It's Time to Confront Climate Extremism

[lwf]

Alarmists preach this silly doctrine that man is in charge of Climate, yet is derelict or lazy in the duty alarmists believe is owed to others.
I am waiting on proof that man is in charge of climate. Man does not even control weather and that is the building block of climate.

It is futile to argue for climate change until it is proven man is in charge of climate.

Do you see a difference between "is in charge of" and "can affect?"

Do you think man can affect climate? If so, are we not "in charge of" what affect we have on the climate?

 

[Robertinfremont]

Do you see a difference between "is in charge of" and "can affect?"

Do you think man can affect climate? If so, are we not "in charge of" what affect we have on the climate?

If man affects his autos auto speed, how can it be said he is not in charge?

 

[lwf]

If man affects his autos auto speed, how can it be said he is not in charge?

So you don't think that human activity can have any effect on the climate?

 

[Robertinfremont]

So you don't think that human activity can have any effect on the climate?

Well if man runs around spreading clouds, hurls lightening bolts, then man has an effect.

 

[lwf]

Well if man runs around spreading clouds, hurls lightening bolts, then man has an effect.

Is that a "no," I take it?

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/03/causes-of-global-warming/

 

[longview]

Do you see a difference between "is in charge of" and "can affect?"

Do you think man can affect climate? If so, are we not "in charge of" what affect we have on the climate?

Human activity can affect the climate, the question is, to what extent, and is the process reversible?
The entire premise of IPCC, is that we cannot simply affect the climate, but we can control it, I.E. limit warming to X degrees.
Recent peer reviewed publications, find that regulations clearing aerosols, contributed to some of the observed warming since 1985.
Decadal Changes of the Reflected Solar Radiation and the Earth Energy Imbalance
We were already close to the edge of where the high amplification feedbacks were possible.
Any further deductions from CO2's attribution, would switch the feedbacks to negative.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Is that a "no," I take it?

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/03/causes-of-global-warming/

Take this. Well if man runs around spreading clouds, hurls lightening bolts, then man has an effect.

 

[vegas giants]

First way deniers try to distort the climate science

Science denial

This is the type of denial we are all familiar with: that the science of climate change is not settled. Deniers suggest climate change is just part of the natural cycle. Or that climate models are unreliable and too sensitive to carbon dioxide.

Some even suggest that CO₂ is such a small part of the atmosphere it cannot have a large heating affect. Or that climate scientists are fixing the data to show the climate is changing (a global conspiracy that would take thousands of scientists in more than a 100 countries to pull off).

All these arguments are false and there is a clear consensus among scientists about the causes of climate change. The climate models that predict global temperature rises have remained very similar over the last 30 years despite the huge increase in complexity, showing it is a robust outcome of the science.

Read more: Five climate change science misconceptions – debunked

Model reconstruction of global temperature since 1970. Average of the models in black with model range in grey compared to observational temperature records from NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, Cowtan and Way, and Berkeley Earth. Carbon Brief, CC BY

The shift in public opinion means that undermining the science will increasingly have little or no effect. So climate change deniers are switching to new tactics. One of Britain’s leading deniers, Nigel Lawson, the former UK chancellor, now agrees that humans are causing climate change, despite having founded the sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation in 2009.

It says it is “open-minded on the contested science of global warming, [but] is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated”. In other words, climate change is now about the cost not the science.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Is that a "no," I take it?

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/03/causes-of-global-warming/

Just to note the plain facts here, Yale Connections is an organization of journalists as opposed to a group of scientists.

 

[Robertinfremont]

First way deniers try to distort the climate science

Science denial

This is the type of denial we are all familiar with: that the science of climate change is not settled. Deniers suggest climate change is just part of the natural cycle. Or that climate models are unreliable and too sensitive to carbon dioxide.

Some even suggest that CO₂ is such a small part of the atmosphere it cannot have a large heating affect. Or that climate scientists are fixing the data to show the climate is changing (a global conspiracy that would take thousands of scientists in more than a 100 countries to pull off).

All these arguments are false and there is a clear consensus among scientists about the causes of climate change. The climate models that predict global temperature rises have remained very similar over the last 30 years despite the huge increase in complexity, showing it is a robust outcome of the science.

Read more: Five climate change science misconceptions – debunked

Model reconstruction of global temperature since 1970. Average of the models in black with model range in grey compared to observational temperature records from NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, Cowtan and Way, and Berkeley Earth. Carbon Brief, CC BY

The shift in public opinion means that undermining the science will increasingly have little or no effect. So climate change deniers are switching to new tactics. One of Britain’s leading deniers, Nigel Lawson, the former UK chancellor, now agrees that humans are causing climate change, despite having founded the sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation in 2009.

It says it is “open-minded on the contested science of global warming, [but] is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated”. In other words, climate change is now about the cost not the science.

Note for the record .... the tome above is opinion by groups of journalists. And the bulk of journalists has been reduced to a loyal cadre of Democrats.

The above is not science, it again is opinion.

Science does not include terms like debunked.

Science welcomes added information and disavows politics.

 

[vegas giants]

The second way deniers try to deny the AGW paradigm

. Economic denial

The idea that climate change is too expensive to fix is a more subtle form of climate denial. Economists, however, suggest we could fix climate change now by spending 1% of world GDP. Perhaps even less if the cost savings from improved human health and expansion of the global green economy are taken into account. But if we don’t act now, by 2050 it could cost over 20% of world GDP.

We should also remember that in 2018 the world generated US$86,000,000,000,000 and every year this World GDP grows by 3.5%. So setting aside just 1% to deal with climate change would make little overall difference and would save the world a huge amount of money. What the climate change deniers also forget to tell you is that they are protecting a fossil fuel industry that receives US$5.2 trillion in annual subsidies – which includes subsidised supply costs, tax breaks and environmental costs. This amounts to 6% of world GDP.

The International Monetary Fund estimates that efficient fossil fuel pricing would lower global carbon emissions by 28%, fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46%, and increase government revenue by 3.8% of the country’s GDP.

The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial

This is a re-post from The Conversation by Mark Maslin, Professor of Earth System Science, UCL

skepticalscience.com

 

[Robertinfremont]

This is how I size the earth conditions up.
A. Earth has a long history where the climate changed a lot. And the changes were not some creation of humans. For instance. The Arctic was once a lush green area. There was no ice on the water in the arctic circle. We know the massive mountains of ice in the South, in the Antarctic are on what was once a non ice region of earth.
We know that climate changes account for the former lush region now called the Sahara Desert. Man played no role.

B. The Earth has vast forces operating. Man is not in charge of vast forces. Any effect by man measures in the hundredths of a degree as opposed to tens or hundreds of degrees. Too little to worry over. The alarmists are good at alarming ..... themselves.

OH, this 97 percent always referred to? The question was replied to by very few and was posed to get a desired result, as opposed to being a geniune question posed.

For instance: Do you believe man has even the most tiny effect? YES
Ergo this is supposed to mean all scientists replied and of those 100 percent, and most scientists did not bother to reply, the 17 who said yes are the 97 percent spoken of.

 

[vegas giants]

This is how I size the earth conditions up.
A. Earth has a long history where the climate changed a lot. And the changes were not some creation of humans. For instance. The Arctic was once a lush green area. There was no ice on the water in the arctic circle. We know the massive mountains of ice in the South, in the Antarctic are on what was once a non ice region of earth.
We know that climate changes account for the former lush region now called the Sahara Desert. Man played no role.

B. The Earth has vast forces operating. Man is not in charge of vast forces. Any effect by man measures in the hundredths of a degree as opposed to tens or hundreds of degrees. Too little to worry over. The alarmists are good at alarming ..... themselves.

OH, this 97 percent always referred to? The question was replied to by very few and was posed to get a desired result, as opposed to being a geniune question posed.

For instance: Do you believe man has even the most tiny effect? YES
Ergo this is supposed to mean all scientists replied and of those 100 percent, and most scientists did not bother to reply, the 17 who said yes are the 97 percent spoken of.

Oh goody. We got how you size up climate science


Lol

 

[Robertinfremont]

The second way deniers try to deny the AGW paradigm

. Economic denial

The idea that climate change is too expensive to fix is a more subtle form of climate denial. Economists, however, suggest we could fix climate change now by spending 1% of world GDP. Perhaps even less if the cost savings from improved human health and expansion of the global green economy are taken into account. But if we don’t act now, by 2050 it could cost over 20% of world GDP.

We should also remember that in 2018 the world generated US$86,000,000,000,000 and every year this World GDP grows by 3.5%. So setting aside just 1% to deal with climate change would make little overall difference and would save the world a huge amount of money. What the climate change deniers also forget to tell you is that they are protecting a fossil fuel industry that receives US$5.2 trillion in annual subsidies – which includes subsidised supply costs, tax breaks and environmental costs. This amounts to 6% of world GDP.

The International Monetary Fund estimates that efficient fossil fuel pricing would lower global carbon emissions by 28%, fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46%, and increase government revenue by 3.8% of the country’s GDP.

The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial

This is a re-post from The Conversation by Mark Maslin, Professor of Earth System Science, UCL

skepticalscience.com

There are perhaps 2 schools of thinking on climate.
Alarmists who politically want you to change to what they want you to change to, ergo get rid of oil, get rid of autos using oil, ships that use oil, airplanes using oil and on and on.
The non alarmists who understand more about climate than given credit for who do not preach this end of Earth calamity scenario.
I am a non alarmist. I do not deny at any point that Climate changes.

Why Climate Alarmism Hurts Us All

There is no scientific basis for the claim that climate change will be apocalyptic, but there is growing evidence that climate alarmism is contributing to rising anxiety and depression among teenagers.

www.forbes.com

From the Senate of the USA.

https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4a86454f-4287-4d1c-ae5f-85a01b8c78b8/refuting-12-claims-made-by-climate-alarmists.pdf

From scientific authors

Climate Alarmism Versus the Scientific Method

Climate Change Weekly #365

www.heartland.org

Climate alarmists foiled

Climate Alarmists Foiled: No U.S. Warming Since 2005 | RealClearEnergy

When American climate alarmists claim to have witnessed the effects of global warming, they must be referring to a time beyond 14 years ago. That is because there has been no warming in the United...

www.realclearenergy.org

 

[Robertinfremont]

The second way deniers try to deny the AGW paradigm

. Economic denial

The idea that climate change is too expensive to fix is a more subtle form of climate denial. Economists, however, suggest we could fix climate change now by spending 1% of world GDP. Perhaps even less if the cost savings from improved human health and expansion of the global green economy are taken into account. But if we don’t act now, by 2050 it could cost over 20% of world GDP.

We should also remember that in 2018 the world generated US$86,000,000,000,000 and every year this World GDP grows by 3.5%. So setting aside just 1% to deal with climate change would make little overall difference and would save the world a huge amount of money. What the climate change deniers also forget to tell you is that they are protecting a fossil fuel industry that receives US$5.2 trillion in annual subsidies – which includes subsidised supply costs, tax breaks and environmental costs. This amounts to 6% of world GDP.

The International Monetary Fund estimates that efficient fossil fuel pricing would lower global carbon emissions by 28%, fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46%, and increase government revenue by 3.8% of the country’s GDP.

The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial

This is a re-post from The Conversation by Mark Maslin, Professor of Earth System Science, UCL

skepticalscience.com

There are perhaps 2 schools of thinking on climate.
Alarmists who politically want you to change to what they want you to change to, ergo get rid of oil, get rid of autos using oil, ships that use oil, airplanes using oil and on and on.
The non alarmists who understand more about climate than given credit for who do not preach this end of Earth calamity scenario.
I am a non alarmist. I do not deny at any point that Climate changes.

Why Climate Alarmism Hurts Us All

There is no scientific basis for the claim that climate change will be apocalyptic, but there is growing evidence that climate alarmism is contributing to rising anxiety and depression among teenagers.

www.forbes.com

From the Senate of the USA.

https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4a86454f-4287-4d1c-ae5f-85a01b8c78b8/refuting-12-claims-made-by-climate-alarmists.pdf

From scientific authors

Climate Alarmism Versus the Scientific Method

Climate Change Weekly #365

www.heartland.org

Climate alarmists foiled

Climate Alarmists Foiled: No U.S. Warming Since 2005 | RealClearEnergy

When American climate alarmists claim to have witnessed the effects of global warming, they must be referring to a time beyond 14 years ago. That is because there has been no warming in the United...

www.realclearenergy.org

 

[vegas giants]

There are perhaps 2 schools of thinking on climate.
Alarmists who politically want you to change to what they want you to change to, ergo get rid of oil, get rid of autos using oil, ships that use oil, airplanes using oil and on and on.
The non alarmists who understand more about climate than given credit for who do not preach this end of Earth calamity scenario.
I am a non alarmist. I do not deny at any point that Climate changes.

Why Climate Alarmism Hurts Us All

There is no scientific basis for the claim that climate change will be apocalyptic, but there is growing evidence that climate alarmism is contributing to rising anxiety and depression among teenagers.

www.forbes.com

From the Senate of the USA.

https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4a86454f-4287-4d1c-ae5f-85a01b8c78b8/refuting-12-claims-made-by-climate-alarmists.pdf

From scientific authors

Climate Alarmism Versus the Scientific Method

Climate Change Weekly #365

www.heartland.org

Climate alarmists foiled

Climate Alarmists Foiled: No U.S. Warming Since 2005 | RealClearEnergy

When American climate alarmists claim to have witnessed the effects of global warming, they must be referring to a time beyond 14 years ago. That is because there has been no warming in the United...

www.realclearenergy.org

The trump run NASA has these thoughts on climate change

Climate Change

NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[Robertinfremont]

Oh goody. We got how you size up climate science


Lol

Goody meaning
noun
INFORMAL

1. something attractive or desirable, especially something tasty or pleasant to eat.
   

exclamation

1. expressing childish delight.
   "goody, we can have a party"

 

[vegas giants]

Goody meaning
noun
INFORMAL

1. something attractive or desirable, especially something tasty or pleasant to eat.
   

exclamation

1. expressing childish delight.
   "goody, we can have a party"

That's nice

 

[Robertinfremont]

The trump run NASA has these thoughts on climate change

Climate Change

NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.

climate.nasa.gov

Trump goes to Houston to manage NASA? Starting when?

 

[vegas giants]

Trump goes to Houston to manage NASA? Starting when?

Trump is not the chief executive of the government and he did not appoint the head of NASA?????

 

[Robertinfremont]

Trump is not the chief executive of the government and he did not appoint the head of NASA?????

So you mean in the group known as NASA, there is some people there that discuss climate in a negative way. Trump may not have been to the NASA headquarter much less direct their day to day operations., This is called Government. Democrats call it democracy yet none of us ever got to vote on what NASA says to the public.

 

[vegas giants]

So you mean in the group known as NASA, there is some people there that discuss climate in a negative way. Trump may not have been to the NASA headquarter much less direct their day to day operations., This is called Government. Democrats call it democracy yet none of us ever got to vote on what NASA says to the public.

Yeah trump is pretty useless. He cant do anything. NASA has a massive website devoted to climate change and trump must accept it.

Hes like a helpless kitten

 

[lwf]

Just to note the plain facts here, Yale Connections is an organization of journalists as opposed to a group of scientists.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

[Jack Hays]

Bad science journalism
You’ve heard of ‘fake news’? Now we have ‘fake weather’
New scary (but bogus) weather term from the left-leaning media: “heat storm” comes from the Star Wars movie, but doesn’t happen on Earth Climate Depot has this story today: Introducing the ‘Heat Storm’: LA Times uses fictional term borrowed from Star Wars film series?! ‘Heat Storms’ ravaging California or Beware of the ‘heat storms’ in…

 

[Jack Hays]

The Climate Cult’s Brat Brigade
Posted on 20 Oct 20 by TONY THOMAS • 1 Comment
In the Iraq-Iran wars of the 1980s, Ayatollah Khomeini sent 12-year-old Iranian schoolchildren swarming into no-man’s-land to detonate the mines. The keen kids wore devotional slogans on red headbands and each carried a small metal key to open the gates of Paradise. The analogy with enrolling Australian kids as zero-emission fanatics is not perfect. The kids’ … Continue