The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[Ramen087]

6 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

That's not what I asked.

 

"The debate should be left open for the unpopular opinion, because that is when some of the most important scientific breakthroughs occur."

 

I'd be interested in some post WWII examples.

A few examples?

 

My previous reply is the answer.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

"Climate Change theory ( it's not been called GW since the planet stopped getting hotter )..."

 

Wrong again. This is simply willful ignorance on your part.

 

"

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.^1"

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

They don't mention G W, just C C. Also, very likely does not mean a proven fact, just that they believe it may be caused by humans.

 

Whatever, I have yet to be told of anything that could reverse the situation in time to save us. So it's all a bit pointless anyway.

However, I do hope that all the posters that believe it's human caused do NOT travel by carbon emitting vehicles or aircraft, eat food grown by motorised machinery, or use any electricity generated by oil. To do so would be contributing to man made C C.

 

 

[JimmyJ]

8 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

That's not what I asked.

 

"The debate should be left open for the unpopular opinion, because that is when some of the most important scientific breakthroughs occur."

 

I'd be interested in some post WWII examples.

A few examples?

 

And remember - we're discussing science with ~ 97% or greater concensus.

[Ron19]

This topic is " The myth of melting ice and rising seas " but it has degenerated  into bickering about who is right and who is wrong.

 

Please keep on topic.

[RickBradford]

22 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Did you know that the exact mechanisms by which smoking cause cancer is far from fully understood, but the statistical correlation is too strong to ignore?  Just because science isn't settled doesn't mean that correlation has not been linked to causation.

Tinkerbell Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change said recently that CO2 is so dangerous that we must immediately shut down capitalism to save the planet.

 

In her own words: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

 

What statistical correlation supports that view?

 

If you're talking about whether CO2 has the ability to warm the planet, then we all agreed on that several threads ago.

 

But that's not the point at issue. The point is: do activists like Tinkerbell have the right to shut down all opposing voices ("The debate is over; the science is settled") and carry on with their damaging, regressive, wasteful policies without challenge?

[thaibeachlovers]

8 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

"Climate Change theory ( it's not been called GW since the planet stopped getting hotter )..."

 

Wrong again. This is simply willful ignorance on your part.

 

"

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.^1"

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.

Except perhaps in the year that Captain Scott et al perished in Antarctica due to an exceptionally cold summer.

Anyway, given that the human population is increasing at a rate that is unprecedented, it is unlikely that anything short of building machines to remove atmospheric CO2 and methane will save mankind.

The planet will get along just fine without humans though.

[thaibeachlovers]

31 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Cost effective removal of CO2 from the atmosphere on a scale to reverse global warming has not been demonstrated.

 

I didn't dispute that the global population is increasing, I pointed out that most of the increase is occurring in Africa.  Solving the problem of corrupt government in that continent will be a good first step to getting women in schools then jobs, and producing fewer children.  If you can pull that off, go right ahead.

 

How are we to reduce the population?  Already many countries facing a demographic crisis in which the number of young entering the workforce is insufficient to support the number of old out of the workforce.  Much of Europe, China, Japan, and even Thailand face this problem in the future.  Reducing birthrates will make the problem worse.  I suppose eliminating people too old to work would help.  Do you advocate that?

 

Or will you refuse to acknowledge the difficulties and continue to insist that all we have to do is reduce the global population without specifying how?

Cost effective removal of CO2 from the atmosphere on a scale to reverse global warming has not been demonstrated.

Are you seriously saying that a proven method to remove greenhouse gas has to be cost effective before it is used to save the human race? Just how is cost effective determined if humans are all going to die, which is what they are saying?

If such a justification had to be used when America went to war against Germany and Japan, they wouldn't have done so. Was the atomic bomb going to be "cost effective"?

[Ramen087]

11 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

And remember - we're discussing science with ~ 97% or greater concensus.

Sorry, but for the benefit of the thread you may have to accept, or not, that widely accepted scientific principles have been overturned from 1946 until the present day...

 

Have a nice day.

[heybruce]

9 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Tinkerbell Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change said recently that CO2 is so dangerous that we must immediately shut down capitalism to save the planet.

 

In her own words: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

 

What statistical correlation supports that view?

 

If you're talking about whether CO2 has the ability to warm the planet, then we all agreed on that several threads ago.

 

But that's not the point at issue. The point is: do activists like Tinkerbell have the right to shut down all opposing voices ("The debate is over; the science is settled") and carry on with their damaging, regressive, wasteful policies without challenge?

Debating the best means to proceed is fine.  Denying global temperature rises, atmospheric carbon dioxide increases linked to human activity, receding ice sheets and rising sea levels is pointless.

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Cost effective removal of CO2 from the atmosphere on a scale to reverse global warming has not been demonstrated.

Are you seriously saying that a proven method to remove greenhouse gas has to be cost effective before it is used to save the human race? Just how is cost effective determined if humans are all going to die, which is what they are saying?

If such a justification had to be used when America went to war against Germany and Japan, they wouldn't have done so. Was the atomic bomb going to be "cost effective"?

Are you seriously saying that inefficient methods, ones that do not significantly reduce greenhouse gases and detract from more effective approaches or cause more environmental damage than they prevent,  should be employed? 

 

Since the atomic bomb ended a war that promised to cause hundreds of thousands of additional allied casualties and millions of additional Japanese casualties, yes, I think it was cost effective.

[RickBradford]

Just now, heybruce said:

Debating the best means to proceed is fine.  Denying global temperature rises, atmospheric carbon dioxide increases linked to human activity, receding ice sheets and rising sea levels is pointless.

Who denies global temperature rises? Who denies CO2 can be linked to warming?

 

The point, which you seem unable to grasp, is that "debating the best means to proceed" means first "trying to decide what is likely to happen in future, and what the effects might be." 

 

And with all due respect to Tinkerbell, Bob Geldof, Leo di Caprio and other climate experts, there is no scientific or economic consensus of how beneficial or damaging global warming may be in future, and no scientific or economic support for Tinkerbell's anti-capitalist feel-good fantasy schemes.

 

Debate is more important than ever, but the activists have polarised the issue to such an extent that debate really is almost impossible.

[Shawn0000]

23 hours ago, TomTC said:

Yes.   In 2016, the worst Polar ice conditions in 20 years forced a  change of plans for an icebreaker on a  'global warming expedition'!

A carefully planned, 115-day scientific expedition on board the floating research vessel, the CCGS Amundsen, has been derailed as the icebreaker was called to help resupply ships navigate heavy ice in Hudson Bay.  The icebreaker has been rerouted to escort commercial ships en route to resupply communities in Northern Quebec on the eastern side of Hudson Bay,  as ice conditions in the area are the worst  seen in 20 years. And.. it' was  mid summer.

 

With reference to the often used '97% of scientists concur',  a major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors. They pointed out that the 97% number had appeared  in a new and unknown journal. (Suspicious)?  The researchers were led by top climatologist Dr David Legates. Their  paper was published in the respected Science and Education journal and it   clearly demonstrated that number was not 97.1%, as claimed, but only 0.3%!

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers examined by Dr Legates team  explicitly stated that 'Man caused most of the warming since 1950'. 

 

 

Lol, it's your Dr Legates who is on his own, not those who he disagrees with, why do you think you have even heard of him, it's because his views are so unusual, at least within the scientific community, there are plenty of politicians who choose to support deniers like him as they can make money out of it, as well as those in the petrochemical and fossil fuel industries, but among those who study climate the consensus is on climate change being influenced by people, obviously.

[Shawn0000]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Who denies global temperature rises? Who denies CO2 can be linked to warming?

 

The point, which you seem unable to grasp, is that "debating the best means to proceed" means first "trying to decide what is likely to happen in future, and what the effects might be." 

 

And with all due respect to Tinkerbell, Bob Geldof, Leo di Caprio and other climate experts, there is no scientific or economic consensus of how beneficial or damaging global warming may be in future, and no scientific or economic support for Tinkerbell's anti-capitalist feel-good fantasy schemes.

 

Debate is more important than ever, but the activists have polarised the issue to such an extent that debate really is almost impossible.

 

"there is no scientific or economic consensus of how beneficial or damaging global warming may be in future"

 

The scientific consensus is that global warming increases the extremities of weather, no benefits expected, just worse droughts, floods and storms.

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Who denies global temperature rises? Who denies CO2 can be linked to warming?

 

The point, which you seem unable to grasp, is that "debating the best means to proceed" means first "trying to decide what is likely to happen in future, and what the effects might be." 

 

And with all due respect to Tinkerbell, Bob Geldof, Leo di Caprio and other climate experts, there is no scientific or economic consensus of how beneficial or damaging global warming may be in future, and no scientific or economic support for Tinkerbell's anti-capitalist feel-good fantasy schemes.

 

Debate is more important than ever, but the activists have polarised the issue to such an extent that debate really is almost impossible.

I don't think there is much debate on the benefits of rising sea levels, there will be none.  Just how economically damaging rising sea levels will be is unknown, but nobody expects it to be good.

 

BTW, why do you obsess about this person you call Tinkerbell?  He/She is just one person in an issue with many alarmists.

[RickBradford]

Just now, Shawn0000 said:

 

"there is no scientific or economic consensus of how beneficial or damaging global warming may be in future"

 

The scientific consensus is that global warming increases the extremities of weather, no benefits expected, just worse droughts, floods and storms.

No, that isn't the scientific consensus.

 

If it were, it would be wrong, since a lot of recent data shows that extremities of weather are reducing, not increasing at the moment.

 

Indeed, global warming theory supports that data. It states that the poles will warm quicker than the tropics, and since storms are caused mainly by the temperature differences between poles and tropics, storms would be expected to lessen on a warmer planet.

 

You're wrong all round.

[dick dasterdly]

5 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Lol, it's your Dr Legates who is on his own, not those who he disagrees with, why do you think you have even heard of him, it's because his views are so unusual, at least within the scientific community, there are plenty of politicians who choose to support deniers like him as they can make money out of it, as well as those in the petrochemical and fossil fuel industries, but among those who study climate the consensus is on climate change being influenced by people, obviously.

Exactly.  Everything is 'clouded' by financial interest!

[RickBradford]

Quote

He/She is just one person in an issue with many alarmists.

Wrong. Tinkerbell was until mid-last year the most important politician/bureaucrat in the world dealing directly with climate change policy.

[dick dasterdly]

29 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.

Except perhaps in the year that Captain Scott et al perished in Antarctica due to an exceptionally cold summer.

Anyway, given that the human population is increasing at a rate that is unprecedented, it is unlikely that anything short of building machines to remove atmospheric CO2 and methane will save mankind.

The planet will get along just fine without humans though.

"The planet will get along just fine without humans though." - agree entirely .

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Wrong. Tinkerbell was until mid-last year the most important politician/bureaucrat in the world dealing directly with climate change policy.

Really?  What has he/she accomplished?  Why have few if any of us heard of him/her?

[RickBradford]

Just now, heybruce said:

Really?  What has he/she accomplished?  Why have few if any of us heard of him/her?

Probably because you don't pay attention to the climate change debate.

 

Christina 'Tinkerbell' Figueres was, from 2010 to mid-2016, the executive secretary of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change (as I wrote in an earlier post). That means she was the UN's top bureaucrat in the field of climate change policy.

 

She has accomplished nothing, but not for lack of trying.

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Probably because you don't pay attention to the climate change debate.

 

Christina 'Tinkerbell' Figueres was, from 2010 to mid-2016, the executive secretary of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change (as I wrote in an earlier post). That means she was the UN's top bureaucrat in the field of climate change policy.

 

She has accomplished nothing, but not for lack of trying.

She made speeches that few people paid attention to, yet she is the main focus of your posts.

 

It seems to me she was much less influential in the climate change debate than the Koch brothers.  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry 

[RickBradford]

Well, she gave a formal speech to 150 heads of governments/states at the Paris conference in December 2016, a conference which had 38,000 delegates, but if "few people paid attention", that just speaks to what an vapid and dull topic it is, or perhaps what a useless waste of space she is.

 

Nevertheless, if you are the UN's top bureaucrat on what the UN secretary-general has called the greatest challenge facing humanity, then you are a person with considerable influence for causing widespread harm. She is certainly not "one person in an issue with many alarmists". She is (or was) the key person.

 

And when a person in that position of power declares that the priority task is to dismantle capitalism, sensible people sit up and take notice.

[attrayant]

41 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

Sorry, but for the benefit of the thread you may have to accept, or not, that widely accepted scientific principles have been overturned from 1946 until the present day...

 

I am not here "for the benefit of the thread", but for the benefit of your dignity you need to back up your claims otherwise why should we even bother reading your posts at all?  After spending 15 minutes (which is all the time I care to waste on your ridiculous assertion) searching for discredited/superseded scientific theories, I have come up with nothing of substance. 

 

In any event, why don't you explain how this is germane to the topic at hand?  Is it your assertion that, since somebody was once wrong in the past, that nobody can ever again be right about anything?  A couple of scientists were wrong about cold fusion; that means we really can't be certain that gravity exists, and is the reason objects of great mass are attracted to each other.  Right.

[JimmyJ]

12 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

I am not here "for the benefit of the thread", but for the benefit of your dignity you need to back up your claims otherwise why should we even bother reading your posts at all?  After spending 15 minutes (which is all the time I care to waste on your ridiculous assertion) searching for discredited/superseded scientific theories, I have come up with nothing of substance. 

 

In any event, why don't you explain how this is germane to the topic at hand?  Is it your assertion that, since somebody was once wrong in the past, that nobody can ever again be right about anything?  A couple of scientists were wrong about cold fusion; that means we really can't be certain that gravity exists, and is the reason objects of great mass are attracted to each other.  Right.

"...for the benefit of your dignity you need to back up your claims otherwise why should we even bother reading your posts at all?  After spending 15 minutes (which is all the time I care to waste on your ridiculous assertion) searching for discredited/superseded scientific theories, I have come up with nothing of substance."

 

He's thinking of flat earth beliefs up till Columbus, and Galileo vs. the Catholic Church.

 

As for the former - "

The myth of the flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages in Europe saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.^[1][2]

During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. From at least the 14th century, belief in a flat Earth among the educated was almost nonexistent."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

 

And for the latter - astronomy has come a long way since the Dark Ages.

 

 

[JIMHILL]

RULE No 1: - DON'T BELIEVE THE MEDIA 

[attrayant]

9 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

He's thinking of flat earth beliefs up till Columbus, and Galileo vs. the Catholic Church.

 

 

Yes that is all I could imagine, myself.  But he was very specific about scientific principles (or possibly "discoveries", as he changed his wording between posts) that were very recent (1946 or later) being superseded by later discoveries.  If he meant any scientific discovery at any point in history being recently overturned, well of course (duh). Why even bring up that point? 

[Shawn0000]

53 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

No, that isn't the scientific consensus.

 

If it were, it would be wrong, since a lot of recent data shows that extremities of weather are reducing, not increasing at the moment.

 

Indeed, global warming theory supports that data. It states that the poles will warm quicker than the tropics, and since storms are caused mainly by the temperature differences between poles and tropics, storms would be expected to lessen on a warmer planet.

 

You're wrong all round.

 

What data shows extremities of weather decreasing?  Show me that! 

 

Storms may be expected to lesson in frequency if the temperature difference between poles and tropics decreases, but the extremity of the storms would be expected to increase as a temperature increase means increased evaporation and thus precipitation, so you can see that actually it is you who was wrong.

 

As for the consensus not being as I stated, try any text book for kids on climate change, try the UCS, try the NWF, try the Yale, Harvard or Oxford studies, try NASA, they all say the same, global warming is increasing extremities in weather, and again, it is you who is wrong, just making things up all on your own it would appear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Skeptic7]

2 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

Interesting - I was just thinking about the decades of "Tobacco causes cancer" deniers.

 

I understood where it was coming from in those cases - they didn't want to deal with the reality of their addiction and disgusting habit.

 

But denying global warming which is accepted fact.

What is the driving force for the deniers who are almost exclusively not scientists?

"I just have a gut feeling..."

OK. Good for you.

 

We would still be bleeding people with leaches when they get sick and reading chicken entrails to predict the future if not for science. Despite the gut feelings of the leach bleeders...

 

 

 

And after Big Tobacco denied and lost at the smoking doesn't cause cancer BS, they tried the same with second hand smoke...and lost again. Now Big Oil is using the same tactics. See my next post...

[Skeptic7]

For everyone, but especially all the deniers out there...read the book "Merchants Of Doubt" or easier still, watch the documentary by the same name. 

[JimmyJ]

Or watch "The Insider".