Maui Forest Fire: We need to change the Global Warming narrative

What do you want? It seems to me that is what you are asking because that is the only "action" that is proposed.

 

We agree here.

 

How else can you do it?

 

No idea.... we don't live in the 1700's so it's irrelevant.

Of course we do! But we don't live in the pre-industrial era. So I'm not sure it has any relevance in this discussion.

The term "Global" in "Global Warming" means it makes no difference where you live.

 

I want people to stop falling for the scam of giving more money and power to the government to improve the environment. All they do is regulate manufacturing to the point of sending it to China, where they have no regulations. Does the pollution stay in China?

 

First and foremost, education!

As I said: you need to catch up on topics that have been amply discussed in this forum. The Paris Accord, the IPCC reports, science associations from all over the world,... . If you are looking for one single binary solution, there is no such thing. Individual action might help a little, but the solution lies in policies. However, the SINGLE most important thing is dealing with disinformation. It was started by Oil Companies, but now it's gotten way out of their hands and taken a life of its own. Much of your posts are an example of how much damage disinformation has caused. Education about the topic is vital.

 

LOL... you want to "stop global warming" do you? Why? Humanity is enjoying some of the best global conditions in history of the planet, and it seems to be improving. When you suggest that "everyone will live were they should not live, have you not essentially doomed humanity to become extinct? Sounds like that's the direction you're moving towards.

 

It's clear you think that, but as for others, I'm not taking your word for it, nor do any of your quotes agree with that smear.

For science to prosper, improve the lives, to promote openness, it should, in my view, require a wide latitude of toleration, room for disagreement, but still maintain respect amongst its participants.

 

How ironic. Mann himself is among the most intolerant and disrespectful.

 

The term 'charlatan' denotes 'complete fake' Mann is a qualified climate scientist, his record, education, position, numerous awards, hundreds of papers,, and accomplishments prove it. Anyone can be wrong, that doesn't equal 'charlatan.

A blemish on a record does not rise to that characterization.

Given that your use of the term is more on the level of scoring cheap pollical points, I'm afraid it discredits you on the subject, in general.

As I stated in another response:

For science to prosper, improve the lives, to promote openness, it should require a wide latitude toleration and respect amongst its participants.

Your approach to the subject appears to be in direct conflict with this idea and more in accordance with an antagonist/political operative.

Give this (what appears to be fact), I'm no longer interested in continuing a debate with you on this subject, for if you are that incontrovertibly wrong on a simple term, the odds are you are wrong elsewhere.

 

You pretend to offer serious discussion, but your tawdriness on the use of 'liar' and 'charlatan' betrays it.

I'm afraid it's the ignore function, for you.

 

Climate scientists?

Feel free to back up your claim.


I will back up mine,

The claim that every survey of climate scientists said there was no consensus is not accurate. In fact, the opposite is true. Multiple surveys of climate scientists’ views on climate change have found a strong consensus that human activities are the primary cause of global warming.

For instance, a 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%, and a 2021 study concluded that consensus exceeded 99%12. Another 2021 study found that 98.7% of climate experts indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity.

A 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990 found that of the papers which expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming, 97% agreed, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.

Moreover, a recent survey of 88,125 climate-related studies found that more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans

So, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that human activities are causing global warming. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists’ opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/10/211019082702.htm
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-humans-climate.html
https://cals.cornell.edu/news/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-are-causing-climate-change

 

I'm in good company.
There are many scientists from across the spectrum featured inside, but I would like to cite the two who got me started. The first is Dr Judith Curry from the Georgia Institute of Technology:

For the past decade, scientists have come to the defense of Michael Mann, somehow thinking that defending Michael Mann is fighting against the 'war on science' and is standing up for academic freedom. It's time to let Michael Mann sink or swim on his own. Michael Mann is having all these problems because he chooses to try to muzzle people that are critical of Mann's science, critical of Mann's professional and personal behavior, and critical of Mann's behavior as revealed in the climategate emails. All this has nothing to do with defending climate science.

The second is Professor Jonathan Jones of Oxford University:

The Hockey Stick is obviously wrong. Everybody knows it is obviously wrong. Climategate 2011 shows that even many of its most outspoken public defenders know it is obviously wrong. And yet it goes on being published and defended year after year.

Do I expect you to publicly denounce the Hockey Stick as obvious drivel? Well yes, that's what you should do. It is the job of scientists of integrity to expose pathological science... It is a litmus test of whether climate scientists are prepared to stand up against the bullying defenders of pathology in their midst.
"A Disgrace to the Profession": The World's Scientists - in ...

SteynOnline
https://www.steynonline.com › a-disgrace-to-the-profe...


Aug 11, 2015 — So I hope you'll take a gander at "A Disgrace To The Profession": The world's scientists on Michael E Mann, his hockey stick, and their damage ...

 

100% of scientists should say that man is causing climate change. That is meaningless. Of course man causes climate change. The issue is whether man is causing disastrous climate change.

The kind of results I would expect is in one of the surveys you mentioned.
"When asked what they regard as "the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years," on a scale of 1 to 10, from Trivial to Catastrophic: 13% of respondents replied 1 to 3 (trivial/mild), 44% replied 4 to 7 (moderate), 41% replied 8 to 10 (severe/catastrophic), and 2% didn't know.[21]"

Only 41% replied it would be catastrophic. Do you really call that a consensus?

You just made my case.

 

As did I, which garnered over 1,900 comments, over 10x the response yours achieved.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...mate-alarmists-or-the-climate-deniers.595892/

 

Here's what you fail to grasp.

The severity of climate is NEVER obvious until it happens.

When those surveys were made, it wasn't anywhere near as obvious, in terms of severity, as it is today.

It's become more obvious as each month passes, that climate changes could easily become disastrous

In and ever increasing degree it IS disastrous.

The really relevant fact is that 100% agree.

The question of severity will be clear, as each month passes,. and if you can't see it, you are not paying attention.

 

Yep. That one degree C increase over a hundred years has me shaking in my boots.

Come on. Aren't you going to preach to us about consensus?

You just lost your argument. You have no technical knowledge to back you up. You are just peaching what your political masters have told you to preach.

 

Well, yes. My thread was quite a bit more technical and focus on the nuts and bolts of science. That's not everyone's cup of tea.
I starts threads to bring a serious issue to the forum, not to score replies.

 

That's funny, I only expected a few dozen replies.

Apparently, I posted something of interest for discussion on this forum, which is the purpose of this forum, eh?

But, one thing I've noticed in your posts on climate change, you seldom make an argument, you just post to technical papers and let others make the argument, then you expect others to debate what you posted.

Generally speaking, in the vast majority of forums in which I've participated, it is expected that the poster make his or her argument, give a path of reasoning, logic, etc., give examples, historical or otherwise, then link to authoritative sources which buttress the argument. In other words, the poster makes the argument, and links are for buttressing the argument, NOT actually making the argument.

But, it seems to me you don't even do that much, you just link to sources, and post no argument, or at least the few posts I've seen by you on this subject.

 

Climate is the sum of all the local parts. And if those parts are not warming neither is climate.

 

An old friend, a champion college debater, once shared with me that "debates are won in the library." While I'm willing to offer my own views, I find it more persuasive to let "the library" do most of the explaining. In climate science, the common deficit is in understanding the science. I strive to remedy that.

 

Just to clarify "global temperature" is not a measured entity; it an abstraction based on applying an algorithm to a mass collection of temperature readings, fabrications, and other mathematical legerdemain.

well, no, not exactly

. The "science consensus" is almost as bogus as "global temperature" It originated, not from a peer reviewed paper, but from a lot of number magic from an "essay" that played card tricks on a survey, that was neither scientific nor peer reviewed.

 

I think you misunderstood your friend.

Debates are won in the library means that you go to the library and do your homework

After you do your homework, then you present YOUR ARGUMENT

First, you state what your argument is, what is it's premise.

then YOU provide a path of reasoning, logic, elaboration.

then YOU provide some real world, preferably known, examples, anecdotal stories, etc., if any exist that buttress YOUR argument.

then YOU provide sources to buttress YOUR argument (the authoritative stuff you studied at the library).

What you DO NOT DO in a debate, is go to podium and hold up the book and tell people to read it and refute the book (which is essentially what you are doing)

A debate is about YOUR argument, and no one else's. You base it on study, of course, the library, or in modernity, the internet, but you need to make it YOUR argument.

I was on debate teams in college, too, my friend.

 

How cute, you are attempting to bolster your argument by trivialization (a type of posturing). Nice trick, but a cheap one.

A one-degree Celsius increase in global temperature might seem small, but it can have significant impacts on our climate. Here’s why (data points are hotlinked to sources):

1. Unusually Large Change: In a geological context, a global-scale warming of 1.8°F (1°C) in less than 150 years is an unusually large temperature change in a relatively short span of time.
   
   
2. Non-uniform Warming: Earth is not warming uniformly. Middle and high latitudes in general will warm more than the tropics, and land surface temperatures will rise more than ocean temperatures.
   
   
3. Impact on Natural and Human Systems: If global warming continues at an increasing rate, in several decades the world is likely to be warmer than it’s been for over a million years, with unpredictable consequences for humans and the natural resources we depend on.
   
   
4. Increased Heat Waves and Droughts: For 1.5°C of global warming, there will be increasing heat waves, longer warm seasons, and shorter cold seasons. Global warming can cause heat waves that occur during dry periods to be more intense.
   
   
5. Sea-Level Rise, Storms, and Heat Waves: Long-term trends show that the average global temperature has risen by more than one degree Celsius since the start of the 20th century. That may not sound like a lot, but it’s close to the global temperature scientists say can trigger dramatic sea-level rise, more destructive storms, and heat waves.

So even a small increase in global temperature can have significant impacts on our climate.

You can't claim I lost an argument when you haven't even made a counter argument, because 'you're wrong' is not an argument.

See above.

That's rhetoric, and rhetoric isn't science.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/11/world/carbon-capture-removal-pollution-climate-intl/index.html

Summary of the webpage:

Carbon capture and removal technologies are increasingly being considered as important tools in the fight against climate change. Carbon capture involves trapping carbon pollution at the source, such as power plants or industrial facilities, and either storing it or reusing it. Carbon removal, on the other hand, aims to remove carbon pollution that is already in the atmosphere and permanently store it.

There are various methods for carbon capture, including chemical scrubbing, where flue gas from burning fossil fuels is put in contact with a liquid solvent to pull out the carbon dioxide (CO2). The captured carbon can be stored underground or reused in products like chemicals or cement. However, some critics argue that carbon capture is expensive, unproven at scale, and may distract from efforts to reduce fossil fuel use.

Carbon removal techniques include mass tree planting, enhancing natural carbon sinks like oceans and forests, and developing technologies like biochar, direct air capture, and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. These methods aim to remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it permanently. However, these technologies are still in the early stages, expensive, and not yet scaled up enough to have a significant impact on global carbon emissions.

The economics of carbon capture and removal remain a challenge. Without policy changes, carbon capture technologies are more expensive to operate than traditional fossil fuel power plants. Regulations that incentivize carbon capture could help overcome this barrier. The European Union has set a target to store at least 55 million tons of CO2 annually by 2030.

There are concerns and potential problems associated with each form of carbon capture and removal. Mass tree planting and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage require large amounts of land, which could compete with food production. Direct air capture is expensive and requires significant amounts of clean energy to operate. Transporting and storing captured carbon also poses risks, such as pipeline leaks.

Critics argue that carbon capture and removal technologies can distract from efforts to phase out fossil fuels. However, proponents argue that all options should be considered to address the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions and avert dangerous warming. Some industries, such as cement production, may require carbon capture and removal technologies as there are currently no other viable solutions. Ultimately, the best way to address climate change is to prevent the release of CO2 into the atmosphere in the first place.

So, all in all, it's only a small portion of the over AGW fighting budget, and I deem they believed it was worthwhile enough to do it, but it's not like it's an 'all our eggs in one basket' kind of thing. If it were that, you'd have a valid point.