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

There is a rising tide of scientific skepticism regarding AGW.
Hundreds More Papers Published In 2021 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm
By Kenneth Richard on 14. February 2022

Share this...
In 2021, several hundred more scientific papers were published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.


These scientific papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes…emphasizing that climate science is not settled.

More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question the climate alarm popularized in today’s headlines.

N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.

N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/precipitation extremes…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.

N(3) The computer climate models are neither reliable or consistently accurate; the uncertainty and error ranges are irreducible; and projections of future climate states (i.e., an intensification of the hydrological cycle) are not supported by observations and/or are little more than speculation.

N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields, lower mortality with warming). . . .

 

I'm very much focused on using science properly.

And, you don't even come close to that, so you do get some feedback.

 

Again for the 935th time there are no such thing as climate deniers or climate skeptics. There are simply people who are skeptical of the claim that an increase in CO2 of 1.5 parts per 10000 over the last 100 odd years spells doom for life as we know it.

 

Yes that's a good way to look at it. I don't think it's a question of if humans can alter the climate, it's a question of how fast and how much. The climate has varied wildly throughout the Earth's history, and some of those shifts have been caused by lifeforms. For example, the oxygen in our atmosphere was a result of life and levels have been much higher before than now. Temperatures have been more extreme, warmer, colder, through all kinds of shifts. Humans are a huge force in terms of impacting the planet, and it's likely we could cause a shift much faster than most purely natural phenomena (except maybe a large meteorite strike, unless we used our nukes). The oil and coal was previously locked in the Earth from times with very different climates. Why would releasing it not cause a change? I don't see how scientists not predicting when a place will be beachfront property undermines this idea. Of course we alter the climate. Of course it would affect things like where to farm, how much food we can make, how extreme storms are, and where we can live comfortably. Such things are a threat to diplomatic stability at a minimum, and could easily cause a significant loss of life.

 

No one is claiming that a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide by 150 ppm will end life as we know it. You seem to be making the argument that because
atmospheric carbon dioxide is a trace gas that we don't need to be concerned about its change in concentration. This is false. The rise is atmospheric
carbon dioxide since the year 1750 has increased the rate of energy change at the top of the atmosphere by +2.1 watts per square meter.

There aren't many climate change deniers but there are those who deny that humans are having much influence on climate. Some of them post regularly
on this forum. Those people often point out the advantages of a higher level of atmospheric carbon dioxide for plant growth and often claim that the sun is
causing global warming. They also frequently distrust the scientific community and claim that the temperature record is being adjusted upward in order
to make the problem look worse than it is, and that there is fraud in climate science.

Someone who represents mainstream climate science like me is not a climate alarmist. We are people who find no serious errors in the science used
to project future warming. There is uncertainty but the climate scientists have it about right. We don't exaggerate the science in order to scare people
into action.

 

LOL - you yourself declared them to be skeptics! Surely I can call them skeptics if YOU do. And, it is also true that they do deny the results of world wide progress in climatology.

And, then you decided to toss in the idea that those who recognize the results of world wide climate science are proclaiming "doom".

You need to rethink your argument here.

 

I disagree.

 

we are not skeptical of climate change or climate. Climate gas been changing for three and a half billion years now. It has done so and often quite drastically both before man entered the scene and since. Please tell me what the proxiee data are for the temperatures in the upper atmosphere 200 years ago. And let's not forget 300 years ago was smack dab in the middle of the Little Ice Age. So yes it is warmer now than then. And I for one am damn glad of it. Oh and the medieval Warm period right before that was pretty much a golden age for most of the world. We have in reality no idea what the weather will be 100 years from now and that largely determines climate. For one thing we could take a large meteor strike or a super volcano. Or for that matter a gamma ray burst from a distant planet could hit us.

 

As to what?

 

You made a claim. I disagree to that claim.

Reread your own post to the claim you made.

You do understand what a 'claim' is, do you not?

 

Pascal's Wager in response to so-called "climate change"? I knew it was a religion the whole time! Thank you for confirming me to be right.

 

They have more people and how many of those people are in re education camps? How many are bicycles or animals the main mode of transportation??? Figures never lie, but liars often figure!

 

Hey, I don't think they know how to predict solar flares that also effect climate.

 

You are so correct about this! And to all of the "snowflakes" that are living miserable lives due to their fear, I would say chill and try to be happy.

 

Talk about "authoritarian attitude"!!! It is climate change people who constantly try and dictate our liberty. Smart ones for POWER.....the dumb ones out of fear!!

 

No, you have a history on this forum of outright denying science. Science is not something that you "use", btw... It is a set of falsifiable models that predict nature.

Jack is MUCH better about adhering to science than you are.

 

BINGO. They are just meaningless buzzwords.

There are also people who are skeptical of the claim that atmospheric CO2 increased 1.5 parts per 10000 over the last 100 odd years, as it is not possible to measure atmospheric CO2 to any usable accuracy. There aren't enough stations to do so.

 

No, it isn't.

What is "the climate"?? Did you know that Earth has MANY climates?? How are you measuring an "alteration" of said climate? Climate is a subjective word that is not quantifiable.

There is no such thing as "the climate"; Earth has MANY climates.

You claim to know a lot about past unobserved events. You also claim to know many things that you don't actually know, such as the temperature of the Earth at any given time.

 

Oh my, how did they dictate your liberty!

 

People are, actually.

We don't need to be concerned about it.

Fabricated numbers. Meaningless.

There aren't ANY, as there is no such thing. It is just a meaningless buzzword.

There is no such thing as "the climate". Earth has MANY climates.

Good. They have every right to express their views.

... and they are correct about that. Plants gobble up CO2 like a kid gobbles up candy.

Where else would additional energy be coming from, if not from the sun?

... for good reason. BTW, science is not a community of people.

There is no "temperature record" with regard to Earth, as it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any usable accuracy. We don't have near enough thermometers to even begin such a statistical analysis.

There is no such thing as "climate science"; It is just a meaningless buzzword.

You can't represent a meaningless buzzword.

... another meaningless buzzword.

You clearly aren't looking then... Otherwise, you would be finding egregious violations of the laws of thermodynamics and of the stefan boltzmann law, for starters... You would also be finding mathematical errors in any claim of knowing what the temperature of Earth is at any given moment.

My whole response to you has been said with ABSOLUTE certainty.

They don't have anything, as there is no such thing to begin with.

You are not a climate scientist, nor can you speak for all climate scientists (who don't even exist to begin with).

No, you DENY the science in order to scare people into irrational and unnecessary action. That's why I am here to correct all of the BS that you spew onto this forum about it.

 

I have no idea what you are proposing here.

 

Correct. The first one doesn't exist and the second one is just a subjective word that is used to refer to "weather over a long period of time".

What is "climate gas"? Do you mean atmospheric gas levels? -- And how do you know what was happening 3.5 billion years ago? You weren't there... You are now speaking of past unobserved events, no longer within the boundary of science (but rather of religion).

There isn't any.

Meh.

How do you know? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any usable accuracy, as we don't have near enough thermometers to even begin such a statistical analysis.

Weather is going to be weather.

Meh.

Bingo. We only have an idea in the very short term, and an idea is still short of knowing. Weather is going to be weather.

Climate is just a subjective word meaning "weather over a long period of time". There are marine climates, tropical climates, desert climates, and other types of climates.

Okay?

 

He's saying that your claim is in violation of his logic/science/mathematics-denying religious beliefs, therefore he is dismissing it on sight. He is a fundamentalist believer in the Global Warming faith. No amount of logic, science, or mathematics can shake his belief.

 

No such thing, or many. You get to pick one!

The thing is, it is the change that is important.

Earth's temp is changing, the climates in various regions are changing.

This isn't about word games. It's about actual change that is measured by scientists all over the world.

 

BINGO!! Well spotted!!!

Ultimately, Pascal's Wager is a logical fallacy.