Climate change: July set to be world's warmest month on record

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You've a bad habit of sticking words in peoples' mouths, placeholder.  My claim about earlier science being overturned?  Where?  When?  This is what you're replying to.

Let me ask you this question.  Can you name me a single instance in the modern age of science in which there was unanimous or near unanimous consensus of some established scientific fact or evidence which at some point in the future was overturned?

I admit I lost interest after the third sentence.  I don't need a history lesson on science, nor am I looking to be impressed by your great scientific knowledge.  You could have just said that no scientific findings have ever been wrong (at least completely).  Or something like that.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sometimes-science-is-wrong/

More nonsense from you. You, who claim to be so reasonable and rational, refuse to read my post. The fact is that there is no current hypothesis that matches the predictive power of the current Theory of ACC to explain climate change. There have been attempts by prominent denialists and they have failed utterly. Reality proved they were wrong. Get back to me when there's an actual hypothesis out there that at least matches the predictive power of the current theory.

[placeholder]

30 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Well, go take your complaint to Danderman123.  He's the one who made a post about it.  I just replied.  Whyya pickin' on little ol' me?

I wouldn't have remarked on it at all weren't for the cheap shot you took:

"What else might you be wrong about?  I shudder to think." 

 

[placeholder]

21 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You've a bad habit of sticking words in peoples' mouths, placeholder.  My claim about earlier science being overturned?  Where?  When?  This is what you're replying to.

Let me ask you this question.  Can you name me a single instance in the modern age of science in which there was unanimous or near unanimous consensus of some established scientific fact or evidence which at some point in the future was overturned?

I admit I lost interest after the third sentence.  I don't need a history lesson on science, nor am I looking to be impressed by your great scientific knowledge.  You could have just said that no scientific findings have ever been wrong (at least completely).  Or something like that.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sometimes-science-is-wrong/

I don't think you actually read what you write: 

 

Can you name me a single instance in the modern age of science in which there was unanimous or near unanimous consensus of some established scientific fact or evidence which at some point in the future was overturned?  Any such instance you can find would serve as a poster child example of why consensus, or agreement, no matter the degree of it, does not make something true.  Or false.  Only proof can do this.  And even then it will always be open to the possibility that one day it may be disproved.  

 

The fact is that theories get overturned when better ones replace them. All you offer is nonsense about consensus but not better theories.  The important agreement is not whether there is a consensus of people but that there is agreement among the results of scientific research. Some day the Theory of ACC may prove inadequate to explain rapid climate change. But claiming that someday this may happen is proof of nothing. It's an empty generality.

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I thought liberals didn't post anything until it was fact checked.

 

The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned "inadvertent climate modification." Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: "if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."3

In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change."

3 National Academy of Science, Carbon Dioxide and Climate, Washington, D.C., 1979, p. vii.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

What else might you be wrong about?  I shudder to think. 

Frank Luntz is the person who put the term "climate change" into wide circulation.

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Works for everyone else.  Just not the Africans.  Stunning logic. 

People who don't have access to a power grid can't get power from oil or coal.

 

It's a pretty simple concept.

[Skipalongcassidy]

11 hours ago, geisha said:

France , yesterday 39c, today 42c + . The hottest in history.  The heatwave has lasted 15 days now.

same in Spain, Greece , Italy and elsewhere in EU, hence the fires blazing and hundreds if not thousands of deaths. In the heat wave of 2003 in France, 15 000 people died. Enough ??

Yes... local weather is changing... meanwhile record low temperatures are being experienced in other areas of the world.

 

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Yes... local weather is changing... meanwhile record low temperatures are being experienced in other areas of the world.

 

Actually global weather is changing not just local, which recent reports of record low temperatures are you referring to? If you come up with those links do you think it could be as a result of warming temperatures disrupting the polar vortex?

[Bkk Brian]

9 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Frank Luntz is the person who put the term "climate change" into wide circulation.

Indeed, Luntz adopted the phrase "climate change" because the Republican party was losing the battle to win votes on environmental issues. So instead they changed tact to deliberately become skeptical and create mistrust on the available science. A leaked memo detailed the plan.

 

From the article.

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

 

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".

 

Words such as "common sense" should be used, with pro-business arguments avoided wherever possible.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

[Danderman123]

On 8/23/2023 at 8:14 AM, Tippaporn said:

 

Again, are you serious, Danderman123, in consistently deny the truth of that statement?

I'm not ignoring any truth.  And here you're using another logical fallacy.  To disagree with a position does not infer that a position is ignored.  The conclusion does not follow the premise.

 

Are you saying that logic is abstract? 

The truth of the scientific consensus is based on its underlying proof. In the case of Global Warming, you have provided zero evidence that the underlying proof is false, which is an implied endorsement of the scientific consensus based on that proof.

[owl sees all]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

The truth of the scientific consensus is based on its underlying proof.

Nonsense!

[Danderman123]

15 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Nonsense!

 

You could provide an adult response, which would be to provide data that disproves the Global Warming hypothesis.

 

 

[owl sees all]

14 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

 

You could provide an adult response, which would be to provide data that disproves the Global Warming hypothesis.

 

 

Talking about Scientific consensus. Much, of what we are told is true (the science is settled), has it's foundations on very shaky concepts. Some of which are factitious.

 

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, owl sees all said:

Talking about Scientific consensus. Much, of what we are told is true (the science is settled), has it's foundations on very shaky concepts. Some of which are factitious.

 

The scientific consensus is not important.

 

What is important is the data the consensus is based on. You can't argue with the data, which is an implicit endorsement of the Global Warming hypothesis.

[placeholder]

11 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Yes... local weather is changing... meanwhile record low temperatures are being experienced in other areas of the world.

 

The issue isn't that both high heat record and low cold records are being set, it's the ratio. In a stable climate, the ration should be about one to one. Worldwide in 2022 it was 10 to 1.

Hot records are outpacing cool by more than 10-to-1 this year as Europe, US brace for dangerous heat

Hot-temperature records are far outpacing cool records across the globe this year as Europe and the United States brace again for dangerous heat waves.

In the US, 92 all-time record high temperatures had been set through July 16, compared with only five all-time record low temperatures, according to data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Globally, 188 all-time heat records were broken versus 18 cool records.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/18/weather/heat-records-outpace-cool-records-globally-climate/index.html

[metisdead]

Some posts in violation of our Community Standards have been removed.

[Eleftheros]

On 8/24/2023 at 6:10 PM, Danderman123 said:

The scientific consensus is not important.

 

What is important is the data the consensus is based on. You can't argue with the data, which is an implicit endorsement of the Global Warming hypothesis.

That is a trivial point, given that the 'Global Warming hypothesis' is simply "Global warming is the current rise in temperature of the air and oceans. It is happening mainly because humans burn coal, oil, and natural gas; and cut down forests." I quote you directly.

 

Who cares?

 

What we need to know is: To what precise extent are humans responsible? Is this dangerous? Is there something we can do about it? Is the cure worse than the disease?

 

The activists never answer those questions because they never ask them. It is left to independent scientists to figure out the answers, which generally don't get publicized because, by and large, they do not fit the activist narrative.

 

You can argue about the answers to the questions except the third one: Is there something we  can do about it?

 

There, the answer is a straight No. If China and India do not curb their CO2 emissions (and they are not going to) then the whole CO2 reduction game is lost. Those countries (plus Brazil, Indonesia and other major emitters) will engage in some public greenwashing, for sure, but they won't take any action just because the UN tells them to.

 

With that settled, it can quickly be seen that the continuing shrill activism is a pointless charade.

[Danderman123]

31 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

That is a trivial point, given that the 'Global Warming hypothesis' is simply "Global warming is the current rise in temperature of the air and oceans. It is happening mainly because humans burn coal, oil, and natural gas; and cut down forests." I quote you directly.

 

Who cares?

 

What we need to know is: To what precise extent are humans responsible? Is this dangerous? Is there something we can do about it? Is the cure worse than the disease?

 

The activists never answer those questions because they never ask them. It is left to independent scientists to figure out the answers, which generally don't get publicized because, by and large, they do not fit the activist narrative.

 

You can argue about the answers to the questions except the third one: Is there something we  can do about it?

 

There, the answer is a straight No. If China and India do not curb their CO2 emissions (and they are not going to) then the whole CO2 reduction game is lost. Those countries (plus Brazil, Indonesia and other major emitters) will engage in some public greenwashing, for sure, but they won't take any action just because the UN tells them to.

 

With that settled, it can quickly be seen that the continuing shrill activism is a pointless charade.

You are correct.

 

Mitigation of global warming is a difficult question. But, it's more difficult to mitigate if politicians don't agree that global warming exists.

[Bkk Brian]

2 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

That is a trivial point, given that the 'Global Warming hypothesis' is simply "Global warming is the current rise in temperature of the air and oceans. It is happening mainly because humans burn coal, oil, and natural gas; and cut down forests." I quote you directly.

 

Who cares?

 

What we need to know is: To what precise extent are humans responsible? Is this dangerous? Is there something we can do about it? Is the cure worse than the disease?

 

The activists never answer those questions because they never ask them. It is left to independent scientists to figure out the answers, which generally don't get publicized because, by and large, they do not fit the activist narrative.

 

You can argue about the answers to the questions except the third one: Is there something we  can do about it?

 

There, the answer is a straight No. If China and India do not curb their CO2 emissions (and they are not going to) then the whole CO2 reduction game is lost. Those countries (plus Brazil, Indonesia and other major emitters) will engage in some public greenwashing, for sure, but they won't take any action just because the UN tells them to.

 

With that settled, it can quickly be seen that the continuing shrill activism is a pointless charade.

What we need to know is: To what precise extent are humans responsible? Is this dangerous? Is there something we can do about it? Is the cure worse than the disease?

The activists never answer those questions because they never ask them. It is left to independent scientists to figure out the answers, which generally don't get publicized because, by and large, they do not fit the activist narrative.

 

May be because the activists know already and have read the evidence provided in the reports? What makes you think they are only provided by independent scientists?

[Eleftheros]

21 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

May be because the activists know already and have read the evidence provided

Oh, yes, the activists know everything already, with absolute certainty.

 

They definitely don't feel the need to sully their minds with anything as grubby as "evidence".

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Eleftheros said:

Oh, yes, the activists know everything already, with absolute certainty.

 

They definitely don't feel the need to sully their minds with anything as grubby as "evidence".

You had 4 questions that you claimed is left to independent scientists to figure out. That's not true as those answers are covered extensively in the major reports.

 

This was the whole basis of your post. Those activists or whoever want to research those questions and answers can do so. Do you understand that? Surely your not looking for more links to the reports that you've previously claimed to have read?

[novacova]

4 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

The activists never answer those questions because they never ask them. It is left to independent scientists to figure out the answers, which generally don't get publicized because, by and large, they do not fit the activist narrative.

…the narrative is decimated by the ipcc which is a complete fraudulent corrupt organization that cherry picks the scientist and dismisses the ones that don’t sign off on the misleading data. the ipcc objective, which is to influence and propagate hyperbole as undisputed facts, which is in my opinion is somewhat of a test as to how far they can go to control the minds of the masses. How’s that for conspiracy ????????️????

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2023/08/how-science-is-done-these-days/?utm_source=pocket_saves

[novacova]

On 8/23/2023 at 8:41 AM, Tippaporn said:

Consensus may be true or it may be false.  Only a fool would deny that truth.

The consensus of human caused climate change catastrophe “the earth is boiling” is a cherry picked consensus. As far as atmospheric/climate science, we are heading towards the dystopian dark ages of bs science based on politics.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

 

 

With that settled, it can quickly be seen that the continuing shrill activism is a pointless charade.

Not pointless to those getting rich off the charade, or to the politicians using it as an excuse to impose taxes that will not change anything.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

You are correct.

 

Mitigation of global warming is a difficult question. But, it's more difficult to mitigate if politicians don't agree that global warming exists.

Perhaps they agree that there is a slight warming of a degree or suchlike, but don't believe that it was caused by us driving a car or that anything can be done to stop it.

I certainly don't think we can do anything other than learn to live with it.

[Bkk Brian]

2 hours ago, novacova said:

…the narrative is decimated by the ipcc which is a complete fraudulent corrupt organization that cherry picks the scientist and dismisses the ones that don’t sign off on the misleading data. the ipcc objective, which is to influence and propagate hyperbole as undisputed facts, which is in my opinion is somewhat of a test as to how far they can go to control the minds of the masses. How’s that for conspiracy ????????️????

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2023/08/how-science-is-done-these-days/?utm_source=pocket_saves

The irony here is that you're quoting a publication that has fails to fact check its own materials:

 

Quadrant magazine scientific hoaxer revealed

Mr Windschuttle, who uses the monthly journal to fire broadsides at his opponents in the “culture wars”, frequently accuses liberal academics of slapdash research and political bias. This week he was forced to admit that he had been fooled into publishing a hoax article by a non-existent scientist whose credentials he had not bothered to check.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/quadrant-magazine-scientific-hoaxer-revealed-1267335.html

 

In addition, if you check back a few pages in this topic, "Climategate" has already been discussed and debunked. So I can only assume you've also not checked basic research even on this forum.

 

2 hours ago, novacova said:

The consensus of human caused climate change catastrophe “the earth is boiling” is a cherry picked consensus. As far as atmospheric/climate science, we are heading towards the dystopian dark ages of bs science based on politics.

The only cherry picking going on is that one phrase that you took out of context. “the earth is boiling” why not attribute it to who said it and why?

[Bkk Brian]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps they agree that there is a slight warming of a degree or suchlike, but don't believe that it was caused by us driving a car or that anything can be done to stop it.

I certainly don't think we can do anything other than learn to live with it.

Proof of climate change ignorance

[novacova]

20 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

The irony here is that you're quoting a publication that has fails to fact check its own materials:

 

Quadrant magazine scientific hoaxer revealed

Mr Windschuttle, who uses the monthly journal to fire broadsides at his opponents in the “culture wars”, frequently accuses liberal academics of slapdash research and political bias. This week he was forced to admit that he had been fooled into publishing a hoax article by a non-existent scientist whose credentials he had not bothered to check.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/quadrant-magazine-scientific-hoaxer-revealed-1267335.html

5! Good grief what a total joke to the point of absolute hysterics. Running to political motivated hit piece is a complete failure of the ability to ascertain and objectively observe data that has not been debunked by any neutral observing theoretical analysis, though dismissed by the operatives that obligated themselves to the ipcc. You didn’t even bother to read the link, goes to show the extent of your objectivity. I’m always amazed at the willingness of self imposed ignorance.

“The irony here is they you’re quoting a publication that fails to check its own materials” which has in of its self has failed multiple so called fact checks in the last 5 years…

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-independent/
 

Opposed to the Quadrant, none…

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quadrant-magazine/

 

By a left leaning fact checker fact checker. The fact checker narrative is a total joke and cop out that is used by the weak minded media. 

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, novacova said:

5! Good grief what a total joke to the point of absolute hysterics. Running to political motivated hit piece is a complete failure of the ability to ascertain and objectively observe data that has not been debunked by any neutral observing theoretical analysis, though dismissed by the operatives that obligated themselves to the ipcc. You didn’t even bother to read the link, goes to show the extent of your objectivity. I’m always amazed at the willingness of self imposed ignorance.

“The irony here is they you’re quoting a publication that fails to check its own materials” which has in of its self has failed multiple so called fact checks in the last 5 years…

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-independent/
 

Opposed to the Quadrant, none…

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quadrant-magazine/

 

By a left leaning fact checker fact checker. 

Good grief, you think its only reported by the independent?

 

Journo outs herself as Quadrant hoaxer

Melbourne journalist and activist Katherine Wilson has revealed herself as the hoaxer who fooled Quadrant magazine into publishing a fabricated article about genetic engineering.

Ms Wilson, an activist on issues surrounding biotechnology, submitted a fictitious article for Quadrant under the name Dr Sharon Gould, claiming to be an American scientist living in Brisbane.

The article about supposed CSIRO research into crops and livestock modified with human genes was criticised as "scientific nonsense" and "pseudoscience".

https://www.smh.com.au/national/journo-outs-herself-as-quadrant-hoaxer-20090108-7cp8.html

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-sydney-morning-herald/#google_vignette

[novacova]

20 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Proof of climate change ignorance

Scattered throughout this thread by those who refuse to objectify till through the data that is readily available. I must mind you, there are some good unbiased neutral links that were provided by another poster here that you purposely and willfully ignore. The ipcc is a complete scam, corrupt cabal, the computer model data is certainly cherry picked, out of hundreds of conflicting data points that are dismissed. 
 

Here is another denier scientist that you all can dismiss and cancel…

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/clauser/interview/
 

https://www.johnclauser.com/
 

https://gript.ie/nobel-laureate-climate-science-has-metastasized-into-massive-shock-journalistic-pseudoscience/

 

and yes he was dismissed by his peers during his early research of those he eventually “debunked”.

[novacova]

21 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Good grief, you think its only reported by the independent?

 

Journo outs herself as Quadrant hoaxer

Melbourne journalist and activist Katherine Wilson has revealed herself as the hoaxer who fooled Quadrant magazine into publishing a fabricated article about genetic engineering.

Ms Wilson, an activist on issues surrounding biotechnology, submitted a fictitious article for Quadrant under the name Dr Sharon Gould, claiming to be an American scientist living in Brisbane.

The article about supposed CSIRO research into crops and livestock modified with human genes was criticised as "scientific nonsense" and "pseudoscience".

https://www.smh.com.au/national/journo-outs-herself-as-quadrant-hoaxer-20090108-7cp8.html

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-sydney-morning-herald/#google_vignette

Good grief, stuck chasing the tail of oneself. The link has nothing to do with any of the individuals you mentioned. It was compiled by Tony Thomas who you so desperately want to avoid. So enough of the silly “fact checkers” and the ipcc and news links that all are politically bent. The human caused climate narrative has not been proven or settled beyond theory convoluted with hypotheses and politics. So until the theory has provided ample unbiased evidence that humans caused climate change, there is no need to prove that humans have not caused climate change. The burden is on the real deniers “climate change activists”