What do you think of climate change?

[HarryStotle]

Theo520:

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.

Nope, that isn’t the narrative.

The narrative is that many scientists are very concerned with making their work significant, so they rationalize their endeavors by pointing at the “consensus” among scientists that support a specific viewpoint. So if the “consensus” of scientists agree that global warming is an issue, it must be so. Added benefit: funding is assured for my project by connecting it somehow to “climate change” by showing some detail (often ignoring a number of others) that supports the narrative.

No need for “violating the integrity,” merely the all too common practice of an intellectual rationalizing the significance of what (s)he is doing, and as a side-benefit pay off some of his/her student debt.

But beyond that is the incestuous practice of department heads of climate related faculties at universities selecting and grooming new comers based upon the “good” of the department and maintaining its importance in a highly competitive field of post-secondary institutions that are continuously looking to remain as “elite” and lucrative as possible. How do you think the majority of university departments became rabidly left-wing over the past 50 years?

The political elites (the left) are quite content to push more money towards these faculties provided they, in return, push the narrative of more government control (socialism) over every aspect of our lives – and a crisis such as global warming will bring catastrophe – certainly warrants political intervention.

It is all (pretty much) a racket concocted by leftist elites. Research Maurice Strong, The Rio Summit, or The Club of Rome.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

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.

The actual data from the past 150 years shows temperatures rose sharply in the early 20th century, long before CO2 emissions began to rise significantly. The climate alarmists seek to disallow or “mitigate” all the data prior to 1950-1970 (the point at which temperature decline reached bottom) in order to show warming trends.
This fails to account for the fact that since the 19th century, Earth has been emerging from the Little Ice Age — probably the coldest period since the end of the Ice Age.

There has been warming since the Little Ice Age to a peak in the 1930s and 1940s, a decline from there to the 1970s – when many scientists were proclaiming “another ice age” was on its way – and a mild warming since.

The problem for the warming alarmists is that the global temperatures we have experienced in the past 20 years are nowhere near the peaks of the 1930s to 1950s when CO2 was near half of what it is now. Yet, high temperature records were far more prevalent and much more extreme then.

The alarmists ignore those, or interpolate them away using computer AL-GORE-ithms.

The Heller video above (Wounded Michael Mann Lashes Out) or this one, or numerous others show a “boatload” of examples of how the historical records have been altered ostensibly to “prove” CO2 is the cause of warming.

The climatedata.ca website demonstrates that even the Government of Canada through its Environment Canada department is mitigating the historical climate record in order to “prove” warming and impose a carbon tax on Canadians.

See …

What do you think of climate change? Social Justice

You might want to listen to the Environment Minister of Canada, Catherine McKenna, herself, at this point in the video… [100 years of climate data DELETED from Canadian government policy report | Sheila Gunn Reid] 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, …

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The narrative is that many scientists are very concerned with making their work significant, so they rationalize their endeavors by pointing at the “consensus” among scientists that support a specific viewpoint. So if the “consensus” of scientists agree that global warming is an issue, it must be so.

Also a false narrative. But a very attractive one to those whose don’t like the consensus.

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

LeafByNiggle:

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

The actual data from the past 150 years shows…
The climate alarmists seek to disallow …
This fails to account for the fact that since the 19th century…
… when many scientists were proclaiming “another ice age”…
…global temperatures we have experienced in the past 20 years are nowhere near…
The alarmists ignore those, or interpolate them away using computer AL-GORE-ithms…
…or this on, or numerous others show a “boatload” of examples…
of how the historical records have been altered ostensibly to “prove” CO2 is the cause of warming.
The climatedata.ca website demonstrates that even the Government of Canada…

I said you only get one. A boatload of invalid claims does not amount to one good claim. I have generously offered to address one claim from the video you cited. Now strip away all the right-wing propaganda and cute phrases (like Al-GORE-ithsms) and hyperbole and present just one single scientific claim from that video that you think is most solid and most damaging to the climate science consensus, if you can.

 

[Ender]

The climatedata.ca website demonstrates that even the Government of Canada through its Environment Canada department is mitigating the historical climate record in order to “prove” warming and impose a carbon tax on Canadians.

Fiddling with historical temperature data is endemic throughout the entirety of the climate science world. It exists everywhere and with every database from East Anglia to NASA. The argument is of course that corrections are necessary to resolve minor errors in the measuring devices or stations, which is surely true. What is not true, however, is the assumption that because some adjustments are necessary, those that are made are valid simply because we should trust the organizations making them.

I would be more inclined to think that way if the adjustments were not always to make the past colder and the present warmer. The raw data do not support the right narrative, and even the adjusted data receive further adjustment over time…again, always in the same direction. The 18 year warming hiatus at the beginning of this century was disappeared by NASA when they simply changed the historic temperature data, and voila - problem solved.

 

[Theo520]

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.

No, my narrative is spot on.

And I never said most are publishing invalid results. We gone over this before but you always skate away and never engaged.

Most research published is on the impacts of climate change, not the underlying mechanics. They take IPCC worst case projections as given assumptions for (name removed by moderator)ut into their research. Thus they can publish with integrity on what might happen with 4C of warming.

This is an example of the legit research on the mechanics of AGW, and no surprise they discovered the model assumptions are too aggressive.

 

[Convert3]

Time for a snack…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Most research published is on the impacts of climate change, not the underlying mechanics.

You have a very slanted view of what most research is on. Perhaps most research that Breitbart or Mr. Watts report on are of that sort. But I would not expect them to have a random sample because it would be too boring.

 

[phaster]

Theo520:

Most research published is on the impacts of climate change, not the underlying mechanics.

You have a very slanted view of what most research is on. Perhaps most research that Breitbart or Mr. Watts report on are of that sort. But I would not expect them to have a random sample because it would be too boring.

in catholic news we see

https://religiondispatches.org/conservative-catholics-try-to-domesticate-laudato-si/

http://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-us...cological-conversion-on-laudato-si-milestone/

…which reflects the political outlook of “believers” influenced by left leaning news reporting on TV vs “deniers” who are swayed by right leaning social media sites

BUT seems Breitbart and/or Mr. Watts only add fuel to the “religious” battle for hearts/minds/souls

Conservatives Use Social Media to Move Their Agendas Much More Than Liberals Do

…Scholars tend to lean further left. Most research on social movements generally focuses on progressive causes. Some had researched underground far-right groups’ internet activity, especially online discussion forums, and since then, a handful of studies have emerged comparing left and right populist movements online. But the vast majority of digital activist research has focused on left-wing movements.

…Right-wing groups that were hierarchical in their decision-making structure were the top users of the internet. This embrace of digital media by right-wing groups seemed to go almost wholly unnoticed

…Right-wing activists themselves were not always aware of the extent of their conservative digital ecosystem

http://www.newsweek.com/2019/05/31/conservatives-social-media-savvy-liberals-1423825.html

seems to me 900+ posts from the OP, that basic science is the metaphorical “unwanted guest in the room AND at the table”

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I say this because activists and their political followers on left in general do not understand basic science,… likewise its the same on the right BUT here there is an added complication which associates science/scientists w/ being bias toward left wing politics (i.e. big brother government types that are anti markets, etc.)

simple truth is,… most hard science scientists are just very curious people who are trying to figure to find the root cause (of some effect)

…In 1995, Ben Santer authored one of the most important sentences in the history of climate science: “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” It was one of the first statements to identify humans’ role in driving climate change, and it was based on science. But the vitriol that followed was personal and malicious, impacting both Santer’s career and family.

My Climate Story: Ben Santer | Climate One

 

[Theo520]

You have a very slanted view of what most research is on. Perhaps most research that Breitbart or Mr. Watts report on are of that sort. But I would not expect them to have a random sample because it would be too boring.

Most research that makes it into the news is not about AGW science, it’s about the impacts. That’s everything on crop impacts, sea level rise, and all the impacts to flora and fauna. They are based on warming as projected by the IPCC, they provide zero increase in knowledge on the meachanisms of AGW.

Yet again you try skate away from the truth.

 

[MichaelP3]

YES! Articles are irrelevant which is what I was pretty much saying (and you should have understood that). In fact all the armchair science talk I see here is irrelevant to the real world workings. Theo520, rest assured, I have been in this business long enough to know what to expect.

You seem to know a lot about PR and how a HUGE company should approach that? My original question still stands and if you can maybe start to fathom the amount of resources I am talking about then maybe you can answer? You need to think bigger and then try to understand it within the real world and then maybe you can try to answer that question.

I am very worried that you are the only response here to my real world statement (yes I have only seen very fairytale talk thus far). Unless people thought you answered me. Which is concerning on a whole other level.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Most research that makes it into the news…

I didn’t realize we were talking about the media. I think what scientists really research is vastly more important than what appears in Time magazine.

 

[Theo520]

I didn’t realize we were talking about the media.

We were talking about the research that has crossed our posts in these forums, so most did make it into the news first.

No one here has the ability to categorize and filter all published research with a climate angle. I’ve certainly not found a resource elsewhere that doe so.

You continue to deflect from my point

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Most research published is on the impacts of climate change, not the underlying mechanics.

This is not a statement about what appears in the news. It is a (false) statement about what research is published. If you had qualified the statement to refer only to what research makes it into the news I would not have challenged it

 

[Anrakyr]

I say this because activists and their political followers on left in general do not understand basic science

Call ref for sweeping generalization.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I’m not confident that America is going to save everyone. I’m a bit curious to how everyone will react when it gets to the point of no return.

 

[Theo520]

I’m a bit curious to how everyone will react when it gets to that point of no return.

That point doesn’t exist. But I’ll know we are serious when we start a massive build out of nuclear to replace coal generators, which could be accomplished within 40 yrs and would drastically reduce man’s CO2 emissions.

 

[Theo520]

An interesting read.

The New York Times makes a concerted effort to drive home the point that climate change is real, but it does a poor job of presenting the basic facts about climate change that could convince skeptics, according to a review of the paper’s coverage since 1980.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/20/in-media-coverage-of-climate-change-where-are-the-facts/

 

[PetraG]

This is my take on climate change: I don’t think there is any question at all that the planet as a whole is getting warmer and doing so on a geologically-unusual scale. There isn’t a natural event to explain it, such as unusual volcanic activity, etc. Meanwhile, the level of CO2 is going up to a level not seen since the Earth’s temperature could have been about 10 degrees higher and the oceans were estimated to have been about 100 feet higher. Is that a big deal? Bigger than any other global climate change in human history and far before? YES! YES, IT IS!!

There is a huge question about what political and societal steps can or ought to be taken to deal with it. There has to be a preferential consideration to those who are either too impoverished to cope with this themselves or else exceptionally vulnerable, whether geographically or economically. There needs to be consideration taken to preserving the capacity to raise food. There need to be thought taken to what the response will be if there is unprecedented levels of displacement.

What there should not be is a Chicken Little willingness to accept every proposal to “do something.” We can only do so much without harming people who are vulnerable or unjustly targeting those who don’t deserve to take a disproportionate share of the burden of whatever response is decided upon.

 

[Ender]

I don’t think there is any question at all that the planet as a whole is getting warmer and doing so on a geologically-unusual scale.

I question this claim, which seems to rely both on adjusted temperature data which makes the recent past colder and the present warmer, as well as questionable reconstructions of temperatures over the last few thousand years which do the same. Believing in “geologically-unusual” warming is more an article of faith than a demonstration of science.

Meanwhile, the level of CO2 is going up to a level not seen since the Earth’s temperature could have been about 10 degrees higher and the oceans were estimated to have been about 100 feet higher. Is that a big deal? Bigger than any other global climate change in human history and far before?

The “bigger than ever” change is again simply hyperbole. Here’s just one example of “bigger and faster” than what is alleged to be happening today - Dansgaard-Oeschger events.

D-O oscillations are characterized by their asymmetric change in temperatures. They all display a very fast warming, with temperatures rising by about 8-10°C in just a few decades , within the span of a human life time (figure 21). This warming, in less than a century, is followed by a slower cooling of ~ 2°C in about 200 years. From this point D-O oscillations take different paths. Some D-O oscillations will quickly drop 6-8°C into cold glacial temperatures in about 250 more years for a total span of ~500 years

Even in the IPCCs worst nightmare scenario they aren’t predicting 8-10 degrees of warming in “just a few decades.”

 

[PetraG]

I question this claim, which seems to rely both on adjusted temperature data which makes the recent past colder and the present warmer, as well as questionable reconstructions of temperatures over the last few thousand years which do the same. Believing in “geologically-unusual” warming is more an article of faith than a demonstration of science.

I know what the glaciers are doing and I know what kind of rain events they’re getting in Houston. You can quibble about whether that was the norm 200 years ago or 100,000 years ago. The truth remains that we’re poorly prepared for a continuation of the trends we’re seeing.

The “bigger than ever” change is again simply hyperbole. Here’s just one example of “bigger and faster” than what is alleged to be happening today - Dansgaard-Oeschger events.

D-O oscillations are characterized by their asymmetric change in temperatures. They all display a very fast warming, with temperatures rising by about 8-10°C in just a few decades , within the span of a human life time (figure 21). This warming, in less than a century, is followed by a slower cooling of ~ 2°C in about 200 years. From this point D-O oscillations take different paths. Some D-O oscillations will quickly drop 6-8°C into cold glacial temperatures in about 250 more years for a total span of ~500 years

Even in the IPCCs worst nightmare scenario they aren’t predicting 8-10 degrees of warming in “ just a few decades .”

Actually, I don’t think it is that important if it is change that is unprecedented in the last 10,000 years or just the last 100. The truth is that we’re not prepared for the current weather trends to continue. Houston isn’t ready to keep getting 40 inch rain events. The West isn’t ready to keep getting droughts.

Why would we only care what is likely to happen in one human lifetime? Why wouldn’t we automatically be concerned about four and ten and twenty lifetimes? Because we don’t care if our civilizations collapse or go through turmoil, as long as we aren’t here to go through it ourselves? That’s little selfish.

If we could be doing harm by consumption habits we can figure out how to change without putting the vulnerable through undue suffering, that is worth looking at doing. A love of consumption is something we know we’re supposed to renounce, after all. It is a matter of who has to sacrifice what in order to arrive there. Right now, some of us are trying to make those decisions by force. I don’t think it is tenable for civilization to attempt to do that by force, either. I don’t think it is just to do that. The work of getting people on-board with with any major changes has to be done. We’re not going to save civilization by tearing it apart.