The Destructive Behavior of Climate Alarmists

Wow the stupidity of Democrats beliefs in full view even the democrats who are victims are still being stupid.

 

Ah, the irony. You don't see regular threads from normal people demonizing deniers here. You do see such regular threads from deniers. They've been trained in the propaganda of demonization. Alinksy would be so proud of them.

So, let's go over their "logic" here:

1. Random raving about "radical groups". That is, propaganda designed to elicit fear and hysteria. It's a variation of how the right now brings up "antifa" to deflect away from every screwup they make.

2. Finding some random nobody somewhere who said something dumb, and declaring that means all of the normal people think like that.

3. Taking a bad prediction from someone who wasn't a climate scientist, and declaring how that means climate science is all wrong.

So why do deniers rely entirely on sleaze and hysterics? That's obvious. All the hard data says they're wrong. They've botched all of their predictions 40 years running. They have to deflect from their perfect record of failure somehow.

 

Obviously not much of a memory here since "climate change" has been a failure for 60 years, back all the way to when it was "global cooling" heralding the coming of the new ice age.

And if global warming was actually true now, folks like the Obama's (who are obviously true believers, wouldn't be building multiple million dollar homes on oceanfront property.

Nope, it's only a matter of time until global warming crashes on the rocks of the scientific impossibility of eliminating CO2 from modern life.

 

Use of the term "deniers" is itself the worst offense. Are you counting New York's city government as "some random nobody somewhere who said something dumb"?

 

It was your side predicting an ice age, and who are still predicting an ice age. That's right, your side has been failing completely for that long. In stark contrast, the climate scientists were predicting warming back then. We've been right all along, you've been wrong, and we'll point it out when you project your own failures on to us.

That makes no sense at all.

First, the actions of one person reflect not a bit on the science.

And second, the time scales involved mean the Obama's can get quite a bit of enjoyment from their property.

Why do you want to eliminate CO2 from modern life? I haven't heard any other human say they desire such a thing, so it must be coming from you.

If you want to live in a cave and hug trees, fine. However, most of us like electricity and indoor plumbing. That's why we're working to keep the lights on after the fossil fuels run out. Deniers would leave humanity shivering in the dark, forever.

 

Says the guy flinging out "alarmists" at every opportunity.

And you expect to be taken seriously now, after displaying that sort of sleazy double standard?

I haven't read every bit of your cut-and-paste propaganda -- nobody has -- so you'll need to be more specific. Exactly what dishonest fallacies were you referring to?

 

A Walk Down Memory Lane: 1970's Global Cooling

 

And again, almost all of that from your side.

Nobody is denying that the media was hyping cooling then, but what they hyped came from your side. The mainstream climate scientists were predicting warming in the 1970s.

 

. . . New York City’s bid to create the first real test of an impossible green energy deadline is found in its Climate Mobilization Act of 2019, the key part of which goes by the name Local Law 97. LL97 (formal name: New York City Administrative Code Sections 28-320 and 28-321) imposes energy efficiency standards on large residential buildings starting in 2024 — next year. Buildings that fail to meet the standards are subject to large and accelerating fines starting right away.

It appears that the owners of these buildings are just now figuring out that the standards that have been set cannot be met, at least not in any remotely reasonable way. What next?

The New York Times had a big front page article on Monday about the maneuvers of one large building to try to comply with the law. The headline (online version) is “A Huge City Polluter? Buildings. Here’s a Surprising Fix.” . . .
Anyway, the people now running Glenwood, who are no dummies, have figured out that even in a premium building like this that is rolling in money, compliance with LL97 on its own terms is not a realistic option. The building is heated with natural gas — as are nearly all similar buildings. Being the goodie goodie Democratic Party sycophants that they are, the Glenwood people initially tried the route of compliance with the new standards on their own terms by doing all the obvious things to increase energy efficiency. But it was not nearly enough. From the Times:

Ahead of the new climate law, the company had made all the easy changes to save energy and reduce emissions: it replaced incandescent light bulbs with LEDs, upgraded old fan motors and improved insulation. But it wasn’t enough: The Grand Tier was set to face roughly $100,000 per year in fines starting in 2024, rising to $400,000 per year in 2030, because of those two giant carbon-spewing boilers in the basement.

The only route left to comply with the literal terms of the law would have been to convert the whole building to electric heat, which would mean a full re-wiring from top to bottom, at enormous expense. To avoid that, the Glenwood people are trying a different gambit: Carbon Capture! From the Times again:

[T]he hot exhaust from [the building’s natural gas] boilers [is] funneled through a duct to a small, spotless room filled with pipes, rumbling compressors and metal tanks. Inside several of those tanks [are] dry absorbent materials that look like lentils and bind to carbon dioxide, allowing the machines to filter out other gases like nitrogen and oxygen. The remaining carbon dioxide [are] then chilled to minus 10 degrees Fahrenheit and turned to liquid.

One problem: carbon capture is not a permitted option under the law for complying with its emissions standards. And the City bureaucrats are not about to stick their necks out to help the likes of Glenwood — or any of the thousands of other landlords caught in the same spot. . . .

 

Are you not alarmed?

 

This makes a nice matched set with 2021's COP 26.
1979 UN Global Cooling Conference
Posted on November 4, 2021 by tonyheller
In 1979, the World Meteorological Organization gathered 450 experts to discuss the threat of global cooling.



14 Feb 1979, 20 – News-Journal at Newspapers.com

 

That's not part of the article. That's an alarmist opinion that someone snuck in, trying to make it look like it was part of the article.

 

That's what someone in the media said. It's not what the scientists said.

Here are the actual conference results. I can't reproduce the text easily because it's in PDF form, but right there in "climate and the future", they predict ... warming.

https://dgvn.de/fileadmin/user_upload/DOKUMENTE/WCC-3/Declaration_WCC1.pdf

 

From the Times:

For now, however, carbon capture faces an enormous hurdle: It has not been approved by the city as a solution that complies with Local Law 97, since the technology didn’t exist when the law was drafted. The Department of Buildings, which enforces the law, said it is reviewing CarbonQuest’s system but has a number of questions, such as how to verify the emission reductions claimed by the Grand Tier.

 

And yet:
Here's what "following the science" looked like fifty years ago.
The 2021 Ice Age
Posted on October 24, 2021 by tonyheller
Fifty years ago today, the LA Times announced the new ice age. NASA said it would come in 50-60 years.



24 Oct 1971, 37 – The Los Angeles Times at Newspapers.com

h/t/ Don Penim



U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming
. . . .

 

Ha ha ha he is ducking and weaving around all those articles you posted Jack, he can't accept the obvious that at one time Scientists were serious about Global Cooling and were worried about it too.

The Media back in the 1970's were also pushing the cooling stories hard, below is a sampling list:

Popular Technology.net

1970s Global Cooling Alarmism



"The scientists and computers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration were confidently predicting that the frigid weather would continue. The chilling pronouncement of NOAA's senior climatologist: 'The forecast is for no change.' "
- Time Magazine, 1977

LINK

 

Debunked: the "debunking" of the 1970s scientific consensus on global cooling

Anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers have to contrive some way to avoid dealing with the fact that in the 1970s, the scientific consensus was that the world had been cooling, and that this was partly due to human fossil fuel use, and if sustained could become very dangerous. Their solution, as usual: cherry picking, gaslighting, and outright lying.

In 2008, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society published a paper by
Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley (yes, the same William Connolley who later turned Wikipedia into his own private anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda blog), and John Fleck entitled, "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus" (often referred to as "PCF08"). This paper purported to summarize the peer-reviewed global temperature research of the 1970s, and stated that the consensus, even then, was overwhelmingly in favor of global warming, and that the global cooling scare of the 1970s had been manufactured by the popular media. Anti-fossil-fuel propagandists have relied heavily on this paper to dismiss the global cooling consensus of the 1970s ever since it was published.

However, a more complete (and honest) analysis of peer-reviewed global temperature research from the late 1960s through the 1970s by Angus Mcfarlane
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347966094_The_1970s_Global_Cooling_Consensus_was_not_a_Myth) in 2018 reveals a very different picture. Mcfarlane shows that PCF08 was based on cherry picking the journals and tuning the search terms to exclude papers that reported global cooling. His far more comprehensive literature review confirms that up to the mid-1970s there was overwhelming (~85%) scientific consensus that the world had been cooling for decades, and that if this trend continued, there was a danger of catastrophic cooling. Only towards the late 1970s did the consensus begin to shift towards global warming and anti-fossil-fuel hysteria.

 

No. Your claim is just objectively false. YOUR OWN SOURCE states that the northern hemisphere climate HAD COOLED in the previous few decades, proving your claims objectively false, and only that it was PLAUSIBLE that it COULD warm in the future as a result of increased CO2, which does not support your claims of a consensus on warming. The claim that there was no consensus in the 1970s that climate had cooled since the 1940s remains a bald falsehood, likely originated by Lying William Connolley for gaslighting purposes. The claim that there was a consensus in the 1970s that increased CO2 would cause significant warming likewise remains a bald falsehood likely originated by Lying William Connolley.

 

Anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers aren't normal people... but we do regularly see demonization of climate realists from them -- including use of the absurd and dishonest smear, "deniers":

See?

Ah. The. Irony.

Who falsely and absurdly accuses whom of being in the pay of fossil fuel interests? Who falsely and absurdly accuses whom of being "deniers"?

Without reading further, I know you will just be makin' $#!+ up:

See? That describes anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers much more than climate realists.

That is deflection on your part. See?

Versus claiming that the absurd and hysterical prognostications of politically active climate science "authorities" represent what "normal people" think...

You made that up. Hysterical prognostications of CO2 doom are not "all climate science."

What's obvious is that you simply made that up.

And that.

And that.

Classic projection. It is the hysterical doomcrying that has the perfect record of failure. By contrast, climate realists have a perfect record of predictive success:
1. No, there is no credible empirical evidence that global climate is or has been warming unnaturally rapidly or outside the range of natural variation;
2. No, there is no credible empirical evidence that CO2 is the principal driver of global surface temperature; and
3. No, there is no plausible scientific reason to think CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use have been or will be harmful.

 

And then they said it would warm in the future, something that you pretend not to have read. This isn't a debate. Scientists were predicting warming at the time, and anyone claiming otherwise is lying.

So you're pretending you don't understand the difference between past measurements and future predictions. Your days of not being taken seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

I understand. Since you can't argue against the data, you're attacking a random person as a way of deflecting. As your mentor Alinksy taught you, "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

 

No, your claims continue to be false. They said it COULD warm in the future -- which, given the cyclical nature of climate, was a pretty safe bet.

Right. A debate would require you to provide facts and arguments in good faith.

No. Some scientists said warming was possible, which of course it was and is. That is very different from your claim that there was a consensus that CO2 was going to cause warming.

No, you are proving you don't.

I have shown they support my position.

A prolific climate liar and censor is not a random person.

<yawn> I am not the one who needs to deflect or invoke Alinsky. You are, because actual physical events keeping proving me right.

 

Words like "likely" and "plausible" were used along with "warming". No such words were used along with any cooling predictions. No cooling predictions were made.

A claim about consensus predicted cooling was put forth.

I showed that claim was false. That's not debatable. To do that, it wasn't necessary for me to prove 100% strong warming consensus. I only had to show the consensus tilted towards warming.

So, stop moving the goalposts. I set out to debunk a false denier claim, I succeeded. If that upsets you, so be it.

 

Sorry, but the only thing false is your claim.
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347966094_The_1970s_Global_Cooling_Consensus_was_not_a_Myth)

 

Reading NoTricksZone, it seems they defined a paper as "predicting cooling" if it merely pointed out that _past_ temperature had recently cooled.

That is, your source redefined "predicted" to get the results it wanted.

 

Good thinking. Weird bitter political rants are exactly how you show people that you're driven by just the facts.

Oh wait. That's not how it works. What you did demonstrates how your "science" is determined entirely by what your politics says the "science" should be.

Needless to say, you don't see any of us on the rational side invoking politics to explain the science. When you simply follow the data, you don't need to invoke politics.