8C is not even considered realistic by the IPCC report (they tend to believe 4C). Data suggests 1-2 C per century (it depends on whether the year ends on an el-nino spike). So, yeah, 8C rise and the subsequent sea rise is bs.
'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'
- Thread starter Namewithheld
- Start date
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
4th_floor
Dude, where's my laptop?
She is much more reasonable than the alarmists. I think her maximum CO2 concentration of 610 ppm by the end of this century is way too high, but as an extreme worst case - whatever that is - I can see how it provides a point of argument to engage (and enrage) the alarmists. The 2.6 C rise (we've already seen the first 1.0 rise - supposedly) is arguable as well. This is the type of argument that could convince some reasonable alarmists - if there are any - that the sky is not falling.
I expect her to be villified in public very soon. She must be a racist in order to not believe in catastrophic global warming.
4th_floor
Dude, where's my laptop?
Not a racist, just a nut job, is what I'm finding so far. I see that she is a vocal critic of climate science - not global warming, but climate science. No mention that she was a preeminent climate scientist at Ga. Tech. She's just another right wingnut.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Judith Curry resigned specifically because people were harassing her so bad. She might even have been a part of IPCC or some other organization like that. MOP from the early days would know.
There are others as well. That is one reason why "no one hears that global warming isn't a problem". Any voice that contradicts the chicken littles get marginalized quickly.
There are others as well. That is one reason why "no one hears that global warming isn't a problem". Any voice that contradicts the chicken littles get marginalized quickly.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Another guy talking about global warming but will never get 1 Federal dollar.
Get the facts straight | Bjorn Lomborg
Get the facts straight | Bjorn Lomborg
Seems like both Lomborg and Curry are both saying the same thing...CO2 is the culprit...so man does have a role in this.
1. Curry thinks the problem won't be as bad because supply side limitations on coal are going to be our saving grace
2. Lomborg says all the action to limit CO2 will not have as big an effect as we think
Are we really going to address GCC by arguing "peak coal" will keep us from producing too much CO2?
Or in Lomborg's case...Paris doesn't achieve much so kill it in its crib.
The GOP better figure out a moderate approach to recognizing and acting on this in a business realistic way or they are going to be left behind on this issue. Very large international banks are starting to write specific funding rules and lending policies that try to account for GCC. When conservative bankers and existing energy companies are planning based on this science, it seems to me that the politicians on the GOP side would be wise to recognize it is a reality.
1. Curry thinks the problem won't be as bad because supply side limitations on coal are going to be our saving grace
2. Lomborg says all the action to limit CO2 will not have as big an effect as we think
Are we really going to address GCC by arguing "peak coal" will keep us from producing too much CO2?
Or in Lomborg's case...Paris doesn't achieve much so kill it in its crib.
The GOP better figure out a moderate approach to recognizing and acting on this in a business realistic way or they are going to be left behind on this issue. Very large international banks are starting to write specific funding rules and lending policies that try to account for GCC. When conservative bankers and existing energy companies are planning based on this science, it seems to me that the politicians on the GOP side would be wise to recognize it is a reality.
Doing nothing beats 9 out of 10 options that the crazed leftists are proposing.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
How about 10 out of 10. You can't make an economic case for doing anything to reduce CO2 emissions.
How Government Bureaucrats and the New York Times Are Misleading the Public About Climate Change | Robert P. Murphy
How Government Bureaucrats and the New York Times Are Misleading the Public About Climate Change | Robert P. Murphy
A recent episode of Meet the Press is illustrative of what's wrong with the debate on climate change. Link. Chuck Todd made some righteous proclamation that he won't tolerate debate on the existence of climate change. Then he asked some scientists and politicians why so many rubes and stupid people still "deny" the phenomenon and what can be done to convince them. Of course, that invited all these people to whine about how terrible it is and how dangerous climate change is - glaciers melting, coastal flooding, etc. Basically, they all just sat around and agreed with each other.
A few things I've noticed about the issue. First, I've been watching shows like this since 1991. I've never seen the phenomenon of climate change (whether the climate is changing) debated on MTP or any comparable show. In the '90s, I saw some who were skeptical about proposed solutions, the severity of the problem, and levels of causation, but that's it. Since Al Gore became a major peddler of climate change alarmismv in the early 2000s, I've never even seen skeptics on any angle given a platform. So Todd's righteous stance is nothing new or unusual. He's basically handling the issue like every liberal mainstream journalist has for about 15 years.
Second, the bed-wetters he brought in aren't very smart. Academically they are, but logically they aren't. The real breakdown on this issue (or why they can't sell the "stupid people") is that for the most part, causation isn't discussed. We hear a lot of correlation - higher CO² levels and severe weather events (which we're not allowed to discuss when they don't support the climate change narrative). We don't hear much evidence actually linking the two. That is presumed rather than supported. When someone doesn't discuss or doesn't want to discuss a significant point, it's usually because that person's position is weak or at least weaker than the person wants you to think it is. And of course affirmatively saying, "we're not going to discuss this" is a sign of weakness, not strength.
Frankly, if Todd really wants to convince people, he shouldn't be licking the climate change alarmists' balls like he does. He should be challenging them. He should be making them explain themselves. When there are potential weak points (and there are many of them), he should bring them up. Pretending they don't exist or that they should be summarily dismissed rather than actually refuted doesn't help. When he's looking for a token Republican, don't bring on Carlos Curbelo. Bring on Ted Cruz. If he's so wrong, discredit him. Shouldn't be hard to do if the evidence is so wildly against him.
Third, we rarely hear about solutions or costs for the public and didn't hear about them on this show. When we hear about carbon taxes, alternative fuels, etc., normal people wonder how that will affect them. That virtually never gets discussed.
The point is that the advocates are trying to win an argument on credentials, ridicule, and bullying rather than on the merits. I'm not saying that they can't win it on the merits. I don't know either way. I'm saying that they're not trying to, and it's hurting their position with people who don't already agree with them.
A few things I've noticed about the issue. First, I've been watching shows like this since 1991. I've never seen the phenomenon of climate change (whether the climate is changing) debated on MTP or any comparable show. In the '90s, I saw some who were skeptical about proposed solutions, the severity of the problem, and levels of causation, but that's it. Since Al Gore became a major peddler of climate change alarmismv in the early 2000s, I've never even seen skeptics on any angle given a platform. So Todd's righteous stance is nothing new or unusual. He's basically handling the issue like every liberal mainstream journalist has for about 15 years.
Second, the bed-wetters he brought in aren't very smart. Academically they are, but logically they aren't. The real breakdown on this issue (or why they can't sell the "stupid people") is that for the most part, causation isn't discussed. We hear a lot of correlation - higher CO² levels and severe weather events (which we're not allowed to discuss when they don't support the climate change narrative). We don't hear much evidence actually linking the two. That is presumed rather than supported. When someone doesn't discuss or doesn't want to discuss a significant point, it's usually because that person's position is weak or at least weaker than the person wants you to think it is. And of course affirmatively saying, "we're not going to discuss this" is a sign of weakness, not strength.
Frankly, if Todd really wants to convince people, he shouldn't be licking the climate change alarmists' balls like he does. He should be challenging them. He should be making them explain themselves. When there are potential weak points (and there are many of them), he should bring them up. Pretending they don't exist or that they should be summarily dismissed rather than actually refuted doesn't help. When he's looking for a token Republican, don't bring on Carlos Curbelo. Bring on Ted Cruz. If he's so wrong, discredit him. Shouldn't be hard to do if the evidence is so wildly against him.
Third, we rarely hear about solutions or costs for the public and didn't hear about them on this show. When we hear about carbon taxes, alternative fuels, etc., normal people wonder how that will affect them. That virtually never gets discussed.
The point is that the advocates are trying to win an argument on credentials, ridicule, and bullying rather than on the merits. I'm not saying that they can't win it on the merits. I don't know either way. I'm saying that they're not trying to, and it's hurting their position with people who don't already agree with them.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
I watched 5 minutes of that. There was no real substantive talk. They just used "scientists" to say how bad anything is.
They even said that one of the current, severe problems with AGW was extreme weather. But they didn't bother to quantify events or storm intensity. They just made assertions that it was happening.
They essentially jumbled disparate facts together, pointed to them as evidence of AGW and its problems with logical link between, and stated what they wanted everyone to do about it. Any scientist should be embarrassed for using facts in such a sloppy and deceptive way.
They even said that one of the current, severe problems with AGW was extreme weather. But they didn't bother to quantify events or storm intensity. They just made assertions that it was happening.
They essentially jumbled disparate facts together, pointed to them as evidence of AGW and its problems with logical link between, and stated what they wanted everyone to do about it. Any scientist should be embarrassed for using facts in such a sloppy and deceptive way.
Nothing more than virtual signaling at this point. Like electric vehicles, it’s nothing more than niche marketing for the rich. It’s going to go nowhere. I don’t see how their side actually think they are going to win. It’s sort of like the blindness they had for Trump. Fortunately, doing nothing other than run of the mill innovation for the next 80 years is the best course.
The link between CO2 and severe weather isn’t supported by the IPCC. It’s more of a media narrative than a science one (like the Russian collusion by Trump).
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Why are there so many papers supporting AGW and catastrophy but such a little amount challenging it?
Let’s do follow the climate money!
Let’s do follow the climate money!
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
One thing I have always thought is that there many, many factors that influence climate and that CO2 amount is one probably small one. Here are 2 new factors that could have a huge effect.
Research sheds new light on what drove last, long-term global climate shift University of Exeter
Claim: Indonesian Mountain Ranges are Responsible for the Current Ice Age
Research sheds new light on what drove last, long-term global climate shift University of Exeter
Claim: Indonesian Mountain Ranges are Responsible for the Current Ice Age
And this is why I call myself an agnostic on climate change. It's a multi-trillion dollar issue per year. That's enough money to buy off politicians, bureaucrats, and "experts."
With everything I've seen and read over the past 15 years or so the one belief I have is that for the entire existence of Earth the climate has always changed. The one thing that hasn't been proven to me is to what level humans can control or affect the climate.
I still believe it's absurd for humans to think we can control Earths climate and that by changing our habits the Earth will warm or cool like we can switch a thermostat or something. The fact that these people throw random facts out and expect us to assume that if A exists then B must be true without anything to prove the link is getting really annoying.
If in fact the climate is warming, history suggest that will eventually flip the climate throwing us into an ice age relatively quickly over a few hundred years or less. We'd better spend more time and money figuring out how to survive that instead of thinking we can stop it.
I still believe it's absurd for humans to think we can control Earths climate and that by changing our habits the Earth will warm or cool like we can switch a thermostat or something. The fact that these people throw random facts out and expect us to assume that if A exists then B must be true without anything to prove the link is getting really annoying.
If in fact the climate is warming, history suggest that will eventually flip the climate throwing us into an ice age relatively quickly over a few hundred years or less. We'd better spend more time and money figuring out how to survive that instead of thinking we can stop it.
LongestHorn
2,500+ Posts
Warming is preferred. An ice age would starve billions of humans.
That's my point, the things I've read and seen indicate that continued warming somehow changes oceanic currents. That in turn flips the switch on a relatively quick cooling period resulting in an ice age. So, if the temp is rising we should be figuring out how to survive an ice age because there's nothing we can do to stop it.
Statalyzer
10,000+ Posts
I don't see how "recently _____ing" anything can demonstrate anything regarding cycles that can take eons to unfold.
Even if that’s fake, it’s funny, but maybe it’s real.
Last edited:
That is a weak argument. If we want to talk suspicious motivation for their findings, corporations have MUCH more skin in the game than scientist.
I'm not an advocate of dropping everything we currently do so we can throw the kitchen sink at the problem, but the "do nothing" stance of the Republicans is foolish.
It will soon become an issue that people will put at the top of their party affiliation, and if the GOP continues to sweep it under the rug, they will lose voters.
Even if this isn't a threat on the level that some scientist say, the failure of the anti-GW crowd to produce scientific data that refute it, will be a ongoing problem. We can't just continue say "nuh uh" and expect that it will be enough. A few more floods in Florida and that state will be lost to the GOP. There will be enough Climate Change believers that the balance of power will shift and the GOPs lack of data to refute the GW claim will do serious political harm.
We have the WH and the ability to ensure that one sided science doesn't rule the day. Do something with it.
4th_floor
Dude, where's my laptop?
I assume you are referring to skeptics of the anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) theory when you say the "anti-GW crowd". The way science normally works is that a hypothesis is offered with supporting data, and the data is peer reviewed to determine the validity of the hypothesis. The hypothesis is not assumed to be correct until it is proven wrong. The hypothesis can be invalid if the data is found to insufficiently support the hypothesis, or even if the integrity of the data comes under question.
The cold fusion hypothesis comes to mind, especially since it embarrassed aggy. Ha, ha. An experiment was done supporting cold fusion, and aggy repeated the experiment and claimed it worked as well. But no one else could obtain the same results. So the cold fusion hypothesis became just another aggy joke.
With AGW, the theory was advanced with "adjusted" data from an uncontrolled environment. When I say the data was adjusted, I'm saying datapoints that didn't fit the conclusion were rejected without documentation. It can be acceptable to reject data, if you provide justification as to why the data was rejected. For example, if you are collecting experimental data involving the temperature inside a refrigerator, it would be acceptable to reject data from times when the refrigerator door was opened.
The many scientists who called the holes in the data into question were not answered. Many of those who pressed for answers were personally attacked and called names. The scientists pushing the AGW hypothesis have consistently refused to provide the data they used to support the claim. This is the opposite of typical science. And then there is the Wikileaks release of the emails between many championing the AGW hypothesis. Many of these emails seemed to indicate the scientists were adjusting the data to hide periods of time that do not support AGW. There are many flaws in the data, but no one is allowed to question the hypothesis.
So it is ignorant to say that the "anti-GW crowd" has to prove its case when the original case has never been proven. There have been a number of scientists who have questioned the data including, Dr. Roy Spencer - Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Dr. Robert C. Balling – Former Director, Office of Climatology (U. of Az) Professor Tim Patterson – Dept. of Earth Science - Carlton University, Professor John Christy – IPCC Lead Author, and many others. But the questions about the data are ignored, because a good fraction of the ignorant public have been frightened by movies about AGW.
GW may damage houses near the coast in 100 years, but currently the left wants to tax the poor and the middle class to benefit the rich who live in million dollar mansions on the beach. Note the poor has no assets to lose. The rich have enough money to move their own house, or at least harden it against rising tides. Why involve the poor or middle class? Sensible solution is to do nothing until there is less uncertainty on the impacts of higher CO2 on the poor or middle class.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 0
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
