I can't believe I am even making this Thread... 

 

But, it seems to have taken over the politics Thread so I figured we can hash this out here (though the way the conversation was heading about AGW, maybe it should have stayed in the Politics thread...

 

 

So here we go, let's have at it!

 

 

I believe there is overwhelming evidence in AGW and it is a vocal, self-serving minority of the scientific community that derail and muddy up the issue so we can not act in a constructive manner to curtail this global thread.

Edited January 2, 20233 yr by Wanna-B-Fanboy

6 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Now this has absolutely huge implications if what they are theorizing is correct, their paper is in the peer review stage. 

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

I will even add this cool little pdf  with examples where Monckton misrepresents the very scientists whose work he cites and the scientists who in their own words explain how Monckton misrepresents their research.

https://skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

But if the paper passes peer review and is published is all that matters. 

22 minutes ago, pigseye said:

This is actually true for land surface temperatures, nobody disputes that. The oceans continued to warm which kept global temperatures creeping up. 

https://phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped-satellite-global.html

"The Remote Sensing System temperature data, promoted by many who reject mainstream climate science and especially most recently by Sen. Ted Cruz, now shows a slight warming of about 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit since 1998. Ground temperature measurements, which many scientists call more accurate, all show warming in the past 18 years.

"There are people that like to claim there was no warming; they really can't claim that anymore," said Carl Mears, the scientist who runs the Remote Sensing System temperature data tracking."

The study refutes the idea of a pause in global warming, "but frankly common sense and looking at how Earth was responding over the past 18 years kind of makes this finding a 'duh' moment," wrote University of Georgia meteorology professor Marshall Shepherd.

 

5 minutes ago, pigseye said:

But if the paper passes peer review and is published is all that matters. 

I wouldn't hold my breath.... Just a word of caution.

NASA now hiding things on their website...can't let that nasty Sun get in the way of a good scary fairy tale about global apocalypse!

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/02/nasa-hides-page-saying-the-sun-was-the-primary-climate-driver-and-clouds-and-particles-are-more-important-than-greenhouse-gases/

21 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and dismiss it outright 

what a surprise.

4 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

what a surprise.

Why would anyone give a serial liar the benefit of the doubt? That's dumb and wasteful of one's time. 

 

Explain to me why one should give this serial liar a platform at all?

Edited March 15, 20196 yr by wanna-b-fanboy

20 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

https://phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped-satellite-global.html

"The Remote Sensing System temperature data, promoted by many who reject mainstream climate science and especially most recently by Sen. Ted Cruz, now shows a slight warming of about 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit since 1998. Ground temperature measurements, which many scientists call more accurate, all show warming in the past 18 years.

"There are people that like to claim there was no warming; they really can't claim that anymore," said Carl Mears, the scientist who runs the Remote Sensing System temperature data tracking."

The study refutes the idea of a pause in global warming, "but frankly common sense and looking at how Earth was responding over the past 18 years kind of makes this finding a 'duh' moment," wrote University of Georgia meteorology professor Marshall Shepherd.

 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018EA000443

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969718331978

One study, well here's two new ones that say otherwise, even the IPCC acknowledged the pause. 

8 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Why would anyone give a serial liar the benefit of the doubt? That's dumb and wasteful of one's time. 

 

Explain to me why one should give this serial liar a platform at all?

If the results are correct who cares? 

24 minutes ago, pigseye said:

If the results are correct who cares? 

and the irony of serial liars calling Monkton a serial liar shouldn't be lost on anyone.  "He disagrees with us" = serial liar.  This is what "science" is now reduced to.  

22 minutes ago, pigseye said:

If the results are correct who cares? 

Sure. When it's been peer reviewed and withstands scientific community  scrutiny- then fine, but I am not going to waste my time

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

and the irony of serial liars calling Monkton a serial liar shouldn't be lost on anyone.  "He disagrees with us" = serial liar.  This is what "science" is now reduced to.  

Being completely wrong and continuing to spout the same garbage lies after being completely refuted is a far cry from denouncing someone as a liar because he disagrees... hes called a serial liar for... lying repeatedly. Please stop equating the two- you are just propagating the lie and if you continue people might come to the conclusion that you are a liar too. NOT saying you are- just that some people MIGHT think you are purposely trolling and lying.

I will treat "Lord" Monckton's opinion the same as I would treat the opinion of a flat-earther. It amounts to the same. 

 

Edited March 15, 20196 yr by wanna-b-fanboy

3 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I will treat his opinion the same as I would treat the opinion of a flat-earther. It amounts to the same. 

 

They just continue to lower the bar. They're willing to give anyone with the same opinion as them the benefit of the doubt. But, when you present overwhelming evidence contradicting them, it's YOU that's attacking science because YOU don't agree. 

 

What are his lordship's credentials? Oh, yeah... He's got a Master of Arts in Classics and a journalism diploma.

4 minutes ago, JCon said:

They just continue to lower the bar. They're willing to give anyone with the same opinion as them the benefit of the doubt. But, when you present overwhelming evidence contradicting them, it's YOU that's attacking science because YOU don't agree. 

 

Yup, bit of psychological projecting or trolling there.

 

Regardless- we all see what it is, so we call it out and move on. Continue the discussion and try to keep it grounded in facts and free of misinformation.

Edited March 15, 20196 yr by wanna-b-fanboy

3 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

What are his lordship's credentials? Oh, yeah... He's got a Master of Arts in Classics and a journalism diploma.

I dont think that should immediately discount him from the discussion... his serial lying and paid shill-ways do immediately discount him.

12 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I dont think that should immediately discount him from the discussion... his serial lying and paid shill-ways do immediately discount him.

I guess I'm curious as to what makes him any sort of scientific expert on the matter to quote him in this thread, especially when his track record on said matter is detestable at best.

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

Edited March 15, 20196 yr by blue_gold_84
link added

1 hour ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

. Continue the discussion and try to keep it grounded in facts and free of misinformation.

That should be everyone's goal.  Unfortunately, unless the "facts" support only the apocalyptic world-ending view, then it must be "misinformation".  And that's the problem.

Here's an open letter to all of the indoctrinated kids who skipped school today for "Climate Strike" (yuck)...

By Brian Dingwall, New Zealand

Hi Kids,

Many of you will be marching today, demonstrating for an issue you believe to be very important.

Many years ago, I was young, well informed, and absolutely convinced I knew enough to make good decisions for the future of the world, and couldn’t understand just how obtuse all the oldies were, how they just didn’t know the stuff I had just learned.

Malthusian economics drove most of us, the Club of Rome had reported, and to my subsequent shame, I confess that in 1975 I voted for the Values Party….I wanted a better world, I knew resources were on the verge of running out, the population was out of control, and we were polluting our one and only planet. It was, I thought, time for the change that was so desperately required

The Values party did not get in, to our surprise the resources did not run out, Simon won his bet with catastrophist Erhlich, as countries became more wealthy they cleaned up their environments, particularly water, farmlands, and air.

China is now wealthy enough to be doing exactly that right now, following in the footsteps of Japan, Taiwan, and Korea. We certainly never see the famous foaming rivers of industrial Japan anymore.

Economists now understand that the ultimate resource, the human imagination, never runs out.

So is it likely to be with climate change. I urge you to never abandon your scepticism, for a critical mind is your most important asset.

Be able to articulate exactly what evidence has persuaded you to your opinion. Opinions though, are not evidence. Consensus is not evidence.

The world has many historic consensuses that have turned out to not be so. So far, I don’t mind sharing with you, I have yet to be persuaded.

My background is in science, with a smattering of economics, and statistics and I well understand the case for catastrophic climate change. I find it unconvincing.

As do a raft of well qualified experts in many fields, even Nobel prize winners, and I urge you to find out who they are, and why they have reservations.

There are two sides to this debate, but only one is well resourced, so you have to work a bit harder to find the arguments of the sceptical scientists.

One of the very great tragedies of the whole issue is that since 1990, it has been very difficult for scientists to garner resources from governments to research natural climate change, but we can be certain that the forces that wreaked great climate changes in the past are still active, and may be a much greater magnitude than those wreaked by CO2.

For today please reflect on these things:

All the CO2 being released today is simply being returned to the atmosphere whence it came, and is now available to the biosphere, which we can see is already flourishing as a result. Global temperatures have increased (about 0.7C degrees in last 100 years) ever since the little ice age, and continue to but at nothing like the rate predicted by climate models.

We live from the equator to (nearly) the poles, and hence are particularly adaptable, and will adapt to minor temperature changes and have in the past through climate optima, and little ice ages.

Much of the land surface of the earth is too cold for habitation or agriculture, some warming of the northern latitudes of Canada and Russia for example will be welcomed.

Here in New Zealand, we produce food for the world, with one of, if not the lowest “carbon footprints” of any country. Should you actually succeed in killing this industry, that production will be conducted elsewhere, at a higher carbon cost…..so the improvement as you see it, in New Zealand’s emissions will be more than offset by extra emissions elsewhere….we will be adding to the problem, not mitigating it.

It is also very important that each of you understands that for any complex problem, there are a range of decisions, trade-offs, to be considered. Do we understand all the benefits that follow from the use of fossil fuels? How many of these are we prepared to sacrifice? What would a fossil fuel-less world look like for you (hint: I don’t think you would like it very much).

Have you read or even heard of the “moral case for fossil fuels”, and do you understand the extent to which they feed and clothe the world, provide us with our tools, and our leisure, empower our devices, and enable our travel at present? House us and clean us?

You are not informed if you only read one side of the case. I happen to believe in free markets, the economics of von Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Simon, McCloskey, and many of the moderns but I have also read Marx, and various of the collectivist economists, you must know what all the opinion leaders are saying and why.

So do seek out “lukewarmers” like Curry, Lewis, Christy, Soon, Balunias, they will lead you to a raft of others “the counter-consensus” that you, like me, may find rather more convincing than the orthodox climate church.

Personally I have learned that what I knew at your age (vastly more than my parents knew, of course) was not always right….now captured in the expression “it’s not what we don’t know, it’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so”.

We once believed in leeches, blood-letting, that washing our hands was not important, that continents didn’t drift, that stress causes ulcers, a daily aspirin is good, and that there is always an imminent catastrophe on the horizon that never materialises.

The question is whether what we know for sure that the specific climate change you worry about is human caused, will have a measurable and substantial impact, and is real. What climate change would have been quite natural? Will we look back in years to come and think “we believed what?”

Have we included accurately in our models the impacts of short and long term natural oceanic cycles, cosmic rays impact on cloud nucleation, clouds, the sun and sunspots, what, if anything, is there still that we don’t know that we don’t know? Can we get initial conditions right?

Always examine closely the logic of the case…we have only one world so all we can do is create computer models of the climate, and wait to see if nature tells us the models are a good approximation of the real world suitable for projecting future climates…..and if climate is a 30 year average of all our global “weather” then we probably have to wait at least two preferably more periods of 30 years simply to validate the models so 100 years or so.

So far the projections and predictions have been wildly wrong, the polar ice is healthy, the Manhattan freeway is not underwater, sea-level rise is not accelerating, and snow is far from “a thing of the past”. As climate scientist and keeper of one of the satellite records ironically observes “the models all agree the observations are wrong”.

And the economics don’t work, as Nobel prize winner Nordhaus teaches the cost of mitigation is an order of magnitude greater than the cost of the problem, so the cure is worse than the disease.

Don’t take my word for it, or anyone’s. Read for yourselves, go to source. Do not trust any scientist who calls a peer scientist a “denier”. Understand peer review, and that a peer reviewed paper is more often than not just the opening salvo in a chain of events that may or may not ultimately expose a scientific truth.

Be very careful of any theory where the accepted facts (historic temperatures, and the location and number of the thermometers)) change regularly to suit the narrative.

And finally, enjoy your day, be yourselves, trust your own judgment, read widely, and look behind the data to the motives of the players.

There is a (slim) chance you are right, but even if you are, trust in human ingenuity, that fabulous engine of change, to ensure survival not of the world as we know it, but of an even better world than previous generations enjoyed….we will not revert to sleeping with our food animals on dirt floors with unpainted walls! As humans have done for most of our time on earth….

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

That should be everyone's goal.  Unfortunately, unless the facts support only an the apocalyptic world-ending view scenario, then it must be "misinformation".  And that's the problem.

Fixed for accuracy. 

 

2 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Fixed for accuracy. 

 

where is the accuracy exactly?  More like "fixed to suit an unsupportable narrative".

11 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

where is the accuracy exactly?  More like "fixed to suit an unsupportable narrative".

You mean other than the enormous amount of facts supporting human induced climate change, that I and other posters have posted for you? Or the dizzying amount of facts disproving most of your contrarian arguments?

Governor Janet Mills announced that Maine has joined the United States Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of 21 states committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement. 

Quote

 

"We do not need another report to tell us what we already know: that our climate is changing; that it is changing rapidly; that it will have profound implications for us and for future generations; and that there is limited time to address it.

We know this because, here in Maine, we are witnessing these changes firsthand:

-The Gulf of Maine is warming at a rate faster than 99 percent of the world’s oceans, driving our lobster populations further up the coast.

-Our coastal waters are growing more acidic, weakening the shells of lobsters, clams, scallops and oysters.

-Temperatures, along with our climate, are fluctuating more wildly, leading to natural disasters, increased tick populations and rising seas.

 I will introduce legislation to create the Maine Climate Council.

The Maine Climate Council will be responsible for developing an action plan and a timetable to meet our emission reduction goals and to ensure that Maine’s communities and economy are resilient to the effects of climate change.

The Climate Council will be comprised of commissioners and key state leaders, science and technical experts, non-profit leaders, and representatives of climate- impacted industries.

The Council will be established in statute. It will solicit public input and report regularly to the public on progress toward the following goals:

The Council will lead our efforts to reduce Maine greenhouse gas emissions. And, with the Council’s leadership, our state will achieve 80 percent renewable energy in our electricity sector by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050.

 

https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-announces-maine-has-joined-bipartisan-us-climate-alliance-2019-02-28

20 minutes ago, Mark F said:

Governor Janet Mills announced that Maine has joined the United States Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of 21 states committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement. 

https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-announces-maine-has-joined-bipartisan-us-climate-alliance-2019-02-28

 

It's reassuring to see government at the state level tackle this issue when the government at the federal level do everything in their power to **** the planet. Thanks for the link. 

Quote

 the Ohio Conservative Energy Forum, released the results of a survey last week suggesting that support for renewables is no longer a politically exploitable issue. In a survey of 400 Ohioans who self-identify as conservative, two-thirds of respondents said they believe their state needs to diversify its energy portfolio by having at least half of its energy come from renewable sources. Nearly the same percentage of respondents said they were more—not less—likely to support a politician who voted for or otherwise expressed support for renewable energy or energy efficiency legislation. Ohio, just as a reminder, currently ranks 11th in coal production among U.S. states, and its coal industry directly or indirectly supports about 33,000 jobs. It also ranks fourth among states in coal consumption.

https://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy-coal-politics-2629963814.html

 

Renewable energy sources will be the world’s main source of power within two decades and are establishing a foothold in the global energy system faster than any fuel in history, according to BP.

The UK-based oil company said wind, solar and other renewables will account for about 30% of the world’s electricity supplies by 2040, up from 25% in BP’s 2040 estimates last year, and about 10% today.

In regions such as Europe, the figure will be as high as 50% by 2040. The speed of growth was without parallel, the company said in its annual energy outlook.

 

 

Edited March 16, 20196 yr by Mark F