Should we allow the alarmists to alarm us as to climate?

[Dagosa]

Actually there are 'right answers.' The right answer is that our climate is changing as our climate has always changed per the paleontological/anthropological record and recorded history.

That’s only right if you include that, the rate if change has increased more during the industrial revolution than at anytime modern man has been a habitant earth. Otherwise, it’s bogus.

Science has already used the


“best of scientific knowledge and ability to pick up on any trends that are likely to continue into the foreseeable future,”

And those with the political power who
actually listen to science.

have been “figuring out how best for humankind to adapt and utilize, even benefit from, those likely trends.”

The right republicans are disrupting and denying this science for the sake of their fossil fuel donors.,

They have been doing this for decades, including cigarette smoking, the ozone layer, smog, local and national water pollution Etc.
You name it, they are deniers and disrupters of pollution mitigation.

 

[Foxfyre]

That’s only right if you include that, the rate if change has increased more during the industrial revolution than at anytime modern man has been a habitant earth. Otherwise, it’s bogus.

In 1800 there were 1 billion people on Earth.
In 1900 there were roughly 1.7 billion people on Earth
Now there are 8+ billion people on Earth.

That is bound to have a strong effect on localized environment as an increase of that magnitude of ANY species of plant or animal on Earth will have an effect on environment.

But evenso going from 1 billion to 8 billion people and increasing technology a thousand fold has added only .1% to .2% of the CO2 that is in the atmosphere.

We might change immediate localized environment by changing the behaviors of humankind and that can be a good thing. But we are not going to change the climate by forcing changes in behaviors of humankind or the products they use. All the trillions of dollars and hurculean measures have not changed the climate in any measurable way.

It's time to rethink and regroup and readjust the focus and redirect resources to something that actually helps.

 

[Robert W]

I Refuse to be indoctrinated by a Heartland spokesman, a propaganda arm of libertarians anti climate change and pro cigarette smoking tripe. . . So you want me to listen to promoting cigarette smoking and smog. Nice guy. CO2 is a known gas for the increase in the presence of smog, a deadly respiratory affecting condition. Wow. You must love pollution. You’re doing everything to promote it.

Read post #97.

 

[Dagosa]

Robert W

In 1800 there were 1 billion people on Earth.
In 1900 there were roughly 1.7 billion people on Earth
Now there are 8+ billion people on Earth.

That is bound to have a strong effect on localized environment as an increase of that magnitude of ANY species of plant or animal on Earth will have an effect on environment.

But evenso going from 1 billion to 8 billion people and increasing technology a thousand fold has added only .1% to .2% of the CO2 that is in the atmosphere.

We might change immediate localized environment by changing the behaviors of humankind and that can be a good thing. But we are not going to change the climate by forcing changes in behaviors of humankind or the products they use. All the trillions of dollars and hurculean measures have not changed the climate in any measurable way.

It's time to rethink and regroup and readjust the focus and redirect resources to something that actually helps.

no maps, no charts, nothing to contradict or reinforce NASA. People don’t produce CO2 enough to measure without the industrial revolution. Get real. #@%&$ and population growth shows little to no increase in CO2/ without giant smoke stacks.

 

[Dagosa]

Read post #97.

I did, and commented on it.

 

[Dagosa]

In 1800 there were 1 billion people on Earth.
In 1900 there were roughly 1.7 billion people on Earth
Now there are 8+ billion people on Earth.

That is bound to have a strong effect on localized environment as an increase of that magnitude of ANY species of plant or animal on Earth will have an effect on environment.

But evenso going from 1 billion to 8 billion people and increasing technology a thousand fold has added only .1% to .2% of the CO2 that is in the atmosphere.

We might change immediate localized environment by changing the behaviors of humankind and that can be a good thing. But we are not going to change the climate by forcing changes in behaviors of humankind or the products they use. All the trillions of dollars and hurculean measures have not changed the climate in any measurable way.

It's time to rethink and regroup and readjust the focus and redirect resources to something that actually helps.

I have one science trivia statement that makes all your blather bullshit.
“Researchers have demonstrated a way of distinguishing between carbon dioxide in the air coming from fossil fuel burning and that from natural sources.”

So, we know where the increase in rate of change in CO2comes from. It’s not from humans fking.

 

[Robert W]

That’s only right if you include that, the rate if change has increased more during the industrial revolution than at anytime modern man has been a habitant earth. Otherwise, it’s bogus.

Science has already used the


“best of scientific knowledge and ability to pick up on any trends that are likely to continue into the foreseeable future,”

And those with the political power who
actually listen to science.

have been “figuring out how best for humankind to adapt and utilize, even benefit from, those likely trends.”

The right republicans are disrupting and denying this science for the sake of their fossil fuel donors.,

They have been doing this for decades, including cigarette smoking, the ozone layer, smog, local and national water pollution Etc.
You name it, they are deniers and disrupters of pollution mitigation.

What do you hope to gain Dagosa? Why are you arguing this here?

 

[Robert W]

Read my lips. Science is institutional consensus agreement or it is isn’t science.

Your problem is there are hundreds of scientists who deny humans can manage climate. Who persuaded you that humans can manage climate, especially on a global scale? What do you have to gain with your arguments?

 

[Robert W]

Robert W

no maps, no charts, nothing to contradict or reinforce NASA. People don’t produce CO2 enough to measure without the industrial revolution. Get real. #@%&$ and population growth shows little to no increase in CO2/ without giant smoke stacks.

So far, there has only been a very insignificant change to global temperature. And it can be argued effectively that the climate change if any at all, is not a product of smoke stacks.

 

[Robert W]

I did, and commented on it.

Dagosa
Check out this climate scientist.

 

[Foxfyre]

Read my lips. Science is institutional consensus agreement or it is isn’t science.

Read my words here:

Science: the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world/universe through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

Going with what is popular among those who make a living i.e. personally profit out of promoting one aspect of structure and behavior while ignoring all other opinions and evidence is not science.

When scientific skeptics or questioners are allowed to put their findings alongside that of the hand picked pro-AGW crowd in the IPCC and other such groups. . .

When the 'scientists' who are profiting from promoting AGW start living their lives as if they believe what they promote. . .

When the models they use to convince the AGW religionists start actually showing some credibility. . .

Then I might rethink my position. Until then I strongly support those who refuse to be indoctrinated or hoodwinked into beliefs that just don't stand up under honest scrutiny.

 

[Dagosa]

So far, there has only been a very insignificant change to global temperature. And it can be argued effectively that the climate change if any at all, is not a product of smoke stacks.

Wrong. You’re in non science, non math group speak because, “rate of change” means nothing to you. Mainly because, the rate of change in climate conditions has huge effect on species survival. If you’re not into evolution and natural selection, you should have NO PLACE at the table in climate change. Which is hilarious in your part if you are an evolution denier, because ALL MAJOR RELIGIONS INCLUDING CHRISTIAN, are accepting of climate change and AGW.

 

[Dagosa]

Dagosa
Check out this climate scientist.

No.

 

[Dagosa]

Science: the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world/universe through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

Yup. And NONE of the deniers are engaged in a systematic study of climate change through experimentation and observation. None. None has passed the muster of of this system. Our system includes consensus by tens of thousands of climate science participanuts.m
Name one you are a part of. Name one that any of your frauds that support them.

You know little about science. Every effort is made to prove theories incomplete or wrong bynparticipating institutions.

 

[Crick]

• whether carbon dioxide is the main (let alone sole) controller of the Earth’s climate system

No one has claimed that CO2 is the sole controller of the Earth's climate. Ever. That it is the primary factor at present can be determined by calculation of its effects versusthat other factors. I hope I do not need to put up the radiative forcing factors graphic again, but I will if you insist.

• whether rising carbon dioxide levels are on balance good or bad for the planet and mankind

Rising CO2 levels are warming the planet with an ECS of 3 (2.5 - 4)C

• whether the post-industrialization global warming has been abnormal (even over the last 2,000 years)

It is EASILY shown to be abnormal over the entire Quaternary Period (2.85 million years).

• how much of the post-industrialization global warming has been human-caused

All of it. All of the CO2 above the preindustrial 280 ppm is from the combustion of fossil fuels. And the world was cooling before AGW began.

• whether global warming is currently accelerating

Global warming has been accelerating since 1850.

• whether our warming climate system is on balance good or bad for the planet and mankind

There are a very few positives to our climate warming but even there, the excessive RATE at which it is taking place makes it very difficult to actualize any benefit. The harms are severe. The IPCC has studied both sides of that coin extensively. We have not covered it much here but we could.

• how much of the post-industrialization sea level rise has been human-caused

Sea level rise is a complex topic but it is safe to say that very close to every millimeter of rise since 1850 is due to warming and increased meltwater. If you want to suggest other causes, you are going to run into a problem that all these "doubts" run into: natural, non-anthropogenic causes do not act as quickly as the process we have been experiencing.

• whether the sea level rise is currently accelerating

Yes, it is rising.

• whether global decarbonization would materially reduce future sea level rises – and whether global decarbonization is anyway the most cost-effective policy for addressing future sea level rise

The world's oceans are rising due to warming, directly and indirectly. Reduced or reversed warming will reduce or reverse sea level rise, though there will be a considerable lag. No one is promising immediate results. They are promising that a failure to act will cost the species more than anyone wants to pay.

• whether the recent Arctic sea ice loss has been abnormal

It is certainly abnormal placed against all the data we possess, and that includes data extending back well before the beginning of satellite data.

• how much of the recent Arctic sea ice loss has been human-caused

The only factor working in that direction and consistently tending towards less ice is global warming and human use of fossil fuels are the primary cause of global warming.

• whether the Arctic sea ice loss is currently accelerating

A number of these questions are clearly and unambiguously answered by publicly available data. Why are they being asked? I know why. I'm just wondering if YOU do.

• whether recent extreme weather events have been abnormal

AGW will cause an increase in extreme weather events.

• whether recent extreme weather events have been human-caused

The A in AGW stands for anthropogenic. Do you know what that word means?

• whether extreme weather events will become significantly more frequent and intense as a result of global warming

Weather is driven by thermal energy. The more energy there is in our climate system, the more energy there will be in our weather.

• whether exceeding 1.5ºC of warming would be ‘dangerous’

It is a point at which the world's scientists believe some harms will become severe and potentially irreversible.

• whether achieving net zero by 2050 (in order to limit warming to 1.5ºC) is technically feasible (never mind geopolitically realistic)

Define "feasible". It could be done but it would require a very robust and committed effort.

• whether achieving net zero by 2050 would materially improve the climate in this century

Define "materially". It would improve the climate in this century and would dramatically improve it in the next and the next.

• how much further global warming there will be this century and whether it might lead to ‘catastrophic’ climate change.

See the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report.

All of this can be summarized in one word: doubt.

Doubts that the fossil fuel industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars extolling in an effort to convince you and others like you that the science behind AGW is flawed without having presented a shred of evidence to support that contention. How much evidence did this article of yours contain supporting any justification for these specific doubts? NONE.

Doubts about the reliability of the science

Why?

doubts about the reliability of the climate models

Why?

doubts about the scientific integrity and policy-neutrality of the IPCC

Why?

doubts about the scale of future warming

Why?

doubts about the scale of the climate change risks (i.e. doubts about the scale of the possible adverse impacts and the probability of their occurring)

Why?

doubts about the wisdom of the 1.5ºC warming ‘threshold’

Why?

and doubts about the wisdom, not of decarbonization, but of precipitate and precipitous decarbonization (as epitomized by ‘net zero by 2050’ policies) that may do more socioeconomic harm than good largely as a result of the vast transitional costs and societal impacts of such fast and radical decarbonization and the current lack of affordable and reliable carbon-neutral alternatives to fossil fuels.

It may? Why? And if it is "fast and radical" are you arguing there is no REASON for precipitous action? Cost would have been much less had actions been undertaken earlier. If anyone and anything is to blame for the high cost, it is those who have been doing their damnedest to prevent action from taking place. Finally, we have a variety of carbon-neutral alternatives that are being put into place as we speak.

Basically, the ‘irrefutable evidence’ that there is a climate crisis is not, perhaps, so irrefutable.

Your article, however, has presented NO reason for us to actually doubt any of the contentions they have suggested we doubt. NONE.

So when António Guterres asks, ‘Can anybody still deny we are facing a dramatic emergency?’, the answer is, yes, many people can – and for very good reasons.

Perhaps, but your author has not demonstrated a single reason to deny ANY of it.

The fundamental problem with the climate crisis narrative is that it is simplistic and gives us only one side of the story.

Bullshit

It largely expunges all the scientific complexities, unknowns and uncertainties, all the benefits of global warming and higher carbon dioxide levels, all the serious difficulties, costs, impacts and risks of rapidly eliminating fossil fuels – as well as expunging the option of simply adapting to living in a warmer world as an alternative (to net zero) policy response.

That is complete bullshit. The mass media always simplifies science stories because the average American's science knowledge is unimpresssive. Only 50-60% of Americans can answer basic questions about the scientific method. See What Americans Know About Science. The actual science - in published studies and in the IPCC's assessment reports is not "expunged" of complexities. And if the option of simply adapting is all we will be able to do, it will be expensive and include an enormous cost in human lives and suffering.

It is as though man-made climate change had been put on trial in the court of public opinion on a charge of crimes against the planet and humanity (with a presumption of guilt) – but with only the prosecution case presented to the jury. It has apparently been found guilty, not on the basis of certainty, not on the basis of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, not even on the basis of ‘on the balance of probabilities’ but simply on the basis of the possibility that it could be guilty, if not now, then in the future.

It astounds me that the lot of you do not see this for what it is. Take just a half a minute and try to imagine what people in the fossil fuel industry, whose very existence is seriously threatened by all of this, might do in an attempt to, if nothing else, simply S-L-O-W the process that spells their demise. Do none of you remember the Big Tobacco lawsuit in 2006? The tactics they employed were IDENTICAL to what we are seeing every day from the fossil fuel industry.

The ‘deniers’ (more accurately described as ‘doubters’) think that the uncertainties in the science are very high, that the possible worst case climate change outcomes are extremely unlikely to occur and that the socioeconomic risks of trying to eradicate the possibility of such outcomes are unacceptably high. The ‘doomsters’ (more accurately described as ‘believers’) think that the uncertainties in the science are very low and that however unlikely the worst case outcomes might be they are nevertheless possible and are so very bad that the very high socioeconomic risks of trying to eradicate the possibility of such outcomes are almost irrelevant. Both positions are rational and reasonable and worthy of intelligent debate – there is no ‘correct’ position. There does, however, appear to be a politically correct position and that, of course, is the position of the ‘doomsters’. To put it another way, the statements, ‘Climate change is probably not a very serious problem but net zero by 2050 probably is’ and ‘Climate change is possibly a very serious problem and net zero by 2050 possibly isn’t’ are not incompatible. Furthermore both sides agree that human activity, in particular our burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to a warming, changing climate – the debate is about how much we are contributing and how dangerous that warming actually is. On which basis there appears to be more uniting the two sides than dividing them.

Whether the IPCC’s theory and climate models are reliable (at least reliable enough to be fit to inform climate policy) is just a matter of opinion. Whether carbon dioxide is the ‘control knob’ of global warming is just a matter of opinion. How emissions will evolve this century is just a matter of opinion. Whether natural climate variability can partially (or even largely) explain the post-industrialization global warming is just a matter of opinion. Whether climate sensitivity is relatively low or high is just a matter of opinion. How much global warming there will be this century is just a matter of opinion. How much global warming is ‘dangerous’ is just a matter of opinion. Whether renewables technology will evolve quickly to deliver affordable and reliable carbon-neutral alternatives to fossil fuels is just a matter of opinion. Whether climate policy should be predicated on plausible/likely outcomes or worst case possible outcomes is just a matter of opinion. There is no ‘right’ answer to the climate change problem.

In summary, believing that we are experiencing a climate crisis and so we must eradicate fossil fuels as fast as possible is rational and reasonable – as is doubting that we are experiencing a climate crisis and so we must be very circumspect about how deeply and how quickly we eradicate fossil fuels (because the radical decarbonization ‘cure’ may be worse than the climate change ‘disease’). That simple claim may horrify ‘deniers’ and ‘doomsters’ alike, who both tend to a belief that they have the monopoly on rationality and reasonableness – which is why accepting this would be an excellent first step to reducing the current polarization of attitudes to the issue. To approach the truth about climate change you really do need to hear both sides of the story – and they are both good stories. At the very least, given all these doubts, if a climate crisis really exists then it is a very curious one.

You read this and you come away with the feeling that doubting is the RIGHT thing to do. But WHY do you feel that way? In all this space the only thing they've done is told you to doubt. They've not shown any of the uncertainty they claim is everywhere. They've not shown alternative theories supporting any part of what AGW explains. The scientists who have been studying the climate and whose conclusions form the basis for AGW have shown you many, many, many reasons to accept what they are telling you. They have explained over and over again why they believe their conclusions and why they do NOT believe the alternative explanations that the fossil fuel industry would love to convince are just as good.

Use your fucking heads. This is the oil industry and the coal industry and natural gas industry doing their damnedest to make you leave them alone. They're making money hand over fist and they don't want to stop.

 

[Dagosa]

All of it. All of the CO2 above the preindustrial 280 ppm is from the combustion of fossil fuels. And the world was cooling before AGW began.

Exactly.
Deniers have no idea we can differentiate between CO2 sources.

 

[Dagosa]

Use your fucking heads. This is the oil industry and the coal industry and natural gas industry doing their damnedest to make you leave them alone. They're making money hand over fist and they don't want to stop.

Yup.
Fossil fuels are going up in price, renewables are going down.
The gop has been trying to sell products for their donors for decades, even if it costs more and is worse for them.

They promote for profit healthcare insurance to benefit the insurance companies making money off your lung cancer you got from supporting the tabacco company gop donors.

But, not supporting climate change mitigation is going to be worse than a few million sick and dying by the year.

 

[Robert W]

No one has claimed that CO2 is the sole controller of the Earth's climate. Ever. That it is the primary factor at present can be determined by calculation of its effects versusthat other factors. I hope I do not need to put up the radiative forcing factors graphic again, but I will if you insist.

Rising CO2 levels are warming the planet with an ECS of 3 (2.5 - 4)C

It is EASILY shown to be abnormal over the entire Quaternary Period (2.85 million years).

All of it. All of the CO2 above the preindustrial 280 ppm is from the combustion of fossil fuels. And the world was cooling before AGW began.

Global warming has been accelerating since 1850.

There are a very few positives to our climate warming but even there, the excessive RATE at which it is taking place makes it very difficult to actualize any benefit. The harms are severe. The IPCC has studied both sides of that coin extensively. We have not covered it much here but we could.

Sea level rise is a complex topic but it is safe to say that very close to every millimeter of rise since 1850 is due to warming and increased meltwater. If you want to suggest other causes, you are going to run into a problem that all these "doubts" run into: natural, non-anthropogenic causes do not act as quickly as the process we have been experiencing.

Yes, it is rising.

The world's oceans are rising due to warming, directly and indirectly. Reduced or reversed warming will reduce or reverse sea level rise, though there will be a considerable lag. No one is promising immediate results. They are promising that a failure to act will cost the species more than anyone wants to pay.

It is certainly abnormal placed against all the data we possess, and that includes data extending back well before the beginning of satellite data.

The only factor working in that direction and consistently tending towards less ice is global warming and human use of fossil fuels are the primary cause of global warming.

A number of these questions are clearly and unambiguously answered by publicly available data. Why are they being asked? I know why. I'm just wondering if YOU do.

AGW will cause an increase in extreme weather events.

The A in AGW stands for anthropogenic. Do you know what that word means?

Weather is driven by thermal energy. The more energy there is in our climate system, the more energy there will be in our weather.

It is a point at which the world's scientists believe some harms will become severe and potentially irreversible.

Define "feasible". It could be done but it would require a very robust and committed effort.

Define "materially". It would improve the climate in this century and would dramatically improve it in the next and the next.

See the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report.

Doubts that the fossil fuel industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars extolling in an effort to convince you and others like you that the science behind AGW is flawed without having presented a shred of evidence to support that contention. How much evidence did this article of yours contain supporting any justification for these specific doubts? NONE.

Why?

Why?

Why?

Why?

Why?

Why?

It may? Why? And if it is "fast and radical" are you arguing there is no REASON for precipitous action? Cost would have been much less had actions been undertaken earlier. If anyone and anything is to blame for the high cost, it is those who have been doing their damnedest to prevent action from taking place. Finally, we have a variety of carbon-neutral alternatives that are being put into place as we speak.

Your article, however, has presented NO reason for us to actually doubt any of the contentions they have suggested we doubt. NONE.

Perhaps, but your author has not demonstrated a single reason to deny ANY of it.

Bullshit

That is complete bullshit. The mass media always simplifies science stories because the average American's science knowledge is unimpresssive. Only 50-60% of Americans can answer basic questions about the scientific method. See What Americans Know About Science. The actual science - in published studies and in the IPCC's assessment reports is not "expunged" of complexities. And if the option of simply adapting is all we will be able to do, it will be expensive and include an enormous cost in human lives and suffering.

It astounds me that the lot of you do not see this for what it is. Take just a half a minute and try to imagine what people in the fossil fuel industry, whose very existence is seriously threatened by all of this, might do in an attempt to, if nothing else, simply S-L-O-W the process that spells their demise. Do none of you remember the Big Tobacco lawsuit in 2006? The tactics they employed were IDENTICAL to what we are seeing every day from the fossil fuel industry.

You read this and you come away with the feeling that doubting is the RIGHT thing to do. But WHY do you feel that way? In all this space the only thing they've done is told you to doubt. They've not shown any of the uncertainty they claim is everywhere. They've not shown alternative theories supporting any part of what AGW explains. The scientists who have been studying the climate and whose conclusions form the basis for AGW have shown you many, many, many reasons to accept what they are telling you. They have explained over and over again why they believe their conclusions and why they do NOT believe the alternative explanations that the fossil fuel industry would love to convince are just as good.

Use your fucking heads. This is the oil industry and the coal industry and natural gas industry doing their damnedest to make you leave them alone. They're making money hand over fist and they don't want to stop.

 

[ding]

Yup. And NONE of the deniers are engaged in a systematic study of climate change through experimentation and observation. None. None has passed the muster of of this system. %Our system includes consensus by tens of thousands of climate science participation.
Name one you are a part of. Name one that any of your frauds that support HIM.

Not true.

To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?

Weather and temperatures vary in ways that are difficult to explain and predict precisely. In this article we review data on temperature variations in the past as well possible reasons for these variations.

www.ssb.no

 

[Robert W]

Wrong. You’re in non science, non math group speak because, “rate of change” means nothing to you. Mainly because, the rate of change in climate conditions has huge effect on species survival. If you’re not into evolution and natural selection, you should have NO PLACE at the table in climate change. Which is hilarious in your part if you are an evolution denier, because ALL MAJOR RELIGIONS INCLUDING CHRISTIAN, are accepting of climate change and AGW.

You are twisted as hell. I was attempting to limit this to climate. But you want to insert rank confusion. What the fuck make you bring up evolution? Or Religion?