What do you think of climate change?

[ralfyman]

As stated several times earlier, the NAS, which is considered the “gold standard” of science review, stated clearly that global warming is a threat and must be addressed.

BEST, which was funded by skeptics in order to come up with an independent study of the matter, concluded the same.

The U.S. military, together with the Pentagon and other agencies, have stated that it is a national security issue and are preparing for its effects.

Lloyds of London, various insurers, and banks like HSBC have stated clearly that the crisis has led, and will continue to lead to, risks for investors, businesses, economies, and communities.

Even the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has stated similar, and not only about climate change but also pollution and ecological damage.

Likely, only a minority of experts and the public remains in denial.

 

[EndTimes]

Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”

 

[Metis1]

By now, even common sense should prevail and accept the simple fact that climate change is with certainty happening. On top of that, scientists even in the 1800’s well knew the effect on heat retention that both CO2 and methane gas have.

So, why are we even having this “discussion”?

 

[EndTimes]

By now, even common sense should prevail and accept the simple fact that climate change is with certainty happening.

No one who has known of e.g., the Little Ice Age - denies the obvious fact that Climate Changes
I’ve never run into any who Deny the Known Fact that - of course Climate Changes
Climate Change Denial? A Non-Existent Strawman Labelling Tactic

Climate?

What caused the Medieval Warming Period which followed the Dark Ages?

What caused the Little Ice Age - which followed the Medival Warming Period?

What caused this current Warming End of The Little Ice Age?

 

[Ender]

Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”

People tend to just dismiss comments like this as, ho-hum, just another complaint from some random denier. In fact this particular objection has to my knowledge never been addressed, and it is actually quite significant.

In its 4th Assessment Report the IPCC posted plots of “Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings.”

The plot for greenhouse gases (p. 675) showed a very significant hot spot over the tropics in the troposphere. Dr. Japar’s comment (above) simply notes that in fact such a hot spot does not exist according to the IPCC’s own data, which reasonably suggests that his conclusion is accurate: the climate models are invalid.

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

 

[gama232]

Of course the average person cannot read charts/images like that. I will consider climate change/global warming as maybe real only after billionaires start selling their beachfront property in the US. Otherwise, no.

 

[Metis1]

I’m going with the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists on this, as well as the NAS, NASA, NOAA, Scientific American, National Geographic, and even our own DoD here in the States. IMO, it makes not one iota of sense to ignore what clearly has been happening in recent decades, nor do I accept for one minute that these climate scientists are ignorant or crooked.

But I also acknowledge that there are some people whom believe in all sorts of conspiracy theories and also certain politicians who have no interest in even attempting to try and look at these things objectively based on well-established evidence through peer-reviewed science.

 

[gama232]

Well then. Go to China Daily in English. Look up an article about the tremendous amounts of coal Chinese industry is burning and explain the apparent lack of concern. Then explain why Chinese people are using three types of face mask. The most expensive traps fine particulates to prevent their entry into the lungs. Then explain the proposed Carbon Tax as if the air will stop moving over a particular country once it Carbon Offsets. Finally, contact the Swiss about their pilot plant which is extracting CO2 from the air right now. Global monitoring is showing exactly how much carbon-dioxide is in the air. Ask them why others are not using their or similar technology.

 

[Metis1]

I learned long ago that I and we cannot control everyone else but that we should be able to control ourselves. Gandhi called it “disinterested action”, namely that we should do that which is right regardless of the consequences. And a guy named “Jesus” taught us much the same-- and much more.

 

[HarryStotle]

I can’t agree. I have never met anyone who evaluates their doctor based on how much scientific sense he makes to them. It has always been based on the items I mentioned:

• Character
• Past results
• Recommendation of friends and family
• Recommendation of other doctors

This sounds precisely like the basis upon which you subscribe to climate scientists:

• Their Character (based upon what, exactly?)
• Their Past results (however that can be determined is questionable)
• Recommendation of friends and family
• Recommendation of other climate scientists (that you trust)

So, in effect, you aren’t interested in the actual climate science in play, but merely whether a consensus is available…

I have never met anyone who evaluates their doctor climate scientist based on how much scientific sense he makes to them.

A further point: I think most people do evaluate their doctor based upon how much scientific sense s/he makes — if they said things contrary to whatever scientific sense was available to the patient.

 

[EndTimes]

Dr Georg Kaser: “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I can’t agree. I have never met anyone who evaluates their doctor based on how much scientific sense he makes to them. It has always been based on the items I mentioned:

• Character
• Past results
• Recommendation of friends and family
• Recommendation of other doctors

This sounds precisely like the basis upon which you subscribe to climate scientists:

• Their Character (based upon what, exactly?)
• Their Past results (however that can be determined is questionable)
• Recommendation of friends and family
• Recommendation of other climate scientists (that you trust)

So, in effect, you aren’t interested in the actual climate science in play, but merely whether a consensus is available…

I disagree with your “in effect” conclusion. I am interested in climate science, and I try to educate myself when possible. But I also acknowledge my limitations and do not presume that my casual study of climate science makes me qualified to judge between two experts in the field.

I have never met anyone who evaluates their doctor climate scientist based on how much scientific sense he makes to them.

Sadly, I have met people who think they can evaluate climate scientists based on how much scientific sense it makes to them. That was my whole point for bringing up the discussion of doctors. If we treated climate scientists the same way we treat medical scientists we would not presume what you presume.

A further point: I think most people do evaluate their doctor based upon how much scientific sense s/he makes — if they said things contrary to whatever scientific sense was available to the patient.

But unless the doctor is Dr. Nick Rivera, no doctor is going to say things that don’t make scientific sense to the average person. Even when a second opinion disagrees with the first opinion, both doctors will make scientific sense to the layman.

 

[EndTimes]

Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”

 

[HarryStotle]

Sadly, I have met people who think they can evaluate climate scientists based on how much scientific sense it makes to them. That was my whole point for bringing up the discussion of doctors. If we treated climate scientists the same way we treat medical scientists we would not presume what you presume.

Actually there has been sufficient evidence — such as Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, Climategate, repeated failures of predictions by reputable climate scientists over the past 50 years, James Hansen’s questionable presentation to the Senate, the UN’s influence on the IPCC reports, NOAA’s regular “adjustments” to the temperature data that are synchronized to increases in atmospheric CO2, repeated failures of climate models to predict or even explain past climate, etc., — that any rational observer would begin to question how reliable and trustworthy climate scientists really are.

If your doctor, or any specialty within medicine, demonstrated the repeated failures to appropriately practice medicine that climate modellers and “reputable” climate scientists have in the past, the public would be thoroughly justified in not trusting your doctor. At least the public would be justified in putting a huge caveat in front of any advice from a doctor that demonstrated the kind of penchant to speak fast and loose regarding the data that climate scientists have in the past.

If we treated climate scientists the same way we treat medical scientists we would not presume what you presume.

So, no we would presume what I presume if medical scientists were as disreputable in their practice as climate scientists have been, especially if the medical scientists were advocating for the kind of massive social re-engineering “green new deals” that climate scientists seem so immune to speaking against or disavowing.

 

[EndTimes]

Actually there has been sufficient evidence — such as Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, Climategate, repeated failures of predictions by reputable climate scientists over the past 50 years, James Hansen’s questionable presentation to the Senate, the UN’s influence on the IPCC reports, NOAA’s regular “adjustments” to the temperature data that are synchronized to increases in atmospheric CO2, repeated failures of climate models to predict or even explain past climate, etc., — that any rational observer would begin to question how reliable and trustworthy climate scientists really are.

Yes…

AGW is a Hoax begging for c.100 Trillion USD - so as to Cool this planet

Some think that Globalism’s behind it - for the purpose of impovershing already impoverished people

People get hungry - and fall prey to false shepherds

And who knows, shall the AntiChrist po

;

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Sadly, I have met people who think they can evaluate climate scientists based on how much scientific sense it makes to them. That was my whole point for bringing up the discussion of doctors. If we treated climate scientists the same way we treat medical scientists we would not presume what you presume.

Actually there has been sufficient evidence — such as Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, Climategate, repeated failures of predictions by reputable climate scientists over the past 50 years,

As I said, I dispute your analysis of this as being evidence that climate scientists are disreputable. The hockey stick graph has been essentially replicated by other climate scientists and is generally correct. Cliimategate is a made-up scandal that was actually not a scandal. And predictions by climate scientists have been remarkably accurate. But of course if you presume to be able to evaluate the technical validity of these claims from a non-specialist perspective I would say you are presuming too much.

NOAA’s regular “adjustments” to the temperature data…

How “regular”? Every week? How do you know the adjustments (or homogenizations) are not justified? And do you realize that satellite measurements also require a great deal of homogenizations? Roy Spencer’s satellite data is just as massaged as surface thermometer readings.

… any rational ideologically motivated observer would begin to question how reliable and trustworthy climate scientists really are.

 

[Theo520]

If your doctor, or any specialty within medicine, demonstrated the repeated failures to appropriately practice medicine that climate modellers and “reputable” climate scientists have in the past, the public would be thoroughly justified in not trusting your doctor. At least the public would be justified in putting a huge caveat in front of any advice from a doctor that demonstrated the kind of penchant to speak fast and loose regarding the data that climate scientists have in the past.

A doctor can have a great reputation and bed side manner yet over-prescribe pills or surgeries. Should a woman get a double mastectomy because her family indicates a modest genetic risk?

 

[EndTimes]

Recall - Inconvenient Lies…

 

[Metis1]

Some seen to rather conveniently forget that science is ongoing, thus what we know now is significantly greater in many different areas than even in just a half century ago. As a long-term subscriber to “Scientific American”, I have seen this drift on climate change that’s based on more and more studies that have been completed over the last few decades especially.

IOW, global warning is real, which should be rather obvious to anyone who
studies and thinks objectively.

 

[HarryStotle]

Some seen to rather conveniently forget that science is ongoing, thus what we know now is significantly greater in many different areas than even in just a half century ago. As a long-term subscriber to “Scientific American”, I have seen this drift on climate change that’s based on more and more studies that have been completed over the last few decades especially.

IOW, global warning is real, which should be rather obvious to anyone who
studies and thinks objectively.

Until you begin assessing how much money is being poured into research from the “warming” agenda side. Many researchers are funded based upon how well they validate the warming narrative. Unfortunately, many on here will point to the “fossil fuel interests” and completely discount that the politics and economics of the “warming interests” are far better funded and more influential. Heck, even the oil companies have abandoned defending fossil fuels because of political pressure.

Narratives and ideologies have been a bane to proper science from its very beginning. One sure sign that science is being tampered with is the level of animosity against those who don’t fall into line with regard to the “accepted” science or consensus.