What do you think of climate change?

[HarryStotle]

It is not what HarryStotle was doing by citing Historian and Journalist John Robson as he gave out his misinformation about CO2.

And Leaf does NOTHING to actually demonstrate “misinformation.” Leaf merely continues insisting on a certain view without offering any reasoning or data to show that supposed misinforming is occurring. Nice gig you have there making claims without substance and expect readers to take you seriously.

Robson used IPCC data and the most recent research from 13 different papers showing that the supposed climate sensitivity is only half of what is used in climate models that promote a warming crisis.

How about instead of misrepresenting Robson with vague generalities, that you actually engage with what he stated in the video?

 

[HarryStotle]

And your guys don’t have a ‘narrative’ to support? You realize not everyone who acknowledges warming is advocating for a globalist solution to it, right?

You might want to contribute something more substantial to that post. What constitutes a “globalist” solution in your view, and what solutions would you propose that won’t do far more harm to the cause of human development and well-being than those being proposed by Green New Deals and such?

Part of the problem, it seems to me, is that those who are not supportive of “globalist solutions” are quite silent on the question of solutions,and merely permit the alarmists to have their way.

How serious is warming and what solutions ought to be undertaken?

 

[StudentMI]

You’re the one throwing the term around left and right claiming it’s all some globalist agenda foisted on the public. It’s paranoid, man. It’s the same thing deniers were saying 15 years ago about the idea of global warming at all, the thing institutes like the ones you link to claimed until they couldn’t deny it anymore and now they just say “oh it’s not that bad.”

So I’ll just bring out this: are you calling our Holy Fathers globalists?

 

[Theo520]

Most who preach ‘man made global warming’ are advocating for a ‘globalist solution’,
I’m sure there are some who don’t advocate for a ‘globalist solution’ but they aren’t saying much.

 

[HarryStotle]

So I’ll just bring out this: are you calling our Holy Fathers globalists?

The Vatican is being “guided” on climate change and “global” solutions by advisors who
directly oppose Catholic doctrine and beliefs. Pope Francis’ encyclical, Laudato Si: On Care for
Our Common Home, utilized information and policy directives from a “workshop” on the topic that included activists like Naomi Oreskes, Peter Wadhams, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Paul Erlich, Naomi Klein, and UN advisor Jeffrey Sachs.
Pope Francis’ advisors have embraced the UN Agenda 2030, the Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development manifesto, along with the Global Pact for Migration. The advisors that the Vatican has aligned itself with, all advocate development restrictions, contraceptives, population control, and abortion. Strange bedfellows.

 

[HarryStotle]

Tribute to Freeman Dyson (RIP)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

There you go, rejecting expert analysis just because it doesn’t fit your beliefs. You can’t say you are relying on experts and then go and override them whenever you see fit.

No actually, there is good probable cause for “rejecting” the so-called expert analysis from NOAA because the “experts” there are clearly tampering with the data in order to sustain a certain narrative.

As I have maintained many posts earlier, a person without the expert training in the scientific field involved is not qualified to make the determination of “tampering.” It is certainly not “tampering” in the ordinary sense where the changes would be hidden. The revisions you refer to were made in the full light of day and with reasons (which you no doubt reject) given justifying the changes. Remember the post about the mammograms? You are essentially looking at a mammogram and saying “this image was not processes properly. It has been tampered with.”

And Leaf does NOTHING to actually demonstrate “misinformation.”

It is misinformation because it is contrary to what the experts have told us. The so-called information presented by Robson is a non-experts analysis of something that requires expertise to analyze.

How serious is warming and what solutions ought to be undertaken?

The question of what solutions ought to be undertaken can only be considered after we have agreement on what the situation is. And that we do not have in this forum. There is no sense using the criticism of the solutions as an argument against the facts of the situation. That is like saying “We couldn’t possibly have 3 degrees of warming in 50 years because that would lead to Socialism.”.

 

[HarryStotle]

That is like saying “We couldn’t possibly have 3 degrees of warming in 50 years because that would lead to Socialism.”.

As opposed to: “We ought to embrace socialism because we could possibly have 3 degrees of warming in 50 years?”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Vatican is being “guided” on climate change and “global” solutions by advisors who
directly oppose Catholic doctrine and beliefs.

That is an ad hominem. You are saying that just because a person is an atheist he cannot possibly be relied upon for factual information about the climate. Now if those atheists or others were giving Francis theological advice that would be a different matter. I don’t think Francis needs any help in that area, so it is unlikely he would ask for it. But factual expertise can come from anyone - even an atheist.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

That is like saying “We couldn’t possibly have 3 degrees of warming in 50 years because that would lead to Socialism.”.

As opposed to: “We ought to embrace socialism because we could possibly have 3 degrees of warming in 50 years?”

You will notice that I have not said that, and I don’t think anyone else here has either.

 

[EndTimes]

Climate always changes…
Anyone who knows about the Ice Age Knows that.
I’ve never run across one person who Denies the well-known fact - that Climate Always Changes

“Climate Change Denial”?

Who came up with the Whopper of a False Label?

 

[Holly3278]

I personally believe that man made climate change is real and is occurring and is a very severe threat to mankind and to our planet in general.

 

[EndTimes]

I personally believe that man made climate change is real

Man contributes to climate - as apparently also does bovine flatulence…
yet at a far far far less level than does Mama Nature.

What Man does far worse - is his poisonings of land air and sea ,
Which in turn do not contribute to Temp Rises or Falls - in any significant manner

AGW Alarmism … .has been very effective in yes - scaring those who have insufficient knowledge of climatology - necessary in order to form their own opinions. One does not need a PhD…

100 Trillion Dollars in projected Carbon Taxation - connects with what funds the ongoing propaganda

The ongoing prognostications of short term calamities - has never ever come to pass.

That alone should raise a red flag…,

)

 

[StudentMI]

Still, a PhD doesn’t hurt.

 

[HarryStotle]

It is misinformation because it is contrary to what the experts have told us. The so-called information presented by Robson is a non-experts analysis of something that requires expertise to analyze.

The problem is that you have been entirely INCONSISTENT regarding how you treat the “non-experts.”

In Post #1017, the first two names you cited as providing the most “convincing evidence” that climate change is a problem were Cook and Oreskes.

As to Oreskes and Cook, et al…

Oreskes is a historian of science. Cook is a cognitive scientist. Doran is a geologist. Powell is a geologist and museum director. Farnsworth is a political scientist. Lichter is professor of communications. Anderegg is assistant professor of biology. Schneider is professor of environmental biology. Prall is an electrical systems programmer. Dennis Bray is a sociologist. Maggie Kendall Zimmerman was a grad student in environmental sciences when she published with Doran.

Von Storch is the only verifiable climate scientist in the entire retinue of scientists you cited who were “scientists studying climate.”

Yet, when I provided a list of atmospheric and climate scientists with vastly greater credentials than your list…

I can name a number of reputable scientists who do claim global warming hysteria is far overblown. I can also name a few who say it is a great hoax to pin global warming on human activity: William Happer , Willie Soon, Richard Lindzen, Tony Heller, Judith Curry, Tim Ball, Roy Spencer, Don Easterbrook, Tim Patterson, John Christy, William Gray, Ross McKitrick, Patrick Moore, Elliot Bloom, and more…

Your answer was

Can you name one climate scientist who says it is all a hoax? Not a physics professor. Not a grad student. Not “far overblown.” A Hoax. (I don’t have time to search through all the chaff you threw at me.)

Yet, you have time to list physics professors, grad students, and the like, as your “most convincing” sources.

Puzzling that.

How are your “most convincing” sources not…

“…non-experts analysis of something that requires expertise to analyze?”

 

[HarryStotle]

I personally believe that man made climate change is real and is occurring and is a very severe threat to mankind and to our planet in general.

Thank you for that expression of your faith.

Science is not about “personal belief,” however. It is about evidence.

 

[EndTimes]

Still, a PhD doesn’t hurt.

Yes … And that said: As far as 12 Years Ago… Over 30,000 American Scientists signed a petition which drives those fanboys who support the political AGW Charlatans … BONKERS!

The claim that the debate about the severity and cause of global warming is “settled science” has taken a beating with the release of the names of 31,072 American scientists who reject the assertion that global warming has reached a crisis stage and is caused by human activity.

“No such consensus or settled science exists,” Arthur Robinson, founder and president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), told a press conference May 19 at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. “As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject” the hypothesis of human-caused global warming.

The institute, a non-profit research organization, first published the names and credentials of about 17,000 scientists in 2001. The current list of 31,072 Americans with college degrees in science includes 9,021 with Ph.D. degrees in various scientific fields.

Robinson said, “The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.”

Added Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute and publisher of Environment & Climate News , "Claims by partisan and extremist organizations such as Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Union of Concerned Scientists that their views represent the ‘consensus’ never should have been taken seriously.

"They are not scientific organizations, and in fact they have long records of misrepresenting science to achieve political objectives," Bast said. "This should go down as yet another case in which they were caught lying about science."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Always Follow the 100 Trillion Dollar Carbon Taxation Money Trail…

Where you’ll find Liars and Thieves - engaged in a larger Agendae than just making folks broke!

_

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The problem is that you have been entirely INCONSISTENT regarding how you treat the “non-experts.”

In Post #1017, the first two names you cited as providing the most “convincing evidence” that climate change is a problem were Cook and Oreskes.

I did not cite them or anyone else in that list as experts in climate science. They were not claiming anything about climate science. They were reporting on literature statistics - something far different than making claims about how to interpret raw scientific data which is what you are doing.

Yet, when I provided a list of atmospheric and climate scientists with vastly greater credentials than your list…

I can name a number of reputable scientists who do claim global warming hysteria is far overblown. I can also name a few who say it is a great hoax to pin global warming on human activity: William Happer , Willie Soon, Richard Lindzen, Tony Heller, Judith Curry, Tim Ball, Roy Spencer, Don Easterbrook, Tim Patterson, John Christy, William Gray, Ross McKitrick, Patrick Moore, Elliot Bloom, and more…

Your answer was

Can you name one climate scientist who says it is all a hoax? Not a physics professor. Not a grad student. Not “far overblown.” A Hoax. (I don’t have time to search through all the chaff you threw at me.)

The thing about your list is that not everyone on that list was saying the same thing. You will find very few if any really qualified climate scientists that are saying the same thing you have been saying. The ones who are saying something close to what you are saying tend to be the unqualified ones. Instead of throwing lists at me, take just one name on that list - Roy Spencer. There is someone who has expressed skepticism about climate change, but is also a highly qualified scientist in that field, so he is someone who carries more weight that some on your list. So show me specifically what Roy Spencer says that is anything like what you have been saying about all the data being manipulated for political purposes, etc. Normal skepticism in a scientist is a good thing. Ideologically-driven denials of claims is quite another.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As far as 12 Years Ago… Over 30,000 American Scientists signed a petition…

Read here about the problems with that petition.

Did 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change a Hoax?​

Snopes declared (with support): Mostly False

 

[Holly3278]

Yes and many would argue that there is plenty of evidence that man made climate change is real.