Grim reports on climate change say act now or be ready for catastrophe

[mogandave]

A degree in science....

[zzaa09]

Mindlessly accumulate and consume as much as you can. 

It appears that you can take it with you. 

[attrayant]

I don’t really understand why people care about what happens when they’re dead.

So if you’re going to die from a stroke, it makes no difference to you whether it happens while you’re asleep in your own bed or at the wheel of a bus full of school children?

[mogandave]

So if you’re going to die from a stroke, it makes no difference to you whether it happens while you’re asleep in your own bed or at the wheel of a bus full of school children?

Would driving a bus not be something I would be doing while I’m alive?

[Machiavelli]

The biggest hoax ever concocted. Almost got away with it. Imagine the bill. ???? They got caught. Now they are shrilling. Who cares. The earth changes. That what it does. It's living organism. ????

[spidermike007]

There is an awful lot we can be doing. It starts at home. Stop using plastic shopping bags, take out containers, stop buying plastic water bottles, etc. Where does that crap end up? It is so easy for us to  bring reusable metal or bpa free water bottles to a restaurant. I do it daily. It not only saves money, but it saves hundreds of plastic bottles a year. Same with plastic bags. It is so easy for us to bring our own bags when shopping. I do it daily. Often the merchants or restaurants are surprised. Who cares? Do your part. Or don't complain. Global warming is happening. And we are the cause. Burying our heads in the sand will change nothing. We can do our part. 

[Catoni]

2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

There is an awful lot we can be doing. It starts at home. Stop using plastic shopping bags, take out containers, stop buying plastic water bottles, etc. Where does that crap end up? It is so easy for us to  bring reusable metal or bpa free water bottles to a restaurant. I do it daily. It not only saves money, but it saves hundreds of plastic bottles a year. Same with plastic bags. It is so easy for us to bring our own bags when shopping. I do it daily. Often the merchants or restaurants are surprised. Who cares? Do your part. Or don't complain. Global warming is happening. And we are the cause. Burying our heads in the sand will change nothing. We can do our part. 

    Well.... most of your post has to do with simply cleaning up our plastic and metal trash.... I agree with you there.  No problem.

 

>Global warming is happening. And we are the cause.

 

     Now there is where I have a problem with your post.  You obviously know nothing of the history of the planet and paleoclimatology. You know nothing of the history of civilizations. 

            You say Global warming is happening now as if it is something unusual.... when it is not unusual at all.    

    The planet is always cooling or warming. The cause of warming and cooling is secondary... 

 

  We just came out of a bad cooling period.... the L.I.A. circa 1850... which was no fun to live in..

 

    What would you expect it to do following a colder period... . get colder  ? ?   55555 

  

Since climate is always changing..... you should ask yourself:  Which is better in the long run for civilization?    A climate getting cooler ?  Or a climate getting warmer?  Because the planet has done both many many times in the past, and will continue to do both in the future.   

   In order to determine the answer... we look at things like temperature proxies for the civilizations of the past.. .and also written records from those civilizations... etc...  

   When we look at such things... guess what we find ! ! 

 

  We find that civilizations historically have done much, much better during the warmer times.... and very poorly during the colder times.

 

    Beginning with the warming of the Holocene Climate Optimum, when our hunter-gatherer ancestors first began agriculture and animal husbandry and built the first villages.... we have always made our greatest advances duing the much warmer...hotter climate times... . not the cooler...colder times..

 

     We can also look at biodiversity on the planet...   again... we can easily see that life on the planet prefers the hotter tropics....  whereas ...not so much.. very little.. in the cooler polar regions.

 

    Even humans much prefer to travel to and live in the hot tropics today....      You dont see fancy resorts and popular retirement destinations on the north Arctic shores of Siberia, Alaska and the Canadian Arctic islands. 

                  Another thing I find interesting with people who have not even done a cursory independant study of the subject.. let alone in college or university... (while being careful of leftist indoctrination)... is that they fail to realize that we are IN AN ICE AGE RIGHT NOW ! ! 

 

      They continually confuse Ice Ages and Glacial Periods and dont know the difference..    They ignore the fact that just 22,000 years ago.. we slowly started to come out of the last Glacial Period... (which was 100,000 years long...  much of Europe and North America buried under ice more than a mile thick. 

      

    The only strange and weird thing would be... if climate was NOT changing..   

 

Damn good we are getting warmer... and not colder...  

 

  So have you moved to the Arctic ? ?   LOL.....55555

Edited October 23, 2018 by Catoni
correction

[VincentRJ]

13 hours ago, Bangkok Herps said:

There are two reasons why I strongly dispute your hypothetical interpretation of events.

First of all, I have a degree in science from a highly respected (and quite apolitical) science and engineering school in the United States,and have continued to do work in science off-and-on since then. I know literally hundreds of scientists and have met thousands. An extremely minuscule percentage of them have the slightest doubt that man's activity is a major driver of climate change or that said climate change will have devastating global effects in the next century, especially for the environment and for poor people across the warmer regions of the globe.

Secondly, among those relationships include personal friends of mine who work for fossil fuel producers, and they report that even the scientists who work with the fossil fuel companies believe the party line on AGW is basically accurate. So workplace incentives cannot be driving the acceptance of the theories when even those who have the most to lose have admitted there is an issue here.

 

If what you say is true, specifically the part I've highlighted in bold, then we have an even more serious problem than climate change; the poor quality of most of our scientists.

 

Now, don't misinterpret what I'm saying. I'm stating 'if what you say is true' (with the emphasis on if) then it follows logically that many scientists are of poor quality.

 

I think I must have mentioned before in this long thread that the scientific methodology of repeated experimentation under controlled conditions is required before certainty on any issue can be achieved.
If you claim to be a scientist but don't understand this, then I'm sorry, but you need go back to school, or at least read about the history and the philosophy of science.

 

Some very obvious examples of the uncertainty of the effects of a single ingredient, such as CO2, in a very complex system, such as the Earth's climate, can be seen in the medical profession with regard to drugs and health supplements.

 

For example, often the experimentation when testing a new drug, begins in a petri dish, perhaps containing the new drug and the bacteria it's supposed to kill. This would be similar to conducting an experiment in a laboratory to confirm that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs certain frequencies at the lower end of the electromagnetic spectrum, associated with heat.

 

The next stage of the development of a new drug will often involve the use of mice or rats in a cage. Mice and rats share a significant degree of the human genome; their life-span is very short, so results can be observed relatively quickly; and their lifestyle and diet can be controlled during the period of the experiment. The control, which eliminates the effects of other variables, is absolutely essential.

 

If the experiments with mice or rats shows the drug is effective, without harmful side effects during the very short period of their life, the next stage is to experiment with humans (or sometimes our closest relative, the Chimpanzee).
However, this is where the uncertainty begins. It's difficult to completely control human behaviour over a significant period of time. There are so many other influences in the human diet and lifestyle which can affect the results, and because the human lifespan is relatively long, the long-term side effects of a particular drug can often not be determined until much later, sometimes resulting in litigation against the drug companies when their drugs have disastrous, long term consequences.

 

Drugs tend to have a relatively quick effect, in just a few days or weeks, and sometimes in just a few hours.
However, many health foods or health supplements often take many months or even many years before the benefits become just moderately certain. Let's consider a couple of examples.

 

The humble aspirin has been around for over a lifetime. It's main purpose is a pain-killer. However, during recent decades there have been many reports that taking regular, small doses of aspirin every day, can protect the heart and reduce the risk of cancer. But how certain is this?

 

If one takes the trouble to search for the evidence, it's not certain at all. There are aspects that are certain, such as the fact that aspirins tend to thin the blood and prevent it from clotting. However, the negative aspects of this effect is that internal bleeding might take place. Some medical specialists claim that the benefits outweigh the risks. Other medical specialists disagree.

 

Interestingly, a very recent study has found that daily, small doses of aspirin have no benefit at all.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180916152706.htm

 

Another example, dear to heart, is the benefit of drinking moderate amounts of red wine, say a couple of glasses a day. Do the advantages of the polyphenols and resveratrol in red wine outweigh the negative effects of the alcohol. It appears that no-one really knows. The issue is too complex. It might be beneficial for certain people, in relation to their genetic make-up and their lifestyle and diet, but of no benefit to others with a different lifestyle.

 

In summary, it really amazes me that any scientist could truly and honestly believe with certainty that increases in one, minuscule ingredient in the atmosphere, called CO2, could have a disastrous effect on our climate.

 

However, I can think of two explanations. Either they are wearing a 'political hat' and expressing a non-scientific view based on their emotional concerns about the 'real' pollution associated with burning fossil fuels and the consequent environmental degradation, or they are second-rate scientists who should go back to school.

[Catoni]

14 hours ago, Bangkok Herps said:

 

>

Quote

 

 

 

 

There are two reasons why I strongly dispute your hypothetical interpretation of events.

First of all, I have a degree in science from a highly respected (and quite apolitical) science and engineering school in the United States,and have continued to do work in science off-and-on since then. I know literally hundreds of scientists and have met thousands. An extremely minuscule percentage of them have the slightest doubt that man's activity is a major driver of climate change or that said climate change will have devastating global effects in the next century, especially for the environment and for poor people across the warmer regions of the globe.

Secondly, among those relationships include personal friends of mine who work for fossil fuel producers, and they report that even the scientists who work with the fossil fuel companies believe the party line on AGW is basically accurate. So workplace incentives cannot be driving the acceptance of the theories when even those who have the most to lose have admitted there is an issue here.

 

>First of all, I have a degree in science from a highly respected (and quite apolitical) science and engineering school in the United States,and have continued to do work in science off-and-on since then. I know literally hundreds of scientists and have met thousands. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Yes... I have also been to college and university and have a good education.  Guess what... even now in my retirement years... I continue to learn and study....    My education only makes me smart and intelligent.. it does not confer wisdom and honesty on me...  I work on that on my own.... 

 

To begin with.... all those fancy degree letters from university behind ones name is no gaurantee of honesty, truthfulness and high moral standards.  Your education makes you smart and intelligent....  

    It does not make you wise and honest...  

     All those degree letters do is get you your first job. 

 

      Good for you and today's scientists.  The 97% number of scientists that always gets thrown around is for the question..

   1. Do you believe the Earth has warmed in the last 100 or 150 years... and

   2. Do you think man has had something to do with it.. 

 

  Answer to question 1...   yes...

  Answer to question 2.... It depends....

        No.... Not for the initial warming pre-1950 or so... We had not put enough CO2 in the atmosphere previously to have caused that warming from approx 1880 to 1949. We dont really know what caused that. But it was a good thing.  The L.I.A. was not a good time.... 

        Yes... for the warming from the 1970s up to now....  about 40% - 50% of the warming in that time. Not all of it. 

 

    97% of scientists do NOT say the warming is bad.  And present CO2 levels are still extremely low if taking a look at the past 500 - 600 million years.

    But Warming Alarmist activists and scientists with a vested interest in keeping a problem going really like to concentrate on data sets that start low.. and end high...  especially after they adjust the data....  

 

   Climate Scientists Computer Models vs. Reality

 

  

Edited October 24, 2018 by Catoni
Correction

[attrayant]

10 hours ago, mogandave said:

Would driving a bus not be something I would be doing while I’m alive?

 

 

Talking about the dying part.  In other words, your actions while alive can have important consequences after you die and you should care about that.  If nobody cared about what happens after they die, we wouldn't have wills, copilots or suicide bombers.

[HAKAPALITA]

Fineding out the World dont owe them a livings going to be many posters bigest worry.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[mogandave]

 
Talking about the dying part.  In other words, your actions while alive can have important consequences after you die and you should care about that.  If nobody cared about what happens after they die, we wouldn't have wills, copilots or suicide bombers.

Well in the bus scenario you outlined it was (apparently) merely the fact that that I died that caused the problem, not something I had been doing while I was alive, correct?

It all comes down to what are we willing to give up.
Air conditioning?
Heat?
Automobiles?
Air travel?
Running water?
Cell phones?

I do what I can, but I’m not ready to give up much, how about you?

[VincentRJ]

22 hours ago, Catoni said:

>

 

>First of all, I have a degree in science from a highly respected (and quite apolitical) science and engineering school in the United States,and have continued to do work in science off-and-on since then. I know literally hundreds of scientists and have met thousands. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Yes... I have also been to college and university and have a good education.  Guess what... even now in my retirement years... I continue to learn and study....    My education only makes me smart and intelligent.. it does not confer wisdom and honesty on me...  I work on that on my own.... 

 

To begin with.... all those fancy degree letters from university behind ones name is no gaurantee of honesty, truthfulness and high moral standards.  Your education makes you smart and intelligent....  

    It does not make you wise and honest...  

     All those degree letters do is get you your first job. 

 

      Good for you and today's scientists.  The 97% number of scientists that always gets thrown around is for the question..

   1. Do you believe the Earth has warmed in the last 100 or 150 years... and

   2. Do you think man has had something to do with it.. 

 

  Answer to question 1...   yes...

  Answer to question 2.... It depends....

        No.... Not for the initial warming pre-1950 or so... We had not put enough CO2 in the atmosphere previously to have caused that warming from approx 1880 to 1949. We dont really know what caused that. But it was a good thing.  The L.I.A. was not a good time.... 

        Yes... for the warming from the 1970s up to now....  about 40% - 50% of the warming in that time. Not all of it. 

 

    97% of scientists do NOT say the warming is bad.  And present CO2 levels are still extremely low if taking a look at the past 500 - 600 million years.

    But Warming Alarmist activists and scientists with a vested interest in keeping a problem going really like to concentrate on data sets that start low.. and end high...  especially after they adjust the data....  

 

   Climate Scientists Computer Models vs. Reality

 

  

 

Excellent post, Catoni. I agree with every point.????

[honu]

I've already went on enough in this thread but I'll go with beating a dead horse since the standard completely wrong account of what climate change is keeps getting repeated. 

 

It's man-made, caused by carbon dioxide levels adjusted by burning fossil fuels, for sure.  It has nothing to do with natural fluctuation in weather cycles.  The time scale is all wrong for that to be the case, and the pattern of changes in atmospheric content.  Everything isn't uncertain, people studying this know what is happening, and it's not going to be ok, at least in the sense of maintaining the continuity of weather patterns experienced over the last 10,000 years.  Beyond that who knows.  It's all not as vague and mysterious as people make it out to be. 

 

Problems come in when you try to apply ordinary reasoning to problems that aren't in that scope, similar to Donald Trump claiming that he has a good instinct for scientific findings.  It's not about applying how patterns of ordinary experiences relate to climate issues; the two things are separate.  Recycling or not taking a bag at 711 will make absolutely no difference too, on that other side.

 

It makes sense that people just can't place reading the related climate graphs, because there are completely different patterns happening on different time scales.  A few important points repeat and require more attention. 

 

1.  Climate only has been stable (not changing) for the past 10,000 years, on the short cycle.  We can't relate to shifting patterns because our history and memory doesn't go back beyond that, but the stability people knew that enabled prior and modern society is over.  It seems like people aren't thinking through what this will mean for agriculture; farmers could only keep growing the same crops in the same places with good results because of that factor.  I guess this is where mixing up climate and weather gets confusing, since they're not the same but of course they're related.  

 

2.  It was hotter and colder before, and carbon dioxide levels were higher earlier in the earth's history (hundreds of millions of years ago).  The actual increase and decrease in temperature might not be as devastating as dealing with levels of changes, like weather patterns getting worse (less stable, more damaging, relating to sea level change and species die-off, etc.).  Unless you personally die of heatstroke, then that's worse. 

 

[Small Joke]

SOM NOM NA to us all.

Nothing will change. 

Until it's too late, and then we'll all slowly decline while being harassed/taxed/badgered to buggery by stupid draconian half baked environment laws (because it's always the masses that bear the cross, just witness the theatrical joke that is airport security).

[honu]

I'm not disagreeing that the only outcome possible will be that people ride out whatever is already going to happen.  The Paris Accord controls were a joke. 

 

It would probably reduce impact to make whatever token start on resolution is going to be initiated now versus in 10 to 20 years but the damage is already done; the carbon dioxide is already there in the atmosphere, and it's not as if shutting down fossil fuel use in a decade or two was ever possible.  If people went extinct right now the same general type of changes would still occur.  It's just annoying seeing people claim that it's all just part of natural cycles of nature, because the opposite has been known to be true for 20 years, and data collected over that period just makes it more and more certain, after already being certain. 

 

Science denial is absurd, with this issue, rejecting evolution, and flat-earth theories all pretty much the same thing.  And chemtrails too, for that matter.

[balo]

200 years from now people have other problems to deal with than climate changes , the earth is constantly changing, climate change is just a part of it. 

 

[canuckamuck]

On 10/31/2018 at 1:50 PM, honu said:

I've already went on enough in this thread but I'll go with beating a dead horse since the standard completely wrong account of what climate change is keeps getting repeated. 

 

It's man-made, caused by carbon dioxide levels adjusted by burning fossil fuels, for sure.  It has nothing to do with natural fluctuation in weather cycles.  The time scale is all wrong for that to be the case, and the pattern of changes in atmospheric content.  Everything isn't uncertain, people studying this know what is happening, and it's not going to be ok, at least in the sense of maintaining the continuity of weather patterns experienced over the last 10,000 years.  Beyond that who knows.  It's all not as vague and mysterious as people make it out to be. 

 

Problems come in when you try to apply ordinary reasoning to problems that aren't in that scope, similar to Donald Trump claiming that he has a good instinct for scientific findings.  It's not about applying how patterns of ordinary experiences relate to climate issues; the two things are separate.  Recycling or not taking a bag at 711 will make absolutely no difference too, on that other side.

 

It makes sense that people just can't place reading the related climate graphs, because there are completely different patterns happening on different time scales.  A few important points repeat and require more attention. 

 

1.  Climate only has been stable (not changing) for the past 10,000 years, on the short cycle.  We can't relate to shifting patterns because our history and memory doesn't go back beyond that, but the stability people knew that enabled prior and modern society is over.  It seems like people aren't thinking through what this will mean for agriculture; farmers could only keep growing the same crops in the same places with good results because of that factor.  I guess this is where mixing up climate and weather gets confusing, since they're not the same but of course they're related.  

 

2.  It was hotter and colder before, and carbon dioxide levels were higher earlier in the earth's history (hundreds of millions of years ago).  The actual increase and decrease in temperature might not be as devastating as dealing with levels of changes, like weather patterns getting worse (less stable, more damaging, relating to sea level change and species die-off, etc.).  Unless you personally die of heatstroke, then that's worse. 

 

 

The most obvious thing to observe in these three charts is dramatic heating that occurs right before the Ice age and that it occurs on a cycle. By looking at the chart it is obvious that we are in the brief optimal climate window that occurs directly before cataclysmic cooling. There is a slight chance that we may post pone the cooling with the increased CO2, that would be the best scenario.

[Bangkok Herps]

On 10/24/2018 at 6:34 AM, Catoni said:

>

 

>First of all, I have a degree in science from a highly respected (and quite apolitical) science and engineering school in the United States,and have continued to do work in science off-and-on since then. I know literally hundreds of scientists and have met thousands. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Yes... I have also been to college and university and have a good education.  Guess what... even now in my retirement years... I continue to learn and study....    My education only makes me smart and intelligent.. it does not confer wisdom and honesty on me...  I work on that on my own.... 

 

To begin with.... all those fancy degree letters from university behind ones name is no gaurantee of honesty, truthfulness and high moral standards.  Your education makes you smart and intelligent....  

    It does not make you wise and honest...  

     All those degree letters do is get you your first job. 

 

      Good for you and today's scientists.  The 97% number of scientists that always gets thrown around is for the question..

   1. Do you believe the Earth has warmed in the last 100 or 150 years... and

   2. Do you think man has had something to do with it.. 

 

  Answer to question 1...   yes...

  Answer to question 2.... It depends....

        No.... Not for the initial warming pre-1950 or so... We had not put enough CO2 in the atmosphere previously to have caused that warming from approx 1880 to 1949. We dont really know what caused that. But it was a good thing.  The L.I.A. was not a good time.... 

        Yes... for the warming from the 1970s up to now....  about 40% - 50% of the warming in that time. Not all of it. 

 

    97% of scientists do NOT say the warming is bad.  And present CO2 levels are still extremely low if taking a look at the past 500 - 600 million years.

    But Warming Alarmist activists and scientists with a vested interest in keeping a problem going really like to concentrate on data sets that start low.. and end high...  especially after they adjust the data....

You completely misread the post. I did not say that having the degree made me smart, or made me an expert. I was saying that I personally KNOW hundreds of scientists, including ones who work for fossil fuel interests, and virtually all of them affirm that climate change is occurring, man-made and undesirable. 

The claims that it's driven by people with a "vested interest" are ridiculous. The vast majority of the people I know in science would keep their same jobs and same paychecks regardless of what they believed about climate change, not to mention that I know their characters and know they are not liars. And even the people whose companies have a "vested interest" in denying climate change don't deny it anymore, or the culpability of manmade gases in causing it.

 

And claiming that there wasn't enough carbon dioxide produced by man to make any difference until recently - I have no idea where you got that idea. We had already cleared an enormous percentage of the Earth's surface for cities, logging, and agriculture, enough to have a substantial effect on the Earth's ability to store carbon. And then there was the Industrial Revolution. Not to mention two gargantuan wars that produced an enormous amount of industrial overproduction, burned fuel, and burning cities.

[mogandave]

You know hundreds of people close enough to know their character?

[honu]

On 11/3/2018 at 5:23 AM, canuckamuck said:

The most obvious thing to observe in these three charts is dramatic heating that occurs right before the Ice age and that it occurs on a cycle. By looking at the chart it is obvious that we are in the brief optimal climate window that occurs directly before cataclysmic cooling. There is a slight chance that we may post pone the cooling with the increased CO2, that would be the best scenario.

That is an interesting point.  I take this to be the reason why "global warming" changed to "climate change" awhile back, because people weren't sure if this transition wouldn't trigger the next ice age, which is due. 

 

The best scenario is hard to describe; the models aren't clear enough to break into a set of distinct possibilities with assigned probabilities.  Most likely we're completely off the natural cycle of climate changes (almost certainly), and the Earth is going to get very, very hot very fast.  It doesn't work to look back to conditions that didn't relate to people adding a lot of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere (which has already happened, and is continuing to happen) and then try to guess how those same patterns will apply in the future.  One of the main variables has been changed. 

 

People concluding that we can't know what will happen, or that the changes may be positive, or that we are still in some form of natural cycle just aren't reviewing the matter from an informed perspective.  The best current models probably aren't completely right but moving from that to "we can't know anything" is absurd.  We only know as much as we know, and there's no reason to throw that out for including uncertainty.

[canuckamuck]

38 minutes ago, honu said:

That is an interesting point.  I take this to be the reason why "global warming" changed to "climate change" awhile back, because people weren't sure if this transition wouldn't trigger the next ice age, which is due. 

 

The best scenario is hard to describe; the models aren't clear enough to break into a set of distinct possibilities with assigned probabilities.  Most likely we're completely off the natural cycle of climate changes (almost certainly), and the Earth is going to get very, very hot very fast.  It doesn't work to look back to conditions that didn't relate to people adding a lot of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere (which has already happened, and is continuing to happen) and then try to guess how those same patterns will apply in the future.  One of the main variables has been changed. 

 

People concluding that we can't know what will happen, or that the changes may be positive, or that we are still in some form of natural cycle just aren't reviewing the matter from an informed perspective.  The best current models probably aren't completely right but moving from that to "we can't know anything" is absurd.  We only know as much as we know, and there's no reason to throw that out for including uncertainty.

The models are not clear because they are incorrect. The vast majority have overestimated warming because they are programmed with a warming bias from the beginning. All we have that is anything like scientific is the climate record, which does show some very obvious cycles. No where in those cycles do we see CO2 driving warming, so it is a bit mad to suggest cataclysmic warming in the near future. Especially since we are entering a grand solar minimum and according to the historic cycles we are due for massive cooling. As a society we should be researching what rapid cooling would do to our planet. food shortages and mass migration are a certainty.

[honu]

This last comment leaves out that we are measuring that the climate is changing, that the Earth is warming, doesn't it?  Data from the last few decades isn't a guess, or model, or projection, it's what is actually happening.  What will happen over the rest of the century and beyond can only be a model but what is happening now can be observed and is being watched closely.

 

In the broader context the idea that professionals studying climate change wouldn't know best what is going to happen is part of the problem; the rejection of science.  It's all along the same line as Trump claiming that he has a good intuition for scientific findings, so his opinion is on equal footing with a consensus among climatologists; it's absurd.  It would be hard to say something that's more foolish.

 

I suppose it's even pathetic that holding absurd views based on ignorance is now so common that it's essentially accepted.  Flat earth theory goes too far, but it's not far off a mainstream position to deny that evolution occurred, when it clearly has been confirmed, in incredibly well documented fashion.

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, honu said:

 

 

In the broader context the idea that professionals studying climate change wouldn't know best what is going to happen is part of the problem; the rejection of science.  It's all along the same line as Trump claiming that he has a good intuition for scientific findings, so his opinion is on equal footing with a consensus among climatologists; it's absurd.  It would be hard to say something that's more foolish.

 

I suppose it's even pathetic that holding absurd views based on ignorance is now so common that it's essentially accepted.  Flat earth theory goes too far, but it's not far off a mainstream position to deny that evolution occurred, when it clearly has been confirmed, in incredibly well documented fashion.

There is not any rejection of science intended as knowledge.

There is just a rather broad acknowledgement that scientific theories are being used (or overlooked ) to influence the public opinion.

Thus, the total denial as well as the blind faith in scientists and their theories are symptoms of ignorance and naivety.

Money rules, unfortunately, and most of the scientists ( not to say nearly all of them) have to oblige.

 

[jcsmith]

The Facts
 

• Yes, the climate on earth is going to change no matter what. That's part of the natural cycle of the planet.
• Humans have dramatically accelerated that rate since the industrial revolution. 
• CO2 levels are at their highest in the past 650,000 years. See below chart below from NASA.
• This is accelerating rapidly.
• There is no magic solution here, but we there are things that we can do to reduce the effects and to try to avoid reaching the point of no return.
• If we reach the point of no return there will be many serious long-term affects which we will have to deal with which will be far worse than than the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. The reason there is so much resistance to this is largely due to the amount of money it will cost certain corporations. But those short term profits will result in long term catastrophy.
•  

Even if you assume against all the scientific evidence than mankind has little to do with this change. Even if you do that, you are still left with the problem of dealing with the effects of climate change. 

Edited November 7, 2018 by jcsmith

[canuckamuck]

49 minutes ago, honu said:

This last comment leaves out that we are measuring that the climate is changing, that the Earth is warming, doesn't it?  Data from the last few decades isn't a guess, or model, or projection, it's what is actually happening.  What will happen over the rest of the century and beyond can only be a model but what is happening now can be observed and is being watched closely.

 

In the broader context the idea that professionals studying climate change wouldn't know best what is going to happen is part of the problem; the rejection of science.  It's all along the same line as Trump claiming that he has a good intuition for scientific findings, so his opinion is on equal footing with a consensus among climatologists; it's absurd.  It would be hard to say something that's more foolish.

 

I suppose it's even pathetic that holding absurd views based on ignorance is now so common that it's essentially accepted.  Flat earth theory goes too far, but it's not far off a mainstream position to deny that evolution occurred, when it clearly has been confirmed, in incredibly well documented fashion.

Yes it has been getting warmer for 12,000 years, with several detours along the way. That point isn't in your favor.

The people who promote the climate fear agenda are not simply scientists. They are from all manner of occupations and ideologies. The hardcore science is being done by hard working grad students and they carry out their experiments obediently. The problem is what people do with the various findings to mislead or misrepresent. The truth is that big green is an industry that scratches many backs and satisfies many agendas. You can't even get funding for your science if it isn't designed to prop up the mythology.

Warming is good, it has always been good. CO2 is good too and it is a product of warming, which the climate record proves.

Don't worry, it ain't going to last. It never does. And that point is clearly discernable from the climate record.

[honu]

Luckily it doesn't matter if the average guy on the street believes in climate change or not, any more than if they think the Easter Bunny is real, but it could be problematic if that enables the leaders of countries to make decisions for the wrong reasons.  Of course in places like the US that's going to happen anyway, or maybe nearly everywhere.

 

One really simple, clear thing that seems to get left out of any discussion of climate change is that temperatures over the last 10,000 years were unusually even and stable.  That was the anomaly.  Over the last 10,000 years temperatures have been as stable as they've ever been on that time-frame, which is probably why human civilization flourished.  That party is over.  Then the joe-sixpack all-subjects-expert types still say "it's all more of the same; nothing to worry about," oblivious to the exact opposite being true.

 

 

[mogandave]

This last comment leaves out that we are measuring that the climate is changing, that the Earth is warming, doesn't it?  Data from the last few decades isn't a guess, or model, or projection, it's what is actually happening.  What will happen over the rest of the century and beyond can only be a model but what is happening now can be observed and is being watched closely.
 
In the broader context the idea that professionals studying climate change wouldn't know best what is going to happen is part of the problem; the rejection of science.  It's all along the same line as Trump claiming that he has a good intuition for scientific findings, so his opinion is on equal footing with a consensus among climatologists; it's absurd.  It would be hard to say something that's more foolish.
 
I suppose it's even pathetic that holding absurd views based on ignorance is now so common that it's essentially accepted.  Flat earth theory goes too far, but it's not far off a mainstream position to deny that evolution occurred, when it clearly has been confirmed, in incredibly well documented fashion.

A few decades out of how many millions of years?

What are the requirements of being a climate scientist, aside from working as one?

Is there a list of the thousands of climate scientists that are included in the 97% survey, and if so, are their backgrounds and the source of their funding known?

Thanks.

[canuckamuck]

8 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

The Facts
 

• Yes, the climate on earth is going to change no matter what. That's part of the natural cycle of the planet.
• Humans have dramatically accelerated that rate since the industrial revolution. 
• CO2 levels are at their highest in the past 650,000 years. See below chart below from NASA.
• This is accelerating rapidly.
• There is no magic solution here, but we there are things that we can do to reduce the effects and to try to avoid reaching the point of no return.
• If we reach the point of no return there will be many serious long-term affects which we will have to deal with which will be far worse than than the short term impact of transitioning away from fossil fuels. The reason there is so much resistance to this is largely due to the amount of money it will cost certain corporations. But those short term profits will result in long term catastrophy.
•  

Even if you assume against all the scientific evidence than mankind has little to do with this change. Even if you do that, you are still left with the problem of dealing with the effects of climate change. 

All of your points say basically one thing CO2 went up. You have not connected it to warming.

The world is not warming at a rate that correlates to the known rise in CO2. The rate of warming since the 1800's is fairly consistent if you go back 1000 years we have actually cooled. So why in the last 70 years have we seen less than a degree of warming when your little chart shows the CO2 going off like fireworks?

[jcsmith]

4 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

All of your points say basically one thing CO2 went up. You have not connected it to warming.

The world is not warming at a rate that correlates to the known rise in CO2. The rate of warming since the 1800's is fairly consistent if you go back 1000 years we have actually cooled. So why in the last 70 years have we seen less than a degree of warming when your little chart shows the CO2 going off like fireworks?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm