What do you think of climate change?

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

And what do you think about the relevancy of all of the above to the current proposal by 11, 000 scientists that the population of the Earth will need to be severely curtailed and reduced?

Fake. There is no such 11,000 scientists who say the population of the Earth needs to be reduced.

Okay, I am open to hearing how the two sites are fake. That would be good news.

Got proof?

Bloomberg Quint is putting up fake news. Is that your claim?

The BioScience article has been faked, as well?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

BioScience only showed 5 scientists who said population needs to be reduced, not 11,000. Bloomberg made the mistake of conflating the 11,000 scientists who said we are facing a climate emergency (which we are) with the 5 scientists who say the necessary solution to that emergency is to reduce population. The 11,000 did not all say that, are are probably unaware that their names are being falsely attributed to this “solution.”

 

[HarryStotle]

BioScience only showed 5 scientists who said population needs to be reduced, not 11,000. Bloomberg made the mistake of conflating the 11,000 scientists who said we are facing a climate emergency (which we are) with the 5 scientists who say the necessary solution to that emergency is to reduce population. The 11,000 did not all say that, are are probably unaware that their names are being falsely attributed to this “solution.”

You need to read to the bottom of the BioScience paper. The list of 11,258 scientist signatories from 153 countries who signed on to the paper is provided as a separate file there.

If they are actual signatories they would presumably be aware of what they were signing.

You are just making stuff up now.

So does this worry you now? Alarmism beginning to get out of hand? Or do 11,258 scientist signatories from 153 countries not concern you that perhaps the “science” has gone awry?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You need to read to the bottom of the BioScience paper. The list of 11,258 scientist signatories from 153 countries who signed on to the paper is provided as a separate file there.

I think you misinterpreted the paper by 5 authors giving their opinion and reporting on a gathering of 11,000 scientists. There is no indication that the paper represents a joint statement of those 11,000. The most we can conclude is that 11,000 scientists declare we are experiencing a climate emergency. Where do you see a statement that says that everything these 5 scientists write was part of the statement signed by 11,000 scientists?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

You need to read to the bottom of the BioScience paper. The list of 11,258 scientist signatories from 153 countries who signed on to the paper is provided as a separate file there.

I think you misinterpreted the paper by 5 authors giving their opinion and reporting on a gathering of 11,000 scientists. There is no indication that the paper represents a joint statement of those 11,000. The most we can conclude is that 11,000 scientists declare we are experiencing a climate emergency. Where do you see a statement that says that everything these 5 scientists write was part of the statement signed by 11,000 scientists?

Several places in the paper itself…

Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is.” On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.

To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live, in ways that improve the vital signs summarized by our graphs. Economic and population growth are among the most important drivers of increases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion (Pachauri et al. 2014, Bongaarts and O’Neill 2018); therefore, we need bold and drastic transformations regarding economic and population policies.

 

[HarryStotle]

The 11,000 did not all say that, are are probably unaware that their names are being falsely attributed to this “solution.”

If you take some time to look at the graphs in the paper, they are wildly out of touch with reality. At best they are deceptive at worst, out and out fraud.

Yet these scientists have signed on to the data presentations?

Makes me lose complete faith in science.

Claims:

• Global tree cover loss of 49.6% over the past decade?
• Amazon forest loss of 24.3% over the past decade?
• Antarctic ice loss of 1230 gigatonnes over the past 10 years?
• Extreme weather events increased 43.8% over the past 10 years?
• Sea level rise of 31.4 mm above the 20 year mean in 10 years?
• Greenland ice mass loss of 2610 gigatonnes over the past 10 years?

These were just the most glaringly unsupported claims.

Examples disputing those claims:

National Snow and Sea Ice Data Center shows definitive increase in Southern Hemisphere sea ice extents since 1979.

Sample Image…

Feb Extent Anomalies show upward trendline of 1.1±3.7% per decade.

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

According to the [Global Forest Watch](Global Deforestation Rates & Statistics by Country | GFW(name removed by moderator)vb20iOjJ9&treeCoverGain=eyJmb3Jlc3RUeXBlIjoiIiwiZXh0ZW50WWVhciI6MjAwMH0%3D&treeLossGlobal=eyJzdGFydFllYXIiOjIwMDgsInRocmVzaG9sZCI6MzB9)

Tree cover, globally has shown gains and losses.

Gain from 2001 to 2012…

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

A 6.1% loss between 2008 and 2018…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

That is nothing like a global tree cover loss of 49.6% over the past decade claimed in the paper.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Claims:

• Global tree cover loss of 49.6% over the past decade?
• Amazon forest loss of 24.3% over the past decade?

You are misreading the graphs. These are not the claims.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Claims:

• Global tree cover loss of 49.6% over the past decade?
• Amazon forest loss of 24.3% over the past decade?

You are misreading the graphs. These are not the claims.

No further clarity from you, then in terms of how the graphs ought to be read?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Well, for one thing, why do you think the 49% number appears as a positive number and the 24% number appears as a negative on the graphs? That should have given you pause that you had no idea what those numbers means. But since you posted those numbers with such assuredness as proof positive that scientists were making outrageous claims, I’ll let you figure out what they mean for yourself.

 

[Maxirad]

Is overpopulation really a problem?

The World Might Actually Run Out of People | WIRED

 

[HarryStotle]

Well, for one thing, why do you think the 49% number appears as a positive number and the 24% number appears as a negative on the graphs?

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

Here is the graph. The grey vertical lines are the years 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020. Tree cover loss, according to the graph, was ~27.5 million hectares in the year 2018. The cumulative or rate of loss according to the % in the top left corner was +49.5% over the ten year period.

Here is the attendant explanation from the supplementary materials.

Global tree cover loss (Figure 1f)

We obtained data on annual global tree cover loss from Global Forest Watch (Hansen et al. 2013). These data express loss globally in million hectares (Mha) and were derived from remotely-sensed forest change maps. It should be noted that loss is general and not linked to a specific type of deforestation. So, it includes wildlife, conversion to agriculture, disease, etc. Additionally, tree cover loss does not take tree cover gain into account. Thus, net forest loss may be lower than the reported numbers.

It is not entirely clear whether that 49.5% loss was the portion of the total acreage or a 49.5% increase in the rate of loss. Neither the graph, nor the description makes it very clear which. Let’s assume rate of loss has increased by 49.5% in the past 10 years.

Additionally, the two final sentences in the description, noting that tree cover gain is not taken into account is suspicious because, for all we know, gain could have exceeded loss globally. The NASA figures show the Earth is greening from increased CO2. The 49.5%, even if it represents an increase in the rate of loss, that still doesn’t fit with the data from Global Forest Watch which showed a gain in forest cover from 2001 to 2012, and only a 6.1% decrease since 2000.

As to the Brazilian rainforest, the authors concede loss of acreage is a decreasing problem with a slight increase in the rate of loss in the past unspecified period.

From the paper…

and the pace of forest loss in Brazil’s Amazon has now started to increase again (figure 1g).

From the supplement…

Brazilian Amazon forest loss (Figure 1g)

We obtained annual Brazilian Amazon forest loss estimates from Butler (2017). Brazil contains about 60% of the Amazon rainforest. The sources used by Butler (2017) were the Brazilian National Institute of Space Research ((name removed by moderator)E) and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Although the (name removed by moderator)E has not provided a deforestation estimate for 2019, their wildfire activity data show a major spike associated with widespread deforestation (Amigo 2019).

So either…

1. the rate of Amazon forest loss has been slowing by 24% except for a slight increase very recently – which could be due to a number of factors, or
2. the Amazon rainforest has actually grown by 24% – negative on the graph (admittedly not the likely reading of the graph)

Why would either of those warrant climate alarm on the part of the scientists?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is not entirely clear whether that 49.5% loss was the portion of the total acreage or a 49.5% increase in the rate of loss. Neither the graph, nor the description makes it very clear which. Let’s assume rate of loss has increased by 49.5% in the past 10 years.

Additionally, the two final sentences in the description, noting that tree cover gain is not taken into account is suspicious because, for all we know, gain could have exceeded loss globally. The NASA figures show the Earth is greening from increased CO2. The 49.5%, even if it represents an increase in the rate of loss, that still doesn’t fit with the data from Global Forest Watch which showed a gain in forest cover from 2001 to 2012, and only a 6.1% decrease since 2000.

As to the Brazilian rainforest, the authors concede loss of acreage is a decreasing problem with a slight increase in the rate of loss in the past unspecified period.

From the paper…

and the pace of forest loss in Brazil’s Amazon has now started to increase again (figure 1g).

That’s a much better analysis! But as you see, it takes more than a causal glance to figure out what is being said.

Why would either of those warrant climate alarm on the part of the scientists?

That result was one of many results quoted. Obviously this result, all on its own, is not a cause for catastrophic alarm.

 

[HarryStotle]

That result was one of many results quoted. Obviously this result, all on its own, is not a cause for catastrophic alarm.

None of them, either alone or together, are causes for catastrophic alarm – that was my point. Especially since they don’t appear very accurate at all but are presented in deceptive language and graphs.

But, hey, let’s not let that stop us from destroying the economies of nations and from promoting population control all over the developing world. 11,000 scientists cannot be wrong.

We ought to be more alarmed by the prescription than by the ailment.

 

[Theo520]

Bloomberg made the mistake of conflating the 11,000 scientists who said we are facing a climate emergency (which we are) with the 5 scientists who say the necessary solution to that emergency is to reduce population.

Right, you seem to be agreeing this is an example of the media misreporting the facts, which is increasing climate alarmism.

 

[HarryStotle]

LeafByNiggle:

Bloomberg made the mistake of conflating the 11,000 scientists who said we are facing a climate emergency (which we are) with the 5 scientists who say the necessary solution to that emergency is to reduce population.

Right, you agreeing this is another example of the media misreporting the facts and increasing climate alarmism.

Perspective…

 

[HarryStotle]

Repost of the above video, which was re-uploaded.

Perspective…

Apparently, of the 11,000 supposed scientists supporting the alarmism in the BioScience paper linked above only “240 (2% of the total) individuals with professions that can be construed as bona fide meteorologists, climatologists, or atmospheric scientists” had signed on.

Who are these '11,000 Concerned Scientists'? - American Thinker

Bear in mind that…

…the Department of Labor reports that there are 10,000 atmospheric scientists in the U.S.

Yet the claim made by Ripple and Wolf (the lead authors), from Oregon State University echoes a similar paper they published in BioScience in 2016.

So the problem?

The claim of the most recent paper that “11,258 scientist signatories from 153 countries” is blatantly false. Many of the signatories have no connection to science and quite a number are fictional characters – Mickey Mouse was a signatory to the paper.

The story of 11 000 scientists expressing alarm about climate change was widely distributed in the media.

See this USAToday article…

Climate change: 11,000 world scientists declare a 'climate emergency.'

Over 11,000 scientists around the world declare a 'climate emergency’
A global team of more than 11,000 scientists from over 150 countries officially declared that the world is in a “climate emergency,” according to a new paper released Tuesday.

The supposed “global team” that “officially declared” the “climate emergency” are a completely random selection of individuals from across the globe who merely signed on to the request from Ripple and Wolf’s webpage to “reply” to the paper.

The names were used, unfiltered and unchecked, as submitted, in the “supporting document” of the two forestry scientists from Oregon State.

If this is what passes as credible science in the world today we have no hope. It is entirely proper that only a minority of people (39%) report “strong” trust in information from climate scientists according to a recent Pew study.

I am certain this nonsense from Ripple and Wolf will do nothing to advance the credibility of climate science – if “the people” ever find out the truth behind this most recent fraudulent attempt to push climate alarmism.

 

[phaster]

Leaving the science, though we could also make an economic argument.

leaving the science,… advocated by a PR guy who is a lobbyist for big petrochemical companies and suggests “…increasing CO2 for the benefit of plants and to increase the global food supply” is a good idea because it would be seen as silly by diligent individuals who did some basic

…reading up about soil nutrients and thinking about the math/bio/chem concept of “limiting factors”

as for an economic based argument,… at its core (in the pop vernacular) is being “All About The Benjamins”

personally as I see things including economic concerns in a quest for an understanding of the basic science,… seems akin to putting money and material goods ahead of caring for creation,… or said another “All About The Benjamins” is,

…a lifestyle centered around instant gratification and the worshiping of money and material goods,… and [SADLY] this consumer lifestyle is envied and is being emulated by people around the world,… as I see things, people are being tempted by a false god

this idea is related to something I recall discussing at length in one of my high school religion classes

“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me” (Matthew 19:21). The young man decided that Jesus was asking too much. “He went away sad, because he had great wealth,” Rather than obey Jesus’ instructions, he turned his back on the Lord and walked away.

I’m not a theologian but seems the idea put fourth in Matthew 19:21 dovetails w/

…the parable of the vineyard owner which seems apropos to a homily about “climate change”

Here is a brief summary:

A landowner set forth a vineyard with great care and lavish attention. He then entrusted it to tenant farmers. At harvest time, he sought his share of the produce. Yet instead of giving the owner what was due him, the tenant farmers refused, ridiculing, beating, and even killing the servants sent to collect his share. They end by killing the landowner’s own son.

When Jesus asks his audience what they thought the owner would do in response, they replied that he would put the men to a wretched death and lease his vineyard to other tenants who would give him the produce at the proper time. Obviously, they did not realize that in the parable the Lord was actually describing them, and that such a judgment would be upon them unless they repented.

http://m.ncregister.com/blog/msgr-p...ent-and-we-must-heed-the-warnings-of-our-lady

FWIW science isn’t suppose to be political, and people should speak the truth when they see a BIG hypocrite (on either side of the debate)

What do you think of climate change? Social Justice

there are all kinds, some really out there,… I included the video about the “finance guy” ranting about the climate change being a scam,… basically because the guy made me laugh w/ all the exaggerations,… where he says the best case is sea level rise of 10 ft in 40 to 50 years AND worst case is 100 ft,… and then he goes on to say how well banks manage risk (ROTFLMAO,… I’ve time marked the video) [IS GLOBAL WARMING THE BIGGEST FRAUD IN HISTORY? - Dan Pena] he [gore] wasn’t,… first…

 

[phaster]

Actually, the models have lots of issues and incorrect assumptions, they are not “pretty solid”

99.9999% sure I’ve never specifically addressed details of a climate model (in this thread) such as

Radiative Forcing = Incoming Energy – Outgoing Energy

which uses a bath tub metaphor to make the concept of CC more relatable

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

BUT does in fact incorporate the basic hard science which is pretty solid (as I outlined)

given “global dimming” (which was known 20 years ago and indicates mankind does indeed have the ability to directly influence the global climate), “decreasing pH levels in the oceans” (which is another clear signal that indicates mankind does indeed have the ability to directly influence the environment), the 2015 Berkeley lab paper on the observation of CO2 increasing greenhouse effect at the earth’s surface, the ever increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere (i.e. the keeling curve) and known physical properties of the CO2 molecule,… is just part of the overwhelming scientific evidence that basically tells mankind that we,… “human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future.”

AND FYI its not the other way around

The basic hard science isn’t pretty solid, it is based almost entirely on climate models fed with pre-selected data.

NOTE comments like this and others in this thread,… is yet another confirmation of findings in a published paper that the general public has essentially zero [SCIENTIFIC] understanding of CC

www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/tops.12187

sigh,…

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

FWIW there is “…that rarest of species a republican MIT climate scientist with an open mind” (02:48 introduction comment at PARC)

who goes on to say,

05:46 …I hope that you will be persuaded of that the idea that we’re
altering climate is based on a whole lot more than complicated climate models

I’m actually a fairly strong critic of complicated climate models I like simple models

06:13 …another point which has been very strongly quantified
in recent years is that the idea that we are chained in climate is not very controversial amongst people who actually study climate

I don’t mean retired physicists and all sorts of people who advertise themselves as climate scientist I mean we all climate scientists who spend their careers working on this problem

WRT the speakers comment “retired physicists…”

just a guess, but seems its direct at an old guy embraced by deniers and offered up as proof that there is no problem w/ the climate

What do you think of climate change? Social Justice

I note that conventional wisdom fall heavily on one side of this argument and that any and all opposing, or even critical viewpoints tend to be ignored or suppressed. [Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax]

 

[Theo520]

99.9999% sure I’ve never specifically addressed details of a climate model (

You are deflecting if you refuse to discuss the reliability of the models and their assumptions. This is the core of the debate on CAGW

Respond to what I posted

 

[HarryStotle]

Theo520:

Actually, the models have lots of issues and incorrect assumptions, they are not “pretty solid”

99.9999% sure I’ve never specifically addressed details of a climate model (in this thread) such as

Radiative Forcing = Incoming Energy – Outgoing Energy

which uses a bath tub metaphor to make the concept of CC more relatable

…

To be honest, your posts do absolutely nada to add clarity to the discussion.

They have more resemblance to the primitive arts practiced by haruspices from days of old in the inspection of the scattered entrails and livers of sacrificed animals – modernized, of course, to include the remarkable technical innovations of tub thumpery, Vevo and political browbeating – than to a coherent argument.

Although you have succeeded remarkably in exemplifying the notion of kettle logic.

Still a saponified mishmash of everything from Biblical text, social justice hype from HuffPo, the rehashing of parables for the religiously sensitive, music remixes to clear up any misconceived notions about economics, liberally scattered charges of hypocrisy, a trip down high school memory lane, all showered together into your metaphorical National Geographic bath tub with a smattering of Faux Humility™ for deep brain cleansing.

Okay, you win! My brain has been washed; the climate is changing. :crazy_face: