Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

You are not going to get some absolute date when it's "too late". Remember that was the part of the "12 year" thing that was questionable, right?

This is reality, which uses real numbers, not integers.

It is getting harder right now. And, it will continue to get harder.

There are multiple feedback loops that will gradually kick in harder. It appears that we've been going through a solar period that is relatively cool. Oceans appear to be becoming less of a sink for excess heat. Etc.

All these things are going on. Picking one year where we're screwed if we sat on our butts isn't really the way it works.

And, that's one of the problems. We're FAR better at addressing total catastrophe than we are at planning ahead and maintenance. We could handle that first NOLA. But, we allowed another and we're doing nothing about more of those.

We refuse to fix our infrastructure. So, we get the Texas thing, vulnerability to foreign attack, inadequate infrastructure for individuals doing their own solar, no resilience to Carrington events, continuing lead contamination of public water pickling children's brains, internet that is slow and absent in places, slowing business uses and human access to the world, bridgest and roads, pathetic local and longer distance transportation where it is seriously needed, etc., etc.

We ARE toads on a hotplate.

 

I just pointed out that your claim of scientists throughout the world being toadies to politicians IS a conspiracy theory.

 

Since I never said anything like that, I have to assume you have lost the thread of the discussion.

 

Your thesis has been that science has been perverted by the Myrdal effect.

And, given that the science you complain about is agreed among the vast majority of scientists around the world, you ARE proposing a rather large conspiracy.

 

Which has nothing to do with scientists being "toadies to politicians." It seems you don't understand the discussion. Myrdal's point was about scientists being "toadies to each other" if you will.

 

But, that isn't nearly good enough.

I don't believe you can have a conspiracy such as that without involving the world of politics.

Plus, you have to explain how it propagates in the same way throughout the world.

I think Myrdal has a point when it comes to groups of economists and other soft sciences where there is little hypothesis testing that includes serious controls.

In that kind of environment, organizations such as the Chicago school of economics can thrive and influence US politics. They can hire like minded economists. They can provide an environment where the preponderance of argument is from their view. They can collaborate with other like minded institutions. They can attract students and professors who are interested in a specific point of view.

But, we can dodge all that:

You KNOW the individual papers you present are hand picked, with no rebuttal available and are opposed by the vast majority of the rest of the world of climatology.

So, you claim that all the rest of the world is fraudulent!

Then, you want to claim that's not a conspiracy.

 

Feedback loops are observable in other aspects of nature, so they should be observable in aspects of climate that could trigger some catastrophic climate apocalypse. So there should be a timeline of that involved. There doesn't seem to be any that I've come across. The curious thing about this though is that you went from calling AOC's 12 path to doomsday "crap" to sort of half heartedly endorsing it.

 

There is too much BS that comes from specifying a year in which we all die, or whatever.

We need to be taking action now. How does saying "12 years" bring that message home?

It's cheap and easy to take action now, and gets more expensive every year we wait, especially when one considers the increasing damage we're paying for and the mitigation costs of ignoring this issue.

Saying we have 12 years encourages a lot of people to reach for a beer - because of our inability to plan or think ahead ... or to care about humans or economics or jobs or anything else, really.

 

The tundra feedback loop is clearly visible today.

There are others, but the tundra one is easy to watch and measure and really has no complicating issues in understanding it.

 

Well sadly we don't agree on the severity of the issue or the steps taken to fix it. So I imagine nothing will get done except by individual action, and I don't observe that happening either.

 

Well, it's obvious that Republicans don't want our infrastructure maintained. How weird is THAT?

And, we do need to get more serious about energy.

What we should be doing to reduce climate change is also great for the US economy!!

 

Yes it's weird that you've drawn the conclusion that "Republicans don't want our infrastructure maintained."

 

LOL!!

Literally 1 or 2 Republican senators deciding that Republicans can withstand having infrastructure maintained would have passed the bill to do so.

But, NOPE. NOT interested!

 

I never made a claim of fraud. Motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, career self-defense and (especially, I think) social in-group belonging are sufficient as causes.

 

Sorry, but 19 Republican senators voted for the infrastructure bill.

 

I'm confused. The infrastructure bill did pass and Biden signed it in November.

 

The alarmists' claims are undermined by a lack of evidence.
New Study: There Is No Extreme Precipitation, Drought, Flood, Hurricane, Tornado….Climate Crisis
By Kenneth Richard on 10. February 2022

Share this...
After a thorough examination of extreme weather indices across the globe, scientists (Alimonti et al., 2022) have concluded “none of these response indicators show a clear positive trend of extreme events.” Therefore. “the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.”
There is an “absence of generalized growth trends in extreme precipitation.”



Image Source: Alimonti et al., 2022
. . . .

 

So, where is your link to significant reviewers and other response from climate professionals, including those at NASA, NOAA and other such groups around the world?

Right off, I'd point out that a lot of this study is averaging significant areas, whereas people don't get to live in "average" - they get to live where they are. That is, unless you're inviting them to America or something. Are you?

That goes for food production, too. As the problem is not Earth's food production but whether people are getting the calories they need from systems that aren't killing them economically.

Bangladesh doesn't get to benefit from total world food production, for example.


You are continuing your standard practice of presenting single papers that you hand picked because the support your political position, and IGNORING all review response.

It's as if you think 1 paper somehow overrides the ENTIRE WORLD of climate related sciences.

 

The paper peer-reviewed and published in a respected journal. The rest of your post is beside the point.

 

Being peer reviewed and published does NOT mean it carries the weight of contraverting all other papers and current opinion on a topic.

That is NOT what peer review means.

And, the rest of what I said is ABSOLUTELY on point as it shows the weakness in using that paper as a guide to how climate affects populations.

 

The paper is the paper: no more and no less. If you dispute its findings, please state your objections. Otherwise spare us the whining. And remember, Einstein said it only takes one.

 

Don't be stark raving silly. Einstein was right, but HE put his work out for full public review and testing. And, the results of careful inspection throughout the world of physics was available.

Your paper is given with NO RESPONSE FROM SCIECE.

Yet, you claim it supersedes ALL related science!!

This whole approach of yours continues to be BS for the same reason it always has been BS.

 

As the authors have put their work out for full public review and testing. Exactly the same process as Einstein followed.
I don't claim anything. The paper has been published. We await the response, if any.

 

This is too easy!

Einstein said it is possible.

You have shown absolutely no evidence that this paper has changed anything at all.

 

Actually, Einstein said nothing of the kind.

“Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough. [In response to the book "Hundred Authors Against Einstein"]”
― Albert Einstein

And it would be a bit much to expect a paper published weeks ago to have had large impact yet.