Why is climate science political?

[code1211]

There are not 1000 peer-reviewed studies which conclude that humans are not playing some part in climate change.

If you take out the ones obviously funded by lobbies, you are proably down to about three studies.

The question is not whether there is "some part" being played but if the contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere by the activities of Man is the prime driver of Climate change.

The rise of CO2 has been pretty consistent over the last 120 years and the rises and the falls of the temperature of the world, obviously, do not follow this consistency. The contribution by Man is a small fraction of the total CO2 added annually.

There are, also obviously, other factors that either overpower or render CO2 impotent altogether as a driver of climate.

As a doubter, all I need to do is observe what has actually happened in the real world.

As an alarmist, you must prove why the evidence from that actual world does not match your theory and then justify why the governments of the world need to completely wreck the world economy, which teeters today on the brink of collapse, in favor of sanity.

You are free to proceed.

Criminal Neglect Of Future Generations

By Dr. Brian Moench

By every scientific measure greenhouse gases are heating the Earth rapidly and forcing us all to participate in a game of climate Russian roulette. In fact, Russia is one of this year's biggest losers. Temperatures 25 degrees hotter than normal, causing apocalyptic wildfires, have turned central and western Russia, including Moscow, into a ghoulish hell to rival J.R.R. Tolkien's Mordor. Death rates are double the norm from the heat and smoke, thousands have already died.

20 million Pakistanis are now homeless because of flooding from monsoon rains. Flooding in China has killed thousands. Desperation, starvation and diseases like cholera are inevitable. Crops in Russia, China and Pakistan and many other countries have been devastated, causing suspension of grain exports and price spikes. Millions who struggle to feed themselves in a normal climate will be unable to afford enough food to survive.

In many countries like the Sudan, Kenya and Bangladesh, millions of people have already become climate refugees, abandoning their homes and countries because sustaining life there is no longer possible. Climate disasters are mounting in on virtually every continent. Record breaking heat in our East and South, unprecedented flooding in Tennessee and Iowa, and a chronic, deepening drought in the Western US have given us just a taste of the misery other countries are now enduring.

This summer's events fit exactly the scientists' projections of more frequent and more intense extreme weather events due to global warming. Notwithstanding the Kool Aid being broadcast at Fox News, even "snowmageddon" fits into the models of a human caused climate crisis.

Last year the lead article in the Lancet, one of the world's most prestigious medical journals, written by 29 distinguished medical scientists called the climate consequences of the greenhouse gas phenomenon, "The biggest global health threat of the 21st century," and will "put the lives and well being of billions of people at increased risk." The report goes on to state that, "Even the most conservative estimates are profoundly disturbing and demand action. Less conservative climate scenarios are so catastrophic that adaptation might be unachievable." The authors said "what is needed now is a public health movement that frames the threat of the climate crisis for humankind as a health issue."

Note these words from the president of the World Medical Association. "Climate change represents an inevitable, massive threat to global health that will likely eclipse the major known pandemics as the leading cause of death and disease in the 21st century."

TheLancet.com

You need to Google the dictionary and look up both "Weather" and "Climate".

There are areas currently occupied by the other 6 billion people in the world that were not occupied ever before due to the risk of living in those areas. How many American indian Tribes were located on the ocean coasts?

0.

Wasn't there a prediction of dire consequence, just like what you have shown above, that said that Katrina style hurricanes would be the norm and not the exception?

Where are they?

The fact remains that the Warming we currently enjoy started about 2000 years ago, was interrupted by the Little Ice Age, resumed about 150 years prior to the Industrial Revolution and continues today.

Warming is a condition of the climate. Isolating the cause of the warming is the job of the Alarmists such as yourself. Acknowledging that the warming was occurring before the cause you cite is what drives doubters, like me.

The advent of Anthropogenic CO2 could not have caused any warming prior to 1850 and yet warming was occurring.

Please explain how the future causes the past.

 

[Bfgrn]

The question is not whether there is "some part" being played but if the contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere by the activities of Man is the prime driver of Climate change.

The rise of CO2 has been pretty consistent over the last 120 years and the rises and the falls of the temperature of the world, obviously, do not follow this consistency. The contribution by Man is a small fraction of the total CO2 added annually.

There are, also obviously, other factors that either overpower or render CO2 impotent altogether as a driver of climate.

As a doubter, all I need to do is observe what has actually happened in the real world.

As an alarmist, you must prove why the evidence from that actual world does not match your theory and then justify why the governments of the world need to completely wreck the world economy, which teeters today on the brink of collapse, in favor of sanity.

You are free to proceed.

Criminal Neglect Of Future Generations

By Dr. Brian Moench

By every scientific measure greenhouse gases are heating the Earth rapidly and forcing us all to participate in a game of climate Russian roulette. In fact, Russia is one of this year's biggest losers. Temperatures 25 degrees hotter than normal, causing apocalyptic wildfires, have turned central and western Russia, including Moscow, into a ghoulish hell to rival J.R.R. Tolkien's Mordor. Death rates are double the norm from the heat and smoke, thousands have already died.

20 million Pakistanis are now homeless because of flooding from monsoon rains. Flooding in China has killed thousands. Desperation, starvation and diseases like cholera are inevitable. Crops in Russia, China and Pakistan and many other countries have been devastated, causing suspension of grain exports and price spikes. Millions who struggle to feed themselves in a normal climate will be unable to afford enough food to survive.

In many countries like the Sudan, Kenya and Bangladesh, millions of people have already become climate refugees, abandoning their homes and countries because sustaining life there is no longer possible. Climate disasters are mounting in on virtually every continent. Record breaking heat in our East and South, unprecedented flooding in Tennessee and Iowa, and a chronic, deepening drought in the Western US have given us just a taste of the misery other countries are now enduring.

This summer's events fit exactly the scientists' projections of more frequent and more intense extreme weather events due to global warming. Notwithstanding the Kool Aid being broadcast at Fox News, even "snowmageddon" fits into the models of a human caused climate crisis.

Last year the lead article in the Lancet, one of the world's most prestigious medical journals, written by 29 distinguished medical scientists called the climate consequences of the greenhouse gas phenomenon, "The biggest global health threat of the 21st century," and will "put the lives and well being of billions of people at increased risk." The report goes on to state that, "Even the most conservative estimates are profoundly disturbing and demand action. Less conservative climate scenarios are so catastrophic that adaptation might be unachievable." The authors said "what is needed now is a public health movement that frames the threat of the climate crisis for humankind as a health issue."

Note these words from the president of the World Medical Association. "Climate change represents an inevitable, massive threat to global health that will likely eclipse the major known pandemics as the leading cause of death and disease in the 21st century."

TheLancet.com

You need to Google the dictionary and look up both "Weather" and "Climate".

There are areas currently occupied by the other 6 billion people in the world that were not occupied ever before due to the risk of living in those areas. How many American indian Tribes were located on the ocean coasts?

0.

Wasn't there a prediction of dire consequence, just like what you have shown above, that said that Katrina style hurricanes would be the norm and not the exception?

Where are they?

The fact remains that the Warming we currently enjoy started about 2000 years ago, was interrupted by the Little Ice Age, resumed about 150 years prior to the Industrial Revolution and continues today.

Warming is a condition of the climate. Isolating the cause of the warming is the job of the Alarmists such as yourself. Acknowledging that the warming was occurring before the cause you cite is what drives doubters, like me.

The advent of Anthropogenic CO2 could not have caused any warming prior to 1850 and yet warming was occurring.

Please explain how the future causes the past.

Global Warming

Throughout its long history, Earth has warmed and cooled time and again. Climate has changed when the planet received more or less sunlight due to subtle shifts in its orbit, as the atmosphere or surface changed, or when the Sun’s energy varied. But in the past century, another force has started to influence Earth’s climate: humanity

What is Global Warming?

Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released by people burning fossil fuels.

How Does Today’s Warming Compare to Past Climate Change?

Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. But the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

Why Do Scientists Think Current Warming Isn’t Natural?

In Earth’s history before the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s climate changed due to natural causes unrelated to human activity. These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades.

How Much More Will Earth Warm?

Models predict that as the world consumes ever more fossil fuel, greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to rise, and Earth’s average surface temperature will rise with them. Based on plausible emission scenarios, average surface temperatures could rise between 2°C and 6°C by the end of the 21st century. Some of this warming will occur even if future greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, because the Earth system has not yet fully adjusted to environmental changes we have already made.

How Will Earth Respond to Warming Temperatures?

The impact of global warming is far greater than just increasing temperatures. Warming modifies rainfall patterns, amplifies coastal erosion, lengthens the growing season in some regions, melts ice caps and glaciers, and alters the ranges of some infectious diseases. Some of these changes are already occurring.

The Earth Observatory is part of the EOS Project Science Office located at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

 

[Old Rocks]

The question is not whether there is "some part" being played but if the contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere by the activities of Man is the prime driver of Climate change.

The rise of CO2 has been pretty consistent over the last 120 years and the rises and the falls of the temperature of the world, obviously, do not follow this consistency. The contribution by Man is a small fraction of the total CO2 added annually.

There are, also obviously, other factors that either overpower or render CO2 impotent altogether as a driver of climate.

As a doubter, all I need to do is observe what has actually happened in the real world.

As an alarmist, you must prove why the evidence from that actual world does not match your theory and then justify why the governments of the world need to completely wreck the world economy, which teeters today on the brink of collapse, in favor of sanity.

You are free to proceed.

Criminal Neglect Of Future Generations

By Dr. Brian Moench

By every scientific measure greenhouse gases are heating the Earth rapidly and forcing us all to participate in a game of climate Russian roulette. In fact, Russia is one of this year's biggest losers. Temperatures 25 degrees hotter than normal, causing apocalyptic wildfires, have turned central and western Russia, including Moscow, into a ghoulish hell to rival J.R.R. Tolkien's Mordor. Death rates are double the norm from the heat and smoke, thousands have already died.

20 million Pakistanis are now homeless because of flooding from monsoon rains. Flooding in China has killed thousands. Desperation, starvation and diseases like cholera are inevitable. Crops in Russia, China and Pakistan and many other countries have been devastated, causing suspension of grain exports and price spikes. Millions who struggle to feed themselves in a normal climate will be unable to afford enough food to survive.

In many countries like the Sudan, Kenya and Bangladesh, millions of people have already become climate refugees, abandoning their homes and countries because sustaining life there is no longer possible. Climate disasters are mounting in on virtually every continent. Record breaking heat in our East and South, unprecedented flooding in Tennessee and Iowa, and a chronic, deepening drought in the Western US have given us just a taste of the misery other countries are now enduring.

This summer's events fit exactly the scientists' projections of more frequent and more intense extreme weather events due to global warming. Notwithstanding the Kool Aid being broadcast at Fox News, even "snowmageddon" fits into the models of a human caused climate crisis.

Last year the lead article in the Lancet, one of the world's most prestigious medical journals, written by 29 distinguished medical scientists called the climate consequences of the greenhouse gas phenomenon, "The biggest global health threat of the 21st century," and will "put the lives and well being of billions of people at increased risk." The report goes on to state that, "Even the most conservative estimates are profoundly disturbing and demand action. Less conservative climate scenarios are so catastrophic that adaptation might be unachievable." The authors said "what is needed now is a public health movement that frames the threat of the climate crisis for humankind as a health issue."

Note these words from the president of the World Medical Association. "Climate change represents an inevitable, massive threat to global health that will likely eclipse the major known pandemics as the leading cause of death and disease in the 21st century."

TheLancet.com

You need to Google the dictionary and look up both "Weather" and "Climate".

There are areas currently occupied by the other 6 billion people in the world that were not occupied ever before due to the risk of living in those areas. How many American indian Tribes were located on the ocean coasts?

0.
Wasn't there a prediction of dire consequence, just like what you have shown above, that said that Katrina style hurricanes would be the norm and not the exception?

Where are they?

The fact remains that the Warming we currently enjoy started about 2000 years ago, was interrupted by the Little Ice Age, resumed about 150 years prior to the Industrial Revolution and continues today.

Warming is a condition of the climate. Isolating the cause of the warming is the job of the Alarmists such as yourself. Acknowledging that the warming was occurring before the cause you cite is what drives doubters, like me.

The advent of Anthropogenic CO2 could not have caused any warming prior to 1850 and yet warming was occurring.

Please explain how the future causes the past.

Ever hear of Tlingit, Haida, or Chinook?

Like so much of your bullshit, this is totally wrong. The last 2000 years has seen warming and cooling, but never warming at the rate we are experiancing today.

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

The pdf version is free and it is real information from real scientists, not bullshit from pretenders.

 

[skookerasbil]

The environmental extremist asshats still dont get it.


Still cant produce a single link showing us how the science is matering. Nobody is falling all over themselves to go hog wild into green energy. It is still decidedly fringe and will continue to be for decades.


Meanwhile........................



Why American Natural Gas Will Change The World - Forbes




But the k00ks will continue to grease the skids with propaganda crap from whacko websites tendered by committed nutters. The "real science" they'll say...............but it doesnt matter.





>> By the way..........Forbes, US News, Businees Weekly, The Guardian UK, and the links I post = far more credible than links posted up by environmental radicals which are funded by communist green groups<<


..............just sayin'

 

[code1211]

Criminal Neglect Of Future Generations

By Dr. Brian Moench

By every scientific measure greenhouse gases are heating the Earth rapidly and forcing us all to participate in a game of climate Russian roulette. In fact, Russia is one of this year's biggest losers. Temperatures 25 degrees hotter than normal, causing apocalyptic wildfires, have turned central and western Russia, including Moscow, into a ghoulish hell to rival J.R.R. Tolkien's Mordor. Death rates are double the norm from the heat and smoke, thousands have already died.

20 million Pakistanis are now homeless because of flooding from monsoon rains. Flooding in China has killed thousands. Desperation, starvation and diseases like cholera are inevitable. Crops in Russia, China and Pakistan and many other countries have been devastated, causing suspension of grain exports and price spikes. Millions who struggle to feed themselves in a normal climate will be unable to afford enough food to survive.

In many countries like the Sudan, Kenya and Bangladesh, millions of people have already become climate refugees, abandoning their homes and countries because sustaining life there is no longer possible. Climate disasters are mounting in on virtually every continent. Record breaking heat in our East and South, unprecedented flooding in Tennessee and Iowa, and a chronic, deepening drought in the Western US have given us just a taste of the misery other countries are now enduring.

This summer's events fit exactly the scientists' projections of more frequent and more intense extreme weather events due to global warming. Notwithstanding the Kool Aid being broadcast at Fox News, even "snowmageddon" fits into the models of a human caused climate crisis.

Last year the lead article in the Lancet, one of the world's most prestigious medical journals, written by 29 distinguished medical scientists called the climate consequences of the greenhouse gas phenomenon, "The biggest global health threat of the 21st century," and will "put the lives and well being of billions of people at increased risk." The report goes on to state that, "Even the most conservative estimates are profoundly disturbing and demand action. Less conservative climate scenarios are so catastrophic that adaptation might be unachievable." The authors said "what is needed now is a public health movement that frames the threat of the climate crisis for humankind as a health issue."

Note these words from the president of the World Medical Association. "Climate change represents an inevitable, massive threat to global health that will likely eclipse the major known pandemics as the leading cause of death and disease in the 21st century."

TheLancet.com

You need to Google the dictionary and look up both "Weather" and "Climate".

There are areas currently occupied by the other 6 billion people in the world that were not occupied ever before due to the risk of living in those areas. How many American indian Tribes were located on the ocean coasts?

0.
Wasn't there a prediction of dire consequence, just like what you have shown above, that said that Katrina style hurricanes would be the norm and not the exception?

Where are they?

The fact remains that the Warming we currently enjoy started about 2000 years ago, was interrupted by the Little Ice Age, resumed about 150 years prior to the Industrial Revolution and continues today.

Warming is a condition of the climate. Isolating the cause of the warming is the job of the Alarmists such as yourself. Acknowledging that the warming was occurring before the cause you cite is what drives doubters, like me.

The advent of Anthropogenic CO2 could not have caused any warming prior to 1850 and yet warming was occurring.

Please explain how the future causes the past.

Ever hear of Tlingit, Haida, or Chinook?

Like so much of your bullshit, this is totally wrong. The last 2000 years has seen warming and cooling, but never warming at the rate we are experiancing today.

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

The pdf version is free and it is real information from real scientists, not bullshit from pretenders.

I stand corrected. These tribes and probably others did live in areas that were not subject to tropical hurricanes. Do you have the statistics on the modern weather disaster that have caused billions of dollars of damage in the areas that were home to these tribes?

As always, you are the king of facts that have no bearing on the discussion.

The coastal areas of the EASTERN AND THE GULF SHORES OF THE US are what I was talking about and I failed to say this. There were probably also tribes in Greenland living on the coasts and along the Hudson Bay.

During this interglacial, we seem to have warmed this quickly about 12,000 years ago, about 8000 yard ago and about 5000 years ago.

We are still about a degree cooler than the high of this interglacial and the warming that you seem to think will lead to a 6 degree rise in temperature has stalled.

File:Holocene Temperature Variations Rev.png - Global Warming Art

 

[Saigon]

the vast majority of papers are simply collections of data that can, and have been, used by both sides. until 2000 the paradigm was that the medieval warm period was real and warmer than today. people have noticed, and measured, the glacier and icecap retreat for more than 150 years. sea level rise has been documented for over 100 years and it has remained steady at ~2mm/year. thermometers have have recorded temps for the last 150 years but it has only been the one-sided adjustments of the last 12 years that have made the increase look disproportionate.

the last 30 years has seen the rise of computer models (a good thing), but they have been given far to much credence and claims of accuracy far beyond their capability (a bad thing). the inputs and assumptions for those climate models are incomplete and contrary to the real world. solar is considered insignificant and feedbacks are considered positive contrary to just about every natural system there is.

you have been told one side of the story and it sounded reasonable so you believed it. I have listened to both sides of the story and I dont particularly believe either. I dont know how old you are but I was around for the ice age scare of the 70's. it all made sense and seemed reasonable then too. nature doesnt give a fig about what we believe or how pretty our theories are. the difference between the doomsday forecasts then and now is that this time mankind is being blamed, it is a hook to gain power over our lifestyles that politicians cant resist.

Excellent comments, Ian - I really enjoyed reading that.

I agree with a lot of what you say, and certainly credit you with having given this matter some thought.

The thing I would disagree with is that "you have been told one side of the story".

Much of what I believe about climate is about what I have seen with my own eyes. I've seen the flooding in Bangladesh, the deseritification in Spain and Australia, the glacial melt in New Zealand and Argentina. I've seen rising sea levels in Mozambique and experienced rapidly changing winters here in Finland.

In each case I've talked to locals, and heard their first hand stories on how their community has changed.

I think the problem sceptics have is often based on a very limited perspective - that if I can't see rising sea levels from my window, therefore sea levels are not rising. But actually, they are rising, and you can go and talk to people whose homes are being eroded year after year.

My views of climate change are heavily influenced by scientific opinion, but only because it fits what I see in Spain and Australia.

 

[Old Rocks]

the vast majority of papers are simply collections of data that can, and have been, used by both sides. until 2000 the paradigm was that the medieval warm period was real and warmer than today. people have noticed, and measured, the glacier and icecap retreat for more than 150 years. sea level rise has been documented for over 100 years and it has remained steady at ~2mm/year. thermometers have have recorded temps for the last 150 years but it has only been the one-sided adjustments of the last 12 years that have made the increase look disproportionate.

the last 30 years has seen the rise of computer models (a good thing), but they have been given far to much credence and claims of accuracy far beyond their capability (a bad thing). the inputs and assumptions for those climate models are incomplete and contrary to the real world. solar is considered insignificant and feedbacks are considered positive contrary to just about every natural system there is.

you have been told one side of the story and it sounded reasonable so you believed it. I have listened to both sides of the story and I dont particularly believe either. I dont know how old you are but I was around for the ice age scare of the 70's. it all made sense and seemed reasonable then too. nature doesnt give a fig about what we believe or how pretty our theories are. the difference between the doomsday forecasts then and now is that this time mankind is being blamed, it is a hook to gain power over our lifestyles that politicians cant resist.

Excellent comments, Ian - I really enjoyed reading that.

I agree with a lot of what you say, and certainly credit you with having given this matter some thought.

The thing I would disagree with is that "you have been told one side of the story".

Much of what I believe about climate is about what I have seen with my own eyes. I've seen the flooding in Bangladesh, the deseritification in Spain and Australia, the glacial melt in New Zealand and Argentina. I've seen rising sea levels in Mozambique and experienced rapidly changing winters here in Finland.

In each case I've talked to locals, and heard their first hand stories on how their community has changed.

I think the problem sceptics have is often based on a very limited perspective - that if I can't see rising sea levels from my window, therefore sea levels are not rising. But actually, they are rising, and you can go and talk to people whose homes are being eroded year after year.

My views of climate change are heavily influenced by scientific opinion, but only because it fits what I see in Spain and Australia.

My experiance, direct and personal, is with the glaciers and timberlines in the Cascades, Blues, Sierra Nevadas, and the Rockies. In all of these, we see rising timberlines, and rapidly receding and disappearing glaciers. Shorter winters, more heat and fires in the summer. In fact, a much longer fire season. Bug infestations that are greater than any we have experianced before in the timber. People that I have talked to from other parts of the world are seeing these same things to greater and lessor degrees, depending on where they are from. I have yet to talk to anyone that is saying that they are seeing cooling in any area of appreciable size over the last few decades.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

I don't see science as being a political issue.

Science isn't a political issue.
Twisting the data to achieve your political aim is when it becomes political.

Yes, I'd agree with that. It's a good response.

So let's ignore ay science prepared by, or funded by, the solar, wind, nuclear and coal industries.

I'm looking at a link which lists 800+ peer-reviewed studies, all of which confirm that human acitivity likely plays some role in climate change.

As far as I am aware, not one of the studies has ever been faulted, accused of fraud, maniuplation or sloppy science.

These findings have been crucial in convincing the worlds 50 major scientific bodies of climate change.

Are we agreed so far?

So let's ignore ay science prepared by, or funded by, the solar, wind, nuclear and coal industries.

Yes, in any case where they twist, omit or falsify data.

I'm looking at a link which lists 800+ peer-reviewed studies, all of which confirm that human acitivity likely plays some role in climate change.


Likely...some...

Sounds like we need more study. Doesn't sound like the science is settled.
Certainly doesn't sound like we need to spend trillions to, under the warmists best case, stop 0.2 degrees of warming in 2080.

As far as I am aware, not one of the studies has ever been faulted, accused of fraud, maniuplation or sloppy science.

OMG! That's funny. Did the hockey stick somehow minimize or erase the MWP?
Did the Climategate e-mails not show cases of blocking opposing authors from being published? Data that didn't fit the prediction being manipulated with "Mike's nature trick" to hide the decline?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

from bfgrn's post-

The idea stated in the title of this blog post is not novel–far from it, in fact. We have known for a long time that the auto industry, the oil industry, and others with a vested interest have engaged in a long-running campaign of misinformation to discredit the science behind global warming. Manufacturing doubt is a common strategy employed by those whose agenda falls on the wrong side of scientific fact. This includes creationists, pseudoscientists, global warming denialists, HIV denialists, and, very notably, the tobacco industry’s notorious decades-long campaign to deny the link between smoking and cancer, despite the deniers’ own undeniable knowledge that such a link existed.

The reason I bring all of this up now, though, is that The New York Times has an article by Andrew Revkin about some particularly interesting documents recently acquired by the Times. The documents, from the Global Climate Coalition (an industry group), shed light on how the group suppressed its own scientists and demonstrate that the group was actively aware it was spreading misinformation:

the concensus climate scientists have been actively speading misinformation and suppressing inconvenient data for years as is made clear in the climategate I&II emails. which is worse? I think that being lied to by those that you trust is more harmful than those that are the outside opinion. another question; which is worse, the scientist that is willing to lie because he thinks the ends justify the means, or the other scientists that refuse to point out the lie because they fear for their professional standing? how many other scientists were willing to publically lambast Mann and the hockey team other than Muller?

Let me ask you ONE question...do you believe that oil, coal and auto industries are merely benign observers sitting on the sidelines hoping their billion dollar industries are not regulated?

The oil, coal and auto industries are not regulated? When did that happen?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There are not 1000 peer-reviewed studies which conclude that humans are not playing some part in climate change.

If you take out the ones obviously funded by lobbies, you are proably down to about three studies.

The question is not whether there is "some part" being played but if the contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere by the activities of Man is the prime driver of Climate change.

The rise of CO2 has been pretty consistent over the last 120 years and the rises and the falls of the temperature of the world, obviously, do not follow this consistency. The contribution by Man is a small fraction of the total CO2 added annually.

There are, also obviously, other factors that either overpower or render CO2 impotent altogether as a driver of climate.

As a doubter, all I need to do is observe what has actually happened in the real world.

As an alarmist, you must prove why the evidence from that actual world does not match your theory and then justify why the governments of the world need to completely wreck the world economy, which teeters today on the brink of collapse, in favor of sanity.

You are free to proceed.

Criminal Neglect Of Future Generations

By Dr. Brian Moench

By every scientific measure greenhouse gases are heating the Earth rapidly and forcing us all to participate in a game of climate Russian roulette. In fact, Russia is one of this year's biggest losers. Temperatures 25 degrees hotter than normal, causing apocalyptic wildfires, have turned central and western Russia, including Moscow, into a ghoulish hell to rival J.R.R. Tolkien's Mordor. Death rates are double the norm from the heat and smoke, thousands have already died.

20 million Pakistanis are now homeless because of flooding from monsoon rains. Flooding in China has killed thousands. Desperation, starvation and diseases like cholera are inevitable. Crops in Russia, China and Pakistan and many other countries have been devastated, causing suspension of grain exports and price spikes. Millions who struggle to feed themselves in a normal climate will be unable to afford enough food to survive.

In many countries like the Sudan, Kenya and Bangladesh, millions of people have already become climate refugees, abandoning their homes and countries because sustaining life there is no longer possible. Climate disasters are mounting in on virtually every continent. Record breaking heat in our East and South, unprecedented flooding in Tennessee and Iowa, and a chronic, deepening drought in the Western US have given us just a taste of the misery other countries are now enduring.

This summer's events fit exactly the scientists' projections of more frequent and more intense extreme weather events due to global warming. Notwithstanding the Kool Aid being broadcast at Fox News, even "snowmageddon" fits into the models of a human caused climate crisis.

Last year the lead article in the Lancet, one of the world's most prestigious medical journals, written by 29 distinguished medical scientists called the climate consequences of the greenhouse gas phenomenon, "The biggest global health threat of the 21st century," and will "put the lives and well being of billions of people at increased risk." The report goes on to state that, "Even the most conservative estimates are profoundly disturbing and demand action. Less conservative climate scenarios are so catastrophic that adaptation might be unachievable." The authors said "what is needed now is a public health movement that frames the threat of the climate crisis for humankind as a health issue."

Note these words from the president of the World Medical Association. "Climate change represents an inevitable, massive threat to global health that will likely eclipse the major known pandemics as the leading cause of death and disease in the 21st century."

TheLancet.com

20 million Pakistanis are now homeless because of flooding from monsoon rains. Flooding in China has killed thousands. Desperation, starvation and diseases like cholera are inevitable. Crops in Russia, China and Pakistan and many other countries have been devastated, causing suspension of grain exports and price spikes. Millions who struggle to feed themselves in a normal climate will be unable to afford enough food to survive.

Obviously the only possible cause is the CO2 we release. These things have never happened before.
Obviously the only solution is to give government even more control over our economy.
$9 a gallon gasoline would be a good first step.

 

[Saigon]

Doesn't sound like the science is settled.

Um.....what?

So you think because the weather hasn't changed in the past week all of the studies and analysis would have stopped?

Research will be done, and should be done, on the climate for as long as people live on the earth.

 

[Saigon]

Obviously the only solution is to give government even more control over our economy.

And this is happening...where?

How does investing more in nuclear and tidal mean "more control over our economy"?

Which countries do you mean?

In the UK? Germany?

 

[skookerasbil]

Doesn't sound like the science is settled.

Um.....what?

So you think because the weather hasn't changed in the past week all of the studies and analysis would have stopped?

Research will be done, and should be done, on the climate for as long as people live on the earth.

And the impact is squat s0n. Squat. Show me the significant environmental legislation over the past 4 years curbing carbon emmissions??

Remember Cap and Trade???





You dolts can post up 1 million links about greenhouse gases having effects on temperatures. WOnt do jack shit. Now.............if we see people jet skiiing on ALaskan lakes in the middle of January for 3 or 4 weeks,, now ya might have something.




Stupid fucks!!!

 

[Liability]

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

I don't see science as being a political issue.

Science isn't a political issue.
Twisting the data to achieve your political aim is when it becomes political.

Yes, I'd agree with that. It's a good response.

So let's ignore ay science prepared by, or funded by, the solar, wind, nuclear and coal industries.

I'm looking at a link which lists 800+ peer-reviewed studies, all of which confirm that human acitivity likely plays some role in climate change.

As far as I am aware, not one of the studies has ever been faulted, accused of fraud, maniuplation or sloppy science.

These findings have been crucial in convincing the worlds 50 major scientific bodies of climate change.

Are we agreed so far?

So let's ignore ay science prepared by, or funded by, the solar, wind, nuclear and coal industries.

Yes, in any case where they twist, omit or falsify data.

I'm looking at a link which lists 800+ peer-reviewed studies, all of which confirm that human acitivity likely plays some role in climate change.


Likely...some...

Sounds like we need more study. Doesn't sound like the science is settled.
Certainly doesn't sound like we need to spend trillions to, under the warmists best case, stop 0.2 degrees of warming in 2080.

As far as I am aware, not one of the studies has ever been faulted, accused of fraud, maniuplation or sloppy science.

OMG! That's funny. Did the hockey stick somehow minimize or erase the MWP?
Did the Climategate e-mails not show cases of blocking opposing authors from being published? Data that didn't fit the prediction being manipulated with "Mike's nature trick" to hide the decline?

EXCELLENT response. I particularly enjoyed your summary dismissal (in bold and blue) of his attempted diversion.

 

[Saigon]

EXCELLENT response. I particularly enjoyed your summary dismissal (in bold and blue) of his attempted diversion.

Indeed - some of the twisting of facts coming out of the oil and coal industries have been appalling - as obviously Todd is well aware.

 

[skookerasbil]

Going green can cost too much green - USATODAY.com



Ooooooooooooooooops!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

The Hidden Cost of Going Green - SmartMoney.com

 

[skookerasbil]

How Much Does It Cost to Go Green? The Answer is $45 trillion - NYTimes.com



Chances???




Egg

( ps,....the UN says it more like 76 trillion)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Doesn't sound like the science is settled.

Um.....what?

So you think because the weather hasn't changed in the past week all of the studies and analysis would have stopped?

Research will be done, and should be done, on the climate for as long as people live on the earth.

The warmists keep claiming the science is settled.
They are wrong.
Can I simplify it any further for you?

 

[Saigon]

The warmists keep claiming the science is settled.

What on earth are you talking about?

Who claimed that?

Where are your links to back that up?