger, Michael Henehan, Mark Richards, and to some extent Richard Betts all addressed this very “argument” in the Climate Feedback piece.
Click to expand...
No they didn’t. Not even close.

Here is one of eight responses of Badger illustrating this.
Marcus Badger, Lecturer in Earth Sciences, The Open University:

This part of the article does accurately report the findings of the paper it links to: CO2 is now higher than it has been for 3 million years. . . .
Click to expand...
What Badger is doing here is criticizing Nolte because Nolte used the article’s data, but the data has been changed by a new simulation models (“the linked study by Willeit et al2 has new model simulations”).

Yet elsewhere in the same climatefeedback article Badger even admits the crux of what Nolte is saying regarding preexisting high CO2 levels! Here he is doing it . . . .
Yes, naturally CO2 were as high in the Pliocene 3 million years ago as they are today.
Click to expand...
Badger did not deal with Nolte’s point. He merely criticized Nolte’s citing of the un-re-massaged data.

The principle of Nolte’s point was not addressed by any of Badger’s eight responses printed in climatefeedback.

Henehan also admits this past high CO2!

Yet he too does not deal with Nolte’s point. Which is WHY was CO2 so high before and WHY didn’t it toast the earth back then?

Here he is admitting the high CO2.
Michael Henehan, Postdoctoral Researcher, GFZ Helmholtz Centre Potsdam:

The author writes this as if this is something that is a surprise. We all know that the Earth’s CO2 levels were higher at various times in the past. In the Eocene, 50 million years ago, they may have even been four times as high.
Click to expand...
Here Henehan is saying something that Nolte doesn’t say IN THE ARTICLE
(I agree the title of the article infers it. That is why I did not post THAT article. I DID post Nolte’s follow-up article: “Nolte: ‘Scientific Response’ to My Global Warming Op-Ed Is Really Stupid”)

.

Here is the Post-doc Henehan’s crux of his argument. . . .
Saying that CO2 isn’t rising now due to humans just because it used to be high in the past
Click to expand...
This does not address Nolte’s point.

1/2 . . . .
 
2/2 . . .

This Henehan quote comes close to addressing the issue but he just states it. (This is ipse dixit LeafByNiggle).
Huge numbers of scientists study how the Earth’s climate has fluctuated before, and we know what caused those changes. Current warming is not related to any natural climate cycle, or process, or astronomic phenomenon.
Click to expand...
Just stating this is not good enough. (“Current warming is not related to any natural climate cycle”).

.

You talked about “Mark Richards” (here).

Since there was no “Mark Richards” in the climatefeedback article, I am going to assume you meant “Mark Richardson” who says . . .
Breitbart’s argument is that since CO2 changed naturally before, we can’t change it now.
Click to expand...
But that was not “Breitbart’s argument”. It wasn’t even Nolte’s argument. I wonder if Richardson even read Nolte’s article this is so far off.

Here is Richardson repeating his tautological “argument” . . . .
This entire article’s “proof” is just saying that “higher CO2 happened before humans, therefore humans can’t cause higher CO2“.
Click to expand...
Again. This does not deal with Nolte’s point.

.

Betts main point is pretty safe. It just repeats what everybody knows. . . . .
The Earth’s climate has always varied, even before humans began to influence it. Climate scientists have always been very clear about this. But human-caused emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have now added a new cause of climate change in addition to the existing causes of natural climate variability.
Click to expand...
Betts states this too . . .
Climate scientists are well aware that there are also natural changes in the carbon cycle that have led to higher CO2 concentrations in the past . . . .
Click to expand...
But never says . . . But the earth was not “toast” then because (of whatever) and will be toast NOW despite the CO2 levels being the same.

THAT is the issue that Nolte is implying.

At least that is my read of him.

(Now you are going to say the CO2 levels WON’T REMAIN “the same” and I will deal with that then. I will also ask you how much higher you think it will get in the brand-new-twelve-year-point-of-no-return leftist talking point.)

.

None of these “rebuttals” answer these basic questions Nolte seems to be implying (they focus on the title of the article which again I concede is poor).
 
Last edited:
“Cathoholic said:
Here is the essence of what Nolte said in his article.

Nolte in essence said . . . .
3 million years ago the CO2 levels were the same as today.

How can that be without cars, etc.?
Click to expand...
A question is not an argument. It is an invitation for the reader to imagine the argument. But in this case, I don’t even know what the conclusion of that imagined argument should be? If Nolte had tried to be serious and not just score journalistic “cutsie” points, we would have seen there is no path to any conclusion that says man is not a major cause of today’s global warming. Of course serious scientists never said the earth will be “toast.” So arguing against that point is a straw man.
(The implication here is there are OTHER things causing CO2 rise.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That is another fact that all scientists accept. But it does not say man is not causing this CO2 rise. In fact we have direct isotope analysis of the CO2 in the atmosphere that shows a very high percentage of it came from burning carbon that had not been burned in thousands of years - i.e. oil and coal.
LeafByNiggle . . . .
The responses by Marcus Badger, Michael Henehan, Mark Richards, and to some extent Richard Betts all addressed this very “argument” in the Climate Feedback piece.
Click to expand...
No they didn’t. Not even close.
Click to expand...
That is not surprising, because one cannot address an argument that is not an argument. One can only point out the lack of a logical connection between the facts stated at the beginning (all of which are agreed to be true) and the conclusion Nolte draws. To the extent that it is possible to point this out, the scientists I cited did just that. But you have not addressed my question of how Nolte, a journalists, has noticed a logical connection between facts that have been known by everyone for a long time as a way to show that global warming is not caused by man, while during all that time, all the intelligent people who have also known all these facts, did not notice it. That alone should raise a red flag with you. Now if Nolte had uncovered some new, hitherto unknown data, that might give his reasoning some credibility. But he has not. So why are we listening to him? Oh, I know. Because Breitbart gave him a platform.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
Yet he too does not deal with Nolte’s point. Which is WHY was CO2 so high before and WHY didn’t it toast the earth back then?
Click to expand...
I think Nolte might have had a stronger argument if he had pointed out that, while it might be true that CO2 levels are the highest they’ve been in 10k years, for about 90% of that time temperatures have also been higher.
 
Ender . . .
I think Nolte might have had a stronger argument if he had pointed out that, while it might be true that CO2 levels are the highest they’ve been in 10k years, for about 90% of that time temperatures have also been higher.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
LeafByNiggle . . .
I don’t even know what the conclusion of that imagined argument should be?
Click to expand...
Well I DO know what the conclusion of his rhetorical argument is and I posted it.

.
That is another fact that all scientists accept.
Click to expand...
Then WHY dwell on the TITLE and not the implicated questions of Nolte’s article.

You know Nolte did not put forth those arguments in his article.

As I said. I already agree the title was inappropriate.
 
Cathoholic said:
LeafByNiggle . . .
I don’t even know what the conclusion of that imagined argument should be?
Click to expand...
I don’t want the conclusions of his rhetorical argument. I want the conclusion that says something like “global warming is not caused by man.” Please show me where he concludes that, or something very much like it.
That is another fact that all scientists accept.
Click to expand...
Then WHY dwell on the TITLE and not the implicated questions of Nolte’s article.
Click to expand...
They don’t. They address the specific arguments - specifically the one about high CO2 levels in the past.

By the way, I just found out yesterday how to do subscripts in this forum: “CO< sub>2< /sub>” (without the spaces) comes out CO2
Click to expand...
 
LeafByNiggle . . .
I want the conclusion that says something like “global warming is not caused by man.”
Click to expand...
But that is the WRONG conclusion

The CORRECT conclusion is humble enough to admit that there are unknowns here.

(And by the way. A tax increase and larding up Government more will not resolve the global warming issue.)

.

I talked about Nolte’s critics focusing on the TITLE of the article and ignoring much of the implied substance within the article.

Leaf’s response?
They don’t. They address the specific arguments - specifically the one about high CO2 levels in the past.
Click to expand...
They do NOT address his specific points.

They dwell on the title or they employ ipse dixit.

I already gave examples.

It is all summarized here and here.

Look Leaf. The left in general just can’t admit when they are wrong.

You know that. It is a whole worldview problem.

I’ve picked out OBVIOUS stark examples here and nobody could admit it.

I pointed out Emma Gonzales (Parkland) said it is easier to get AUTOMATIC weapons than to make plans with high school friends for the weekend.

I asked ONE leftist to disavow that statement. I kept asking over and over. I waited hundreds of posts.

NOT ONE would.

I pointed out a CNN “news” story criticizing President Trump for getting his wife NOTHING for her birthday.

I linked to the very audio that CNN allegedly drew that “news story” from. In the audio President Trump explicitly talks about what he DID get her.

I asked over and over for ONE, just ONE liberal to say CNN flat out got it wrong (or purposefully lied).

No one could do it.

Yet I have admitted right here on this thread the inappropriateness of the title in the April 9th Nolte article.

Leftists proverbially live in a different universe about “truth”.

That is WHY some of them re-define genders as being different from the truth.

Or with gender “fluidity” it can proverbially windshield wipe back and forth according to whims of whoever day by day.

Or we will see “persons” re-defined as something less than persons (i.e. abortion).

I’m not going to put up with arguing these things for long.

I’ll bring it up for the benefit of lurkers here who want truth.

The truth deniers will have to wallow in their falsehood that they want and give account of their denials when they are face to face with Truth incarnate someday (where rationalization and wordsmithing will not receive a hearing).

They will have to do this to themselves without me.
 
Last edited:
To others.

The global warming hoax is really a partial hoax.

There are many truths (and I affirm the truths), but there are flat out falsehoods too.

The global warming game is about ballooning government because the liberal mindset thinks people need to be taken care of.

They think this because of the wrong way they fundamentally view humanity.

Global warming takes some truths, and grotesquely magnifies and perverts these truths to push a political agenda of Government and Big Business expansion, wealth re-distribution, and control.

They don’t even believe their own religion (and this IS religion).

That’s why Al Gore is telling you how everything on the coasts will be underwater with one proverbial hand, and purchasing a Malibu Beach Ocean-front home on the other hand.

Or WHY NONE of these guys cut checks from their own money and send out monthly payments to the IPCC.

Or WHY none of the science people explain WHY China and Israel and others are building artificial man-made islands and building military installations on them.

Aren’t they going to be underwater any day now? Don’t the Chinese and Israeli scientists KNOW these 99% facts!??

No! Of course not. They know their military installations that they are building will be above water.

You will see utterly ridiculous predictions like the polar ice shelf “falling off the table” by 2013 (or some such) and when the “proverbial rapture” doesn’t occur, they go in to the next fairy tale.

New York City being “underwater” by 2015? Do you remember THAT one?

Or the scientist who wrote a book and claimed Paris France would be “The Sahara” by 2031? Even he has backtracked from this ridiculous proposal.

Now we are getting a new round of balony with the “twelve-year” spoof.

Nobody believes this stuff (which is WHY they are indifferent to holding China and India to standards they want to subject you to). Not even them.

And when the twelve-year-spoof comes and goes without a whimper, they will invent more phony doomsday scenarios.

And this stuff doesn’t bother them. Because their worldview is such that this is OK. It is just another day in relativism-land. The ends justify the means.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
LeafByNiggle . . .
I want the conclusion that says something like “global warming is not caused by man.”
Click to expand...
This is the problem with Nolte’s non-argument. It is all done with innuendo. He presents facts that are accepted facts, but then leaves it up to the reader’s imagination to jump to the conclusion he wants without his having to state it openly. So when I tried to state my guess of what Nolte might have intended to imply, it turns out to be the wrong conclusion. So tell me directly what is the final conclusion that Nolte makes that is contrary to what mainstream scientists are saying?
(And by the way. A tax increase and larding up Government more will not resolve the global warming issue.)
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with that.
They don’t. They address the specific arguments - specifically the one about high CO2 levels in the past.
Click to expand...
They do NOT address his specific points.
Click to expand...
That’s because he doesn’t have any. He has specific innuendos. So you can’t criticize his critics for guessing wrong on what he might have intended to conclude.
Click to expand...
 
LeafByNiggle . . . .
So tell me directly what is the final conclusion that Nolte makes that is contrary to what mainstream scientists are saying?
Click to expand...
No. I already told you (before you re-worded the premise) but it didn’t matter.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
LeafByNiggle . . . .
So tell me directly what is the final conclusion that Nolte makes that is contrary to what mainstream scientists are saying?
Click to expand...
OK, I’ll play it your way. I assume you mean this is Nolte’s conclusion:
  • 3 million years ago the CO2 levels were the same as today.
  • How can that be without cars, etc.?
  • (The implication here is there are OTHER things causing CO2 rise. And a CO2 of today’s levels did not “toast” the earth then.)
  • Do YOU think CO2 levels of today are going to toast the earth?
So let us look at these “conclusions” one by one:
  • 3 million years ago the CO2 levels were the same as today.
Not a problem. Scientists know this.
  • How can that be without cars, etc.?
A question, not a statement, therefore not a conclusion.
  • (The implication here is there are OTHER things causing CO2 rise.
    And a CO2 of today’s levels did not “toast” the earth then.)
Also not a problem. Scientists all admit other things cause CO2 rise, and scientists all agree that the earth was not toasted.
  • Do YOU think CO2 levels of today are going to toast the earth?
A question, not a statement, therefore not a conclusion.

So it looks like Nolte’s conclusions amount to two statements, both of which are not disputed by scientists, and not disputed by me either. So it appears we have nothing to argue about. It is all due to my mistaken assumption that Nolte was implying a conclusion that was challenging MMGW.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle . . .
Scientists all admit other things cause CO2 rise . . .
Click to expand...
First of all, Happy Easter Leaf.

Jesus is Risen! He is Risen indeed!

But Nolte’s point assumes scientists “admit” CO2 rise.

That taken by itself is not the issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top