Climate Change News collection

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I view the Republican initial denial now come to the belief that it is not that important.

But, I believe many know it’s real, they believe that science isn’t opposed to God because it cannot be, that we should take action to at least preserve our environment because they realize we share this planet with other creatures that were made by God too.

I have that faith.
 
DENNYINMI said:
I view the Republican initial denial now come to the belief that it is not that important.

But, I believe many know it’s real, they believe that science isn’t opposed to God because it cannot be, that we should take action to at least preserve our environment because they realize we share this planet with other creatures that were made by God too.

I have that faith.
Click to expand...
Faith absent reason is a recipe for disaster. There are Malthusian types who sincerely believe preserving the environment involves getting rid of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of human beings because the planet purportedly cannot sustain the number of human beings living here. They, too, have “faith” in their beliefs. Unfortunately, they seem to have no faith in the providence of God nor in the capacity and ingenuity of human beings to care for the earth. Their answer is simple – kill off human beings to reduce the impact of human beings on the environment. I believe Pope Francis invited at least one of those thinkers, Paul Ehrlich, to an event at the Vatican. Apparently, he considers Ehrlich’s voice one that ought to be listened to. Do you agree?
 
HarryStotle said:
Faith absent reason is a recipe for disaster
Click to expand...
See reason above. See reason in our environment. See reason in the Holy Father, he speaks the truth backed on science, see reason in scientific data that makes “sense”…species aren’t dying out because they have nothing better to do.

I could be an atheist and still “see” with my eyes to form a reasonable explanation.
 
Ender said:
Regarding the unending claims that extreme weather events (fires, floods, frogs, etc) are increasing because of global warming, here are some statements from Judith Curry’s recent testimony before Congress:
Click to expand...
When you find as many Judith Curry’s as there are scientists tell us that more extreme weather events do result from global warming, you will be more convincing.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
When you find as many Judith Curry’s as there are scientists tell us that more extreme weather events do result from global warming, you will be more convincing.
Click to expand...
You are comparing apple and oranges

Curry cited accepted data that extreme weather events are not becoming more frequent. None of your scientists dispute the record she referenced.

Your scientists talk about future increases in extreme weather events, something we have yet to measure, something we only predict with models.
 
There have been a lot of extreme weather events that were predicted and did not come to pass. For instance, following Katrina and Ivan, we were treated to serious predictions that hurricanes would increase in frequency and severity from that point forward. When instead we were treated to milder hurricane seasons for at least a decade. But did the predicters back down, admit that maybe their models were a tad flawed? No, we’ve been treated to their doubling down in recent years. The next retraction will likely be the first one I’ve ever seen.

Now we have had increasingly cold winters and evidence points toward a possible solar minimum coming that will impact climate in the wrong direction. For instance, we had the latest start to the corn and wheat planting season ever in several critical growing regions. Decidedly not evidence of warming. But we’re being treated with increasingly strident calls for global warming action. To include taxes and transfer payments.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
When you find as many Judith Curry’s as there are scientists tell us that more extreme weather events do result from global warming, you will be more convincing.
Click to expand...
You are comparing apple and oranges

Curry cited accepted data that extreme weather events are not becoming more frequent. None of your scientists dispute the record she referenced.

Your scientists talk about future increases in extreme weather events, something we have yet to measure, something we only predict with models.
Click to expand...
The second paragraph of Ender’s post is all about predictions. Predictions that are at odds with most other scientists. So it is apples and apples.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The second paragraph of Ender’s post is all about predictions. Predictions that are at odds with most other scientists. So it is apples and apples.
Click to expand...
He said “are increasing” which is past and present, not future predictions.

You can’t find any group of qualified scientists that will disagree with the record.
 
I should have said “the second paragraph of the quote” which is

Out to at least 2050, natural climate variability is expected to dominate future hurricane variations, rather than any warming trend. The most important looming factor is an anticipated future shift to the cold phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. This shift is expected to overall reduce hurricane and wildfire risk for a period of several decades.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
When you find as many Judith Curry’s as there are scientists tell us that more extreme weather events do result from global warming, you will be more convincing.
Click to expand...
There are all kinds of things wrong with this assertion, starting with the fact that extreme weather events (hurricanes, tornadoes,…) are not increasing in either frequency or intensity, let alone that the non-existent increase has been caused by global warming, all of which begs the question of what has caused the warming in the first place.

You can find this information on NASA’s web site, so no, I don’t believe some bunch of unnamed scientists who state otherwise. Curry’s assertions are backed up by the data. There is nothing to support claims to the contrary.
LeafByNiggle said:
The second paragraph of Ender’s post is all about predictions. Predictions that are at odds with most other scientists. So it is apples and apples.
Click to expand...
Most people believe extreme weather events are more frequent and more intense today, and they believe this because they have been told that by the alarmist crowd. Whose predictions will turn out to be more accurate is irrelevant to the issue of who is misleading the public today.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
I should have said “the second paragraph of the quote” which is
Click to expand...
That’s the third paragraph, but point taken.

Can you find a body of climate experts that disagrees with what she stated?
  • natural variability will dominate for near future
  • cold phase of AMO will dampen hurricanes and wildfires for near future
 
Yea, Attribution Science avoids the tricky need to show an actual increase in the overall trend. The trend could be decreasing and you can still blame AGW for the events that do happen. Face the facts, the models predicted an increase in severe weather events. This increase is not yet visible in the record.

Your NASA link doesn’t dispute anything said by Curry. The NASA paragraphs refer to future changes at some undetermined time. It kind a omitted supporting facts for current change.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I guess the Union of Concerned Scientists is part of that “alarmist crowd?”
Click to expand...
The Union of Concerned Scientists may represent a union but they don’t represent scientists, and yes, they are part of the alarmist crowd.
And NASA too?
Click to expand...
Data. Show us the data. This is exactly the kind of disingenuous comment I object to and what has led so many people to believe things about the climate that are in fact not true.

The potential future effects of global climate change include more frequent wildfires, longer periods of drought in some regions and an increase in the number, duration and intensity of tropical storms.

Most people simply lose track of the fact that these are potential future effects. It is nothing more than a bait-and-switch scheme.
 
“Data. Show us the data.” - Ender

Well, I could ask the same thing of your Curry predictions. Not the past data, but just the predictions. And don’t tell me that the past data supports her predictions. NASA has the same data and they state different predictions.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Well, I could ask the same thing of your Curry predictions . Not the past data, but just the predictions. And don’t tell me that the past data supports her predictions. NASA has the same data and they state different predictions.
Click to expand...
This is uninteresting. My original comment was clear: it was about assertions of current extreme weather events, and how people have been mislead into believing they are already occurring when the data show that this is not true.

Regarding the unending claims that extreme weather events (fires, floods, frogs, etc) are increasing…
 
DENNYINMI said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Faith absent reason is a recipe for disaster
Click to expand...
See reason above. See reason in our environment. See reason in the Holy Father, he speaks the truth backed on science, see reason in scientific data that makes “sense”…species aren’t dying out because they have nothing better to do.

I could be an atheist and still “see” with my eyes to form a reasonable explanation.
Click to expand...
And just as reasonable a conclusion can be arrived at based upon very recent scientific findings that there is essentially no human caused climate warming. Ergo, you cannot merely assert that your explanation / conclusion is the only acceptable “reasonable” one.

Even more to the point is that fact that since both “reasonable” views on climate change – that humans may or MAY NOT be responsible for some degree for climate warming – there is insufficient warrant for the wholesale overhaul of the economy / energy sector (I.e., Green New Deals and such) that puts into jeopardy the well-being of hundreds of millions of human beings.

Caring for the environment may or may not involve reduction in CO2 levels. I work with plants every day, and I can tell you CO2 is a critical nutrient/building block for plants. They take the carbon from CO2 molecules and use it in numerous ways to grow and thrive. To categorically call CO2 a pollutant completely ignores the stake plants have in higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. What have you got against plants in your supposed concern for the environment?
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
I find that uninteresting, because what is important now is what will happen.
Click to expand...
Sure, that is an interesting question. It is, however, one that can not now properly be answered so there is no warrant for alarmism and calls for reduction of CO2 levels are very premature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top