Climate Change Denial

[drtimhill]

Groupthink

On Wokeness and Other Obstacles to Clear Thinking

That's it? That's all you can say? Zero response to any of the factual arguments, issues raised, or rebuttals? And you expect us to take anything you say seriously?

Has it occurred to you that you are taking a position shared by a group of people, none of whom (including you) can provide any valid rationale for that position. And that this is the very definition of "Groupthink"?

 

[SummerlinChiro]

Thought of you all

Ridley: Rejoice, the Earth Is Becoming Greener - HumanProgress

 

[Brando]

Thought of you all

Ridley: Rejoice, the Earth Is Becoming Greener - HumanProgress

As Atlantic warms, lobsters have left New York area moved up to Maine and Canada.
50 years ago Cod now gone and Lobster have moved North. not mentioned waste plastics
Lobster War: The Fight Over The World's Richest Fishing Grounds

 

[nwdiver]

Thought of you all

Ridley: Rejoice, the Earth Is Becoming Greener - HumanProgress

Well... at least the families of the ~200 killed due to the glacier collapse in India not to mention the millions of other people killed by the climate crisis caused by our pathetic addiction to fools fuel can take comfort in the fact that in places not ravaged by drought... some plants are growing a little faster....

By your 'logic' we should also all do meth... right? I mean... meth DOES make you a little more productive for a short period of time.

 

[mspohr]

Thought of you all

Ridley: Rejoice, the Earth Is Becoming Greener - HumanProgress

'Invisible killer': fossil fuels caused 8.7m deaths globally in 2018, research finds
An average of more than 30% of deaths in adults aged 14 and over in Eastern Asia are attributable to pollution from fossil fuels

Air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil was responsible for 8.7m deaths globally in 2018, a staggering one in five of all people who died that year, new research has found.

Countries with the most prodigious consumption of fossil fuels to power factories, homes and vehicles are suffering the highest death tolls, with the study finding more than one in 10 deaths in both the US and Europe were caused by the resulting pollution, along with nearly a third of deaths in eastern Asia, which includes China. Death rates in South America and Africa were significantly lowe

r.r.

 

[nwdiver]

'Invisible killer': fossil fuels caused 8.7m deaths globally in 2018, research finds
An average of more than 30% of deaths in adults aged 14 and over in Eastern Asia are attributable to pollution from fossil fuels

Air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil was responsible for 8.7m deaths globally in 2018, a staggering one in five of all people who died that year, new research has found.

Countries with the most prodigious consumption of fossil fuels to power factories, homes and vehicles are suffering the highest death tolls, with the study finding more than one in 10 deaths in both the US and Europe were caused by the resulting pollution, along with nearly a third of deaths in eastern Asia, which includes China. Death rates in South America and Africa were significantly lowe

r.r.

Well... sure.... but how is the foliage doing?

 

[mspohr]

Thought of you all

Ridley: Rejoice, the Earth Is Becoming Greener - HumanProgress

Climate crisis pushing great white sharks into new waters
The climate crisis is pushing great white sharks into new waters where they are causing populations of endangered wildlife to plunge, research has shown. Heating of the oceans, which reached a record level in 2020, has led young great white sharks to move 600km (373 miles) northwards off the coast of California since 2014, into waters that were previously too cold. Over that time there was a dramatic rise in sea otters killed by white sharks, with the number in Monterey Bay dropping by 86%.
Scientists hope the disruption to the habitat of a high-profile shark will highlight how global heating is pushing marine animals towards the poles and scrambling the species present in oceans’ ecosystems, with unpredictable and damaging consequences.

 

[Brando]

I don't think you can find any fish without Mercury - tallest mountain water or deepest ocean trenches.
Mostly from burning coal and the air is a global resource and so is rain which washes Mercury back to our globe.

Extra CO2 acidifying oceans.

Plastic found in most everything made and now in most everything alive.

I hope mankind changes his ways fast enough.

 

[SummerlinChiro]

That's it? That's all you can say? Zero response to any of the factual arguments, issues raised, or rebuttals? And you expect us to take anything you say seriously?

Has it occurred to you that you are taking a position shared by a group of people, none of whom (including you) can provide any valid rationale for that position. And that this is the very definition of "Groupthink"?

Wow, a climate alarmist accusing me of groupthink and being irrational... Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Every single prediction by the government experts on climate has been wrong. We were going to be ice-free in 1999, 2001, 2011, 2014, 2018, 2020...

Why would I listen to people who predictions are always wrong?

The alarmists who haven't acquainted themselves with the science are the groupthinkers.

Look at this board. I posted my initial post in the introductory forum, and my post got moved to "Climate Change Denial" -which in and of itself is a pejorative, trying to link AGW skeptics like myself in with holocaust deniers, that is an offensive smear if there ever was one.

I have never denied climate change, anyone familiar with the geological record understands the climate is constantly changing.

That same geological record is what refutes the assertions of the climate alarmists, who use science in name only as a propaganda tool.

Think people!

When the Vikings settle Greenland during the medieval warm period, Greenland was GREEN! As in not covered in ice like it is now... And yes, CO2 levels were lower then... Then the little ice age hit, and they were forced off due to the encroaching ice.

Just human history over the last four hundred years falsifies all the climate alarmist claims - there was major glacier retreats and warmings where people sailed the northwest passage in the 1850's and again in the early 1900's, all pre-industrialization and with lower CO2 levels.

I leave you with some video from the incomparable geologist and computer engineer, Tony Heller.

Those of you who wish to engage in debate, please actually debate.

Logical fallacies like Ad Hominem and Appeal to Authority just don't belong in a debate.

[/MEDIA]

 

[SummerlinChiro]

I don't think you can find any fish without Mercury - tallest mountain water or deepest ocean trenches.
Mostly from burning coal and the air is a global resource and so is rain which washes Mercury back to our globe.

Extra CO2 acidifying oceans.

Plastic found in most everything made and now in most everything alive.

I hope mankind changes his ways fast enough.

The vast majority Mercury in the atmosphere comes mostly from forest fires, it dwarves anything man puts in the air.

The ocean is not being acidified by increased CO2 levels!

1) It's not close to being acid
2) Corals and most ocean life evolved during the precambrian era, which had CO2 levels 6-7000 PPM, more than 10x higher than today

 

[nwdiver]

Wow, a climate alarmist accusing me of groupthink and being irrational... Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Every single prediction by the government experts on climate has been wrong. We were going to be ice-free in 1999, 2001, 2011, 2014, 2018, 2020...

Why would I listen to people who predictions are always wrong?

The alarmists who haven't acquainted themselves with the science are the groupthinkers.

Look at this board. I posted my initial post in the introductory forum, and my post got moved to "Climate Change Denial" -which in and of itself is a pejorative, trying to link AGW skeptics like myself in with holocaust deniers, that is an offensive smear if there ever was one.

I have never denied climate change, anyone familiar with the geological record understands the climate is constantly changing.

That same geological record is what refutes the assertions of the climate alarmists, who use science in name only as a propaganda tool.

Think people!

When the Vikings settle Greenland during the medieval warm period, Greenland was GREEN! As in not covered in ice like it is now... And yes, CO2 levels were lower then... Then the little ice age hit, and they were forced off due to the encroaching ice.

Just human history over the last four hundred years falsifies all the climate alarmist claims - there was major glacier retreats and warmings where people sailed the northwest passage in the 1850's and again in the early 1900's, all pre-industrialization and with lower CO2 levels.

I leave you with some video from the incomparable geologist and computer engineer, Tony Heller.

Those of you who wish to engage in debate, please actually debate.

Logical fallacies like Ad Hominem and Appeal to Authority just don't belong in a debate.

[/MEDIA]

.... have you figured out how microwaves work yet?

 

[nwdiver]

Why would I listen to people who predictions are always wrong?

Good question.... why DO you keep listening to people whose projections are wrong? OR to phase it another way... why do you refuse to listen to people whose predictions are mostly right?

Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?​

.... How do microwaves work?

​

 

[SummerlinChiro]

Good question.... why DO you keep listening to people whose projections are wrong? OR to phase it another way... why do you refuse to listen to people whose predictions are mostly right?

Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?​

View attachment 647627View attachment 647628View attachment 647629

.... How do microwaves work?

​

Fake News.

They adjusted the raw data to match their predictions. Raw data shows no warming last 100 years.

Also, notice that they start the graphs in the early seventies when we were cold. Back in the 70's the experts were predicting an ice age. I will never forget the this cover of Science News, I got one every every week; I was nine, and that issue scared me.

Tony Heller covers the NOAA/NASA database tampering better than anyone, see that here: Understanding NOAA US Temperature Fraud | Real Climate Science

This graph of Tony's illustrates the "adjustments" they did to the NOAA temp database. This is a simple comparison of the adjusted vs. raw temp data.

You can see that they cool the past, and warm the more recent times.

They never truly explained these adjustments to the data, and have never published their rationale in a peer-reviewed journal.

Now, think about this:

Urban encroachment on the weather stations over time causes them to read higher as we go forward in time. This means if you are going to try to "adjust" the data, you should warm the older data, and cool the newer data, which is exactly the opposite of what they did.

They have the scary apocalyptic narrative, and they adjust their data to match the narrative.

Change my mind.

 

[nwdiver]

They adjusted the raw data to match their predictions. Raw data shows no warming last 100 years.

??? No data was adjusted. If there's no warming then why are sea levels rising? Science says it's mostly due to thermal expansion of the ocean. If there's no warming how are the oceans thermally expanding? If it's not thermal expansion what's causing them to rise?

If the tales of global cooling scared you then you must recall WHY they said it would cool... so... WHY did they say it was going to cool? Please explain.

Also.... how to microwaves work?

 

[gavine]

Seems like someone here wants to continue further warming the planet because they are afraid of an ice age. Now I understand the motivation and will be more accepting. I disagree with the argument, but understanding the motivation behind it helps.

 

[TravelFree]

@TravelFree I believe that you might have misunderstood science and the meaning of consensus amongst scientists; perhaps that's why you had little faith in consensus. Consensus usually occurs after different lines of experimental data overwhelmingly point to the same conclusion. A consensus amongst scientists is as close to a fact as it gets in science. So If there is a consensus amongst scientists on climate change, it means that there is no credible data to the contrary and no real scientist would argue against it unless they bring new data to support (which I have done several times myself - going against the consensus with extraordinary data that my lab had gathered). So, yeah, it is a high bar to reach a consensus.

Oh I understand the consensus of data very well. You don't know my background and I don't know yours, but I will tell you that aside from teaching at the college level in marine science and oceanography, I have had many discussions with the consensus and the consensus of the data you reference as they did, is hand selected to build a foregone conclusion where they build date to support that conclusion. My side, and there are plenty of scientists on that side examine ALL the data and form a conclusion from the data. We don't ignore data because it doesn't support the agenda. That is the scientific method. When other evidence is considered, the agenda driven people will sometimes resort to anger and even name calling and often fall back on a popularity of opinion sometimes the agenda is money. Gotta go now, wife is calling, but I think you get the difference now, or maybe not???

 

[drtimhill]

Wow, a climate alarmist accusing me of groupthink and being irrational... Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Every single prediction by the government experts on climate has been wrong. We were going to be ice-free in 1999, 2001, 2011, 2014, 2018, 2020...

Why would I listen to people who predictions are always wrong?

The alarmists who haven't acquainted themselves with the science are the groupthinkers.

Look at this board. I posted my initial post in the introductory forum, and my post got moved to "Climate Change Denial" -which in and of itself is a pejorative, trying to link AGW skeptics like myself in with holocaust deniers, that is an offensive smear if there ever was one.

I have never denied climate change, anyone familiar with the geological record understands the climate is constantly changing.

That same geological record is what refutes the assertions of the climate alarmists, who use science in name only as a propaganda tool.

Think people!

When the Vikings settle Greenland during the medieval warm period, Greenland was GREEN! As in not covered in ice like it is now... And yes, CO2 levels were lower then... Then the little ice age hit, and they were forced off due to the encroaching ice.

Just human history over the last four hundred years falsifies all the climate alarmist claims - there was major glacier retreats and warmings where people sailed the northwest passage in the 1850's and again in the early 1900's, all pre-industrialization and with lower CO2 levels.

I leave you with some video from the incomparable geologist and computer engineer, Tony Heller.

Those of you who wish to engage in debate, please actually debate.

Logical fallacies like Ad Hominem and Appeal to Authority just don't belong in a debate.

I'll repeat what I said: That's it? That's all you can say? Zero response to any of the factual arguments, issues raised, or rebuttals? And you expect us to take anything you say seriously?

So, again, are you going to address any of the factual arguments against your position made in this thread? I cannot find any in the above post, apart from a curious note about Greenland which is factually incorrect. Go read the Wikipedia article which notes that it was named "Greenland" in an attempt to attract settlers (i.e. it was an early attempt at dubious marketing). It was never green.

 

[drtimhill]

Fake News.

They adjusted the raw data to match their predictions. Raw data shows no warming last 100 years.

Also, notice that they start the graphs in the early seventies when we were cold. Back in the 70's the experts were predicting an ice age. I will never forget the this cover of Science News, I got one every every week; I was nine, and that issue scared me.

Of course! Silly me. All the research that doesnt align with your world view is fake! In other news, the moon is made of cheese, the earth is flat, and covid is caused by 5G cell phone towers.

The fact is, you cannot debate by simply denying others arguments without presenting any rationale why your arguments are to be believed or are in some mystical way "better" than others. If you are simply going to dismiss others arguments out of hand as fake, you have no right to complain if others do that to you.

Where is this "raw data" that shows no warming in the last 100 years? How is it factual while other data is not? What criteria are you applying when deciding what is fact and what is fake? If your criteria is "data is factual when it agrees with my beliefs, otherwise fake" then you are not doing science, you are dealing in voodoo.

 

[patmurphey]

The main greenhouse gas is water vapor. It would do everyone a bit of good to actually look at the science instead of the alarmist propaganda spewed by politicians and the press. Just as an example of the "science" is that historically increased CO2 has a lagging correlation with warming periods. Another is that we are significantly below previous CO2 maximums (the climate did not "runaway"), and we are below the optimum level for plant life. Just saying...

There are really better places for this debate, because it can become heated and detract from the debate about the form of government support for EVs.

I am a proponent of replacing fossil fuels to the extent possible for reasons other than climate panic and plan to buy a Model Y this fall.

 

[nwdiver]

The main greenhouse gas is water vapor.

Water Vapor is a feedback not a forcing. The amount of water vapor is dependent on the amount of CO2. CO2 lags temperature in the climate record because until now the source of atmospheric CO2 has been outgassing from slightly warmer ocean water due to orbital cycles. Orbital shifts warm the planet a little. Warm water holds less gas than cold water, CO2 leaves the oceans and goes into the atmosphere where it turns a 0.5C warming into a ~10C warming.... with the help of its friend H2O since warmer air can hold more water vapor...

Sounds like you need to take your own advice and look at the science.