Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[ohmman]

That's why I post here. Engaging those who may differ on major issues is a good way to build trust between both sides.
Calling people deniers, dismissives, or idiots is not.
You get to choose what kind of human you want to be.

Which choice have you made?

lunacy of claims from climate alarmists

You are clearly letting your bias interfere with your brain function. Maybe it's a steady diet of soy and lack of meat?

For the CAGW crowd, it is their obsession and religion, and no amount of reason will hold sway.

Apparently reading is not your strong suit.

It's apparent to me that the lack of animal products in your diet has cause some cognitive issues.

Just as I thought. You are a science denier.

I'm beginning to think you are a little slow.

a weak, puny looking, vegan influencer

The more I study this climate alarmist movement, the more I see the telltale signs of pure propaganda,

The two biggest and most invested alarmists.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled doomsday cult meetings.

I think it's just the lack of nutrition that has you confused?

Self awareness is a valuable asset.

 

[Swampgator]

Which choice have you made?
























Self awareness is a valuable asset.

Yes, if you have noticed I try and not engage in that manner any longer.
And here you pop up to regulate me again

Anyhow, this is good reading, from some of the folks on "your" side:

https://grist.org/climate/is-the-climate-crisis-an-existential-threat-scientists-weigh-in/

 

[Swampgator]

Yes, if you have noticed I try and not engage in that manner any longer.
And here you pop up to regulate me again

Anyhow, this is good reading, from some of the folks on "your" side:

Climate change is a catastrophe. But is it an ‘existential threat’?

I'm working on it man.

 

[Swampgator]

Which choice have you made?
























Self awareness is a valuable asset.

Also, you will admit that when I am treated respectfully I respond in kind. When I am condescended to, or called a denier, I tend to hit back. But, I realize those are the times when I need to show the most restraint.

 

[ohmman]

Yes, if you have noticed I try and not engage in that manner any longer.
And here you pop up to regulate me again

Anyhow, this is good reading, from some of the folks on "your" side:

https://grist.org/climate/is-the-climate-crisis-an-existential-threat-scientists-weigh-in/

What is the cut-off date, for future reference? Because at least one of those quotes was from yesterday...

You complained of the term "deniers" last year, and I'll note that I stopped using it. You equated it to using the term "alarmists." Yet you continue to use that term. What good for the goose isn't good for the gander? Or how is that supposed to work? You'll excuse me for saying, but how it looks from the outside is like complete hypocrisy.

I agree with the article. You'll find that in this field, there is a spectrum of potential outcomes. The most extreme get the media attention, which is why casual observers think that the worst case outcome is the consensus. I tried to point that out to you earlier when you were (again) demonstrably wrong:

There are on one side those who claim that humans are 100% responsible for the warming that has occured since 1880 and that we must reverse course immediately or risk certain death and destruction. On the other side are those skeptical of that view.

I'm not sure why, but I get the feeling you're not listening.

Why am I here to "regulate" you again? Because you're not supposed to be posting until you admit you were wrong about the adjustments or show me why you were right. As I mentioned, anything else is obviously trolling.

 

[Swampgator]

What is the cut-off date, for future reference? Because at least one of those quotes was from yesterday...

You complained of the term "deniers" last year, and I'll note that I stopped using it. You equated it to using the term "alarmists." Yet you continue to use that term. What good for the goose isn't good for the gander? Or how is that supposed to work? You'll excuse me for saying, but how it looks from the outside is like complete hypocrisy.

I agree with the article. You'll find that in this field, there is a spectrum of potential outcomes. The most extreme get the media attention, which is why casual observers think that the worst case outcome is the consensus. I tried to point that out to you earlier when you were (again) demonstrably wrong:

I'm not sure why, but I get the feeling you're not listening.

Why am I here to "regulate" you again? Because you're not supposed to be posting until you admit you were wrong about the adjustments or show me why you were right. As I mentioned, anything else is obviously trolling.

I never said I would not post until I review the data adjustments. As you know well, this is a huge undertaking that will take me weeks (when I have spare time)
Maybe you were just hoping I would go away until that time?

Still you are right on my use of the term alarmist. I'm normally using it to try and describe a position of great alarm but I won't use it anymore. I'm sure you would prefer me to simply address those doomsday type as consensus, but since I do not know what the "consensus" means it becomes difficult to dialog. What term should I use for Greata/Gore/Mann type viewpoints? This is a serious question.

Anyhow, here is some vindication for one of my points directly from Hausfather:

Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading

And as always even though we disagree on some issues, you are most gracious.

 

[ohmman]

What term should I use for Greata/Gore/Mann type viewpoints? This is a serious question.

How about not using labels at all?

 

[Swampgator]

How about not using labels at all?

I'll try.

 

[Swampgator]

Judith Curry on Twitter

 

[Norbert]

(ohmman responding to Swampgator)

I'm not sure why, but I get the feeling you're not listening.

Why am I here to "regulate" you again? Because you're not supposed to be posting until you admit you were wrong about the adjustments or show me why you were right. As I mentioned, anything else is obviously trolling.

I'll support your embargo (at least for the time being)...

 

[mspohr]

Major science journal retracts study blaming climate change on the sun

A prominent scientific journal has retracted a study claiming that climate change was due to solar cycles rather than human activity.

Last year, Scientific Reports came under fire for publishing a paper that researchers said made elementary mistakes about how Earth moves around the sun.

The journal said that calculations show: “The Earth-sun distance varies over a timescale of a few centuries by substantially less than the amount reported in this article. As a result, the editors no longer have confidence in the conclusions presented.”

 

[kdcnnyc]

Judith Curry on Twitter

Honestly, I find the responses below her post exactly why skepticism on climate change is so dangerous. Too many people grab hold of this to say, "see? what are we worried about?" The posts that claim the warming is GOOD...and would make things GREENER which would offset the bad effects. I mean, really? Grist says it's a catastrophe but potentially not something that will wipe out all of human-kind. Okay, but to take that and say warming is good, and that all the science is bunk or some sort of conspiracy is truly missing the point.

And, if I may, depressing.

 

[EinSV]

While I completely disagree with the analysis from @Swampgator about the assessment of the urgency of the climate, and how to address it, I have learned many things from him. (e.g. Nuclear Power and it's potential to help the climate crisis)

I would no more waste my time with advice on how to address climate change from people who ignore the science of climate change than I would learn about astronomy from someone who believes the sun revolves around the earth.

Fossil fuel interests are promoting nuclear power as a (fake) climate change solution because it is extremely expensive, slow and controversial -- an excellent wedge issue that divides people who want to do something about the climate crisis.

It is a distraction that benefits them by slowing the transition to sustainable energy, which at its core requires "electrifying everything" (transportation, heat, industry, etc.) and replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy as quickly as possible. Cheap renewable energy, batteries and many forms of storage, and grid improvements make this feasible around the world, according to many peer reviewed scientific publications.

 

[Norbert]

Honestly, I find the responses below her post exactly why skepticism on climate change is so dangerous. Too many people grab hold of this to say, "see? what are we worried about?" The posts that claim the warming is GOOD...and would make things GREENER which would offset the bad effects. I mean, really? Grist says it's a catastrophe but potentially not something that will wipe out all of human-kind. Okay, but to take that and say warming is good, and that all the science is bunk or some sort of conspiracy is truly missing the point.

And, if I may, depressing.

You are barely scratching the surface. That's not a danger, that's how the game is played.

 

[kdcnnyc]

I would no more waste my time with advice on how to address climate change from people who ignore the science of climate change than I would learn about astronomy from someone who believes the sun revolves around the earth.

I understand for sure. Perhaps I'm still naive and not informed enough with the latest arguments but Michael Shellenberger seems to make a very good case as to why nuclear power can help mitigate our energy dependence. Especially with thorium sounding so promising! Then again, I did come across many articles like this: Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option

My father was an environmental physicist. I neither share his tremendous intellect on the matter, nor the time to investigate the latest science. But I do know he would always give people a chance to explain themselves. So I'm trying to at least gain from that. I'm sure, however, that many of my questions will come across as sophomoric at best.

 

[kdcnnyc]

You are barely scratching the surface. That's not a danger, that's how the game is played.

I dig that. But Judith Curry herself says she believes in climate change! Did people miss that? Or is she just hiding that now?

From the wiki page on her:

In his 2010 profile on Curry, Michael Lemonick notes that, though Curry does not dispute the science produced by the IPCC (e.g. that the planet is warming, that human greenhouse gas emissions are largely to blame, or that the worst-case scenario could be catastrophic), she has major critiques of the IPCC as an organization.

I can't help but wonder how she got to this place? She's obviously got great credentials. But why, or how, did she get so co-opted by the anti-climate change, pro-business group?

 

[Norbert]

And there we go...

 

[mspohr]

Focus on coronavirus shows need for climate law, says EU official

Even before the text was officially released, the climate activist Greta Thunberg and teenage school strike leaders across Europe gave a blistering verdict, accusing the commission of ignoring climate science.

Thunberg, who is meeting Von der Leyen, Timmermans and the rest of the commission’s top team, described the law as “surrender”. In an open letter, she said it failed to respect the goal of capping global heating at 1.5C above pre-industrial levels – an aspiration the EU signed up to in the 2015 Paris agreement.

“In November 2019 the European parliament declared a climate and environment emergency,” she said. “You stated that yes, the house is actually burning, this was no false alarm, but then you went back inside, finished your dinner and watched your movie and went to bed without even calling the fire department.

 

[mspohr]

'Individual actions do add up': Christiana Figueres on the climate crisis

'Individual actions do add up': Christiana Figueres on the climate crisis

Figueres and her former senior advisor Tom Rivett-Carnac, who was once a Buddhist monk, have written a book they pitch as “surprisingly optimistic”. It’s titled The Future We Choose: Surviving the Climate Crisis, and it offers two contrasting visions for how the world might look in 30 years. They also have a podcast, called Outrage and Optimism.

 

[mspohr]

This winter in Europe was hottest on record by far, say scientists

This winter in Europe was hottest on record by far, say scientists

This winter has been by far the hottest recorded in Europe, scientists have announced, with the climate crisis likely to have supercharged the heat.

The EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) data dates back to 1855. It said the average temperature for December, January and February was 1.4C above the previous winter record, which was set in 2015-16. New regional climate records are usually passed by only a fraction of a degree. Europe’s winter was 3.4C hotter than the average from 1981-2010.