True. I would hope someone claiming all predictions made by climate scientists since 1970 are “spot on” would know who he is regardless of age. We shall see I guess. It’s likely I’ll get no response as most of the “accept AGW but deny other climate science” crowd has no interest in discussing science with me. I tend to present far too much evidence from scientists for my posts to be palatable.
Thanks for the share. To be honest I feel that even though he was exonerated, Mann is forever tainted in the eyes of the scientific community. I also feel that climate scientists are perhaps not the most compelling advocates in the public sphere of the climate debate, because they will be seen as biased no matter what they do. In my opinion there is no way to talk to climate change deniers. They will only consider the alternative viewpoint when climate change affects some personally and in a negative way sufficient to make them uncomfortable. Also - given that most are right wingers, they would probably accept climate change must really if government and left-wing institutions were advocating the opposite...
Lol. I'm on a, shock-horror, diesel-electric train in rural Germany at the moment so I don't have the bandwidth to watch it.
It's been clear for the past several years that politics is forcing its way into climate science. Big money for the "correct findings" on a study, and fame and fortune for scientists on the correct side of the issue are hard obstacles for actual science to battle against. And the safest part is many scientists are buying into the Social justice side of the equation; "the studies may not accurately detail the future but they further "social justice" and global equity.
There is one thing I do give a lot of respect to Carl Sagan about. He was always a closet Marxist, and tended to buy into and support some radical ideas. And one of his big things in the 1980s and start of the 1990s was "Nuclear Winter". He was actually one of the five scientists that created the theory and wrote the papers explaining about what Nuclear Winter was, and how it would affect the planet (he was the S in the TTAPS Report). However, I also tip my hat to him because for those of us that do remember him, in late 1990 and early 1991 he was making some apocalyptic predictions about the Gulf War. Iraq was already threatening to blow up the Kuwaiti Oil Wells, Dr. Sagan was everywhere saying that if they blew up even 300 oil wells, the resulting smoke and aerosols would plunge a large chunk of the planet into a nuclear winter within a month. And sub-zero temperatures in most of the region. And if it went on for more than two months, we could start a new ice age. However, we all know what really happened. In reality, they blew up over 700 oil wells. All of them burned for multiple months, consuming and expelling the smoke and gasses from over 6 million barrels of oil per day. Efforts to put them out could not even start for almost 6 months, and many burned for a year. And the result to the climate either locally or globally was negligible. And to give Dr. Sagan credit, after that he had the integrity to admit they were wrong. And I found Dr. Sagan refreshingly honest in doing so. Most will hem and haw, and make excuses and go on and on about how their models needed to be corrected, and they were not wrong but were correct and simply made an error somewhere. He actually pretty much went "Well, we got that wrong. Toss out that entire theory, it's was wrong". I would give a lot more attention to the AGW fanatics and take them far more seriously if they had the same integrity as Dr. Sagan. There is absolutely nothing bad about "being wrong". That is expected, that is part of science. But when you are wrong, then say you simply need to change the model and shuffle the data and continue you are correct, that starts to get rational people questioning things. And when it is done repeatedly, year after year with none of the predictions actually happening, that is when I realized that none of them really know a damned thing about what they are talking about. But what I find fascinating, is that the information I got from geology classes almost half a century ago actually are amazingly correct. Of course, they were looking at the planet as a whole and the trends of past glaciations and making predictions in chunks of maybe 2 or 3 centuries at the shortest. Much more commonly in thousands of years. Not trying to scare people to death with imminent danger in 5 years. And exactly how long now have they been telling us we have 5 years until we kill the planet? Because I know I have been hearing that line for over 5 decades also. To me, almost all of them are the junk scientists that cry "Wolf". And I will make a prediction right now. That in 2030, a great many of them will still predicting we have 5 years to fix everything or we will kill the planet.
And if you do not accept and promote it, then you run a serious risk of being "cancelled". The "Cancel Culture" that all of this falls into reminds me a hell of a lot of Fundamentalist Religions. Accept the Dogma, or Suffer the Consequences. And any that refuse to accept it are heretics and must be burned as such. There actually are some I have had good conversations with. But they seem to have a grasp of what is happening, and do not fall into the "born again zealot" segment that most of them seem to belong to. And the sad thing is, cancel culture is trying to do the same thing to science that it has done to many other areas of our culture. https://www.npr.org/2022/09/23/1124...-to-fire-the-head-of-the-world-bank-heres-why
I think you will find that if you look at 90% of those that are generally labeled as "deniers", they are not at all. At most, they are skeptics that tend to dismiss the fanatics on the other side (or me, who dismisses the fanatics on both sides) because they see them for what they tend to be. Fanatics that will attack anybody that refuses to believe what they say just because they say so. As an example, hundreds of times I have outright challenged those that make that claim against me, and asked them to tell me what exactly makes me a "denier". And I have done that hundreds of times for over a decade now. And not once have I ever actually gotten a response. Almost all of them will simply outright ignore that I asked them that, and spin more circles in the sand. When they can not even articulate what a "denier" is or what somebody says that makes them one, that alone tells me it is a meaningless word. That ultimately only means "anybody that does not agree 100% with what I believe".
According to Google maps top speed is exactly 160kph. What I love though is the dedicated area where I can leave my bike.
What will fascinate me most of all is whether in five years (given current trends) people will still be denying that the planet is warming
Of course the planet is warming, it has been warming for over 10 ky, and will continue to warm for another 10-20 ky. And short of a massive asteroid impact or a huge jump in volcanology or decrease in the emission of radiation from the sun that will not change.
Well, feel free to look in this thread alone how many times I have challenged the OP to say what makes me a denier. And notice, the OP absolutely refuses to even acknowledge that I asked that question. I simply can not take those that have "Terminal Ostrich Syndrome" seriously. And when all they can do is throw slurs around and not even explain why they apply, they might as well go back in time 400 years and simply scream that everybody they do not like is a "witch".
It will not, it has been accelerating for thousands of years. One of the main causes is the change in the albedo of the planet. Something I first learned about over 4 decades ago, when my geology teacher was showing us how the "New Ice Age" nuts were wrong. The albedo is still shrinking, which is allowing even more radiation to reach the planet, making it warm faster. But for the planet, that is a good thing. More water released into the atmosphere (which also raises temperatures). More deserts will start to turn green, and more and more permafrost and tundra will transition into grasslands. And more grasslands will transition into arboreal regions. This is how it has always been in the past, and how it will be eventually in the future. During interglacials, we always lose the ice cap over the Arctic, and almost all of the glacier over Greenland. And almost all of the sea and coastal ice around Antarctica. And I have seen absolutely nothing to indicate that this one will be any different once it arrives. Because we actually are still in an ice age.
Ha. The worst I could accuse you of doing is wielding research like a blunt-trauma weapon. However, this is technically not against the rules
Thing is - if they did listen Mann actually agrees with one of the major issues they bring up - that the climate has changed in the past. But, he like other scientists are concerned because those previous rapid changes have also caused mass extinction
Linky?? ooooh! Ooooh! Oooh! The ipcc has missed something! Quick! Let’s write a paper and submit it to them!/ sarcasm. And looky! Seeems the IPCC has already been there done that https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter2-1.pdf Get back to me if you find any errors oy! Puts head in hands and despairs Australia tend map for “pan evaporation” http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/trendmaps.cgi?map=evap&area=aus&season=0112&period=1970 as you can see higher temps = more evaporation alright but not necessarily more precipitation The Eastern seaboard will see more flooding - which is a concern since we have a lot of flood plains with infrastructure built on them but the interior…….. The other factor is this is not gentle rain but sudden intense precipitation- the sort that does not water crops but washes them away http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/australias-changing-climate.shtml Y es climate change has happened in the past BUT NOT THIS FAST! Looking at fossil recirds every single time climate change has happened anywhere near as fast as this it has caused mass extinction
I brought up Carl Sagan in the context of the claim predictions of warming since 1970 have been spot on. In 1985 Sagan said the best predictions were a several degree Celsius rise by 2050 (or 2100). Not a particularly specific prediction. He was clear that was based on the current rate of fossil fuel use at the time. So we can find new predictions that foretell a 4°C rise by 2100. Is that “several”? But the biggest problem is emissions have essentially doubled from fossil fuels since 1985. So even if we see 4°C increase by 2100 and 4° is “several” he was off by a factor of at least 2. Just pointing out predictions since 1970 have not been spot on. That is all. It’s fun to say stuff like that but the evidence is contrary to the unsubstantiated opinion.
SIGH. The IPCC didn’t exist in 1985! I just specifically pointed out a claim from 1985. The IPCC didn’t exist until 1988. Your link is to AR5 that was released in 2013-2014. I’m uninterested in fallacy from you. You are welcome to address my post. It involves claims made by Carl Sagan in 1985 that were erroneous. I posted to show that your science denier buddy that claimed every prediction since 1970 was “spot on” is factually incorrect. Please READ what I post and respond to what I post. Don’t pretend 2014 is 1985. SMH. It is still a violation of forum rules to post links without supplying pull quotes or a reference to what specifically in your argument the link is supposed to support.
You are aware your link is in direct contradiction to Sagan’s predictions from 1985, right? Which is solid evidence my point is CORRECT. Oh, I forget you don’t actually read your links.
