What do you think of climate change?

[HarryStotle]

As Christians we clearly have a duty to be concerned for people farther in the future than that and people farther from our own house.

As Christians, the politicization of climate change to make it synonymous with globalism and socialist measures to control the entire economy ought to be concerning, especially when those measures involve bringing development in all areas of the world to a screeching halt with the delusion that renewables such as wind and solar have the realistic potential to be alternative and reliable sources of energy.

We ought also be concerned with the level of manipulation of data that is occurring in order to bolster the case for warming.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

… the politicization of climate change to make it synonymous with globalism and socialist measures to control the entire economy…

…is not a thing.

 

[Neithan]

I think there is enough scientific data to conclude that the earth would be heading for another glacial period but because of human causes is heading for a greenhouse period. The last greenhouse period was like 30 million years ago, so it’s not clear if our species could survive that. Maybe there will be some new dinosaurs.

 

[EndTimes]

the politicization of climate change to make it synonymous with globalism and socialist measures to control the entire economy ought to be concerning,

That’s putting it mildly… The Globalists are a Major Problem… Major…
Of course some who vigorously deny that… … …

)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Globalists are a Major Problem… Major

That may be, but the case for global warming can be made without them.

 

[EndTimes]

That may be, but the case for global warming can be made without them.

Cases debunking Global Warming have been made without Globalism…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not successfully.

 

[EndTimes]

Not successfully.

Well, perhaps, could we say, not in your case?

)

 

[Theo520]

Too much climate research money being spent on science… AEUHHH??? – Watts Up With That?

So we are spending too much on the hard science? I guess more should go to social manipulation.

“The one-sided emphasis on the natural sciences leaves one wondering whether funding for climate research is managed by climate sceptics. It’s as if they don’t quite believe in climate change, so they keep trying to find out how it really works, rather than trying to work out how to stop it,” researcher Indra Øverland said in a NUPI press release.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So we are spending too much on the hard science? I guess more should go to social manipulation.

Your slanted characterization of social science research aside, the fact reported by the NUPI is that natural science research on climate change gets 38 times as much funding as the social science. The issue is not the natural science is getting too much. It is that social science is getting so little. There are many social science questions that need to be answered that cannot be answered by more ice cores or more Argo buoys, as good as they are. We need to understand the economics and resource management issues. Those are the questions that are going unfunded. Apparently the article cited just shows the WUWT thinks the right amount to spend is zero.

 

[Theo520]

We need to understand the economics and resource management issues. T

be more specific, that sound like goblety goop

 

[Theo520]

United States Led Entire World In Reducing CO2 Emissions In 2019 | The Daily Wire

 

[BT3241]

Well plant life has always been the natural carbon sink - when we exhale they inhale - obviously the balance is out because carbon dioxide is building and the natural carbon sink can’t keep up - so what should we do?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The United States led the entire world in reducing CO2 emissions last year while also experiencing solid economic growth, according to a newly released report.

The report says that the EU reduced their co2 emissions more than the US, both in absolute terms (Gt) and as a percentage.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

be more specific, that sound like goblety goop

I mean that we need to understand how much it will cost us to cope with climate change, who will be most affected , what options are available to those affected, etc.

 

[Theo520]

That still sounds like gobelty goop,
and a waste of money

 

[HarryStotle]

Well plant life has always been the natural carbon sink - when we exhale they inhale - obviously the balance is out because carbon dioxide is building and the natural carbon sink can’t keep up - so what should we do?

Your point presupposes that the “balance” of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is somewhere about 300 ppm.

How did you determine that precisely?

The other point to be made is that you are constraining the time frame for the natural carbon sink to “keep up” to a rather contrived notion that it must respond somewhat immediately to any change over 300 or 350.

Why would that be so?

 

[phaster]

I’ve been saying it since the late 90s. These climate change scientists are going to look pretty silly just like the ice age scientists in the 70s look now. Our grandchildren are going to be mocking you guys when they are older

sigh,… déjà vu,… the predicted ice age consensus forecast in the 1970s (and other climate change myths) are political fairy tales w/ no scientific basis

political mercenaries employed by talentless career politicians and various corporations like the status quo, so they will use propaganda and play mind games, to hide the truth!!!

The most notorious of Luntz’s memos focused on global warming denial in which he urged Republicans to use only the term “climate change” as it was less threatening than "global warming."

Frank Luntz - RationalWiki

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/21/frank-luntz-wrong-climate-change-1470653

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.

How the "Global Cooling" Story Came to Be - Scientific American

interesting the random trivia that I’ve leaned in the course of this thread,… anyway since you (and perhaps many others) don’t believe Snopes is credible, so what about a word from time magazine itself who categorically deny they published something deniers tout as fact!!!

Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age

…the hoax does touch on an important part of climate science — and one that’s often misunderstood by skeptics. Call it the Ice Age Fallacy. Skeptics argue that back in the 1970s both popular media and some scientists were far more worried about global cooling than they were about global warming.

blah, blah, blah

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

http://time.com/5670942/time-magazine-ice-age-cover-hoax/

The TIME Magazine Vault

(NOTE,… The Global Warming Survival Guide | Apr. 9, 2007)
The TIME Magazine Vault

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

 

[phaster]

some here just seem to be more intent on scoring a “victory” of sorts

its not only here,… too often far too few have the courage and intellect to honestly look at the issue of climate change as a variation of sherlock holmes deductive reasoning

in other words “…Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the [UNNERVING SCIENTIFIC] truth,…” where humanity is headed

Multiple eco-crises could trigger 'systemic collapse': scientists

sadly the simple truth is published studies show the general public does not know much actual science

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

and,…

all too often people think they smarter than they actually are!

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

basically because

given lots of “noise” and very little “signal” those w/ out rigorous formal training in a “hard” science and the scientific method are very susceptible to “confirmation bias”

…then there is another related problem,… an ‘illusion of confidence’ which is called the ‘Dunning-Kruger effect’

looked at another way

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

and 99.999% certain human PRIDE is a big reason why (i.e. excessive belief in one’s own abilities)

Pride | Catholic Answers Encyclopedia

bottom line given human nature AND the a dislike of the [UNNERVING SCIENTIFIC] truth,… precious time is too often wasted on trivial matters such as you mentioned instead of seriously pondering the big picture

On whose green Earth? | Knowable Magazine

https://internal-journal.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2018.00049/full

News Bureau | ILLINOIS

www.quora.com/Is-it-worth-arguing-with-a-climate-change-denier

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

 

[HarryStotle]

Theo520:

be more specific, that sound like goblety goop

I mean that we need to understand how much it will cost us to cope with climate change, who will be most affected , what options are available to those affected, etc.

Assuming that climate change is the issue that alarmists are making it out to be.

I believe we discussed the shortcomings of how solar (name removed by moderator)uts are used in climate modelling on another thread (or possibly very early in this one), but there is now a great deal of evidence (700+ peer reviewed papers since 2010) that the models are giving a completely errant view of the role played by the Sun.

The following image gives some hint as to the problem. Listed are all of the known energy (name removed by moderator)uts into the earth’s atmosphere/biosphere. The problem for the modellers is that the only (name removed by moderator)uts actually counted in the models as having an effect on the climate are those bounded by the red box. ALL THE OTHERS ARE IGNORED or NOT INCLUDED and not measured.

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

The following video makes the case for why those other (name removed by moderator)uts are important contributing factors.

The reason this is important is because the equation used by modellers is…

natural variability (name removed by moderator)uts + human impact/(name removed by moderator)uts = climate change

What that means is if there are natural (name removed by moderator)uts that are not counted on the “natural” side of the ledger, but are real (name removed by moderator)uts nonetheless, these undesignated (name removed by moderator)uts are automatically assumed to be the result of human activity, inflating that side of the ledger and making it appear that human (name removed by moderator)uts are far more significant than they really are.

The purpose of the video is to unravel how those discounted or ignored (name removed by moderator)uts potentially change the natural variability through various “coupling” mechanisms such as ionization and impacts on the Earth’s geomagnetic and geoelectric systems rather than merely the direct absorption of UV radiation currently being counted as the sole factor.

I suppose I could instead of offering this thought provoking explication of the science in play, do as @phaster does and post pictures of mugs or cartoons with disparaging messages. Rather than “lower” myself to that level, however, I am attempting to raise the level of discussion to that of critical science.

It is possible, I suppose – that @phaster’s cartoon carries an important truth – i.e., that we can “lead a person to knowledge without making them think.” We will see by the thoughtfulness of @phaster’s reply whether s/he will instantiate the cartoon or will have posted it in vain.