What do you think of climate change?

[ATraveller]

As the authors note, disbelief in the likelihood of human-caused climate change is inversely proportional to exposure to the actual data and analysis of it.

There’s probably a stronger relationship between denial and living in a place with fossil fuel industries being dominant.
I live in such a region in Canada. I am convinced due to my chemistry background excess CO2 is affecting the environment. But I keep my mouth shut these days. There’s mass unemployment because the oil industry got strangled by the decisions of one level of government. Over 100,000 jobs have been lost since 2015. Bankruptcies have gone up. Suicides have gone up. Opioid abuse has gone up. The despair can be felt by everyone living here.
To say we need to do something is easy. How to implement it is another. The policymakers cheering the decline of the oil industry literally have no plans for places like where I live. They also show no sympathy for this despair. Not just policymakers but other citizens. I mentioned this here a year ago and another member whose from a different part of Canada dismissed them in a very cold manner and this member just narrowly escaped blaming us for our situation.
Policymakers need real ideas and policies to help lower emissions without literally killing people. This is the real challenge. What to do for places that are reliant on the oil & gas industry? People are all for environmental protection even in oil industry dominant places but only if the costs I listed above are avoided.

 

[PetraG]

What is wrong, scientifically speaking, with “set[ting] out with the goal of disproving that it is happening” given that the consensus, according to you, of scientists have already reached a conclusion?

What is wrong with attempting to prove them wrong, provided the methods used are reliable, accurate and methodologically impeccable? Shouldn’t real scientists relish the thought of someone setting out to disprove their work being unable to do so, despite their best efforts?

Real scientists would then know that their work is irrefutable despite the best efforts of others to prove them wrong.

Isn’t that what science is all about?

You are sounding like Jones is a “good” scientist when he complains to a colleague…

You sound as if you think nobody in the American Chemical Society has anyone in it who has expressed any scepticism about these studies as they went along.

There’s probably a stronger relationship between denial and living in a place with fossil fuel industries being dominant.

My point was the American Chemical Society also includes a lot of scientists in the petrochemical industry. It isn’t the Sierra Club.

To say we need to do something is easy. How to implement it is another. The policymakers cheering the decline of the oil industry literally have no plans for places like where I live. They also show no sympathy for this despair. Not just policymakers but other citizens. I mentioned this here a year ago and another member whose from a different part of Canada dismissed them in a very cold manner and this member just narrowly escaped blaming us for our situation.
Policymakers need real ideas and policies to help lower emissions without literally killing people. This is the real challenge. What to do for places that are reliant on the oil & gas industry? People are all for environmental protection even in oil industry dominant places but only if the costs I listed above are avoided.

This is where the rubber meets the road. The CO2 levels we are seeing were not reached in a day and our massive contributions to them won’t be changed in a day, either. We’re not going to an all-electric economy in my lifetime! It just isn’t going to happen. Yes, I’m very concerned that this issue might become just one more thing to react to in a polarized way, to the detriment of those who are the most vulnerable to adverse events, whether those be environmental or economic.

Take biofuels for instance. Who on earth decided it was a good idea to burn food for fuel? Do they have no idea what effect that could reasonably be expected to have on food prices and food availability?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That is precisely what makes this issue so interesting: i.e., The question of why many so-called “climate scientists” do agree with Mann when his work has been repeatedly found to be flawed.

“Presumed” to be flawed. Presumed.

Mann’s hockey stick graph – the basis upon which the entire global warming alarmism has been based

Not the basis, just one datum in the mountain of supporting data.

– has been demonstrated to be false.

“Presumed”

MacIntyre and McKitrick showed …

This, about MacIntyre and McKitrick’s claims.

Mann’s refusal to share his data, relative to the blade of the “hockey stick” portion of his graph, was the reason he lost his recent defamation court case against Dr. Tim Ball.

The court did not rule against him on the merits. The court only ruled on the “delay” due to Ball’s failing health.

 

[HarryStotle]

This is where the rubber meets the road.

No actually, this is where the rubber meets the road…

The government of Canada beginning to use climate models in the place of actual data to bolster its case that carbon ought to be taxed to “save the environment.”

Environment Canada, presumably a cadre of bureaucrats with a smattering of climate scientists, is going to dismiss 100 years of actual climate data collected in the real world from 1850 to 1949, and replace that data with interpolated data concocted by questionable scientists using programmed climate models (which haven’t proven themselves to be anything like accurate). What would be the purpose of that? Clearly, following Michael Mann’s, East Anglia’s, and the IPCC’s methodology of rewriting the historical record to “prove” the earth is warming.

All this fabrication! Who can stand it?

You trust these people to govern us?

I DO NOT!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Fake News from conservative activist Shelia Gunn Reid who has strong ties to the oil industry.

(Where do you keep getting stuff like this from?)

 

[jeannetherese]

And the “bias” against the retired is in recognition of your observation the “this is a fairly new field of science.” How can you expect a retired physicist to up on a field in science that is so young?

The retired physicist may have many more years of research and scientific journal reading under his or her belt than the junior physicist. There is no reason to consider the retired physicist to be relatively undereducated or to be behind in current scholarship.

 

[HarryStotle]

Fake News from conservative activist Shelia Gunn Reid who has strong ties to the oil industry.

(Where do you keep getting stuff like this from?)

So are you denying that Environment Canada will NOT be using actual data from 1850 to 1949 in its information to the public?

Genetic Fallacy. Ever hear of it? The source doesn’t matter, the truth of the claim does.

You are impugning the source in order to dismiss the claim, outright? Is that your method? Don’t complain of ad hominems used against you, then. Good for the goose, and all that.

Is Environment Canada NOT going to do this?

You seem to know so much about conservative activists. Perhaps you ought to be equally concerned about progressive or leftist activists. Are you?

Funny, I have never seen you call out a claim based upon the fact that the source was from the left or a Democrat. Those are biases, as well, no?

Seems like your supposed quest to call out bias is itself biased.

So what if the source is conservative AND tied to the oil industry. Is the claim ipso facto false?

She is also Catholic, a stay-at-home mother of three, and from a farming background. Do those also count against her? How biased are YOU, exactly?

What of your background? Are you a Democrat? Ties to the renewable energy industry? Have some other cognitive biases we ought to know about?

Do any of those make all of your claims false and eligible for dismissal outright?

Apparently, by your lights, they do.

 

[HarryStotle]

Fake News from conservative activist Shelia Gunn Reid who has strong ties to the oil industry.

(Where do you keep getting stuff like this from?)

You might want to listen to the Environment Minister of Canada, Catherine McKenna, herself, at this point in the video…

From the horse’s mouth so to speak…

I actually gave them some real advice. I said if you actually say it louder, we’ve learned in the House of Commons, if you repeat it, if you say it louder, if that is your talking point, people will totally believe it.

By the way, Sheila Gunn Reid’s claim is true. There are two sources and two sources alone for the climatedata.ca website sponsored by the Environment Minister, McKenna.

From the climatedata.ca website…

They are using two sources of data and that is it.

ANUSPLIN is a gridded observational dataset produced by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan),…
The bulk of the daily minimum and maximum temperature, and precipitation amounts for the period 1950-2012 were produced circa 2011 by Hopkinson et al. (2011) and McKenney et al. (2011) on behalf of the Canadian Forest Service (CFS), NRCan.

BCCAQ is a method developed at the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium for downscaling daily climate model projections of temperature and precipitation, including indices of extremes.

So only data from 1950 to 2012 and the rest from “climate model projections” as per the website itself.

So Canada’s environment minister is basically writing-off 100 years of data, going with temperature and precipitation amounts beginning at 1950, and interpolating that data using ONLY one climate model.

So much for historical climate trends. History only started in 1950, according to the government of Canada.

Climate change. Global warming. Apparently, McKenna has learned her methodology from the House of Commons and from the climate alarmists: Repeat it, say it louder, that is your talking point, people will totally believe it. Certainly not very scientific, methodologically speaking.

And if repetition and volume doesn’t work out, re-write the historical data to fit your “talking point.”

Trust these people? Buy their “talking points?” Me, not so much. You?

 

[HarryStotle]

An Addendum to my last post:

I went on the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium’s website. Their models (BCCAQ) are "downscaled’ from the data from 1950 to 2005 but apply to the simulated period from 1950 to 2100.

Their disclaimer is a hoot.

The Statistically Downscaled Climate Scenarios are provided by the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium with an open licence on an “AS IS” basis without any warranty or representation, express or implied, as to its accuracy or completeness. Any reliance you place upon the information contained here is your sole responsibility and strictly at your own risk. In no event will the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium be liable for any loss or damage whatsoever, including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, arising from reliance upon the data or derived information.

I wonder if the Government of Canada realizes the data they are relying upon comes with no assurance as to accuracy? But, of course, that is okay, it is only the future of the country that is at stake from decisions and policies based upon no assurance as to reliability.

Keep repeating the talking points…

Global warming. CO2 bad. Global warming. Must act. CO2 bad.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

And the “bias” against the retired is in recognition of your observation the “this is a fairly new field of science.” How can you expect a retired physicist to up on a field in science that is so young?

The retired physicist may have many more years of research and scientific journal reading under his or her belt than the junior physicist. There is no reason to consider the retired physicist to be relatively undereducated or to be behind in current scholarship.

But there is no reason to believe that he knows better than people who are currently in the field, especially a field he was never in (climate science).

LeafByNiggle:

Fake News from conservative activist Shelia Gunn Reid who has strong ties to the oil industry.

(Where do you keep getting stuff like this from?)

So are you denying that Environment Canada will NOT be using actual data from 1850 to 1949 in its information to the public?

Genetic Fallacy. Ever hear of it? The source doesn’t matter, the truth of the claim does.

That applies to facts, not opinions, which Sheila’s clearly were. Look, I do not have time to debunk every kooky youtube video someone puts up from their home. Sure, I could invest the time to try to verify the Sheila’s claims, but not every source is worthy of that kind of attention. Another principle is “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.”

By the way, Sheila Gunn Reid’s claim is true. There are two sources and two sources alone for the climatedata.ca website sponsored by the Environment Minister, McKenna.

From the climatedata.ca website…

They are using two sources of data and that is it.

ANUSPLIN is a gridded observational dataset produced by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan),…
The bulk of the daily minimum and maximum temperature, and precipitation amounts for the period 1950-2012 were produced circa 2011 by Hopkinson et al. (2011) and McKenney et al. (2011) on behalf of the Canadian Forest Service (CFS), NRCan.

BCCAQ is a method developed at the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium for downscaling daily climate model projections of temperature and precipitation, including indices of extremes.

You as assuming the models in inappropriate to use in this context. How do you know that?

 

[PetraG]

You trust these people to govern us?

I DO NOT!

There is a difference between accepting a scientific conclusion as the most likely and accepting a governing proposal as the most prudent way to deal with it. Let us just leave it at that.

This thread is closing on 900 posts and is in pretty much the same state as what I left it.

 

[phaster]

Phaster
Not buying what you or the “experts” are selling.

sometimes you get a gut instinct that some things just don’t add up.

Perhaps you haven’t noticed the irony in you lauding @phaster for bringing up an “excellent illustration” using a late night comedian and The Independent’s and Vice’s supposed journalism, while at the same time decrying people’s replaced “respect for science” with their own “backyard intuition.”

HarryStotle:

You trust these people to govern us?

I DO NOT!

There is a difference between accepting a scientific conclusion as the most likely and accepting a governing proposal as the most prudent way to deal with it.

FWIW perhaps everyone might to recheck “who,…” posted “what,…”

The sheer quantity of my Apologetics hero’s who deny climate change is disappointing. My generation will face more damage than others.

[(links) “a late night comedian and The Independent’s and Vice’s supposed journalism”]

Climate Change Will Create 1.5 Billion Migrants by 2050 and We Have No Idea Where They'll Go

Warning, Language:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...t-fossil-fuels-temperature-rise-a8022511.html

point being, there exists a “confirmation bias” pattern of confusing posters AND conflating of what was said,…

Confirmation Bias: Definition, Signs, Overcoming

which seems to be a very strong indication of political bias WRT CC,… (akin to what happens to witness accounts in a court trial)

Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence – Association for Psychological Science – APS

Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts | Scientific American

as I see things, there is no place for economic or political bias in science because,…

the goal of science is to find the root cause (of some effect)

bottom line,… given catholic dogma/apologetics, have another awkward question I’ve been wondering about,… by denying what basic science is saying (because of economic or political bias) and/or refusing to care for creation, is this ultimately a mortal sin because the free will of “deniers” is putting others in harms way???

What do you think of climate change? Social Justice

God gave us this world to manage. We can either take care of it and make it better, or we can destroy it. I do believe that climate change is real. God has given us the knowledge to know how to combat climate change. It is up to us to use that knowledge to stop to trend toward climate change.

parable of the vineyard owner,… Here is a brief summary

…the Lord was actually describing them, and that such a judgment would be upon them unless they repented.

National Catholic Register

as I see things,…

CC is akin to a lottery game where the odds are stacked against mankind, simply because of basic human nature

 

[phaster]

Policymakers need real ideas and policies to help lower emissions without literally killing people. This is the real challenge. What to do for places that are reliant on the oil & gas industry?

the “real challenge” IMHO actually seems to be a lot more daunting,… this is because when looking at the bigger picture, policymakers not only don’t seem to grasp or acknowledge the what basic science is saying,… seems political leadership does not seem to be able to grasp the basic math, which is the key skill needed for understanding economics and finance

in other words

the other unacknowledged man made problem of ever growing unsustainable off balance sheet debt which is fractal in nature,… meaning debt obligations are happening at the local level

www.TinyURL.com/13thcheck

as well as at the state AND national levels

TinyURL.com - shorten that long URL into a tiny URL

bottom line,… ignoring manmade climate change and off balance sheet debt obligations is an unappreciated knockout “combo” punch risk!!!

so as I see things,…

the nightmarish scenario here is,… given how interconnected everything is, suppose in the future the global economic and finance system is in the same state Venezuela is in today,… AND suppose humanity needs to build various infrastructure to address adverse symptoms of “climate change”

in this nightmarish scenario [W/ A NON WORKING ECONOMY/FINANCE-SYSTEM] there does not seem to be any viable response, hence its basically game over,… so that is why people need to start talking and educating themselves now about the existing problems w/ in the system, while we still have an ability to alter course

 

[HarryStotle]

Delingpole: Fact Checking Alarmist Kids’ False Claims at Climate Crisis Hearing

I too believe passionately that if the world’s governments are going to spend upwards of $1.5 trillion of our money a year on ‘combating climate change’ then at least they ought to have some credible evidence that this expenditure is necessary.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The personal opinions of right-wing activist James Delingpole cannot pass for scientific fact, and there is no reason to treat the his take on climate change as anything other than right-wing propaganda.

 

[HarryStotle]

The personal opinions of right-wing activist James Delingpole cannot pass for scientific fact, and there is no reason to treat the his take on climate change as anything other than right-wing propaganda.

The same might be said of all of the hysterical climate change activists, except that Delingpole, despite being a [gasp! ] conservative journalist [the horror!] has done years of research – far beyond what the manipulated alarmists have. Certainly far beyond what the hysterical left-wing journalists and “concerned” scientists have done. Refer to the Tony Heller video, linked above, for a series of clear and specific examples.

I will now dismiss all you have to say as “left-wing propaganda.”

Given that you haven’t so much as offered an iota of actual data to support what you have to say, or to refute any specific point, while both James Delingpole and Tony Heller have provided boatloads of evidence over many years.

I’ll go with the evidence and dismiss your activism.

See, two can play that game.

Or do you want to go back and actually deal with points made by Delingpole (which were brief summaries of his own journalistic research and not “propaganda”) or Heller?

Of course you won’t. That would involve (gasp!) some effort that merely making the assertion “right-wing propaganda” does not.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

You trust these people to govern us?

I DO NOT!

There is a difference between accepting a scientific conclusion as the most likely and accepting a governing proposal as the most prudent way to deal with it. Let us just leave it at that.

This thread is closing on 900 posts and is in pretty much the same state as what I left it.

Uh, no. Governments across the world spending $1.5 trillion on a largely fictitious, political agenda driven, enterprise that will result in massive disruptions to the development and well-being of much of humanity is hardly what I would call “prudent.”

There is a whole lot at stake, not the least of which are the implementation of horrific measures to control the earth’s population by the so-called “intellectuals”. The need by intellectuals to be taken seriously as intellectuals – including “climate scientists.”

From the above video …

Thomas Sowell (on climate scientists): …“the ones who are pushing global warming are doing their damnedest to make sure those who are doing the opposite don’t get heard in the public.”

Case in point…

I suppose calling those who disagree with us "racists, misogynists, Russian trolls and bots, hostile interests, conspiracy theorists, etc., etc.,

Or, perhaps, just “right-wing propagandist” might suffice.

 

[Theo520]

The retired physicist may have many more years of research and scientific journal reading under his or her belt than the junior physicist. There is no reason to consider the retired physicist to be relatively undereducated or to be behind in current scholarship.

Also, the retired physicist isn’t chasing grant funding or toeing the line to keep his position,
many who have fought the hysteria have been punished.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Given that you haven’t so much as offered an iota of actual data to support what you have to say, or to refute any specific point, while both James Delingpole and Tony Heller have provided boatloads of evidence over many years.

Boatloads?

Or do you want to go back and actually deal with points made by Delingpole?

You get just one. Pick the “best” one. I don’t have time for a “boatload” of claims.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

jeannetherese:

The retired physicist may have many more years of research and scientific journal reading under his or her belt than the junior physicist. There is no reason to consider the retired physicist to be relatively undereducated or to be behind in current scholarship.

Also, the retired physicist isn’t chasing grant funding or toeing the line to keep his position,
many who have fought the hysteria have been punished.

False narrative - that most working scientists are all violating the integrity of their field to publish results they know are invalid. Also a false narrative that those who publish results contrary to the most popular ones are routinely punished for it.