Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@oralloy,

Quote:

I've repeatedly provided evidence of a scientific journal suppressing data that conflicts with the leftist narrative.

No. You've repeatedly made this claim, that's all. Saying something again and again doesn't mean it's true. You label the data you don't like as being part of some unproven leftist narrative and then try to foist data from an unproven (and widely disregarded) rightist narrative!

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

o. What you have done is made questionable allegations and evidence-free implications about why one shaky article which drew conclusions that further research diksagreed with was tuned down for ppublication,

There is nothing questionable about the allegations. There is evidence that the data was being suppressed.

MontereyJack wrote:

from which with no evidence you reject data from which tenuous foundation you reject data from hundreds of researchers in a variety of fields with a multitude of different ways to get that data, with no connection from the journal in the first place,

Since it is clear that the data is skewed, it is proper that it is rejected.

Science is not supposed to cover up "inconvenient" data. Science is supposed to take all data into account.

MontereyJack wrote:

You have never had a case here.

That is incorrect. I've presented evidence that data is being suppressed when it contradicts the leftist narrative.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

No. You've repeatedly made this claim, that's all.

Wrong again. I've repeatedly provided evidence.

hightor wrote:

You label the data you don't like as being part of some unproven leftist narrative

Cherry-picked data is unreliable. However, I don't recall applying such a label to it.

hightor wrote:

and then try to foist data from an unproven (and widely disregarded) rightist narrative!

I've not offered any data. I am not responsible for posts that exist only in leftist hallucinations.

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

How the **** would I know what their "motivations" were?

Well let's see. Why were parts that were in the approved report deleted from the published version? Let's look at what was deleted, and maybe we can find a clue there.
____________________________________________________

-- "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

-- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

-- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
____________________________________________________

I think that if the goal was to convince critical thinking-challenged folks like yourself that the sky is falling, then those omissions would certainly go a long way to that end.

You remind me a lot of the Sierra representative in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quOw4dI4Apw

Quote:

Given the preponderance of evidence the most charitable explanation is that they were simply mistaken.

They were deleted because they didn't support the bullshit.

Quote:

Unlike Glennn, I'm not a respected climatologist.

I'm not a climate scientist. What I did was quote some scientists who've made it clear that Cook misrepresented them by fraudulently using their Papers as an endorsement of anthropogenic global warming. It would appear that, not unlike others here, you believe that a meaningless sarcastic jab is a good substitute for actually rebutting the points I'm making.

Now, tell me how many scientists make up the 97% consensus that anthropogenic co2 is dangerous.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

I don't really care about your life, mind you, but it is factually true that I would be surprise me if you were married.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

"Not being gullible" is hardly a trust issue.

In your case, the people you choose to mistrust are good and smart people whose knowledge you fail to benefit from, because you have these trust issues. You cannot allow yourself to trust scientists, and that's your problem, not theirs.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
"Not being gullible" is hardly a trust issue.

In your case, the people you choose to mistrust are good and smart people whose knowledge you fail to benefit from, because you have these trust issues. You cannot allow yourself to trust scientists, and that's your problem, not theirs.

Not trusting scientists isn't the problem.

The problem is trusting denial to the point of staking the well-being of future generations on it.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Conclusions:

Increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, rather than causing global warming, are symptomatic of particulate-pollution-caused global warming. The Anthropocene idea cannot be justified by anthropogenic CO2. Instead the Anthropocene is better characterized by anthropogenic particulate pollution. A drastic reduction in particulate-pollutant emissions will be followed by a rapid and drastic reduction in global warming, as tropospheric pollution-particulates fall to ground in days to weeks, thus increasing atmospheric convection efficiency and potentially providing a radical solution to the global climate crisis. Moreover, reduction of particulate-pollution, the greatest environmental health-threat, will potentially save millions of lives and reduce the suffering of many more.

http://www.nuclearplanet.com/ac1.pdf

Why don't you read this and tell me what it supports? Also, tell me how many scientists make up the 97% consensus that anthropogenic co2 is dangerous.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

In your case, the people you choose to mistrust are good and smart people whose knowledge you fail to benefit from,

Bad data hardly leads to knowledge.

Olivier5 wrote:

because you have these trust issues.

"Not being gullible" is hardly a trust issue.

It is more than reasonable to discount conclusions that are based on data that is clearly unreliable.

Olivier5 wrote:

You cannot allow yourself to trust scientists, and that's your problem, not theirs.

It's certainly no problem for me.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

The problem is trusting denial to the point of staking the well-being of future generations on it.

I agree. And from that standpoint, oral, glenn and the likes are very gullible...

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You are gullible. You just trust the wrong people, the liars. That is a proof of stupidity, mind you...

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, rather than causing global warming, are symptomatic of particulate-pollution-caused global warming.

This is a complex claim. It may be true in some sense if you would flesh out all the mechanisms for both CO2 levels and other particulate pollution, but in another way it's obviously false because CO2 is more reflective of infrared than other atmospheric gases and rising CO2 levels aren't caused by warming due to particulate pollution.

In short, the bigger picture is that no matter how clean the air is otherwise, you can't keep stripping the land of carbon-absorbing trees and organisms and converting underground fossil-fuels into atmospheric CO2 and not expect that to change the climate.

Quote:

The Anthropocene idea cannot be justified by anthropogenic CO2. Instead the Anthropocene is better characterized by anthropogenic particulate pollution. A drastic reduction in particulate-pollutant emissions will be followed by a rapid and drastic reduction in global warming, as tropospheric pollution-particulates fall to ground in days to weeks, thus increasing atmospheric convection efficiency and potentially providing a radical solution to the global climate crisis. Moreover, reduction of particulate-pollution, the greatest environmental health-threat, will potentially save millions of lives and reduce the suffering of many more[/i].

I'm sure that changing the levels of other pollutant besides CO2 could have an effect without doing anything about CO2 itself, but CO2 would still cause problems in the long term either way. Earth evolved to absorb carbon and energy as trees and other living organisms that sediment into fossilized forms of carbon/fuel.

The natural carbon cycle has evolved along with every other aspect of the planet, so it wouldn't make sense if humans could totally alter it without altering the climate both above ground, in the oceans, and underground in the mantle. All these systems are interconnected and affect each other, just as pollution from a river will affect ocean life as the pollution flows out to sea.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I agree. And from that standpoint, oral, glenn and the likes are very gullible...

I've never placed any such trust in denial.

It is dishonorable of you to misrepresent people's positions.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

You are gullible. You just trust the wrong people, the liars. That is a proof of stupidity, mind you...

You cannot establish that any side on this issue is lying. You also cannot provide any examples of me trusting any side on this issue.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

rising CO2 levels aren't caused by warming due to particulate pollution.

Okay, now show me something that verifies that all of the predictions touted by global warming alarmists have come to pass.

As UK scientist Philip Stott notes:

“In essence, the Earth has been given a 10-year survival warning regularly for the last fifty or so years. …Our post-modern period of climate change angst can probably be traced back to the late-1960s…By 1973, and the ‘global cooling’ scare, it was in full swing, with predictions of the imminent collapse of the world within ten to twenty years…Environmentalists were warning that, by the year 2000, the population of the US would have fallen to only 22 million. In 1987, the scare abruptly changed to ‘global warming’, and the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was established (1988)…”
_________________________________________________________________________

A central flaw to the computer models cited by the IPCC is the fact that they are purely theoretical models and not real. The hypothesis depends entirely on computer models generating scenarios of the future, with no empirical records that can verify either these models or their flawed prediction. As one scientific study concluded:

“The computer climate models upon which “human-caused global warming” is based have substantial uncertainties and are markedly unreliable. This is not surprising, since the climate is a coupled, non-linear dynamical system. It is very complex.”
_________________________________________________________________________________

So what I would like you to do is to produce something to show how many scientists make up the bullshit 97% consensus relied upon by global warming alarmists.

Also, please cite a source that supplies us with the number of the scientists who have stated that global warming from anthropogenic causes is dangerous.

An Australian IT expert and independent researcher, John McLean, recently did a detailed analysis of the IPCC climate report. He notes that HadCRUT4 is the primary dataset used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to make its dramatic claims about “man-made global warming”, to justify its demands for trillions of dollars to be spent on “combating climate change.” But McLean points to egregious errors in the HadCRUT4 used by IPCC. He notes, “It’s very careless and amateur. About the standard of a first-year university student.” Among the errors, he cites places where temperature “averages were calculated from next to no information. For two years, the temperatures over land in the Southern Hemisphere were estimated from just one site in Indonesia.” In another place he found that for the Caribbean island, St Kitts temperature was recorded at 0 degrees C for a whole month, on two occasions. TheHadCRUT4 dataset is a joint production of the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. This was the group at East Anglia that was exposed several years ago for the notorious Climategate scandals of faking data and deleting embarrassing emails to hide it. Mainstream media promptly buried the story, turning attention instead on “who illegally hacked East Anglia emails.”

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
rising CO2 levels aren't caused by warming due to particulate pollution.

Okay, now show me something that verifies that all of the predictions touted by global warming alarmists have come to pass.

First, you're jumping around instead of sticking with a single issue. You posted about the relationship between CO2-warming and particulate pollution, and now you are talking about verifying all the predictions ever made regarding climate warming.

Second, no claim or number of claims regarding climate prove that climate change/warming is false. If that were the case, then anyone who ever wanted to squelch a theory could pose as a supporter and make false predictions. E.g. if you wanted to undermine the theory of evolution, you could get a bunch of people to make stupid predictions like that humans would evolve wings, gills, etc. and then point at all those predictions being false as proof that evolution is fake science.

Quote:

As UK scientist Philip Stott notes:

“In essence, the Earth has been given a 10-year survival warning regularly for the last fifty or so years. …Our post-modern period of climate change angst can probably be traced back to the late-1960s…By 1973, and the ‘global cooling’ scare, it was in full swing, with predictions of the imminent collapse of the world within ten to twenty years…Environmentalists were warning that, by the year 2000, the population of the US would have fallen to only 22 million. In 1987, the scare abruptly changed to ‘global warming’, and the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was established (1988)…”

The bottom line is that things are changing and we should do our best to predict the future and, when we discover potential pitfalls, we should look at how present causes can be changed to avoid those pitfalls.

The above-quoted 'Phillip Stott' post has no other effect besides generally shedding doubt on scientifically-grounded attempts to inform how humans should change our ways to prevent harm to future generations. It may be wise to understand that future-vision is always necessarily subject to revision when new information is available, but that doesn't mean you should dismiss all attempts at foreseeing future problems as dumb alarmism.

Quote:

A central flaw to the computer models cited by the IPCC is the fact that they are purely theoretical models and not real. The hypothesis depends entirely on computer models generating scenarios of the future, with no empirical records that can verify either these models or their flawed prediction. As one scientific study concluded:

“The computer climate models upon which “human-caused global warming” is based have substantial uncertainties and are markedly unreliable. This is not surprising, since the climate is a coupled, non-linear dynamical system. It is very complex.”

This is true. When evaluating a computer model or any other theory or model, you should think critically about how the model would change given changes in the information the model/theory is based on. That is true for all models and theories, not just some and not others.

Quote:

So what I would like you to do is to produce something to show how many scientists make up the bullshit 97% consensus relied upon by global warming alarmists.

It doesn't matter whether there is 99% percent consensus on something or 0.9% in determining validity. If 99% of some population believe 2+2=5, it still isn't; and vice-versa if only 0.9% believe 2+2=4, it still does.

There is a relationship between what humans and other species do to the planet and how climate functions. The question is how things are related to climate, not whether they are or not.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Second, no claim or number of claims regarding climate prove that climate change/warming is false.

You are being asked to cite a source to verify how many scientists made up the 97% consensus that global warming is dangerous. Produce that, and then we can analyze what was said, and who said it.

Quote:

The above-quoted 'Phillip Stott' post has no other effect besides generally shedding doubt on scientifically-grounded attempts to inform how humans should change our ways to prevent harm to future generations.

Sheds doubt? Yeah, whenever conclusions are drawn by faulty computer models that fail to make accurate predictions, doubt sure does enter the picture, doesn't it? And rightly so!

Here is a compilation of the global warming alarmists attempt to turn fiction into reality:

1864 Tipping Point Warns of “Climatic Excess”

“As early as 1864 George Perkins Marsh, sometimes said to be the father of American ecology, warned that the earth was ‘fast becoming an unfit home for its “noblest inhabitant,”’ and that unless men changed their ways it would be reduced ‘to such a condition of impoverished productiveness, of shattered surface, of climatic excess, as to threaten the deprivation, barbarism, and perhaps even extinction of the species.’” —MIT professor Leo Marx

The climate change scare campaign has always relied on arbitrary deadlines, dates by which we must act before it’s too late. Global warming advocates have drawn many lines in the sand, claiming that we must act to solve global warming—or else.

“We are running out of time. We have to get an ambitious global agreement,” warned then–UN climate chief Christiana Figueres at the 2014 People’s Climate March. “This is a huge crisis.”

At the UN climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009, Al Gore sought UN climate agreement—immediately. “We have to do it this year. Not next year, this year,” he demanded. “And of course the clock is ticking because Mother Nature does not do bailouts.”

Gore has warned repeatedly of the coming tipping point. Climate change “can cross a tipping point and suddenly shift into high gear,” the former vice president claimed in 2006.

Laurie David, the producer of Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth, said in 2007 that “we have to have action we have to do something right now to stop global warming.”

Prince Charles has also warned that time is running out. “We should compare the planet under threat of climate change to a sick patient,” urged the heir to the British throne. “I fear there is not a moment to lose.”

“The clock is ticking. . . . Scientists believe that we have ten years to bring emissions under control to prevent a catastrophe,” reported ABC News.

But these “tipping points” and “last chance” claims now have a long history. The United Nations alone has spent more than a quarter of a century announcing a series of ever-shifting deadlines by which the world must act or face disaster from anthropogenic climate change.

Deadlines come and go:

Recently, in 2014, the United Nations declared a climate “tipping point” by which the world must act to avoid dangerous global warming. “The world now has a rough deadline for action on climate change. Nations need to take aggressive action in the next 15 years to cut carbon emissions, in order to forestall the worst effects of global warming, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” reported the Boston Globe.

But way back in 1982, the UN had announced a two-decade tipping point for action on environmental issues. Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), warned on May 11, 1982, that the “world faces an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades unless governments act now.” According to Tolba, lack of action would bring “by the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.”

In 1989, the UN was still trying to sell that “tipping point” to the public. According to a July 5, 1989, article in the San Jose Mercury News, Noel Brown, the then-director of the New York office of UNEP was warning of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming. According to the Herald, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”

1 Reply

Furthermore, John Mclean analyzed the data set used by the IPCC to arrive at their alarmist position.

“It’s very careless and amateur,” he says. “About the standard of a first-year university student.”

Among the many errors found by McLean were:

Large gaps where there is no data and where instead averages were calculated from next to no information. For two years, the temperatures over land in the Southern Hemisphere were estimated from just one site in Indonesia.

Almost no quality control, with misspelled country names (‘Venezuala” “Hawaai” “Republic of K” (aka South Korea) and sloppy, obviously inaccurate entries.

Adjustments – “I wouldn’t be surprised to find that more than 50 percent of adjustments were incorrect,” says McLean – which artificially cool earlier temperatures and warm later ones, giving an exaggerated impression of the rate of global warming.

Methodology so inconsistent that measurements didn’t even have a reliable policy on variables like Daylight Saving Time.

Sea measurements, supposedly from ships, but mistakenly logged up to 50 miles inland.

A Caribbean island – St Kitts – where the temperature was recorded at 0 degrees C for a whole month, on two occasions (somewhat implausibly for the tropics)

A town in Romania which in September 1953, allegedly experienced a month where the average temperature dropped to minus 46 degrees C (when the typical average for that month is 10 degrees C).

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

You are being asked to cite a source to verify how many scientists made up the 97% consensus that global warming is dangerous. Produce that, and then we can analyze what was said, and who said it.

I never posted anything about any 'consensus.' I think you're responding to some other post(s) that you think were mine.

I told you what the relationship is between consensus and truth. Nothing more to argue about that.

Quote:

Sheds doubt? Yeah, whenever conclusions are drawn by faulty computer models that fail to make accurate predictions, doubt sure does enter the picture, doesn't it? And rightly so!

Great, you've achieved doubt. Now go beyond negative reactions and explain your view about how the actions of humans and other species relate to climate.

Do you think climate is something that happens independently of what's going on in the biosphere?

Quote:

The climate change scare campaign has always relied on arbitrary deadlines, dates by which we must act before it’s too late. Global warming advocates have drawn many lines in the sand, claiming that we must act to solve global warming—or else.

If you have a million dollars in the bank and yet you overspend relative to your income, how soon must you get your spending under control before you put your wealth in jeopardy? Next week? Next year? Whenever you get around to it?

Quote:

“We are running out of time. We have to get an ambitious global agreement,” warned then–UN climate chief Christiana Figueres at the 2014 People’s Climate March. “This is a huge crisis.”

How would you motivate people to start working on a problem that will ruin the planet and life for future generations if we don't stop causing it?

Quote:

At the UN climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009, Al Gore sought UN climate agreement—immediately. “We have to do it this year. Not next year, this year,” he demanded. “And of course the clock is ticking because Mother Nature does not do bailouts.”

And your view is that you have a little while to procrastinate before things get dire?

Quote:

Gore has warned repeatedly of the coming tipping point. Climate change “can cross a tipping point and suddenly shift into high gear,” the former vice president claimed in 2006.

That's because the arctic tundra starts leaking melted methane gas at a certain point, which is also a greenhouse gas that will compound warming effects together with other greenhouse gases.

Quote:

Laurie David, the producer of Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth, said in 2007 that “we have to have action we have to do something right now to stop global warming.”

What is wrong with that? What better time to start living right than the present?

Quote:

Prince Charles has also warned that time is running out. “We should compare the planet under threat of climate change to a sick patient,” urged the heir to the British throne. “I fear there is not a moment to lose.”

The planet is addicted to overspending its carbon/energy budget. The faster we get that spending under control and restore the land to re-absorb carbon to its full capacity, the sooner we can heal and look forward to billions of years on a healthy Earth.

Quote:

But these “tipping points” and “last chance” claims now have a long history. The United Nations alone has spent more than a quarter of a century announcing a series of ever-shifting deadlines by which the world must act or face disaster from anthropogenic climate change.

Deadlines come and go:

Deadlines are indeed worse than simply reforming ASAP, i.e. starting right away and putting as much effort as possible into achieving a sustainable biosphere.

Quote:

Recently, in 2014, the United Nations declared a climate “tipping point” by which the world must act to avoid dangerous global warming. “The world now has a rough deadline for action on climate change. Nations need to take aggressive action in the next 15 years to cut carbon emissions, in order to forestall the worst effects of global warming, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” reported the Boston Globe.

But way back in 1982, the UN had announced a two-decade tipping point for action on environmental issues. Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), warned on May 11, 1982, that the “world faces an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades unless governments act now.” According to Tolba, lack of action would bring “by the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.”

In 1989, the UN was still trying to sell that “tipping point” to the public. According to a July 5, 1989, article in the San Jose Mercury News, Noel Brown, the then-director of the New York office of UNEP was warning of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming. According to the Herald, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”

Basically you're just complaining about deadlines and different/changing POVs. What do you think, that there's going to be a point where everyone just says that we're done for and there's no point in trying to reform?

As long as we are alive, we should do whatever we can to restore the natural climate and hope and pray that it's not too late. You should never reach a point where you decide it's too late to bother and just give up trying.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

I never posted anything about any 'consensus

You are starting from a place of "I am right, and therefore what is wrong with doing something about what I am right about?" Let's see how that pans out.

You are being asked to provide the number of scientists who make up the 97% consensus concerning dangerous global warming. Can you cite a source to validate the notion that anthropogenic Co2 is dangerous? For instance, link me to scientific studies that lay out how the predicted dangers are occurring.

The fact is that none of the dire predictions from climate alarmists throughout the decades have come to pass. Reconcile that.

Also, are you of the opinion that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming? Conversely, are you of the opinion that global warming does not precede increases in Co2?

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know