What do you think of climate change?

[phaster]

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

Climate models are often attacked, but most of the time they’re remarkably good


The computer models used to simulate what heat-trapping gases will do to global temperatures have been pretty spot-on in their predictions, a new study found.

After years of hearing critics blast the models’ accuracy, climate scientist Zeke Hausfather decided to see just how good they have been. He tracked down 17 models used between 1970 and 2007 and found that the majority of them predicted results that were “indistinguishable from what actually occurred.”

…Ten of the 17 were close to the temperatures that actually happened, said Hausfather, lead author of a study in Wednesday’s journal Geophysical Research Letters.

But scientists actually got the physics right even more than that, Hausfather said.

Climate models are based on two main assumptions. One is the physics of the atmosphere and how it reacts to heat-trapping gases. The other is the amount of greenhouse gases put into the air.

…Stanford University climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh, who wasn’t part of the study, called the work creative and the results striking.

…University of Illinois climate scientist Donald Wuebbles, who wasn’t part of the study either, said climate change “deniers do a lot of weird things to misrepresent models. None of those analyses have been valid and they should be ignored. We should no longer be debating the basic science of climate change.”

http://phys.org/news/2019-12-climate-theyre-remarkably-good.html

huh,… a real life climate scientist said climate change “deniers do a lot of weird things to misrepresent models. None of those analyses have been valid and they should be ignored. We should no longer be debating the basic science of climate change.”

now I am wondering what the climate scientist community would say to catholics who get their “science news” from political provocateurs spreading their warped views of reality on social media outlets about,… “Increase of climate change deniers/skeptics around the world, increase of crime any coincidence?”

for context

Increase of Atheists around the world, increase of crime any coincidence? Moral Theology

The Holy Prophets rightly warned us these wicked days will be just the begin and to increase. Before any Governments and Law firms were Established… I also know we as believers are not innocent either.

PS

Phys.org - Bias and Credibility - Media Bias/Fact Check

Breitbart - Bias and Credibility - Media Bias/Fact Check

Watts Up with That - Bias and Credibility - Media Bias/Fact Check

 

[Ender]

FYI attribution studies also apply to extreme cold weather!!!

Yes, I forgot. Cold weather events are also proof of global warming. Apparently any event straying too far from the average is considered proof regardless of whether it is “too much” or “too little”.

AND FWIW yet again we see confirmation of a study which indicates a total lack of basic scientific understanding (by the general public) of what causes climate change.

A generic charge that AGW must be true because some people don’t understand basic science. This is like the charge that 97% of climate scientists believe in AGW. It is used as an excuse to ignore the science, which is understandable given that so little of it beyond the mathematical models actually supports the claims being made.

We should no longer be debating the basic science of climate change.”

That’s the only way the AGW position can be sustained - just stop examining it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Elias:

The real inconvenient truth is that climate alarmists are being played and sold out to the corporations and politicians that stand to gain financially from climate alarmism.

A balanced article that discusses most of the “alarmisms” by showing they are far, far overblown.

Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong

I am so glad that you called this Forbes article balanced, because I agree. Notice that the major criticism in this article is directed at the popular media. Not the IPCC.

 

[Theo520]

AGW was confirmed by NAS, considered the “gold standard” of science review in the U.S.,

You need to do better than this with your arguments, it’s a strawman.
AGW isn’t disputed by anyone who knows a lick about the science
Yes, every denialist in science completely agrees CO2 is a GHG and man is contributing to warming by pumping up the level.

AGW itself is not disputed (the strawman)

 

[Ender]

AGW itself is not disputed (the strawman)

Not quite. AGW assumes not only that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that man has contributed to global warming, but that man is responsible for over 50% of the warming we have experienced. I’m not sure whether or not it also includes the conclusion that this warming has been, is, and will be, harmful

 

[HarryStotle]

phys.org has no more credibility than Watts Up With That or RealClimateScience.com.

Here is their team:

Science X Network :: Phys.org, Medical Xpress, Tech Xplore

Hardly the determining factor in a debate that has people like Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Dyson Freeman, William Happer, Judith Curry, and numerous others taking the opposing view. You may as well have Bill Nye the Science determining the consensus based entirely upon his own view as a BSc.

As for Media Bias/ Fact Check, who are they?

The founder Dave Van Zandt studied communications in college and over the years has focused on personal research in media bias and the role of media in politics.

Oh great, a media guy determining the facts about science! As if that is proper science methodology.

Hint: It isn’t.

You may as well have the Pope determine the science.

Oh wait, you have, haven’t you?

Notice that all the scientists quoted in your phys.org citation never provide actual detailed data for their conclusions, but merely rest on their authority or mere say-so.

…Stanford University climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh, who wasn’t part of the study, called the work creative and the results striking.

…University of Illinois climate scientist Donald Wuebbles, who wasn’t part of the study either, said climate change “deniers do a lot of weird things to misrepresent models. None of those analyses have been valid and they should be ignored. We should no longer be debating the basic science of climate change.”

Tony Heller lays out detailed arguments, as does Anthony Watts. I find their approach much more convincing.

Very similar to the difference between listening to “expert” law professors like Feldman, Karlan, or Gerhardt on impeachment and then listening to Jonathan Turley. Completely different impressions.
Turley was indeed the minority view on that panel, but 100 times more convincing than the others. I wouldn’t trust those others with teaching kindergarten, let alone university level courses. Oh sure, they have the rhetoric and the media spin down pat, but no facts, no evidence, but they have decided the question entirely from their personal biases – We should no longer be debating…. Uh huh. Shows a real scientific mindset there.

 

[Theo520]

I disagree, the bit about man being primarily responsible is used selectively

 

[RCIAGraduate]

I probably said this already, but would a Carbon Tax be that bad especially if you help impacted communities develop and/or use rebates to defray costs or tax cuts to help advance the economy? Want to hear answers?

 

[Ender]

I probably said this already, but would a Carbon Tax be that bad especially if you help impacted communities develop and/or use rebates to defray costs or tax cuts to help advance the economy? Want to hear answers?

I don’t think raising everyone’s cost for heating and cooling their homes, or to drive to work is a sensible way to raise money. Who’s going to feel those costs the most? Besides, the idea that taxing the public is going to help the economy is a non-starter. A carbon tax is a bad idea on pretty much every level.

I disagree, the bit about man being primarily responsible is used selectively

I was going by what the Cook 97% paper claimed in citing the IPCC:

…consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations…

I do agree that the way terms are used is quite slippery.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Tony Heller lays out detailed arguments, as does Anthony Watts. I find their approach much more convincing.

If you look carefully at their arguments, you will see they also rely on authorities you cannot check as a layman. About the only place where fact-based arguments are made is in professional journals.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

I don’t think raising everyone’s cost for heating and cooling their homes, or to drive to work is a sensible way to raise money. Who’s going to feel those costs the most? Besides, the idea that taxing the public is going to help the economy is a non-starter. A carbon tax is a bad idea on pretty much every level.

Would it be the end of the world though, I’m not too keen on higher living costs myself and won’t it have an impact on manufacturing (not to mention the coal towns) but like wouldn’t enacting it help assuage the concerns of many including young people who wish to help care for the environment?

Unpopular opinion that’s divergent from the main topic at hand, could a carbon tax, along with a VAT and a reversion to previous tax rates (Pre-President Bush Era) along with curbs on defense spending, entitlement reform and limits on future growth/small spending cuts over time (but maybe a couple of other deals like universal coverage and infrastructure repair) could serve as part of a framework of a bipartisan bufget compromise that no one really likes but it needed?

 

[Ender]

Would it be the end of the world though, I’m not too keen on higher living costs myself and won’t it have an impact on manufacturing (not to mention the coal towns) but like wouldn’t enacting it help assuage the concerns of many including young people who wish to help care for the environment?

Well, this topic is about climate change, and not economic policy, but the connection between the two is this: taxes and subsidies raised and given to support “renewable” energy like windmills and solar panels are a misuse of funds. We will not make anything better by taking that path other than to encourage the zealots to push harder to go faster.

Yes, there are a lot of people who passionately believe we desperately need to cut our carbon emissions, but the intensity of their belief is no reason to take them seriously and take actions that are economically harmful and, even if implemented completely, would have virtually no effect on resolving the problems they perceive to exist. That people believe in unicorns is no argument that cows should be eliminated so the unicorns can graze peacefully.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

We will not make anything better by taking that path other than to encourage the zealots to push harder to go faster.

Wouldn’t settling for something a carbon tax actually help diffuse pressure since support may break up with moderates who appreciate those actions and more radical folks will become a smaller portion?

 

[Ender]

Wouldn’t settling for something a carbon tax actually help diffuse pressure since support may break up with moderates who appreciate those actions and more radical folks will become a smaller portion?

No. Appeasement only increases the demands for more action, it never mitigates them. Just ask Chick-fil-a.

 

[Theo520]

Wouldn’t settling for something a carbon tax actually help diffuse pressure since support may break up with moderates who appreciate those actions and more radical folks will become a smaller portion?

Not in the slightest, since the taxes discussed will have no appreciable impact on climate change

And no, I’m not supplying you with the link, can’t find it today. But the logic was the tax level that would have an impact would be exorbitant, per economists.

 

[phaster]

phys.org has no more credibility than WattsUpWithThat.com

really?!

perhaps you should ponder that phys.org unlike WattsUpWithThat does not have posts by characters w/ colorful checkered backgrounds spreading their warped views of reality

looking back on this thread,… we find

a guy who had a big part to play in crashing the financial system and has a proven track record of not having the brains to see major problems?!

FYI your talentless (but connected) friend, pre 2007/2008 was pushing subprime loans on the other side of the pond and was the captain of a foreign bank, that ran aground and sank

WRT basic science,… seem this guy can’t think far enough ahead to consider limiting factors of various soil nutrients

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/05/global-greening-is-happening-faster-than-climate-change-and-its-a-good-thing/

then there is

a guy who is a lobbyist for big petrochemical companies (who is not a man who stands behind his words!!)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM

basically this knucklehead on WattsUpWithThat is presented as a greenpeace co-founder who penned some introspective essay in 1991 about “Carbon is the currency of life”

thing is WRT basic science, he likewise did not seem to take into account the limiting factors of various soil nutrients

A conversation with Patrick Moore – Watts Up With That?

one other trait separates the typical science news story presented by phys.org and WattsUpWithThat,… which is elements of DRAMA!!!

huh?!

I point out a catholic news item that mentions the pope AND you link to something about a,… Failed Assassination Attempt?!

bottom line given unvarnished truth,… the MediaBiasFactCheck assessments of the two different websites, seems fairly accurate!!!

Overall, we rate Phys.org a credible Pro-Science source based on publication of science information from credible universities and peer reviewed publications as well properly sourced original content. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record.

http://mediabiasfactcheck.com/phys.org/

Overall, we rate Watts Up with That a strong pseudoscience and conspiracy website based on the promotion of consistent human influenced climate denialism propaganda.

http://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/

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

 

[phaster]

AGW isn’t disputed by anyone who knows a lick about the science

yikes… whats happening, we seem to agree 100% on some science aspect???

uh,… think I’ll be on the lookout for flying pigs AND/OR flying raindeer given the season

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

anyway you (and others participating in this thread) might find this interesting,

Scientist develops game to arm users against climate change 'fake news’

Professor John Cook, an expert on misinformation with Mason’s Center for Climate Change Communication, has launched a crowdfunding campaign to enable development of the game, “Cranky Uncle,” for iPhone and Android phones.

Cook has spent over a decade studying different ways to counter misinformation. He is now combining his research into inoculation, critical thinking, cartoon humor, and gamification, into a mobile game.

“Misinformation does great damage to society,” said Professor Cook, a member of Mason’s Institute for a Sustainable Earth. “An essential solution is making the public more resilient against fake news. But how? Gamification is a powerful approach that can potentially reach many millions of people.”

In the game, players are mentored by a cartoon Cranky Uncle who is dismissive of climate science. As they learn to recognize the flaws in Cranky Uncle’s arguments, they gain points. This is based on a behavioral technique called active inoculation.

Scientist develops game to arm users against climate change 'fake news'

 

[Theo520]

The Incredible Story Of How Climate Change Became Apocalyptic

In recent years the issue of climate change has taken a decidedly apocalyptic turn. Earlier this week United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres warned, “[If we don’t urgently change our way of life, we jeopardize life itself].” A group of scientists writes that we “[might already have lost control]” over “tipping points” in the Earth’s climate, warning that the “stability and resilience of our planet is in peril.”

It’s true that apocalyptic narratives have always had a place in discussions of climate. In 1989 the United Nations warned that the world had “[a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.]” But the escalation of apocalyptic climate rhetoric in recent years is unprecedented. The drumbeat of doom has led some prominent figures to turn on the mainstream climate community, complaining that “[climate scientists have been underestimating the rate of climate change and the severity of its effects].” In reality, climate science has not just accurately anticipated unfolding climate change, but has done so [consistently for the past 50 years].

There is thus an inconsistency here. Discussions of climate change have become more apocalyptic, but [climate science has not]. I have been working hard to understand this inconsistency, and while I don’t yet have all the answers, I have identified a big part of the puzzle, which I can report here for the first time.
…

 

[Theo520]

Wouldn’t settling for something a carbon tax actually help diffuse pressure since support may break up with moderates who appreciate those actions and more radical folks will become a smaller portion?

I found the links supporting how a carbon tax doesn’t work. Note the first two are from “green” sites.

Why Carbon Taxes Don’t Work – People Before Profit

https://www.carbontax.org/blog/2018/07/18/agreed-carbon-pricing-isnt-working-now-what/

Why A Carbon Tax Won’t Work In The Real World - Austrian Economics Center

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Tony Heller lays out detailed arguments, as does Anthony Watts. I find their approach much more convincing.

If you look carefully at their arguments, you will see they also rely on authorities you cannot check as a layman. About the only place where fact-based arguments are made is in professional journals.

Ah, that just isn’t true. Heller, in particular, always provides data from sources such as NASA, NCAR, NOAA, and the like. He does not “rely on authorities” except to debunk their claims, often using their own data.

You wouldn’t know that, though, since you refuse to check out what he does but rely solely on “fact-based” professional journals, which have their own issues.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

Can we trust peer review? New study highlights some problems | Ars Technica

Simple badge incentive could help eliminate bad science | Ars Technica

100 psychology experiments repeated, less than half successful | Ars Technica