What do you think of climate change?

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

So I don’t care how you define scientific community. Your choice. You still can’t show global cooling was widely held because it wasn’t.

So how many actually accredited “meteorologists,” specifically, and at a PhD level, were around in the 1970s? You provide the numbers, and I can track down how many of those considered global cooling a viable possibility.

No, this foray into the 1970s was your idea. If you want to make a claim about the 1970s, you provide the numbers.

By the way, Carl Sagan is on record as conceding that cooling was at least as possible as warming and even more likely given pollution, and so was James Hansen.

Why should I give Carl Sagan any more credence than I give to any other of your 77 names?

 

[goout]

goout:

Has anyone stopped to consider that this silliness has it’s source in the pride of the Fall.
Man has thought himself capable of controlling God’s creation since taking hold of The Apple.

And the idea that man can control and alter the course of Earth’s destiny is a part of that arrogance.

It is not arrogance to recognize that man’s activities can affect the climate. It is simply recognizing what is. Even the lowly bacteria can affect the atmosphere. So why can’t man?

That wasn’t my contention.
Of course human activity affects the environment. And we should be responsible stewards of God’s creation.

The idea that human beings are affecting the world’s weather in an alarming and lasting way is science gone superstition.

And the easily and scientifically observable elephant in the room is the coming and going of the ice ages without human affect.
It is clear that drastic weather changes simply happen naturally, and current conditions are nothing drastic anyway. The general public is deceived easily, because it has absolutely no conception of geologic time and climactic rates of change.
We live in the self absorbed now, where the next internet news flash must be just clicks away.

 

[MichaelP3]

seems I’m a glutton for punishment, because I’m “hopeful” that by repeatedly pointing out the basic science, eventually it is going to make some headway decreasing the knowledge gap between the concerns of what hard science scientists have come to understand AND what the non-science trained public (at large) thinks it knows

Well I am totally surprised by the non-interest when I pointed out REAL WORLD SITUATIONS targeted by unfathomable REAL WORLD companies. I personally work in these situations every single day and there is just no interest even remotely. That is such a pure example on this very thread TO ALL WHO RESPONDED that you do not care to get first hand knowledge. But rather think what you want? It just shows…

 

[Sftyvlv1]

Laugh out loud environmentalists. “I guess they never told us what was real, Iron and Coke chromium Steel” Billy Joel.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And the easily and scientifically observable elephant in the room is the coming and going of the ice ages without human affect.

The history of ice ages is not ignored by climate scientists, and it does not present any contradiction. No one says man’s activities are the only cause of climate ever. Climate has many causes.

It is clear that drastic weather changes simply happen naturally, and current conditions are nothing drastic anyway.

That is understood. But it does not take changes the size of past ice ages to cause tremendous human suffering.

The general public is deceived easily, because it has absolutely no conception of geologic time and climactic rates of change.

I’m glad you mentioned rate of change, because that is one area in which recent changes surpass past ones. Sure, past changes have greater. But they happened over a much longer time scale, which means the rate of change was much slower for the naturally-occurring past changes.

 

[Ender]

I’m glad you mentioned rate of change, because that is one area in which recent changes surpass past ones. Sure, past changes have greater. But they happened over a much longer time scale, which means the rate of change was much slower for the naturally-occurring past changes.

This is one of the most common claims made by climate alarmists, and it simply isn’t accurate. Temperature changes during Dansgaard-Oeschger events were both much more extreme and much faster than anything we’ve seen in the last century.

Over a period of a few years to a few decades, average temperatures have shifted by up to half of the temperature differences seen between the Pleistocene ice ages and their interglacial periods—that is, as much as 5–15 °C (9–27 °F). (Encyclopedia Britannica)

 

[Metis1]

Personally, I accept Pope Francis’ “Encyclical on Climate Change & Inequality” as being the truth, not because he said it but because, as he says in his book, it’s very much real and a danger to all humanity. Last year I went to an eight session seminar on his book, but I was already “on board” since I am a scientist who has looked at the coverage of this for several decades now.

At this point, it makes no sense to argue as the verdict is well in, so now it’s really just a matter of resolve as to whether to continue to take actions to reduce our carbon footprint, and we’ve made a lot of progress in the west already.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I’m glad you mentioned rate of change, because that is one area in which recent changes surpass past ones. Sure, past changes have greater. But they happened over a much longer time scale, which means the rate of change was much slower for the naturally-occurring past changes.

This is one of the most common claims made by climate alarmists, and it simply isn’t accurate. Temperature changes during Dansgaard-Oeschger events were both much more extreme and much faster than anything we’ve seen in the last century.

Over a period of a few years to a few decades, average temperatures have shifted by up to half of the temperature differences seen between the Pleistocene ice ages and their interglacial periods—that is, as much as 5–15 °C (9–27 °F). (Encyclopedia Britannica)

You may have a point there. However I will also point out that

• Evidence for D-O events is primarily in the Greenland ice cores.
• D-O events are mostly a North Atlantic phenomenon, even if evidence of these events has been found elsewhere. In fact ice cores for Vostok in Russia were drilled first before D-O events were known, and the analysis “missed” them. Only after the Greenland cores were drilled and D-O events found did scientists go back and reexamine the Vostok cores to see an almost imperceptible change.
• Have D-O events ever occurred 11,000 years after an ice age? It seems the ones described in the past were all during an ice age, which leads me to believe that current warming is not a D-O event.

 

[Ender]

• Have D-O events ever occurred 11,000 years after an ice age? It seems the ones described in the past were all during an ice age, which leads me to believe that current warming is not a D-O event.

I have no idea how often they occur, when they last occurred, or whether they were in fact global. The only thing it shows for sure is that warming events, even extreme ones, can occur naturally and (apparently) from causes other than CO2 concentrations. This strongly suggests that blaming the (comparatively) modest warming over the last 150 years on CO2 because no other cause is apparent is unwarranted.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is inaccurate to say that recent warming is attributed to human activity solely because “we can’t think of any other cause.”

 

[phaster]

I had totally missed this one, lol. Good grief, excuse me for pointing out that high levels of CO2 have more than one known detrimental effect on the earth over which we have been given temporary stewardship! That was SO off-thread of me!

just an educated guess BUT pretty sure there are other potential LOL nuggets in this thread,…

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?

Lemuel:

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

Did a 1977 ‘Time’ Story Offer Tips on ‘How to Survive the Coming Ice Age’?

While a number of media outlets reported on some briefly-lived scientific fears over global cooling in the 1970s, viral images purporting to show a cover story on the topic are doctored.

FACT CHECK: Did a 1977 'Time' Story Offer Tips on 'How to Survive the Coming Ice Age'?

How the “Global Cooling” Story Came to Be

Nine paragraphs written for Newsweek in 1975 continue to trump 40 years of climate science. It is a record that has its author amazed

Gwynne was the science editor of Newsweek 39 years ago when he pulled together some interviews from scientists and wrote a nine-paragraph story about how the planet was getting cooler.

Ever since, Gwynne’s “global cooling” story – and a similar Time Magazine piece – have been brandished gleefully by those who say it shows global warming is not happening, or at least that scientists – and often journalists – don’t know what they are talking about.

But earth’s glacial rhythms are “being overridden by human activities, especially burning fossil fuels,” McCaffrey noted. The stories about global cooling “are convenient for people to trot out and wave around,” he said, but they miss the point:

“What’s clear is we are a force of nature. Human activity – the burning of fossil fuels and land change – is having a massive influence. We are in the midst of this giant geoengineering experiment.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/

given these posts,… AND the fact that you shared earlier in this thread that you have a PhD in chemistry (which kinda/sorta implies ya might have some understanding of the scientific process)

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

have to ask,… in your professional opinion,… is the pope’s “confession” on social media (i.e. “teh interwebz”),… real or phake?!

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

 

[phaster]

Well I am totally surprised by the non-interest when I pointed out REAL WORLD SITUATIONS targeted by unfathomable REAL WORLD companies. I personally work in these situations every single day and there is just no interest even remotely. That is such a pure example on this very thread TO ALL WHO RESPONDED that you do not care to get first hand knowledge. But rather think what you want? It just shows…

I hear ya,… and as I see things the issue is yet another variation of the same old clash,…

personal bias AKA “teh interwebz” infallibility VS scientific process

where “teh interwebz” infallibility is basically another way of pondering

Confirmation Bias: Definition, Signs, Overcoming

as I’ve tried to point out from the OP,… the general public has been shown to have pretty much zero “scientific” understanding of what is causing the problem,… so education and tools to recognize B$ are key to addressing CC

Bury climate denier BS in scientific facts with this new Twitter tool

…a University of California study published in August found that climate deniers get 49% more visibility in the media and online compared with actual scientists. Only 3% of the content regarding climate change on Twitter is from an expert scientific source, according to 2018 research by Oxford University.

Use this Twitter tool to bury climate denier BS in science

taking lessons learned from StartUpWeek, I’ve been wondering what it would take to have it both ways??

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

in any case now that the big players in the finance sector are recognizing the more immediate risk posed by CC I sense the tide toward taking active measure to reduce carbon loading the atmosphere will accelerate

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/goldman-sachs-climate-change-threatens-new-york-tokyo-lagos-cities-2019-9

 

[Theo520]

he scientific process)

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

Yes, if people only referred back to the above chart rather than going hysterical, before the “method” has corrected/proven itself on the impacts of CO2

Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis,​

A Climate Modeller Spills the Beans - Quadrant Online

[)

 

[HarryStotle]

No, this foray into the 1970s was your idea. If you want to make a claim about the 1970s, you provide the numbers.

Well now you are becoming completely disingenuous.

Recall the flow of thought here. I gave you what YOU called “a boatload” of claims to choose from to provide evidence why you were convinced about global warming, and you deflected from answering the challenge by putting it back on me to support a non crucial issue. Read the boldfaced part below and YOUR response.

HarryStotle:

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.

Pick one of those, then.

Barring that, why don’t you provide one scientific claim that you would propose to be the one that convinces you the most that global warming is a problem at the moment.

Then we can address one question that is to YOUR liking.

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

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

My challenge to you – to repeat it – …why don’t YOU provide one scientific claim that YOU would propose to be the one that convinces YOU the most that global warming is a problem at the moment.

You chose to deflect to “when many scientists were proclaiming “another ice age”…” rather than explain what convinces you the most why global warming is a problem.

You chose to put it back on me by focusing on…

“when many scientists were proclaiming “another ice age”…”

Now you want to claim this “…foray into the 1970s” was MY idea?

Let’s, at least, establish a baseline of honesty and truth before going forward.

If you sincerely believe the “foray into the 1970s” is a waste of time and not worth you pursuing the numbers, then let’s go back to MY original challenge to you.

What convinces you most that global warming is an issue?

You won’t answer that, will you? You seem to much prefer a game of deflection. I wonder why? You don’t have actual evidence do you, besides the models that have been largely fabricated by vested scientists?

 

[HarryStotle]

just an educated guess BUT pretty sure there are other potential LOL nuggets in this thread,…

HarryStotle:

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?

Did a 1977 ‘Time’ Story Offer Tips on ‘How to Survive the Coming Ice Age’?

While a number of media outlets reported on some briefly-lived scientific fears over global cooling in the 1970s, viral images purporting to show a cover story on the topic are doctored.

http://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-coming-ice-age/

have to ask,… in your professional opinion,… is the pope’s “confession” on social media (i.e. “teh interwebz”),… real or phake?!

This is all very interesting except it demonstrates the level of honesty and truth that appears to be lacking from some posters on the thread.

The fact that you feel you can make inferences to whatever you decide is correct is not sufficient to prove your points.

1. The existence of a Time magazine cover that I did not in fact ever reference DOES NOT establish that " 'the only reason’ I know this is because Time magazine made it a cover story once."
2. I never claimed to have a PhD in chemistry, although someone might have sufficient knowledge of a topic without ever attaining a PhD. Besides, the relevant field of study is physics NOT chemistry. Go back and actually read the posts.
3. Pope Francis does not have a PhD in either physics or chemistry. The fact that he is using population control proponents such as Jeffrey Sachs and Ban Ki-Moon as “special” guests at the Amazon Synod and has used them and other global warming propagandists extensively and exclusively ought to make us all wonder about where Pope Francis is taking the Church.

As to Snopes fact-checking anything, perhaps they ought to stick to fact checking satirical and parody sites such as the Babylon Bee rather than proclaim “as fact” what they have little expertise in. The fact that the founder and main fact-checker of Snopes has been credibly accused of fraud and putting prostitutes on his expense claims should make you think twice of using the site as a credible source. Not even Google is using them as fact-checkers any longer.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…why don’t YOU provide one scientific claim that YOU would propose to be the one that convinces YOU the most that global warming is a problem at the moment.

If I had to narrow it down to just one fact that convinces me that global warming is a problem at the moment it would be the fact that most climate scientists say it is a problem.

 

[Metis1]

As one who has followed this for decades from scientific sources, especially Scientific America, climate change has now been well established through both direct and indirect evidence. We know what higher levels of C02 and methane gas do as far as the greenhouse effect is concerned, and no other possible causation has yet been found to be a major contributor. The only real opposition to accepting this is mainly political and/or economic.

 

[Theo520]

As one who has followed this for decades from scientific sources, especially Scientific America, climate change has now been well established through both direct and indirect evidence. We know what higher levels of C02 and methane gas do as far as the greenhouse effect is concerned, and no other possible causation has yet been found to be a major contributor. The only real opposition to accepting this is mainly political and/or economic.

No, you are wrong in your assessment.

‘Deniers’ agree with you on the increased radiative forcing from higher CO2 and methane levels.

Disagreement is centered around the ‘feedbacks’ which are not proven science. Suggest you go back and pour through your old issues of Scientific America.

I’ve posted this example before but it’s ignored by alarmists, it’s legit research on the feedbacks. No surprise that it finds the model assumptions are in error.

 

[HarryStotle]

As one who has followed this for decades from scientific sources, especially Scientific America, climate change has now been well established through both direct and indirect evidence. We know what higher levels of C02 and methane gas do as far as the greenhouse effect is concerned, and no other possible causation has yet been found to be a major contributor. The only real opposition to accepting this is mainly political and/or economic.

Actually, the only real support for this is political and/or economic.

If there actually was a climate crisis, the UN would not rely upon a 17 year old autistic girl to speak on behalf of the science, there would be a completely open forum of scientists to debate and demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that global warming is indeed a crisis.

If the “believers” truly believed what they were spouting they would not be buying beachfront properties or investing in fossil fuels. Insurance companies and mortgage underwriters would be taking the lead in raising insurance rates for such properties and 20-30 year mortgages for such properties would not be entered into by financial institutions. If warming is credibly true, banks and mortgage companies will, with certainty, be losing huge amounts of money. Clearly the cause of global warming has not been established to their level of buy-in.

You may also wish to know that greenhouse gas theory is under assault in mainstream science, science not being underwritten by global warming promoting political and economic entities.

R.I.P. Greenhouse Gas Theory: 1980-2018 | Principia Scientific Intl.

https://principia-scientific.org/?s=greenhouse