Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

Cite please. You can’t make claims like that without providing a source.

 

People want to believe for some reason and beliefs normally include no common sense. It is a little like arguing against the brick wall erected by government. Government "facts" trump everybody elses. Look what government did to misinform the public about covid. This really is no different. Power and control

 

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr:

"The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions"

STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2466-2006.09.pdf

I'm not going to buy and read a book! I note that his book appears to be about disasters.

This individual is director of the Sports Governance Center within the Department of Athletics at UColorado.

I'd rather hear from climatologists on climatology.

Wouldn't you?

 

I've never referred to my opinion. I HAVE referred to NOAA, NASA, IPCC, and other significant organizations deeply involved in climate science.

I haven't chosen peer reviewed studies, as one can find peer reviewed studies that are all over the board, and do NOT include the response of the greater field of climatology to show how those studies do or do not in themselves justify a contrarian position. Single papers can not do that. Single papers can not even demonstrate whether the issues in the paper have already been taken into account.

As for disaster analysis, it's an interesting topic. I'm not so sure that reported economic losses is the best measure of the seriousness of storms. It seems like a measure of success of mitigation spending, not storm severity. It's a little like measuring global people movement, as they vote with their feet on whether things have gotten too bad - another economic measure.

 

The IPCC isn't our government. It's the combination of scientists in climate related fields from all over the world.

People were very well informed about COVID. Today, resistance to medical advice is being driven by partisan politics, not science based medicine.

 

The standard tactic to avoid actual global data - attack and attempt to cancel the source. Dr. Pielke Jr. quotes extensively from the IPCC. Are you claiming that the IPCC is not to be trusted?

How many books have you read on climatology?

BTW you can access books for free - sometimes ebooks - from libraries.

 

If you truly understand what the IPCC says you must clearly understand that there has no increase in floods, droughts, hurricanes, etc.

 

No, all you have supplied is your opinion. That’s it. Period.

It’s too bad you don’t have ANY evidence for your opinions. You are like a Christian saying something is true because the Bible says so. And you can’t even cite chapter and verse from your bible. You’ve never read it. You have no idea what it says.

Your climate nutter buddies brought up economics of disasters. I just pointed out they are incorrect. You are welcome to chastise your nutter buddies for bringing it up.

Now, let’s see your EVIDENCE that the multiple studies from climatologists you reject are incorrect.

GO…..

 

You cited someone in ATHLETICS!!

Do you really think you can get by with THAT?

 

IPCC.

Again, hand picked studies do not form a basis for invalidating the vast majority of those working in the field.

You can find reviewed papers that dispute how gravity works, how evolution works, the existence of the big bang, etc., etc.

Hand picking papers is NOT a valid approach to consuming science.

 

He had been writing books on climate change for decades. And he reports on what the IPCC itself states and concludes. He was basically driven away from climate analysis a few years ago as the victim of the witch hunt that is happening routinely now in our society. It’s happened to me. Thankfully he is now stepping back into the arena in an attempt to literally save our economy and most specifically those in currently in the low income brackets from politicians not interested in the truth but only in re-election.

 

The scientific method states that it take only one instance to invalidate a hypothesis. If the claim is made that the upper stratosphere is cooling due to CO2 increase and and it can shown (and it has been shown) that it isn’t cooling the hypothesis is disproven. Science is never settled.

 

And, you think that the world of climatologists somehow missed what's going on in the atmosphere - the central location of carbon concern???

 

So who told you that crazy story, and why did you fall for it?

https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/stratospheric-cooling-vertical-fingerprinting

 

Nobody is hand picking papers. If you think I am then you better not use the IPCC anymore. Their publications are based on chosen papers.


No more fooling around. Please quote something from the IPCC that conflicts with the EVIDENCE provided. Go ahead. Be a man and cite something besides YOUR OPINION.

You and I BOTH know nothing in the IPCC reports conflicts with or invalidates the peer reviewed studies I’ve presented as evidence. If there was evidence to the contrary of what I’ve provided from CLIMATOLOGISTS you would be able to post a link to it and a pull quote of the conclusions.

LOL. I accept your concession that you have NOTHING but YOUR UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINIONS.

 

I see you hit the "LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!" stage sooner than you usually do. Don't worry, everyone knew you would hit it eventually -- you always do -- so you didn't disappoint anyone.

But you never tell us what the correct measure is, which means you're just invoking unknown magic, and then demanding that real science disprove your unknown magic.

Thanks for playing, and we have some lovely parting gifts for you, including our Political Forum home game.

You've made up some crazy theories before, and that's up there among the craziest of them.

None of the sane people said that anything "suddenly" happened. The aerosol pollution gradually declined, the CO2 level gradually increased. Interesting, how that concept was too complicated for you to grasp.

That statement makes no sense at all. Temperature readings don't assume anything about the cause of that temperature, except to adjust them for siting issues. And those adjustments are based on adjacent station data, not guesses about what changes climate. Those adjustments also make the warming look _smaller_, which makes your kook conspiracy theory look even kookier.

Dang, is there one single fact anywhere that you don't get completely wrong? Rhetorical question. There isn't.

https://spj.science.org/doi/10.34133/olar.0015

Anyways, it is true, you can overturn science by screaming "LIAR!" and "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" enough times, so keep on with what you're doing.

 

So what is your hypothesis about what controls climate?

What does it predict about future climate? Be specific. Don't just wave hands around and evade with "It says climate will change!". In what direction, and by how much?

What data could falsify it?

I note you seem reluctant to answer those simple questions. All deniers show the same reluctance. That's odd. If they're pushing actual science and not some sort of politically-based garbage pseudoscience, it should be easy for them to answer. It's certainly easy for the rational people here to answer those types of questions.

Any other deniers, feel free to jump in and answer those questions.

 

The composition of the atmosphere is not a direct controller of the global temperature. That’s a basic scientific fact.

 

How do you choose papers?

The difference with the IPCC is that there are numerous climatologists from around the world, thus individual papers get challenged, while the papers you choose do not get challenged by climatologists.

I don't choose papers, because papers need to be verified, challenged, work duplicated, and an understanding developed on how they fit with other evidence.

 

I was responding to your comment about the atmosphere.

Now, you want to switch to something else? Or, what?

 

Dr. Ben Santer.

 

My comment is accurate and stands. And the meaning is that CO2 concentration is not a direct control knob for global temperature.

 

The difference is that the IPCC does not consider all scientific papers. It only uses those papers which promote the narrative.

 

I don’t have one. Nobody has a hypothesis that has been proven. It is clear that the earth is warming as it ha 9 previous times in the Holocene with subsequent cooling. The last cooling period was the little ice age which ended in the mid 1800’s.

Solar cycles and the perturbations and variances of the rotation and orbit of the earth around the sun are major factors. There is however nothing that humans can do to change the periodic warming and cooling cycles. All we can do is be as prepared as possible to adapt locally to resulting situations. And the best way to do that is to maximize global economic growth. And the best way to do that is to maximize the availability and minimize the price of fossil fuels which can produce energy when needed on demand because there is no energy storage problem - the energy is stored in the fuel.

 

What I post is the conclusions of climatologists from around the world. I don’t just pick single papers. What I post is a representative sample of accepted evidence. I do exactly what the IPCC does. I post verifiable evidence produced by and accepted by climatologists.

Here’s a bit of a bible study for climate nutters.

The last time the IPCC addressed the subject of economic loss in a special report was this report.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX_Full_Report-1.pdf

The studies I presented earlier were published in 2018 and 2019, six years after the last time the IPCC had the balls to publish a special report on disasters. Of course it’s pure coincidence now that studies are being done that account for vulnerability and disasters besides cyclones the IPCC doesn’t publish a new special report.

You are in way over your head. You don’t read your bible but still share unsubstantiated opinions you THINK come from that bible.

Now, I’ve read your bible. I know what’s in there. I can quote chapter and verse. All you can do is post YOUR OPINION.