Climate Change

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

I know that we're part of nature.

What I'm asking is, if this was a thread about someone who had raped and murdered a hundred children, would you have the same cavalier attitude? It's natural, the earth will be fine, no biggie! Or would you want to see this person punished, perhaps to try and drive towards a world where that doesn't happen?

I'm not stressed about this - I fully agree whatever's going to happen is going to happen. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work towards making what happens less painful for the beings currently living on earth.

Of course I'd punish the person who did those rapes and murders of those children. That's just in the human bubble we're in, you do what you have to do to survive and help make humanity cohesive and balanced.

There is no doubt in my mind your approach is honorable and respectful and yes we will do what we can to make this planet balanced again in some way. It's just in our DNA, but looking at the bigger picture, and thinking millions of years from now. The planet will be fine, it will revitalize itself and make new animals or plants who knows.

But your thinking is very honorable indeed. I have nothing against it.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Responses in the body of the quote, in yellow again.

Big love, man. Remember: Being paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you..

Edit: LOL

I already answered this in the statement you are replying too, and I think we agree that the "climate" is a complicated thing with forces at work that we've yet to discover.
Funny you posted that graph though as it is another shining example of how fucked up alarmist modeling is. Doesn't speak well for the "98% accuracy" of their 2006 predictions:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060307084500.htm

Somehow that filthy denier, Willie Soon was able to nail it:

You've already stated that you don't deny that we are indeed warming, so the accuracy of the model aside you have to account for it the extra heat somehow. Sounds like you're just saying that you don't know at the moment, Is that correct?

I'm not arrogant enough to absolutely "believe" theories.. Especially when they keep being forced to change from previous absolutes.
You scoff at the congressional report, but it would be dismissive to think that decades of cloud seeding and atmospheric manipulation aren't effecting anything, particularly water vapor.

To the point of your graph and data manipulation, it's funny how the current C02 spike doesn't have a corelating Ice core temperature rise like the past 800,000 years. Here is a graph from 2018, what's changed?

Oh we're onto cloud seeding now lol. I'm sure you realize that cloud seeding also has a reflective negative feedback to temperature. Please show me how cloud seeding has increased global temperature.

Also the Vostok ice cores were drilled 28 years ago I believe, how would they show recent warming?

When you say dropped, you must mean sematic games that don't really matter to the overall discussion, like a picture of a vineyard in norther Europe equating to a documented thriving wine and agricultural industry a thousand years ago. But, ok..

LOL, do you think there's only 1 vineyard in Northern Europe

Here's 10, in Denmark: https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attractions-g189512-Activities-c36-t132-Denmark.html
10 in Sweden: https://www.voguescandinavia.com/articles/10-outstanding-swedish-wineries-to-visit-right-now

Edit:
Here's 5 in Scotland https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attractions-g186485-Activities-c36-t132-Scotland.html

Where you said there were none. And once again the increased wheat production in Norway
https://graminor.no/plant-breeding/cereals/wheat/?lang=en

They are all using the same global data and models. Also, it's no secret that governments hold great sway over energy companies through subsidies, regulation, public leases etc. That coupled with academic pressure on the science community (also gubment funded) and the fact that Energy Titans are no idiots and have had decades to position themselves for the coming changes in technology and energy production. As the world progresses, so will they and their resistance will continue to subside.

Wait a minute, it was Exxon that developed their own CO2 climate models in the 70s and Shell later in the 80s. One of their largest endeavors was a research project equipping their largest supertanker Esso Atlantic with a laboratory and sensors to measure the absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans. They gathered their own data and developed their own models! So I ask, if scientists and their findings could easily be bought, why didn't Exxon pay their scientists to cook their numbers? They obviously didn't want this information public as they hid these results in obscure peer reviewed journals while their marketing arm obfuscated the issue.

Also in Russia, Putin controls the government and the nationalized industries like Gazprom and Lukoil. He and his cronies are the one that grant subsidies, regulation and public leases. Why are they on the climate change train when they can do what they want.

We are guessing as to what it was globally during the MWP. And we are guessing at global temperature average now.

It's not really guessing in the colloquial sense when scientists are using data and actual measurements to extrapolate temperatures

Actually, you tried to claim it was forested now and I said it was elevation related. We were both wrong. But I don't want to play that, it happens. And if historic record is any indicator, the trajectory will lead to forestation and eventually another ice age.

No that's not what I said, I stated that the Boreal forest has trees farther north. The area by Juneau is almost at sea level so elevation is not a factor here. It was forest in the MWP and will be forest again because of the warming trajectory.

The same as it ever was. Right now, scientists are being pushed to support the current paradigm (MMGW) but some are brave enough to try and speak out through the blackballing and establishment ridicule. All of the failed, hair on fire, modeling and disaster predictions will push it back toward the middle (it's not a good look) where the truth will be discovered. At least until we learn more.

If new data does overturn the current consensus it will be the scientific body that will move it based on that new data.

It was an old growth, hardwood forest during the MWP and it is tundra now. Somehow, people survived.

Oh yes and people will continue to survive now that conditions in this area are once again warming enough to support a future forest. I have no idea why this area was even brought up.

Everyone has their weaknesses. Your entire opinion on this matter is shaped by a community that has been caught faking data, deleting revealing communications, admitting activism and willingness to push a narrative at any cost, miserably failing at modeling attempts, sensationalizes weather events that further their goal and later screaming "that's the weather, not climate" when the weather disproves their predictions, all the while basking in the job security of billions in government funding.

You're right, everyone including the scientific community has their weaknesses and I'm sure there is some corruption or incompetence at some level in any field or human endeavor. That however doesn't take away from their accomplishments, the scientific community that you are trashing has brought us the modern civilization and the medium that we are communicating on now, the internet. That's why I believe them as whole, they bring results unlike your guys Deming and Heller.

No, ignoring the fact that a forest was present in the past where there is now tundra, or that historic records show thriving agriculture in northern Europe during the MWP because I mistakenly talked about elevation, or you found a picture of a Vineyard is "getting off in the weeds".
Mendenhall has been receding at a pretty steady rate since 1750.

Again, I provided 20 vineyards that you said didn't exist with a 30 second search. I found a large increase in wheat production in Norway with a 1 min search and yes I'm sure that the glacier's melting has accelerated recently with the warming you don't deny.

I like the idea of gathering data, rather than manufacturing it.
Science doesn't have a belief, that would be (some) scientists. Other scientists think the warming is natural cycle and some think it is a combination of the two. The long term historical correlation between C02 and temperature makes C02 being THE driver a hard sell:

https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-co2-temp/temperature-and-co2-history-2/

Calling C02, the basis of every form of life on earth, a deadly pollution is just a bridge too far. There is no way we will ever be able to maintain the perfect environment for Human life, although a bit warmer than it is now seems to be optimum, the Earth is going to continue it's cycles regardless. We may mine it beyond the point of our sustainability at some point and it is wise to maximize adaptability to deal with the coming changes. But eventually the earth will be a big fucking ball of ice again. Eskimos FTW..

I never said that science has a belief, where did you get that? I said that scientists as in the overwhelming majority of working climatologists believe it's CO2 for specific reasons. It's not a natural cycle like the Milankovitch causing the warming so do you understand why they believe it's CO2 and other greenhouse gases?

 

[KeepingItReal]

Your comments regarding Jakarta don't change the fact that rising sea levels will effect them considerably. The city may not be sinking because of climate change, that doesn't change the reality that a city below sea level will be hit hard by rising sea levels.

Certainly, but then what's the point of someone mentioning Jakarta in a "Climate change" thread when their problems are largely due to too much water being pumped from aquifers?

Unsurprising, you make another incorrect claim with regards to Alaska and sea level change. Climate change didn't cause the sea level to rise in Alaska, plate tectonics driving the land upwards did.. did you even read the link you quoted?

The whole point of my reference to Alaska is to show that when it comes to climate science it's heads I win, and tails you lose. If there is something damaging as a result of climate, it's always 100% as a result of climate change, and always the human induced part and never all the other factors in nature. Whenever there is something like let's say, sea levels receding in certain parts of the world, record crop growth in a bunch of different countries, highers antioxidants and polyphenols as a result of higher CO2, none of these are a result of climate change and everything will be done to try and find a thousand and one other reasons it could be happening.

Regarding the trapping of water in trenches, that might be relevant if we didn't have well over a hundred years worth of sea level measurements all showing a clear rise, with the rate at which the rise is occuring increasing rapidly over the past couple decades. This rate is projected to continue to increase in the coming decades. How is this relevant when the net result is an increase in sea level? Are you aware of some major plate tectonic changes that will be happening in the next couple decades that are going to offset the increase caused by warming? Because right now, that trapping isn't changing the reality of sea level rise - perhaps that, and not some grand conspiracy, is why you never hear about it?

Yes and those major changes in the tectonic plates will happen, as you may guess, because of climate change. Is there anything a changing climate can't do?! Especially the part that is human induced?! Definitely not.

Certain Chinese scientists don't think that the heat waves in China in recent times were any worse than those of the past, the blasphemers.

"Synthesized reconstructed temperature results show that warm intervals over the last 2000 years occurred in AD 1–200, AD 551–760, AD 951–1320, and after AD 1921, and also show that cold intervals were in AD 201–350, AD 441–530, AD 781–950, and AD 1321–1920. Extreme cold winters, seen between 1500 and 1900, were more frequent than those after 1950. The intensity of regional heat waves, in the context of recent global warming, may not in fact exceed natural climate variability seen over the last 2000 years."

"In southwest China, extreme droughts as severe as those seen in Sichuan and Chongqing in 2006 are known to have occurred during historical times."

From "Recent advances on reconstruction of climate and extreme events in China for the past 2000 years" in the Journal of Geographical Sciences
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11442-016-1301-4

 

[KeepingItReal]

Ahh yes every climate scientist is terrified to speak the "truth" .

If data comes out in an overwhelming amount disputing the earth is warming it would make the career of any scientists who came forth with it.

You think governments and companies want to get off oil? They don't. If they found out it wasn't a problem for the planet and climate change wasn't driven by CO2 that research would be front and center

You misunderstand, it's not that climate change is driven by CO2, that the research is pointing to. It's that CO2 that is emitted as a result of almost all human activity, always caused the most catastrophic of changes in climate such as hurricanes, droughts, floods. Of course when it's sunny, balmy and beautiful outside that is just weather and can never ever be attributed to humans, but just happens to be the natural state of the world and we are lucky to have it.

 

[lilelvis]

You've already stated that you don't deny that we are indeed warming, so the accuracy of the model aside you have to account for it the extra heat somehow. Sounds like you're just saying that you don't know at the moment, Is that correct?

Yes. Neither do you, and the actual historic carbon vs tamp data doesn't support C02 being the main culprit.
What caused the MWP and the 40's blip? We don't really know.

Oh we're onto cloud seeding now lol. I'm sure you realize that cloud seeding also has a reflective negative feedback to temperature. Please show me how cloud seeding has increased global temperature.

It increases water vapor. What else are the spraying?

Also the Vostok ice cores were drilled 28 years ago I believe, how would they show recent warming?

Only until 1994..

LOL, do you think there's only 1 vineyard in Northern Europe

Here's 10, in Denmark: https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attractions-g189512-Activities-c36-t132-Denmark.html
10 in Sweden: https://www.voguescandinavia.com/articles/10-outstanding-swedish-wineries-to-visit-right-now

Edit:
Here's 5 in Scotland https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attractions-g186485-Activities-c36-t132-Scotland.html

Where you said there were none. And once again the increased wheat production in Norway
https://graminor.no/plant-breeding/cereals/wheat/?lang=en

Why is that graph started in 1970? That is odd, yes?
This should be an infomercial for for modern GMO and chemical farming.. Also, that is a graph of "percentage of wheat for human consumption". Irrelevant to the discussion. Wheat is grown for other reasons, animal feed and seed being a couple of them.

Wait a minute, it was Exxon that developed their own CO2 climate models in the 70s and Shell later in the 80s. One of their largest endeavors was a research project equipping their largest supertanker Esso Atlantic with a laboratory and sensors to measure the absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans. They gathered their own data and developed their own models! So I ask, if scientists and their findings could easily be bought, why didn't Exxon pay their scientists to cook their numbers? They obviously didn't want this information public as they hid these results in obscure peer reviewed journals while their marketing arm obfuscated the issue.

Were they the ones prediction an ice age in the 70's? (don't deny it, I was a kid then and they pushed that shit, hair on fire, just like warming now. Unfortunately, the weather only cooperated for about a decade.)

Also in Russia, Putin controls the government and the nationalized industries like Gazprom and Lukoil. He and his cronies are the one that grant subsidies, regulation and public leases. Why are they on the climate change train when they can do what they want.

Putin probably likes the idea of a carbon tax on his citizens..

It's not really guessing in the colloquial sense when scientists are using data and actual measurements to extrapolate temperatures

"extrapolate".. (Edit: LOL.) Go watch Heller's video on temperatures plugged into the data for areas where there is no measurement data..


No that's not what I said, I stated that the Boreal forest has trees farther north. The area by Juneau is almost at sea level so elevation is not a factor here. It was forest in the MWP and will be forest again because of the warming trajectory.

Agreed. But what were the C02 levels last time?

If new data does overturn the current consensus it will be the scientific body that will move it based on that new data.

Yes, like the coming ice age..

Oh yes and people will continue to survive now that conditions in this area are once again warming enough to support a future forest. I have no idea why this area was even brought up.

But what were the C02 levels last time?

You're right, everyone including the scientific community has their weaknesses and I'm sure there is some corruption or incompetence at some level in any field or human endeavor. That however doesn't take away from their accomplishments, the scientific community that you are trashing has brought us the modern civilization and the medium that we are communicating on now, the internet. That's why I believe them as whole, they bring results unlike your guys Deming and Heller.

Very general, mmmm.. There are fields of science are corrupted by powerful interests. Not all fields. Government grants have changed the flavor to creating crisis to keep that money flowing in more and more fields, though.. This will prove itself out over time.
Yeah, fucking idiots not contributing (you went school girl, here)
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/david-deming
And Heller:
Geologist.
Geothermal research at Los Alamos National Labs
Oil shale research at Los Alamos National Labs
Volcano research at Los Alamos National Labs
Safety Analysis Report for the Permian Basin DOE nuclear waste disposal site

Electrical Engineer
Compaq/SGI MIPS consortium design team
Power PC design team IBM/Apple/Motorola (Used in most game consoles over the last three decades, and PowerMacs)
Sandia Labs computer architect
Sandia Labs representative to Al Gore’s Bankers Trust key escrow consortium
Cyrix Media GX microprocessor design team manager
Raycer Graphics OpenGL graphics processor verification lead
Design manager Hitachi/ST SH5 microprocessor
Verification lead MemoryLogix microprocessor
Founder, design lead Visual Media video effects/editing software
OpenGL driver development ATI
Itanium/i7 design team Intel (very likely being used by you right now)
Sped up NCAR weather microphysics kernel by 500X
Ported NCAR’s radiative transfer model to GPU
Ported NCAR’s WRF weather model to Windows
Drone visualization and control software for the US military
Medical device control systems (under NDA)
Virtual reality visualization design (under NDA)
Radio control and visualization software (under NDA)


Again, I provided 20 vineyards that you said didn't exist with a 30 second search. I found a large increase in wheat production in Norway with a 1 min search and yes I'm sure that the glacier's melting has accelerated recently with the warming you don't deny.

We were talking about the MWP... Your wheat graph is shit. Glaciers have advanced and receded throughout history.

I never said that science has a belief, where did you get that? I said that scientists as in the overwhelming majority of working climatologists believe it's CO2 for specific reasons. It's not a natural cycle like the Milankovitch causing the warming so do you understand why they believe it's CO2 and other greenhouse gases?

Of coarse it's a majority, the ones that question it don't get to play on the big stage, although all of them agree that Greenhouse gasses have a role in the climate..

In Yellow, again.

 

[lilelvis]

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

In Yellow, again.


Yes. Neither do you, and the actual historic carbon vs tamp data doesn't support C02 being the main culprit.
What caused the MWP and the 40's blip? We don't really know.

No one absolutely "knows" in the philosophical sense, when I'm using "know" in this context it means the best conclusion using the current data. Today, the current data certainly does support CO2 being the culprit as solar irradiance has decreased and there is no other known mechanism for the increase.

Right now, scientists are theorizing that higher solar irradiance, lower volcanic activity for the MWP

https://news.utexas.edu/2010/11/11/medieval-warm-period-not-so-random/

"Climate scientists now understand that the Medieval Warm Period was caused by an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity, which both promote warming. Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. As we’ll see in the next section, those kinds of natural changes have not been detected in the past few decades. Charles Jackson noted that when computer models take into account paleoclimatologists’ reconstructions of solar irradiance and volcanoes for the past 1,000 years, the models reproduce the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. Those events turn out to not be random noise after all."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1384107614001080

It increases water vapor. What else are the spraying?

They are not spraying water vapor, LOL. From my understanding the seeding pulls moisture from the air to form clouds (which reflect sunlight back in to space) and then the clouds deliver that moisture back to the earth. If anything cloud seeding is pulling water from the atmosphere back down to the earth's surface. How in your mind does that increase water vapor?

In fact people some are hypothesizing that we use cloud seeding to fight global warming as extra cloud cover reflects sunlight

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab71a3

Only until 1994..

Okay, so why did you mention that the graph was from 2018 and questioned why the Vostok ice cores didn't show recent warming?

Why is that graph started in 1970? That is odd, yes?
This should be an infomercial for for modern GMO and chemical farming.. Also, that is a graph of "percentage of wheat for human consumption". Irrelevant to the discussion. Wheat is grown for other reasons, animal feed and seed being a couple of them.

Well here's a Norway wheat graph starting earlier and total production
https://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=no&commodity=wheat&graph=production

So now we have dozens of wineries where you said there were none and wheat production in Norway while solar radiation has been decreasing.

Were they the ones prediction an ice age in the 70's? (don't deny it, I was a kid then and they pushed that shit, hair on fire, just like warming now. Unfortunately, the weather only cooperated for about a decade.)

So Exxon paid scientists produced climate models that showed evidence of an upcoming ice age? I don't see any of them here in their index, just their CO2 models. If you could site their peer reviewed work on that it would be helpful.

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/su...ate-science-research#Peerreviewedpublications
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/..._peer_reviewed_publications_1980s_forward.pdf

So again, Exxon's scientists developed their own climate CO2 warming models and published them in journals for review, if scientists can be bought then why didn't Exxon pay them to cook their numbers and conclude there was no expected warming?

Putin probably likes the idea of a carbon tax on his citizens..

Why would Putin need an excuse for a tax? He can put whatever tax rate he wants for whatever reason LOL

And now you have to take a step back and look at the extent of the conspiracy you need to have. You now believe that Putin, the Koch brothers (funders of Berkely Earth), all of the major energy titans, all of academia and all of the governments of the world are all in on a giant conspiracy to tax everyone... all joking aside, is this reasonable to you compared to the alternative, that the earth is really warming because of man made CO2?

"extrapolate".. (Edit: LOL.) Go watch Heller's video on temperatures plugged into the data for areas where there is no measurement data..

Last time we went over Heller you chose to bow out when we started discussing it, https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/168780872/

Agreed. But what were the C02 levels last time?

I couldn't find a graph that showed the specific time frame but it looks lower than today. It wasn't CO2 back then, it was solar irradiance and other factors

Yes, like the coming ice age..

Correct, there were some climatologists that believed that aerosols would cause a net cooling effect but as longer time series of higher quality data became available, it became clear that global temperature showed significant increases overall. This is a great example of how more data can and will overturn scientific theories

But what were the C02 levels last time?

Lower then they are today, the data so far is pointing to solar irradiance being higher and volcanic activity being lower

Very general, mmmm.. There are fields of science are corrupted by powerful interests. Not all fields. Government grants have changed the flavor to creating crisis to keep that money flowing in more and more fields, though.. This will prove itself out over time.
Yeah, fucking idiots not contributing (you went school girl, here)
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/david-deming
And Heller:
Geologist.
Geothermal research at Los Alamos National Labs
Oil shale research at Los Alamos National Labs
Volcano research at Los Alamos National Labs
Safety Analysis Report for the Permian Basin DOE nuclear waste disposal site

Electrical Engineer
Compaq/SGI MIPS consortium design team
Power PC design team IBM/Apple/Motorola (Used in most game consoles over the last three decades, and PowerMacs)
Sandia Labs computer architect
Sandia Labs representative to Al Gore’s Bankers Trust key escrow consortium
Cyrix Media GX microprocessor design team manager
Raycer Graphics OpenGL graphics processor verification lead
Design manager Hitachi/ST SH5 microprocessor
Verification lead MemoryLogix microprocessor
Founder, design lead Visual Media video effects/editing software
OpenGL driver development ATI
Itanium/i7 design team Intel (very likely being used by you right now)
Sped up NCAR weather microphysics kernel by 500X
Ported NCAR’s radiative transfer model to GPU
Ported NCAR’s WRF weather model to Windows
Drone visualization and control software for the US military
Medical device control systems (under NDA)
Virtual reality visualization design (under NDA)
Radio control and visualization software (under NDA)

Which fields are completely corrupt and how are they different from other fields that receive government funding, grants, leases, favors?

We were talking about the MWP... Your wheat graph is shit. Glaciers have advanced and receded throughout history.

That's rich of you to call someone's sources shit when you bring up Heller and Deming's work lol. And yes, glaciers are melting and receding now while solar irradiance has decreased.

Of coarse it's a majority, the ones that question it don't get to play on the big stage, although all of them agree that Greenhouse gasses have a role in the climate..

Have you considered that someone's work is being rejected because it's just bad science? That shit by Heller was hilarious.

 

[lilelvis]

No one absolutely "knows" in the philosophical sense, when I'm using "know" in this context it means the best conclusion using the current data. Today, the current data certainly does support CO2 being the culprit as solar irradiance has decreased and there is no other known mechanism for the increase.

Right now, scientists are theorizing that higher solar irradiance, lower volcanic activity for the MWP

https://news.utexas.edu/2010/11/11/medieval-warm-period-not-so-random/

"Climate scientists now understand that the Medieval Warm Period was caused by an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity, which both promote warming. Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. As we’ll see in the next section, those kinds of natural changes have not been detected in the past few decades. Charles Jackson noted that when computer models take into account paleoclimatologists’ reconstructions of solar irradiance and volcanoes for the past 1,000 years, the models reproduce the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. Those events turn out to not be random noise after all."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1384107614001080

They are not spraying water vapor, LOL. From my understanding the seeding pulls moisture from the air to form clouds (which reflect sunlight back in to space) and then the clouds deliver that moisture back to the earth. If anything cloud seeding is pulling water from the atmosphere back down to the earth's surface. How in your mind does that increase water vapor?

In fact people some are hypothesizing that we use cloud seeding to fight global warming as extra cloud cover reflects sunlight

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab71a3



Okay, so why did you mention that the graph was from 2018 and questioned why the Vostok ice cores didn't show recent warming?



Well here's a Norway wheat graph starting earlier and total production
https://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=no&commodity=wheat&graph=production

So now we have dozens of wineries where you said there were none and wheat production in Norway while solar radiation has been decreasing.



So Exxon paid scientists produced climate models that showed evidence of an upcoming ice age? I don't see any of them here in their index, just their CO2 models. If you could site their peer reviewed work on that it would be helpful.

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/su...ate-science-research#Peerreviewedpublications
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/..._peer_reviewed_publications_1980s_forward.pdf

So again, Exxon's scientists developed their own climate CO2 warming models and published them in journals for review, if scientists can be bought then why didn't Exxon pay them to cook their numbers and conclude there was no expected warming?



Why would Putin need an excuse for a tax? He can put whatever tax rate he wants for whatever reason LOL

And now you have to take a step back and look at the extent of the conspiracy you need to have. You now believe that Putin, the Koch brothers (funders of Berkely Earth), all of the major energy titans, all of academia and all of the governments of the world are all in on a giant conspiracy to tax everyone... all joking aside, is this reasonable to you compared to the alternative, that the earth is really warming because of man made CO2?



Last time we went over Heller you chose to bow out when we started discussing it, https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/168780872/



I couldn't find a graph that showed the specific time frame but it looks lower than today. It wasn't CO2 back then, it was solar irradiance and other factors

Correct, there were some climatologists that believed that aerosols would cause a net cooling effect but as longer time series of higher quality data became available, it became clear that global temperature showed significant increases overall. This is a great example of how more data can and will overturn scientific theories

Lower then they are today, the data so far is pointing to solar irradiance being higher and volcanic activity being lower



Which fields are completely corrupt and how are they different from other fields that receive government funding, grants, leases, favors?



That's rich of you to call someone's sources shit when you bring up Heller and Deming's work lol. And yes, glaciers are melting and receding now while solar irradiance has decreased.



Have you considered that someone's work is being rejected because it's just bad science? That shit by Heller was hilarious.

This is tedious, Voodoo.
There are a bunch of theories. Theories that agree and disagree with the IPCC. Theories by very reputable Scientists. Here are some:
https://earth.fandom.com/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Here is a very recent paper:
https://www.thegwpf.org/publications/rethinking-the-greenhouse-effect/

I swing toward a 'mostly natural' viewpoint. I'm very skeptical of the hair on fire crowd. On the other hand, you believe the hair on fire crowd as though they are speaking a known truth. It's ok.. We are different.
I'm living as clean as a human can in my circumstances. I use the minimum energy possible, don't litter, buy products with the simplest packaging whenever possible, have re-usable grocery bags, grow a lot of my families food and locally source as much as possible. Not to mention, my wife has a John Lennon license plate and a cOexIsT bumper sticker.. I just don't believe that C02 is pollution. The caps are going to melt again one day and there will another ice age. We have a huge population that has to be sustained. There is a price to pay for that.

This is not a come-at-ya enquiry, but do you live in an environmentally friendly way? (no expectations, nobody's perfect)

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

This is tedious, Voodoo.
There are a bunch of theories. Theories that agree and disagree with the IPCC. Theories by very reputable Scientists. Here are some:
https://earth.fandom.com/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Here is a very recent paper:
https://www.thegwpf.org/publications/rethinking-the-greenhouse-effect/

I swing toward a 'mostly natural' viewpoint. I'm very skeptical of the hair on fire crowd. On the other hand, you believe the hair on fire crowd as though they are speaking a known truth. It's ok.. We are different.

What do you mean, this isn't tedious, we were just getting to the actual issues, I'm more than fine with continuing. Also, I don't believe any theory is known truth, I believe AGW is what the current data is saying but it can and will change when new data is verified.

What I've been trying to get at is that not everything is a conspiracy against you and perhaps you've been looking at really suspect sources that you want to believe are true. I'm sure there has been corruption and incompetence in the climate scientific community but to believe it's so vast that it encompasses all of the scientists, governing bodies, academia, the United Nations, Putin and all of the energy giants and their scientists is well... not as likely as AGW being the best interpretation of the current data.

I'm living as clean as a human can in my circumstances. I use the minimum energy possible, don't litter, buy products with the simplest packaging whenever possible, have re-usable grocery bags, grow a lot of my families food and locally source as much as possible. Not to mention, my wife has a John Lennon license plate and a cOexIsT bumper sticker.. I just don't believe that C02 is pollution. The caps are going to melt again one day and there will another ice age. We have a huge population that has to be sustained. There is a price to pay for that.

This is not a come-at-ya enquiry, but do you live in an environmentally friendly way? (no expectations, nobody's perfect)

Good for you! Yes, I definitely try to reduce, reuse, recycle. The wife has a hybrid, I have a gas vehicle but I barely drive it as I train it into the office. CO2 occurs naturally and the only kind that has me worried is the one with our isotope signature on it because it keeps growing. The ice caps certainly are in their melting phase and I believe this time it's because of us as it's certainly not the sun this time.

 

[ShadowRun]

 

[no fat chicks]

Some senile blathering old man talking about vaccines isn't really a knock on the science.

People's reactions to climate change, including stupid ones do not invalidate the science. Data sets in amounts that surpass the current data sets we have would.
That's becoming less and less likely as every single thing we study show we are the driving force behind the increase in the earth's temp.

 

[ocean size]

Here is a very recent paper:
https://www.thegwpf.org/publications/rethinking-the-greenhouse-effect/

Oof.. did you actually read that

 

[dirtypablo]

Oof.. did you actually read that

My favorite part is the fact that these guys post these papers without realizing they're not actually scientific research papers, and that these organizations all get paid by the fossil fuel industry.

Shell and Exxon say greenhouse gases don't cause warming, you guys are suckers for listening to the scientists!

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

My favorite part is the fact that these guys post these papers without realizing they're not actually scientific research papers, and that these organizations all get paid by the fossil fuel industry.

Shell and Exxon say greenhouse gases don't cause warming, you guys are suckers for listening to the scientists!

Actually I think they've acquiesced on that and they now admit it. Exxon has been conducting their research and modelling since the late 70s.

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/su...ate-science-research#Peerreviewedpublications
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/..._peer_reviewed_publications_1980s_forward.pdf

 

[ocean size]

My favorite part is the fact that these guys post these papers without realizing they're not actually scientific research papers, and that these organizations all get paid by the fossil fuel industry.

Shell and Exxon say greenhouse gases don't cause warming, you guys are suckers for listening to the scientists!

Yeah, I mean it was clearly not a paper if one tried to read it, but what's his name Elvis isn't a moron, I think if he did actually read it he would notice how bad some parts are. Like the author actually argues that since warming is greatest at high latitudes where it is often freezing, it won't have an appreciable affect on organisms.

So what I don't get is when trying to argue 'there are alternatives to the consensus' why you would just pick a random 8 pages of dumb as an example.

 

[dirtypablo]

Actually I think they've acquiesced on that and they now admit it. Exxon has been conducting their research and modelling since the late 70s.

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/su...ate-science-research#Peerreviewedpublications
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/..._peer_reviewed_publications_1980s_forward.pdf

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that most of these climate denial organizations are funded by the fossil fuels industry. They know the reality of the situation, but still try to minimize it as well as minimize any sort of move towards getting away from fossil fuels. It's nothing but the corporate, 'we hear you and we're taking your concerns seriously!'

 

[Prutfis]

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that most of these climate denial organizations are funded by the fossil fuels industry. They know the reality of the situation, but still try to minimize it as well as minimize any sort of move towards getting away from fossil fuels. It's nothing but the corporate, 'we hear you and we're taking your concerns seriously!'

I just watched the PBS frontline 3 parter on Big Oil and climate change. It´s amazing that all the obfuscation they did, and the Koch brothers as well, is still working on people today. Can definently recommend.

Part 1 -

Part 2 -

Part 3 -

 

[ShadowRun]

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Yeah, I mean it was clearly not a paper if one tried to read it, but what's his name Elvis isn't a moron, I think if he did actually read it he would notice how bad some parts are. Like the author actually argues that since warming is greatest at high latitudes where it is often freezing, it won't have an appreciable affect on organisms.

So what I don't get is when trying to argue 'there are alternatives to the consensus' why you would just pick a random 8 pages of dumb as an example.

It's because to the conspiracy minded, ANYTHING is more plausible than what the corrupt scientific consensus says. The mental gymnastics they'll go through is unbelievable.

 

[ocean size]

It's because to the conspiracy minded, ANYTHING is more plausible than what the corrupt scientific consensus says. The mental gymnastics they'll go through is unbelievable.

I reckon it is more likely that there's a quick Google for something that looks like the window dressing gives an air of credibility, but not reading more than a couple sentences to actually attempt to understand what is being argued and actually gauge plausibility.

I don't really get why would one think that's approach would bear fruit though, actually after pondering for a bit everything I can think of kinda does come back to conspiratorial ideation so maybe you are spot on.