What do you think of climate change?

[LeafByNiggle]

PetraG:

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.

The grounds on which you question the claim cannot be evaluated from an amateur perspective. Take for example the adjustments made to raw temperature readings to combine them into a global average. From a pure conspiracy theorist perspective it is tempting to call those adjustments unjustified and likely deliberate fraud to support a predetermined outcome. Have you researched the algorithms used and the theory behind those algorithms? Or are you judging solely from the outcome? If it is the later, then you must have had a predetermined expectation of what the global average must be, or perhaps you had a predetermined assumption about the necessary distribution of adjustment amounts. That is, perhaps you expected that the adjustments, if they were unbiased and fair, would have to be distributed so that the number of increases roughly equaled the number of decreases. However, if you don’t understand the basis of the adjustments and what they are supposed to be compensating for, you cannot make that assumption. And the often cited emails between researchers that are suppose to be the smoking gun behind this conspiracy, taken out of context and without understanding of what they were talking about do not prove a conspiracy either.

The only way to really understand this issue to the extent that would validate a judgement of conspiracy or even incompetence, is from the perspective of an expert.

 

[PetraG]

Climate misinformation by source: Richard Lindzen

It should really be a red flag when the guy you can find to argue against the 30 or so professional societies who have issued statements that support the likelihood of human-caused climate change is a retired professor here and there. That right there tells you how much debate remains about this issue among scientists.

He writes off “Group 1” as being associated with the IPCC, rather than representing the lion’s share of a wide range of scientific professional societies. His contention that there is no evidence that CO2 emissions are the dominant factor ignores the chemistry that supports CO2 as a prime suspect.

His characterization of scientists as being unwilling to come to a conclusion that societal action is prudent is simply false. There have been alarms raised by the scientific community to the US Congress since 2009!! The implication that only non-scientists who are either self-serving or else some kind of cult-like crackpots are sounding the alarm is unequivocally false.

Top U.S. Science Organizations Hammer Congress on Climate Change—Again | Scientific American

His dismissal of envirnomental groups and the media as being the only ones really calling for action, doing so in a way that somehow prevents scientific dialogue, and they as a group pushing global warming concerns either cynically in a grasp for power and money or else in a cult-like antipathy for the human race? That is frankly repugnant. For his sake, I hope he doesn’t really have such an uncharitable view.

(He also totally ignores the impact of increasing CO2 levels on the pH of the ocean, which I find rather astonishing. No catastrophe? We are already seeing coral reef catastrophe.)

 

[HumbleIOughtToBe]

---

To everything above this line…

Why can’t we agree on what’s true any more? | Media | The Guardian

“What we are discovering is that, once the limitations on data capture are removed, there are escalating opportunities for conflict over the nature of reality.”

---

By the way, @phaster, welcome to CAF. You started a big thread. The thread you just started is not an outlier to CAF

Spoiler

save yourself

. This perfectly describes CAF in all bizarre ways. Highly combative, barley touching the main post preferring to fight with other replies, alliances form, excessively right wing compared to 21st centruy Catholicism as a whole, dominantly American as opposed to a world-wide church, bitter about humanity, and so on.

 

[tony-nj]

So you write off a distinguished climate professor from MIT because he is retired, and publish an article written by a person who is a fellow on some mass media board and is currently working on his phd in biology? Yes I read the article. It didn’t include any science, just claims. It even stated the letter that is the focus of this article was nearly identical to one sent in 2009. 10 years with no changes? This kind of gives credence to what the MIT professor claims. If you’d prefer current researchers, who also agree there is warming but question the impact due to humans and the alarmism on scientific grounds, here are a couple. They also make a good point about the IPCC right out of the gate.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So you write off a distinguished climate professor from MIT because he is retired, and publish an article written by a person who is a fellow on some mass media board and is currently working on his phd in biology?

There is a difference between a retired professor making claims based on his own authority and a lesser-degreed person compiling references to other, more authoritative sources. In the first case, the veracity of the claims rests on the authority of the author. In the second case, the veracity of the claims rests on the authority of the experts cited.

Yes I read the article. It didn’t include any science, just claims.

Did you expect to see science? Would you have understood it if it were presented in a form that is often published in technical profession journals? The article was not meant as scientific publication, but as a guide to the layman on what the science says. So it is entirely appropriate to present claims without all the raw data that backs them up. There are references given that, if properly followed, would lead you to that “hard science” data you seek.

If you’d prefer current researchers, who also agree there is warming but question the impact due to humans and the alarmism on scientific grounds, here are a couple. They also make a good point about the IPCC right out of the gate.

These are outliers that have not much confirmation among researchers generally.

 

[Ender]

The grounds on which you question the claim cannot be evaluated from an amateur perspective.

You keep falling back on this excuse whenever a contrary position is taken. You use it to sweep away objections without having to actually address them. Throwing in the “conspiracy” charge is again just another way to dismiss challenges without responding to them. Your position comes down to "Don’t think about it, just trust the (my) experts."

First, the “experts” disagree, and, more to the point, have shown by their behavior that they are not all to be trusted - Mann being the poster boy for that group. You may believe what you will, but there is no justification for asserting that the rest of us are incapable of drawing reasonable conclusions from public facts. Speak for yourself and the limits of your abilities.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The grounds on which you question the claim cannot be evaluated from an amateur perspective.

You keep falling back on this excuse whenever a contrary position is taken.

I do than only when the contrary position assumes that technical analyses of scientific claims can be sufficiently judged without specialized education and experience.

Throwing in the “conspiracy” charge is again just another way to dismiss challenges without responding to them.

Isn’t conspiracy exactly what is claimed when people refer to climategate?

Your position comes down to "Don’t think about it, just trust the (my) experts."

Do, by all means think about it. But do it properly. Go to university and enroll in a program or do original research and get yourself to the point where you can read and understand the technical articles that are published, and can even spot technical errors when they are made. Don’t have time to do all that? Then trust the experts.

First, the “experts” disagree,

Not to the same degree that people disagree here in this forum.

and, more to the point, have shown by their behavior that they are not all to be trusted - Mann being the poster boy for that group.

That has been asserted but not shown.

You may believe what you will, but there is no justification for asserting that the rest of us are incapable of drawing reasonable conclusions from public facts. Speak for yourself and the limits of your abilities.

I would be glad to listen to and give credence to anyone in this forum who has attained the level of education and training necessary and can really explain in technical detail the research publications that they criticize. So far no one here has even made that claim, much less proven it.

 

[SetInMotion]

What do I think of “climate change”?

Where I presently live the “climate” changes from hot to cold, to dry to rainy, still to windy, within minutes. So, yes, “climate” changes.

If you refer to the defined term “climate change”, well that is something else.

It seems the scripture speaks of:

Mat_24:7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

Luk_21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

And yet, it was foretold that these things will be blamed upon a certain group. As for instance:

Sabbath-breaking 'caused tsunami' | WND | by WND Staff

“And then the great deceiver will persuade men that those who serve God are causing these evils. The class that have provoked the displeasure of Heaven will charge all their troubles upon those whose obedience to God’s commandments is a perpetual reproof to transgressors. It will be declared that men are offending God by the violation of the Sunday sabbath; that this sin has brought calamities which will not cease until Sunday observance shall be strictly enforced; and that those who present the claims of the fourth commandment, thus destroying reverence for Sunday, are troublers of the people, preventing their restoration to divine favor and temporal prosperity. Thus the accusation urged of old against the servant of God will be repeated and upon grounds equally well established: “And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel? And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim.” 1 Kings 18:17, 18. As the wrath of the people shall be excited by false charges, they will pursue a course toward God’s ambassadors very similar to that which apostate Israel pursued toward Elijah. {GC 590.1}”

 

[PetraG]

So you write off a distinguished climate professor from MIT because he is retired, and publish an article written by a person who is a fellow on some mass media board and is currently working on his phd in biology?

No, I simply don’t give him the same weight as over 30 professional scientific societies, including the one I belong to–and not a little society here and there, but the National Academies of Science and the societies in the fields most directly involved: American Meterological Society, American Chemical Society, American Physical Society. I question the degree to which people rush to find someone–anyone!!–with some kind of credentials who will tell them what they want to hear. That says to me that the desire is to prove a particular answer.

That is exactly what I’m seeing in this thread. Let’s find one graph to fight about, let’s try to undermine this isolated source of information, let’s pretend that the data are slim. No, the data are not slim. The level of CO2 in the air is problematic. The pH of the ocean is going down. Yes, the temperature of the planet IS going up. Why the stubborn insistence on waiting around to see if we can survive it, blindly hoping it will go away, considering how many decades a turn-around in technology would reasonably take to address the problem? How much damage is enough damage and how far out of control does the situation need to get?

Even if you could prove that CO2 weren’t the primary cause, the professor cited admitted that CO2 would contribute to warming the planet. Who on earth says, “Oh, well, I’m not the biggest part of the problem, so I can feel free to keep contributing to it?” That isn’t what responsible people do. That’s what people who are in denial do. This isn’t a problem that can be addressed in a responsible way all in a day or a year or a decade, after all.

But I waste my time at the keyboard. I keep coming back doing the same thing and expecting a different response. So do you! Isn’t that a little crazy? Better that we part with the confirmed knowledge that in this particular matter, we are not in agreement now and are not at all likely to come to agreement any time soon. There are other presumably more profitable conversations we could be having. I hope we can take a mutually-charitable leave of the discussion.

On that note: I do not think that people who deny the science are unintelligent people. I realize that most of them think I’ve been hoodwinked somehow, but I am trying to believe that we’re all trying our best to come to the most responsible conclusions we can with regards to a matter that has very important ramifications. “Agree to disagree” is a little simplicstic. I think it is more a matter of recognizing that we’re currently at an unprofitable impasse. As much as I will be tempted to return to this, I hope I will be able to take my leave with the impression that I take and intend no hard feelings.

 

[Theo520]

No, I simply don’t give him the same weight as over 30 professional scientific societies,

Gosh I hope you don’t make professional decisions based on polling. Listen to his arguments and see if they are valid, or whether they are not addressed by these 30 professional societies.

I suspect if you investigate with an open mind, you will find these societies are mostly just saying CO2 is a GHG and man is pumping up the levels, they aren’t swearing the models are good and reliable. Thus no actual conflict with the man in the video.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

when many scientists were proclaiming “another ice age”…

OK, you said pick any one of them, so I pick the one above.

The fact is “many” is three, and they were all working together. Their failure means nothing. The only reason you know about this is that Time magazine made it a cover story once, …

How about you prove that "the only reason" I know this is because Time magazine made it a cover story once?

Are you a mind reader now?

That would be par for the course, since you also know that the “deniers” are only deniers because they have a vested interest in fossil fuels.

The problem is that a “vested interest” could mean everything from making profits to knowing that the entire human race is benefited greatly by fossil fuels.

…sensational stories sell more magazines than boring ones. The fact is most published research on climate change is deadly boring.

Which is why global warming alarmism has to make the future so scary that it frightens the children and then the children are used as props to push their agenda.

Relies on the instinct of parents to protect their children from scary stuff.

If the parents and children actually cared enough to read the boring literature on the subject they wouldn’t be frightened, nor alarmed.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

when many scientists were proclaiming “another ice age”…

OK, you said pick any one of them, so I pick the one above.

The fact is “many” is three, and they were all working together. Their failure means nothing. The only reason you know about this is that Time magazine made it a cover story once, …

How about you prove that "the only reason" I know this is because Time magazine made it a cover story once?

Are you a mind reader now?

I see you could not support the one “doomsday prediction” I selected, choosing instead to opine on how I know about the “coming ice-age prediction”. I frankly don’t care where you saw it. That was not my point. My point is this supposed example of the scientific community predicting a doomsday turned out to be just a speculation of three researchers. Since you allowed that example to stand for all your list of examples, we may assume that none of them can be established as failed doomsday predictions by the scientific community, and so your list has been rendered irrelevant. I gave you the chance to pick a better, more supportable one, but you let me pick, so that’s that.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

when many scientists were proclaiming “another ice age”…

OK, you said pick any one of them, so I pick the one above.

The fact is “many” is three, and they were all working together. Their failure means nothing. The only reason you know about this is that Time magazine made it a cover story once, …

How about you prove that "the only reason" I know this is because Time magazine made it a cover story once?

Are you a mind reader now?

I see you could not support the one “doomsday prediction” I selected, choosing instead to opine on how I know about the “coming ice-age prediction”. I frankly don’t care where you saw it. That was not my point. My point is this supposed example of the scientific community predicting a doomsday turned out to be just a speculation of three researchers. Since you allowed that example to stand for all your list of examples, we may assume that none of them can be established as failed doomsday predictions by the scientific community, and so your list has been rendered irrelevant. I gave you the chance to pick a better, more supportable one, but you let me pick, so that’s that.

Oh, I’ll get to it alright. You do want a thorough response, no?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Oh, I’ll get to it alright. You do want a thorough response, no?

Yes, a thorough response to why you think “the coming ice age” was a thing that scientists generally predicted in the 1970s. Remember, I said wasn’t going to debunk every item on your list - just one.

 

[HarryStotle]

Yes, a thorough response to why you think “the coming ice age” was a thing that scientists generally predicted in the 1970s. Remember, I said wasn’t going to debunk every item on your list - just one.

a speculation of three researchers.

you say?

How about a list of credible scientists who predicted global cooling…

Dr Arnold Reitze (Case Western University)

Dr Tadashi Yano (Japanese Meteorologist)

Dr Hubert Lamb (Director of Climate Research, East Anglia)

Cesare Emiliani (Marine Geologist, University of Miami)

Dr. Francis Stehli (Case Western University)

Dr. James Hays (Columbia University)

46 scientists at “End of Present Interglacial Symposium” agreed that a “New Ice Age is Coming.”

Dr. J. T. Andress (University of Colorado)

Report Released by The National Academy of Scientists Included on the panel were Reid Bryson (Univ of Wisconsin), Donald Gilman (NWS). Panel recommends federally funded research program $18 million/year to begin and raised to $68 million in five years. Also reported in the Times Daily, Robesonian, and others

“Many climatologists” see shift in climate to cooling trend, and possibly “a forerunner of an Ice Age” like the one that gripped North America.

Oceanographer C. R. Weir (Coast Guard) Oil spills could trigger ice age.

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

Paul Cato (meteorologist) - pollution could bring on ice age.

Dr. George Denton (University of Maine)

Scientists at NASA, including director, James Fletcher (NASA) Reported in several newspapers, including The Telegraph, The Daily Sentinel, Milwaukee Journal,

Prof Vojen Lozek (Czechoslovak Academy of Science)

Dr. Herbert E. Wright, Jr. (University of Minnesota)

Prof C. B. Shultz (University of Nebraska)

National Geographic News Service

Dr. Paul W. Hodge (University of Washington)

Dr. Kenneth Hare (University of Toronto)

Reid Bryson (University of Wisconsin), also cited by The Calgary Herald, New York Magazine (see below), and by NOAA (see below). Featured on ABC news 1978

Drs. George and Helen Kukla (Columbia University) Also featured in BBC documentary

NOAA Global Cooling and World Starvation citing work of Hubert Lamb, Reid Bryson, and others.

Nigel Calder (science writer, BBC, New Scientist)

Walter Orr Roberts (Aspen Institute and NCAR) - a less favourable climate may be a new global norm.

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, and others listed above cited in Newsweek article, April 28, 1975

Hurd C. Willett (meteorologist, MIT), also here.

New York Magazine - The Ice Age Cometh - half the article on the work of Reid Bryson (Univ of Wisconsin).

New York Times via Bangor Daily News - Space Mirror proposed by Rockwell space division head for curbing crop freezes and possible coming ice age.

Report prepared by German, Japanese and American specialists, in the Dec. 15 issue of Nature, reported by NY Times, that the team of specialists could find no end to the 30 year cooling period from 1950 to 1975.

Madeleine Briskin (University of Cincinnati) - climate will gradually get colder throughout your lifetime. Also here, and here, and here

Smithsonian article cited in Kentucky New Era - Another Ice Age? Head South With All Deliberate Speed. Also cited here

Dr. Lenoa Libby (UCLA), and Dr Louis Pandolfi (climate researcher) - cold snap through the first half of the 21st century.

Dr. Maynard Millar (University of Idaho) - in the midst of a large glacial build-up. Also: “in the middle of, or long overdue for, some kind of an ice age,”. Also, Maynard speaking at National Association for the Advancement of Science: We may be in for a full scale ice age in 5000 years. I am so sure of it I would bet my life on it.

Continued…

 

[PetraG]

Gosh I hope you don’t make professional decisions based on polling. Listen to his arguments and see if they are valid, or whether they are not addressed by these 30 professional societies.

I suspect if you investigate with an open mind, you will find these societies are mostly just saying CO2 is a GHG and man is pumping up the levels, they aren’t swearing the models are good and reliable. Thus no actual conflict with the man in the video.

I did. They are the same hashed over things we’ve been kicking around for over 900 posts.

No, the scientific societies are NOT “mostly just saying CO2 is a GHG…”
They are saying, and I quote:
“We, as leaders of major scientific organizations, write to remind you of the consensus scientific
view of climate change.
Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous
scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the
primary driver. This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast
body of peer-reviewed science.
There is strong evidence that ongoing climate change is having broad negative impacts on
society, including the global economy, natural resources, and human health. For the United
States, climate change impacts include greater threats of extreme weather events, sea level rise,
and increased risk of regional water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of
biological systems. The severity of climate change impacts is increasing and is expected to
increase substantially in the coming decades.
To reduce the risk of the most severe impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions must
be substantially reduced. In addition, adaptation is necessary to address unavoidable
consequences for human health and safety, food security, water availability, and national
security, among others.”

https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/06282016.pdf

 

[PetraG]

Continued…

Signed by:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Meteorological Society
American Public Health Association
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists
American Society of Naturalists
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography
Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium
Botanical Society of America
Consortium for Ocean Leadership
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Entomological Society of America
Geological Society of America
National Association of Marine Laboratories
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society for Mathematical Biology
Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles
Society of Nematologists
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

That is not a long list of individual scientists. That is a long list of scientific professional societies.
So please do not trot out a video by a retired professor that implies that the science community is somehow evenly divided between Group 1 and Group 2 and is as up in the air about the situation as that video you posted implies. No, that is not true, and it is misleading to imply that it is.

You are going to believe what you want, but heaven forbid that someone read this thread and be left with the false impression that scientists as a whole are up in the air about the question. Not true.

Done. Really, this time I need to be DONE. I hate to admit despair, but that’s where I am. DONE.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Yes, a thorough response to why you think “the coming ice age” was a thing that scientists generally predicted in the 1970s. Remember, I said wasn’t going to debunk every item on your list - just one.

a speculation of three researchers.

you say?

How about a list of credible scientists who predicted global cooling…

Dr Arnold Reitze (Case Western University)

A professor of law, not a scientist.

Dr Tadashi Yano (Japanese Meteorologist)

Not a scientist.

Dr Hubert Lamb (Director of Climate Research, East Anglia)

Says ice age will not come for 10,000 years.

Cesare Emiliani (Marine Geologist, University of Miami)

Says it “could be”. Does not predict it.

Dr. Francis Stehli (Case Western University)

A geologist, not a climate scientist, or even a meteorologist.

Dr. James Hays (Columbia University)

“We may be getting colder, by and by”. A possibility, not a prediction.

46 scientists at “End of Present Interglacial Symposium” agreed that a “New Ice Age is Coming.”

Another discussion of what could be. Not a prediction of what will be.

Dr. J. T. Andress (University of Colorado)

Duplicate of previous entry.

Report Released by The National Academy of Scientists Included on the panel were Reid Bryson (Univ of Wisconsin), Donald Gilman (NWS). Panel recommends federally funded research program $18 million/year to begin and raised to $68 million in five years. Also reported in the Times Daily, Robesonian, and others

Another “there might be”.

OK, I’m getting tired of debunking your references. You have failed to show there was ever a scientific consensus or anything close to a consensus that global cooling was imminent.