The despicable lie of CLIMATE JUSTICE!!!

So the true argument is what is the man made percentage. If climate didn't always change then climate scientists would use a 30 year average for dictating what a climate average is.

 

I looked him up.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Third-party_characterizations_of_Lindzen

Here's his association with a right wing organization funded by, among others, Charles Koch:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Work_at_Cato_Institute

He's an oil company shill. They don't want us to know the truth.

Try the links in #74.

Next?

 

The problem is that its changing faster than it was before.

 

AOC is good looking, but I would suggest not listening to her. She's dumber than a rock.

 

Global trends in wildfire and its impacts - Royal Society
https://royalsociety.org › blog › 2020/10 › global-trend...

Oct 2, 2020 — Fire activity is on the rise in some regions, but when considering the total area burned at the global level, we are still not seeing an overall ...


Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus ...
https://royalsocietypublishing.org › doi › rstb.2015.0345

by SH Doerr · 2016 · Cited by 401 — The wider impacts of fire on society examined in §3b–d, however, ... the Royal Society Discussion Meeting 'The interaction of fire and ...
‎Introduction · ‎Has fire increased in many... · ‎Have fire impacts increased in...

Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth's surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence. Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. Regarding fire severity, limited data are available. For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement. Direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show no clear trends over the past three decades. Trends in indirect impacts, such as health problems from smoke or disruption to social functioning, remain insufficiently quantified to be examined. Global predictions for increased fire under a warming climate highlight the already urgent need for a more sustainable coexistence with fire. The data evaluation presented here aims to contribute to this by reducing misconceptions and facilitating a more informed understanding of the realities of global fire.

 

Drought is not unprecedented or worrisome.
Roger Pielke Jr. Weighs in on This Week's Hysteria: Drought
2021 › 06 › 14 › pielke-jr-weighs-in-on-drought
curiousSo I graphed percent of CONUS in drought according to the US drought monitor, data is weekly from 1/2000 ... ate-change-indicators-drought ... And here is the percent in drought (D0-D4) of the Colorado

 

This paper does not present data.

 

In relation to GDP, cost is falling.

New paper by Pielke Jr. - weather related disasters are decreasing in costs
2018 › 10 › 30 › new-paper-by-pielke-jr-weather-related-disasters-are-decreasing-in-costs
(GDP).’ ... By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people ... percentage of global GDP. ... Figure 3. Weather disaster losses as a percentage of global GDP

 

Ad hominem nonsense.

 

It is one of numerous measures(Caloric intake-symptoms of mal nutrition-infant mortality) that prove this whole thing is a total load of crap. While they have been lying about an environmental catastrophe life for people on this planet has gotten better with each decade!

Again let's quote Greta Thunberg. She has won about a dozen humanitarian awards and been nominated 2X for a Nobel prize and has an honorary doctorate degree for a reason. Her views are mainstream CC.

So what about that is true? Nothing!

 

How is it science to say things that are 100% not true?

How is it science to be wrong for 50-60 years about almost everything?

Why was Paul R. Ehrlich allowed to be a professor at Stanford for 57 years when every prediction he made about our planet never came true?

 

They are never ashamed about being wrong.

 

If I may take a moment to be politically incorrect, you take the most hysterical and hyperbolic statements from people, and extrapolate that to the present to try to prove to yourself and others that people aren't affecting the climate? Is that really a rational way to evaluate this issue? Why not talk about actual science and scientists. Were they wrong for 50 years? I think there's been quite a bit of uncertainty because, well, the climate is complicated. But that doesn't mean there's no evidence things are changing, are already significant, and likely someday will be significant enough even for your lagging indicators - unless counteracted by something else like technology to save people or grow stuff in a desert, e.g.

 

It just might.

 

A lot of places are becoming less habitable by the year. There are locations in my own country where you could die if you don't have airconditioning. That's a first. We're a hot country, but we've always managed without aircon (in fact until this century, it wasn't common .. and there are still many homes without it). But that was when our top temps rarely got to 45c .. especially in our coastal cities. Now they can reach 48c.

 

Cold kills many more than heat.

New Studies: Cold-Temperature Deaths Rising And 10-20 Times More Common Than Heat-Related Deaths

By Kenneth Richard on 12. September 2019

Since the 1980s, deaths attributable to excessive heat have declined, whereas deaths attributable to cold weather have not. Image Source: The Guardian Rising energy poverty with wind and solar energy penetration Heating a home in the United Kingdom became 63% more expensive in the last decade, and electricity prices have risen by 80% in Germany […]

 

Most hysterical? Greta Thunberg is a mainstream activist.

Her awards:

• Fritt Ord Award (2019)
• Rachel Carson Prize (2019)
• Ambassador of Conscience Award (2019)
• Right Livelihood Award (2019)
• International Children's Peace Prize (2019)
• Time Person of the Year (2019)
• Nordic Council Environment Prize (declined) (2019)[3]
• Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity (2020)

Honorary degrees:

• Doctor Honoris Causa, University of Mons
• Honorary Doctor of Laws (LLD), University of British Columbia's Okanagan Campus

2X nominated for a Nobel peace price 2019 and 2020 at age 17 and 18.

Time magazine person of the year 2019.

She is 19 years old. Oh she was allowed to testify as an expert before the United states congress.

 

Okay okay here's a non-hysterical account of the ongoing effects of climate change:

WMO update: 50:50 chance of global temperature temporarily reaching 1.5°C threshold in next five years | World Meteorological Organization

And for perspective:

Conservative media outlets found guilty of biased global warming coverage | Climate crisis | The Guardian

I never said hyperbole wasn't useful politically. Only that it isn't science, and not what we use to determine the objective truth for or against.

 

I appreciate your proving the science of CC is BS.

I really did not want this to be a CC debate however. We have several threads for that. I wanted to talk about the lie that CC effects pigmented people in a more negative way.

 

Sorry, but that's just modeling blather to generate headlines.

 

So what? Trying to change the subject?

We are being told and have been told that CC is killing pigmented people particularly. It is a lie.




Listen to congressman Keating's lies. "Threats to food and water safety". What a liar. He talks about sea levels rising at Cape cod. Better tell the Obama's their $11M house is in peril.

 

Never have I wanted to talk about Greta, lol. If you wanted to talk about actual climate scientists in the 80s saying things that didn't turn out to be true, that would be far more salient. The biggest point was that 97% of climate scientists believe in man-made climate change, and the other link is about what actual scientists predict for the near-future.

It would obviously follow if you believed CC were real. People of color have more poverty. People with poverty would be more affected by climate change. That effect is certainly not full-blown yet, or even in 12 years, but it should get more obvious over time. It's way more obvious now than it was 10 years ago to me, but I've always thought it's obvious people could affect the climate.

No thanks. Don't care what congressmen say. Lawyers shouldn't be in charge of making laws in the first place.

 

Not interested in your theories. We have been told for 50-60 years that we are in the middle of a climate catastrophe. That is a lie.

There is no evidence of any negative effects of climate on the world. The quality of life for ALL people has been getting better with each decade while we are told the world is coming to an end.

And sorry you do not get a do over mulligan every decade these liars are wrong.

 

--but not ALL the scientists and not ALL the experts. On this subject there's actually quite a bit of controversy but most folks seem to just go w/ those that tell them what they want to hear and dismiss them that don't.

What I see is a lot of very good people pushing AGW and a lot of other very good people dismissing it. That's partisan politics and I'm an amateur in that field. My problem w/ AGW is that I can never get straight answers on the basics of AGW and I'm not sure why. The fact is that I'm a retired professional environmental scientist from a US government meteorological section but when I ask 10th grade science questions about it all I get is "the experts say so and I trust science and the experts."

None of the AGW folks I've spoken w/ to date seems to really care about science. Maybe I haven't talked to the right people, maybe there're just too many political hacks running lose, but I keep looking for an AGW advocate that really cares about the science enough to actually look into it.

Do you?

 

I don't think there's much controversy among scientists as long ago as 2013, as I showed, 97%. I have reviewed some papers. The data I have seen shows a trend towards warmer and dryer and more volatile conditions, but I am not a climate scientist and could learn more. I mean, I guess ultimately it's less carbon locked in the earth, reintroducing carbon that was cycling back when the climate was extraordonarily different. Not the end of the world, but major disruptions and changes. And if microorganisms can make our atmosphere oxygenated, we are quite capable of making changes ourselves.