Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

I’m sorry, but what you AGW-advocates are doing with all of this is not real science. In real science you start off with an observed phenomenon, conceive a theory to explain it, make your theory generate observable predictions of how the phenomenon should behave under different critical conditions and then you take observations of the phenomenon’s actual behaviour under those conditions to see how well your theory has predicted them.

What have you done instead? You have started off with a belief and a conviction -- that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing global warming -- and have sought to gather evidence selectively to prove that conviction. That is not the way of scientists whose interest is only in finding out the truth. It is the way of tricky lawyers with court cases to win and corrupt politicians with populations to persuade and move in the directions that they want to move them.

 

The whole focus on "climate deniers" instead of the actual dynamic of changes in the climate itself has been evident for decades.

Has the climate been changing? YES. Does a living human population that has doubled since 1974 have any effect on the Earth's climate? CERTAINLY, if only measured by the amount of pollution and trash humans put into the air and waterways. But what is lacking in all this back-and-forth is PERSPECTIVE. Climate change, per se, is normal... the climate has been changing ever since this planet developed an atmosphere!

 

The first thing to admit is that you and I are nothing but social media typists. I am a scientific expert in another field- if I were to write a paper on Electrical Engineering automation control of Industrial Systems it would be over the head of 1 in 100,000 people in the US - and maybe more. And this goes to all recent respondents- maybe with 5 years of study you could get up to my 40 years of experience. You could TYPE crap on Social Media, saying I’m wrong on specific aspects of Automation Control. 99.99% of the time you would be the shortsighted one. When it comes to Climatology, we should defer to the experts.

 

So who can these ‘experts’ be? Hmnnn…. Ah, just a moment, wasn’t there that chap called Mann -- you know, the one who invented the Hockey Stick -- oh yes, and his friends Jim Hansen and Trenberth and Jones and that whole IPCC gang of climate mathemagicians who all said that the level of atmospheric CO2 and the mean global temperature were virtually static for just about the whole of the two thousand years before about 1880? I guess they must be the ‘experts’ you mean, not so?

 

No one does. Calling climate realists "climate change deniers" is an outright lie intended to deceive people for dishonest purposes. The routine use of such tactics is one way we can be certain that those pushing the CO2 climate narrative are in the wrong, and know it.

 

You claim you know better than science. But you don’t even understand what science is or does. You are typing away about things you don’t understand.

 

No. We all have a responsibility to use our heads and judge the logical validity of arguments, even about subjects we are not experts in. I happen to have a bit of scientific training and some relevant knowledge on this topic, specifically about atmospheric physics. That knowledge enables me to judge the quality of arguments about atmospheric physics, and I find that many of the soi-disant experts who push the CO2 climate narrative routinely make arguments that have blatant logical defects. That tells me something.

No. We have seen what happens when we defer to the experts in economics, which is at least as difficult as climatology and even more subject to self-interested bias.

 

Understanding what caused the prevailing conditions then can help us understand what is causing prevailing conditions now. If you had any scientific training beyond high school level (you don't), you would understand that.

Right. You are not interested in understanding climate phenomena, in facts that contradict your false beliefs, or in changing human activities in ways that would actually be beneficial.

 

No. That claim is often seen and industriously repeated, but it is just baldly false. When it comes to the CO2 climate narrative, there is a strong and effective politically motivated campaign to silence dissenting scientific voices, but the evident success of that campaign is different from having proven anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

Name calling and Poisoning the Well fallacies.

Why is routine resort to such blatantly fallacious rhetoric the invariable characteristic of those who push the CO2 climate narrative?

That is unfortunately an accurate and fully justified description, unlike "climate change denier."

"Experts" like those who in the past have issued all manner of dire warnings and been proved wrong....? I am old enough to remember seeing Paul Ehrlich appearing on all the talk shows, billed as the world's top expert on ecology, issuing his dire warnings that the world population would crash in widespread starvation before the end of the 20th century. The arctic ice was all supposed to have melted by now. Florida and half the island nations of the world were supposed to be underwater. THAT is what encourages people to ignore the "experts."

I have much more expertise in economics than in atmospheric physics, and I can tell you that highly effective distortion of scientific results to serve a particular dishonest agenda does not require a formal conspiracy, just a few powerful people putting their thumbs on the scale.

 

What exactly is scientific about automation control of industrial systems? What kind of actual research are you doing?

Or are you just an engineer using established equipment to design good working systems?

Like me and maybe a couple thousand other engineers who do that kind of stuff for a living, too?

 

Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

Here's yet another example of alarmists damaging their own credibility.
Forbes Calls BS on the latest Climate Economics Doomsday Prediction
ECONOMICS AND POLICY MAY 6, 2024

 

Not a thing I said was "hypothetical", each and every one of them is a fact.

And the funny thing is, you are the one pushing a hypothetical. And then screaming at one presenting facts.

 

Exactly.

I absolutely love the fact that he claims the things I mention are "hypotheticals".

In reality, they are facts. The closest humans came to extinction was 74 kya, when a supervolcano eruption almost ended us. Causing a genetic bottleneck because less than 10,000 humans were left on the planet. And that is only 1 of 20 known supervolcanos on the planet. And in one of the most recent Yellowstone Eruptions, the ash buried rinos in freaking Nebraska! With ashfall deposits being identified in strata along the New York coast.

When those go off, they are so powerful that even the wind does not matter. The shock wave of their explosion pushes huge amounts of ash against the wind, which is why significant ashfall can be found in California.

Yellowstone has such an eruption roughly every 600,000 years. And the last one was 640,000 years ago. Now such events are not like a clock, do not buy into the fearmongers that claim it is "overdue". But it is a fact that the caldera is moving more than it has in the past, and some seismic activity is increasing. And someday in the near future (geologically speaking) it is going to erupt again.

This is simply a fact. And no amount of denial or crying will prevent it.

And when it does, you can pretty much write off everything West of the Mississippi River, and large segments East of the Mississippi River. Air travel will be grounded globally, as the ash will cover most of the planet and make operating aircraft impossible for up to a year.

And much of the region destroyed is commonly known as the "bread basket". The US is the largest food producing, exporting, and donating nation on the planet. Take that away, and even without the "Volcanic Winter" effect, billions will die globally of starvation.

And no, I am not kidding there either. That is likely what almost killed off the human race 74 kya. The 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora caused 1816 to be known as the "Year Without a Summer". Where even in an era with a global population of around 1 billion, a VEI 7 eruption on an island in Indonesia killed off over 100,000 people. And Yellowstone will likely be a VEI 8, but it has hit VEI 9 in the past.

If Yellowstone goes up, expect it to almost be a "Decade without a summer", as the amount of particulates ejected into the atmosphere will occur we think repeatedly for 3-5 years. Resulting in snowfall in July in much of the northern part of the globe. Crop failures everywhere, and what crops do grow will be less productive because of the reduced light because much will be obscured by the dust. These are all hard facts, we know of it because of 1815-1816. And Tambora was a pimple compared to a supervolcano eruption.

It is rather humbling when digging in the base of a 10 meter tall ashbed trying to find fossils, and realizing that that ashbed was laid down by a volcano several hundred miles downwind. Now geologists are actually still arguing if such ashbeds are the result of a single eruption, or an ongoing eruption. Is it a single blast that puts out 10 meters of ash 100 miles upwind, or was it multiple eruptions in the same event? We simply do not know, no such eruption has happened in human history. Myself, I tend towards the models where around 75-80% is from the main eruption, but 20-25% comes from subsequent ones until it goes back to sleep.

 

And for me, it is geology. That is something I have been studying for over 5 decades. Even visiting many of the calderas across Oregon and Idaho in the 1970s. When the very idea that the Yellowstone Caldera was not only still a live volcano, but that it was a super massive one that moved was often laughed at.

That was revolutionary and highly controversial at that time period. But it is no longer controversial, it is pretty much universally accepted. And geologists more than anybody else know the huge changes that our planet has been through over the course of time. Icebox to hot house climates, and everything in between. We understand how little anything we can do will actually affect the planet, the planet can, has, and will do much more than we could ever imagine all on its own.

Which is also why I chuckled when not that long ago when the "Climatologists" tried to force their hand and make the geologists accept a new geological era they were pretty soundly slapped down. But I am sure they will try yet again, and I can only hope that they get slapped down again.

 

And just more bluff and guff from a girl who has no scientific knowledge at all from her primary school classes and just puts her head in the sand.

 

So how does geology slow or stop the recent increases in global warming from the green house effects of increased atmospheric CO2 from human activity? Or do you just put your head in the sand and let others replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources which use the solar energy more directly and efficiently than the fossil fuels?

 

CO2 is a minor contributor to a minor temperature increase (roughly .15C/decade.

 

IOW the geologists just put their heads in the sand and ignore all the scientific evidence about the effects of global warming from human activity on the receding of glaciers & icecaps etc. Fortunately responsible countries are replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources which use the solar energy more directly and efficiently than the fossil fuels, and before they become depleted anyway?

 

Some places are losing ice, but some are gaining ice. Antarctica is gaining ice at a trend of +1.3% per decade.

 

China (the only country that really matters) doesn’t seem to care.

 

You haven’t been very thorough in reading my posts.

 

But China does care, and the CO2 emissions of Chinese are less than half those of North Americans. And oil burning vehicles are being replaced with electric vehicles. And China is the world leader in electricity production from renewable energy resources.
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China

 

Doesn't change the fact that Greenland and Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctica are losing ice because of global warming from the green house effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 by human activity.

 

Actual, yes, there is quite a bit of controversy on the amount of warming human activity causes versus natural warming. Most agree the larger contributor to warming is water vapor, e.g. clouds and such. Unfortunately since the mid 1990's. none scientific types have seized on the idea that AGW can be a useful tool/weapon in imposing societal and political change and they pay well for supporting "science".