Study shows those who claimed climate debate over were wrong

[lynnvinc]

The take away was GW will kill many penguins and it didn’t really mention the probabilities.

You should stop defending bad journalism

And your point?

Let’s face it people don’t really care a whole lot about penguins and polar bears. It has always been the harm and killing of people through climate change and its knock on effects that has been the impetus for us to reduce our GHGs.

 

[Theo520]

Not only wrong, but VERY WRONG…

I just posted about how the scientists themselves may have been grossly underestimating climate change in several different ways: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=14020143#post14020143

Have you read the research in the OP yet?

 

[Theo520]

And your point?

Let’s face it people don’t really care a whole lot about penguins and polar bears. It has always been the harm and killing of people through climate change and its knock on effects that has been the impetus for us to reduce our GHGs.

LOL, they cared a great deal about Polar Bears, that’s why they were used as the poster child by climate alarmists, at least when they could support the narrative that their population was dwindling.

The below image was used extensively to gain both donations and sympathy

http://cfile7.uf.tistory.com/image/205E41365163B2E0353C91

 

[HelenRose]

The debate will be over when the next ice age kicks in.

Which will be man caused as well.

 

[lynnvinc]

LOL, they cared a great deal about Polar Bears, that’s why they were used as the poster child by climate alarmists, at least when they could support the narrative that their population was dwindling.

The below image was used extensively to gain both donations and sympathy

http://cfile7.uf.tistory.com/image/205E41365163B2E0353C91

I know and they really should have used some emaciated, starving African Madonna and Child photo as the poster children for CC. That is the image that is seared in my mind as I reduce my GHGs.

BTW, I also do care about the rest of God’s wonderful creation, which we have no right in annihilating.

 

[lynnvinc]

The debate will be over when the next ice age kicks in.

Which will be man caused as well.

From what I understand there may never be another ice age. In addition to the current anthropogenic climate change, which could last for over 100,000 years (esp since we refuse to stop contributing to it), the sun continues to get hotter and brighter on its course to eventual self-destruction in several billion years. By about a billion years from now it will be too hot for any life to survive on Earth.

What is truly sad is that we may be pushing annihilation of all or most of life on earth over the next several 100s or 1000s of year through our profligate, uncaring emissions of GHGs now in this time, when we could be saving lives and saving money thru alt energy and energy/resource efficiency/conservation. That is the really sad thing.

No telling what the supernatural repercussions might be for our willful and egregious actions and refusal to face and address the issue, which even the Holy Father has admonished us to do – see Laudato Si at laudatosi.com/watch

 

[hu324b]

Lets just put a sign up now

Here mankind once lived - We could of been so much better but we choose not to due to our selfishness and greed - please don’t make the same mistake - may God have mercy on us for destroying the earth that was given to us - our own selfishness , greed for power and wealth caused it.

 

[HelenRose]

From what I understand there may never be another ice age. In addition to the current anthropogenic climate change, which could last for over 100,000 years (esp since we refuse to stop contributing to it), the sun continues to get hotter and brighter on its course to eventual self-destruction in several billion years. By about a billion years from now it will be too hot for any life to survive on Earth.

What is truly sad is that we may be pushing annihilation of all or most of life on earth over the next several 100s or 1000s of year through our profligate, uncaring emissions of GHGs now in this time, when we could be saving lives and saving money thru alt energy and energy/resource efficiency/conservation. That is the really sad thing.

No telling what the supernatural repercussions might be for our willful and egregious actions and refusal to face and address the issue, which even the Holy Father has admonished us to do – see Laudato Si at laudatosi.com/watch

You may be right but since we have no idea what triggers Ice Ages nor what signals their end, I think it is a stretch to predict that they will never happen again.

A major volcanic explosion or a large meteorite will sufficiently dwarf human activity to the insignificance that it merits.

 

[lynnvinc]

You may be right but since we have no idea what triggers Ice Ages nor what signals their end…

Well, the scientists know and any person willing to study up on it can know.

It was actually the study of what causes ice ages a couple hundred years ago that started the study of climate change, leading to our current knowledge today.

If people really want to know, they can learn about all this.

 

[HelenRose]

Well, the scientists know and any person willing to study up on it can know.

It was actually the study of what causes ice ages a couple hundred years ago that started the study of climate change, leading to our current knowledge today.

If people really want to know, they can learn about all this.

Give me the documentation, the authors and the source of money they received for their research.

 

[lynnvinc]

Give me the documentation, the authors and the source of money they received for their research.

That’s a huge task, with many 1000s of scientists going back some 200 years, so you’ll need to track all that down yourself.

Most climate scientists either work for gov agencies, like NASA or NOAA, or teach & do research at universities. They just basically get their salaries. If they get grants for their climate research, that usually pays only the portions of their salaries (not above their salaries) to give them course releases, plus funding for equipment, research-related travel, and research assistants.

Here are some helpful links to get you started on the original climate science & scientists:
The Discovery of Global Warming at aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
The History of Climate Change Science at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science

Look especially at the info on Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius.

As for current climate scientists you could read the IPCC reports and see the 1000s of scientists they site then check up to see where their money comes from.

As mentioned it is many 1000s.

 

[HelenRose]

That’s a huge task, with many 1000s of scientists going back some 200 years, so you’ll need to track all that down yourself.

Most climate scientists either work for gov agencies, like NASA or NOAA, or teach & do research at universities. They just basically get their salaries. If they get grants for their climate research, that usually pays only the portions of their salaries (not above their salaries) to give them course releases, plus funding for equipment, research-related travel, and research assistants.

Here are some helpful links to get you started on the original climate science & scientists:
The Discovery of Global Warming at aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
The History of Climate Change Science at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science

Look especially at the info on Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius.

As for current climate scientists you could read the IPCC reports and see the 1000s of scientists they site then check up to see where their money comes from.

As mentioned it is many 1000s.

I will look at some of them if you read the 1000 plus articles on populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html ,

You might do some research of your own wattsupwiththat.com/ and take a long hard look at the list of scientists represented on that blog who are infinitely smarter than Al Gore and his cohorts.

But it still just depends on who a person wants to believe.

Hysteria is contagious and so their memes.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I will look at some of them if you read the 1000 plus articles on populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html ,

In assessing the significance of these 1000+ articles, it is important to understand the selection criteria leading to this count. And after examining a few of the articles, you can confirm the understanding of that selection criteria.

As the main article in Popular Technology states:
All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a scholarly journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism. This means the papers are either written by a skeptic, explicit to a skeptical position, or were already cited by and determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by highly credentialed scientists, such as Sherwood B. Idso Ph.D. Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory and Patrick J. Michaels Ph.D. Climatology.
That means that any paper that expresses disagreement with some (possibly extreme) position (Alarmist) is fair game to be counted toward the grand total.

It would be a mistake to assume there is an equivalent amount of disagreement within the scientific community over less extreme, but still positive, positions. For example, this article states that
*In the 25 years of IPCC’s First to Fifth Assessment Reports [1–5], the atmosphere has warmed at half the rate predicted in FAR.
*
This conclusion, while counting as a “skeptical”, is still supportive of the position that the atmosphere has indeed warmed. Similarly, any article that disputes the degree of disruption that global warming will have can also be counted, even if that article agrees completely with the IPCC on the simple fact of projected warming.

Because of the vague criteria for inclusion in the count, the existence of 1000+ “skeptical” articles has very little meaning regarding the scientific truths of climate change. If the criteria for inclusion were made more quantitative (like “papers which predict less than 0.5 degree warming per century”) the result would be more meaning full, but also less convincing because of the small numbers that would result.

 

[lynnvinc]

I will look at some of them if you read the 1000 plus articles on populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html ,

You might do some research of your own wattsupwiththat.com/ and take a long hard look at the list of scientists represented on that blog who are infinitely smarter than Al Gore and his cohorts.

But it still just depends on who a person wants to believe.

Hysteria is contagious and so their memes.

I really don’t have time to read non-science (nonsense).