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

[Eleftheros]

On 7/29/2023 at 8:27 PM, novacova said:

I’ve read it all over the decades and empirically emphatically concluded it’s a politicized gimmick being played out on the masses.

That pretty much sums up the entire world we live in these days. The mentality is always the same: "We are the noble and wise elites, we know everything, we can never be wrong, and it is our duty to control the behavior of the stupid atavistic masses for their own good."

 

So there is control of your activities to 'beat' climate change, and to 'beat' Covid, and to 'beat' money laundering and to .....

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

That pretty much sums up the entire world we live in these days. The mentality is always the same: "We are the noble and wise elites, we know everything, we can never be wrong, and it is our duty to control the behavior of the stupid atavistic masses for their own good."

 

So there is control of your activities to 'beat' climate change, and to 'beat' Covid, and to 'beat' money laundering and to .....

So you think civilization and rule of law are scams, eliminating smallpox and (almost) eliminating polio are frauds and major corporations should be allowed to dump filth into the land, sea and air because it's the most cost effective way of making the filth someone else's problem.

[Eleftheros]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

So you think civilization and rule of law are scams, eliminating smallpox and (almost) eliminating polio are frauds and major corporations should be allowed to dump filth into the land, sea and air because it's the most cost effective way of making the filth someone else's problem.

I didn't say that or anything like it.

 

Stop making up silly stuff and trying to attribute it to other people.

[placeholder]

35 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

I didn't say that or anything like it.

 

Stop making up silly stuff and trying to attribute it to other people.

I agree with you. How could heybruce ever hope to compete with such nonsense as: 

 

 "We are the noble and wise elites, we know everything, we can never be wrong, and it is our duty to control the behavior of the stupid atavistic masses for their own good."

 

as a way to characterize science.

 

[Eleftheros]

29 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I agree with you. How could heybruce ever hope to compete with such nonsense as: 

 

 "We are the noble and wise elites, we know everything, we can never be wrong, and it is our duty to control the behavior of the stupid atavistic masses for their own good."

 

as a way to characterize science.

 

I wasn't characterizing science. I was characterizing politicians, as is obvious from even a cursory read of what I wrote.

[placeholder]

32 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

I wasn't characterizing science. I was characterizing politicians, as is obvious from even a cursory read of what I wrote.

What do you think the consensus of climatologists is about the threats posed by human cause climate change?

[gamb00ler]

18 hours ago, digger70 said:

So now, can you prove that the warming is caused by man? no you can't so it's an even playing field isn't.

 

18 hours ago, placeholder said:

As for proving it to you, do you have the expertise to understand highly technical arguments?

I don't find it highly technical but then I have a pretty good grounding in the physical sciences.

 

I think a significant percentage of people understand how a microwave works so they should understand how absorption of electromagnetic radiation by certain substances is part of the cause of climate change.

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

 

I don't find it highly technical but then I have a pretty good grounding in the physical sciences.

 

I think a significant percentage of people understand how a microwave works so they should understand how absorption of electromagnetic radiation by certain substances is part of the cause of climate change.

The thing is, anthropogenic climate change is based on very old science. The properties of greenhouse gases were well established by the end of the 19th century. Despite that, I often read denialists claiming that gasses that constitute such a small percentage of the atmosphere can't possibly be responsible for the warming of the land and sea.

[Eleftheros]

27 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What do you think the consensus of climatologists is about the threats posed by human cause climate change?

Pretty much the same as I think about the consensus of Covid experts that we faced a virus so deadly that we had to lock everyone up for several months to avoid catastrophe, and wait until absolute salvation arrived in the form of a hastily developed vaccine.

 

The whole idea of 'consensus' gives tacit endorsement to the idea of science being fixed. We hear this all the time in the climate field ("The science is settled, the debate is over").

 

If it's science, it isn't settled. If it's settled, it isn't science, which is an ongoing process. The science around climate change (and Covid) changed considerably over time, but the consensus remained the same.

 

In both cases, the "consensus" can only be a political creation, not a scientific one.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Pretty much the same as I think about the consensus of Covid experts that we faced a virus so deadly that we had to lock everyone up for several months to avoid catastrophe, and wait until absolute salvation arrived in the form of a hastily developed vaccine.

 

The whole idea of 'consensus' gives tacit endorsement to the idea of science being fixed. We hear this all the time in the climate field ("The science is settled, the debate is over").

 

If it's science, it isn't settled. If it's settled, it isn't science, which is an ongoing process. The science around climate change (and Covid) changed considerably over time, but the consensus remained the same.

 

In both cases, the "consensus" can only be a political creation, not a scientific one.

There's plenty of settled science out there. Take Newtonian physics. Sure it isn't perfect. But it's good enough in it's predictive capacity to arrange for a spacecraft to rendezvous with Pluto. Climate science has been extraordinarily accurate in predicting that global warming would occur and what's more important, the rate at which it would occur. And until such time as someone comes up with a theory that predicts more accurately than the current one, it's settled science. It's significant that all the naysyayers from the 80's and 90's have repeatedly been proven wrong. And also that they tended to be from the older generation. As Thomas Kuhn noted, a scientific revolution isn't truly over until the previous generation of believers has died off.

[metisdead]

Troll post advocating breaking the forum rules and a reply has been removed.

[Eleftheros]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Climate science has been extraordinarily accurate in predicting that global warming would occur and what's more important, the rate at which it would occur.

That sentence requires that your reading on the subject is extraordinarily restricted and selective.

[placeholder]

19 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Pretty much the same as I think about the consensus of Covid experts that we faced a virus so deadly that we had to lock everyone up for several months to avoid catastrophe, and wait until absolute salvation arrived in the form of a hastily developed vaccine.

 

The whole idea of 'consensus' gives tacit endorsement to the idea of science being fixed. We hear this all the time in the climate field ("The science is settled, the debate is over").

 

If it's science, it isn't settled. If it's settled, it isn't science, which is an ongoing process. The science around climate change (and Covid) changed considerably over time, but the consensus remained the same.

 

In both cases, the "consensus" can only be a political creation, not a scientific one.

And the comparison to the Covid situation is an obvious ploy. Covid just appeared about 3 1/2 years ago. And there's really no doubt about the the scientific evaluation of covid or the efficacy of vaccines. 

Climatologists have been seriously studying the climate for more than 40 years.

[Bkk Brian]

10 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Pretty much the same as I think about the consensus of Covid experts that we faced a virus so deadly that we had to lock everyone up for several months to avoid catastrophe, and wait until absolute salvation arrived in the form of a hastily developed vaccine.

 

The whole idea of 'consensus' gives tacit endorsement to the idea of science being fixed. We hear this all the time in the climate field ("The science is settled, the debate is over").

 

If it's science, it isn't settled. If it's settled, it isn't science, which is an ongoing process. The science around climate change (and Covid) changed considerably over time, but the consensus remained the same.

 

In both cases, the "consensus" can only be a political creation, not a scientific one.

("The science is settled, the debate is over").

If it's science, it isn't settled. If it's settled, it isn't science, which is an ongoing process. The science around climate change (and Covid) changed considerably over time, but the consensus remained the same.

 

Ridiculous statements, there are numerous examples of settled science. But to think that Climate Change has just been conceived without it being studied carefully with evolving science and evidence provided is pure ignorance. The first IPCC report was in 1990 since then six comprehensive assessment reports reviewing the latest climate science has been reviewed. It is now settled science that Climate Change is due to human activity. 

 

I'll ignore your remarks on covid, I know your fixation with that it it would take us off topic.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Eleftheros said:

That sentence requires that your reading on the subject is extraordinarily restricted and selective.

Please share with us some scientific literature outside the bounds of what I have viewed. People here have offered such stuff in the past but it always turns out to be either speculative or disproven. I await your production of such literature eagerly.

[Eleftheros]

Just now, placeholder said:

And there's really no doubt about the the scientific evaluation of covid or the efficacy of vaccines.

Indeed there isn't. The government response to Covid suggested by the "consensus" of experts was the biggest public health policy disaster in recorded history.

 

But amazingly there are still people who believe everything the government tells them, whether about Covid or climate. I guess it's more comfortable that way.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Indeed there isn't. The government response to Covid suggested by the "consensus" of experts was the biggest public health policy disaster in recorded history.

 

But amazingly there are still people who believe everything the government tells them, whether about Covid or climate. I guess it's more comfortable that way.

More fact-free claims from you. And it's not just the government's stance on climate change, it's virtually the entire climotological community.

And I'm still waiting for you to produce evidence of valid scientific explanations that contradict anthropogenic climate change outside the bounds of my experience.

[Eleftheros]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

People here have offered such stuff in the past but it always turns out to be either speculative or disproven.

The trouble with that idea is that climate zealots always work on the principle of policy-based evidence, not the other way around.

 

That is, if a piece of scientific work disagrees with the government narrative, then it must by definition be wrong or "speculative".

 

Which is notable, since it would be hard to find anything more speculative than the apocalyptic doomsday scenarios touted by the climate "experts" and "scientists" regularly quoted in the mainstream media.

[Eleftheros]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

And it's not just the government's stance on climate change, it's virtually the entire climotological community

Once again, if you believe that, it merely shows how limited your reading has been.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Eleftheros said:

The trouble with that idea is that climate zealots always work on the principle of policy-based evidence, not the other way around.

 

That is, if a piece of scientific work disagrees with the government narrative, then it must by definition be wrong or "speculative".

 

Which is notable, since it would be hard to find anything more speculative than the apocalyptic doomsday scenarios touted by the climate "experts" and "scientists" regularly quoted in the mainstream media.

First off, at this point there is virtually no dissent in the climatological community about global warming. Virtually all research around the world that either addresses the issue directly or bases its research on ACC supports the theory. So please, spare us the nonsense that it's just government making these claims.

And you still haven't offered up any specifics about literature that questions ACC.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Once again, if you believe that, it merely shows how limited your reading has been.

And once again, you offer no evidence that would show the limitations of my reading.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Eleftheros said:

I didn't say that or anything like it.

 

Stop making up silly stuff and trying to attribute it to other people.

But you suggested that being "noble and wise", or more commonly described as knowledgeable and caring about the future, is a bad thing.  I assumed that meant you were opposed to all the benefits of civilized behavior. 

[Eleftheros]

12 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

It is now settled science that Climate Change is due to human activity. 

That's simply not the point, and never has been. We have known for thousands of years that human activity can affect climate.

 

The points are: 1) How much is due to human activity? 2) Is it dangerous? 3) Can we do anything about it 4) Would the cure be worse than the disease?

 

And that most certainly is not "settled science", even if we allow that phrase to mean something.

[Eleftheros]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And once again, you offer no evidence that would show the limitations of my reading.

You offered the evidence yourself.

[heybruce]

13 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Indeed there isn't. The government response to Covid suggested by the "consensus" of experts was the biggest public health policy disaster in recorded history.

 

But amazingly there are still people who believe everything the government tells them, whether about Covid or climate. I guess it's more comfortable that way.

The consensus of the experts early on was that there was a highly contagious disease with a lethality far higher than any easily spread disease since the Spanish flu and it was best to err on the side of caution.

[Eleftheros]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

But you suggested that being "noble and wise", or more commonly described as knowledgeable and caring about the future, is a bad thing.  I assumed that meant you were opposed to all the benefits of civilized behavior. 

I actually suggested that believing yourself to be "noble and wise" is a bad thing.

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

That's simply not the point, and never has been. We have known for thousands of years that human activity can affect climate.

 

The points are: 1) How much is due to human activity? 2) Is it dangerous? 3) Can we do anything about it 4) Would the cure be worse than the disease?

 

And that most certainly is not "settled science", even if we allow that phrase to mean something.

Its the absolute point and totally debunks your previous post. 

 

Yes of course we can do things about it, read the reports they are all online.

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

The trouble with that idea is that climate zealots always work on the principle of policy-based evidence, not the other way around.

 

That is, if a piece of scientific work disagrees with the government narrative, then it must by definition be wrong or "speculative".

 

Which is notable, since it would be hard to find anything more speculative than the apocalyptic doomsday scenarios touted by the climate "experts" and "scientists" regularly quoted in the mainstream media.

"The trouble with that idea is that climate zealots always work on the principle of policy-based evidence, not the other way around."

 

That's total nonsense.  The climate experts were working against government, industrial and economic policy when they started.  It was only when the evidence became undeniable that some of these changed their tune, somewhat.

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

I actually suggested that believing yourself to be "noble and wise" is a bad thing.

I would describe myself as reasonably well informed, educated, and concerned about the future.  I'm not ashamed of it.

[Eleftheros]

Just now, heybruce said:

The consensus of the experts early on was that there was a highly contagious disease with a lethality far higher than any easily spread disease since the Spanish flu and it was best to err on the side of caution.

Yes, and they were wrong. Both on the lethality, and the various measures which made up their "caution". But as data emerged which clearly demonstrated that, the "consensus" didn't change.