How Bad Is Global Warming?

[DrEvil]

^^He's a science adviser at the Heartland Institute and a well known denier who brings nothing new to the table.

[Harvey]

He makes some valid rhetorical points and yet I'm minded to point out the obvious.

1. That even if one man is correct and the majority of other informed opinion is wrong, it still makes sense to take action via renewables because it's a win win solution. Distributed, decentralised low carbon energy production makes sense even if everything the majority of us believe about global warming is false for several reasons. 1.A To describe the consensus as a 'hoax' is engaging in the same rhetorical device the lecture sets out to identify as a problem. More to the point the religion of denial of evidence, the central argument this lecture tries to prove turns out to be it's core method. Faith based doctrine is why we are where we are. Evidence based energy policy cannot happen when the various interests involved wish to maintain centralised high carbon energy production and spend billions to make this argument through multiple mouthpieces.

2. The arguments themselves are largely rhetorical and we are asked to take them as articles of faith rather than as convincing fact based rebuttal accommodating all available evidence instead of cherry picking that evidence to prove a thesis.

3. Energy production being centralised and controlled by relatively few is the larger part of the reason for current geopolitical instability and the high profits associated with fossil fuels are a central driver of war and current foreign policy. Decentralised energy production is the single biggest threat to status quo, is he or are you arguing against this in principle?

4. In principle the argument advanced is largely iconoclastic, yes, but is also isolated and trying to prove a thesis through isolated arguments which at worst point toward the complexity of the argument without pointing toward 'hoax' as explanation as the title would suggest.

Not buying. He doesn't address ocean acidification, global instability through artificial restriction of supply or even the environmental damage associated with oil coal and gas extraction, let alone burning.

Reactionary conservatism dressed as iconoclasm. Who funds his 'research'? Who funded this conference? Who gave him this platform? Why does he identify the current power structures as the most reliable source of information? Why does he claim that everything is getting better contrary to our experience?

[Joe Hillshoist]

Ivar Giaever

This is garbage. Al Gore didn't "start" Global Warming. the evidence is incontravertible. No one is able to make a coherent argument that suggests agw is not happening and that it can't be happening due to anthropogenic emissions. until someone does it remains incontravertible and i'm sure gioven the funds available if someone were able to show this then they would have by now. The temp has gone up in the last 19 years. His claim is false. The Ocean... has this clown ever heard of El Nino and what it does. There is no increase in the amount of ice at the South Pole.

Thats it - not listening any more.

[Iamwhomiam]

Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever: Obama Is 'Dead Wrong' on Climate Change
On 1 July 2015, Dr. Ivar Giaever took the stage at the 65th Nobel Laureate Meeting in Lindau, Germany, to give a speech about global warming. During the course of his speech, Giaever, who shared the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics with Leo Esaki and Brian Josephson, denounced President Obama's claim that global warming was the biggest threat facing the world today (relevant comments begin around the 26-minute mark):

http://www.snopes.com/2015/07/08/nobel-ivar-giaever-obama-climate-change/

[FourthBase]

The temp has gone up in the last 19 years.

Not according to the study I linked to above, co-authored by McCann. Pause is real, the theories why pause is unreal are wrong. Not just deniers saying that now. Unless you mean it's gone up insignificantly?

Obviously, if the global temperature held steady but either pole was warming locally, then that's still a potentially catastrophic problem. But as for the pause, I'd like to know why folks here think McCann is now pro-pause. Do you think it's because of the science, or do you think McCann is now a traitor or bribed or compromised or something?

[Joe Hillshoist]

The temp has gone up in the last 19 years.

Not according to the study I linked to above, co-authored by McCann. Pause is real, the theories why pause is unreal are wrong. Not just deniers saying that now. Unless you mean it's gone up insignificantly?

Obviously, if the global temperature held steady but either pole was warming locally, then that's still a potentially catastrophic problem. But as for the pause, I'd like to know why folks here think McCann is now pro-pause. Do you think it's because of the science, or do you think McCann is now a traitor or bribed or compromised or something?

That one that didn't actually claim a pause had happened. It said the "rate of increase" had slowed, not stopped.

According to Ed hawkins one of the authors of the paper you linked:

Firstly, climate scientists agree that global warming has not ‘stopped’ – global surface temperatures and ocean heat content have continued to increase, sea levels are still rising, and the planet is retaining ~0.5 days of the sun’s incoming energy per year.
...
Overall, there is compelling evidence that there has been a temporary slowdown in observed global surface warming, especially when examined relative to our expectations, which can be explained by a combination of factors. Research into the nature and causes of this event has triggered improved understanding of observational biases, radiative forcing and internal variability. This has led to more widespread recognition that modulation by internal variability is large enough to produce a significantly reduced rate of surface temperature increase for a decade or even more — particularly if internal variability is augmented by the externally driven cooling caused by a succession of volcanic eruptions.

The legacy of this new understanding will certainly outlive the recent warming slowdown.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26525&start=2085#p590960

See how he says temporary slowdown in rate of increase. That isn't an actual pause. Cos a pause is a temporary halt.

Did you expect to have a uniform change in measureable temps over any time period?

The paper you linked to doesn't show a pause in global warming.

It examines why the rate of heating isn't as rapid as it was during the time period that ended with the 1998 El Nino. It doesn't examine why there was no heating.

[divideandconquer]

I thought Snopes was thoroughly discredited as it's funded by Soros.

I realize most people here believe in the official global warming/climate change story, so I normally ignore this subject, but every once in a while I can't help but chime in. I believe "climate change"--the way it's presented and/or as defined by the mainstream that scares/blames the sheep and to further support their case for “heavy involvement of governments at top level in climate control projects,”... for owning the weather (Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025)--is a total scam in order to profit and gain even more power and control Of course the climate changes, as it has for thousands, millions, billions of years.



However, there is no doubt in my mind that the planet--soil, air, water-- is being intentionally damaged/poisoned, but not by us--although we do nothing to stop them/continue to listen to their official story/close our eyes to what's obvious-- but by the powers that be, who are pushing their global agenda.

Between GMOs; industrial farming and chemically dependent agriculture; atmospheric geoengineering (‘persistent contrails’ distinguishes those that contain weather-altering additives from those that represent normal aircraft exhaust that dissipates after a few seconds or minutes) "Fukishima", and, in general, the use of high-tech systems that damage climate, weather, tectonic and biological systems...

'Global warming the greatest scam in history' claims founder of Weather Channel

[Sounder]

What a given thing is, is a function of what it does.

AGW, like war on whatever ties people into allegiance to the dominant narrative.

That narrative naturally promotes the need for large scale institutions to 'solve' our problems.

That and the mechanical philosophy (because that perfects the othering process and turns us into objects)

Cancer, drugs, green revolutions, AGW or whatever become incidental patsies in a war, used to corruptly monetize the better natures of the naive masses.

[Luther Blissett]

If there had been a pause or a slowdown, that's all over now. It took roughly 150 years from the Industrial Revolution to October 2015 to warm 1°C, but it has warned about 0.4-0.6°C in the interceding five months. That is pretty mind-boggling, but this El Niño effectively breaking the ocean's heat-absorbing capabilities and a number of positive feedback loops kicking on demonstrate why. We've been warned about runaway warming, and by the end of 2016 we'll probably level out to about 1.3°C of warming if we're lucky.

Environmentalists are not winning this fight.

[Iamwhomiam]

I thought Snopes was thoroughly discredited as it's funded by Soros.

I realize most people here believe in the official global warming/climate change story, so I normally ignore this subject, but every once in a while I can't help but chime in. I believe "climate change"--the way it's presented and/or as defined by the mainstream that scares/blames the sheep and to further support their case for “heavy involvement of governments at top level in climate control projects,”... for owning the weather (Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025)--is a total scam in order to profit and gain even more power and control Of course the climate changes, as it has for thousands, millions, billions of years.



However, there is no doubt in my mind that the planet--soil, air, water-- is being intentionally damaged/poisoned, but not by us--although we do nothing to stop them/continue to listen to their official story/close our eyes to what's obvious-- but by the powers that be, who are pushing their global agenda.

Between GMOs; industrial farming and chemically dependent agriculture; atmospheric geoengineering (‘persistent contrails’ distinguishes those that contain weather-altering additives from those that represent normal aircraft exhaust that dissipates after a few seconds or minutes) "Fukishima", and, in general, the use of high-tech systems that damage climate, weather, tectonic and biological systems...

'Global warming the greatest scam in history' claims founder of Weather Channel

Yeah criticize Snopes, because George Soros edits each one of its thousands of inquiries, I have too. But it's best not to omit the corrections from articles written in early June of 2015:

Correction

This article originally referred to John Coleman as a top meteorologist; that reference has now been removed. It also claimed that in 2010 a high-level inquiry by the InterAcademy Council found there was “little evidence” to support the IPCC’s claims about global warming. In fact, the InterAcademy Council had not found that. The article has now been amended.

And who besides divideandconquer would link to http://politicalvelcraft.org/ as authoritative in any way on the subject of our changing climate? The doubters persist.

Frankly, it's absurd to any longer doubt the reality or causes of our warming climate. Especially when doubters propose its artificiality is promoted to enhance efforts of globalist industrialists because our warming climate is far more likely to be blamed as reason for the very real yet still pending worldwide economic collapse of all industry.

The Express? Really? Your go to source for combating science?

Do you have anything reflecting the current reaction by deniers on news of February's extraordinary warming? Something written on June 9, 2015 does not.

Anyone who believes they personally are being blamed for warming our climate have read very little that's educational on the subject. Environmentalists like me have and are actually working successfully to lower poisonous and climate damaging industrial emissions, although I might suggest you compost the organic wastes your household introduces into the environment to lower its potential for producing methane emissions.

If you knew how very much damage the Koch brothers industries have done to our planet, to our personal health, you would loath them as I do.

Oh, about this,

(‘persistent contrails’ distinguishes those that contain weather-altering additives from those that represent normal aircraft exhaust that dissipates after a few seconds or minutes)

If you really believe this, you have no understanding how very persistent carboniferous emissions are once they've been introduced into our atmosphere, and therefore can only inform us of your own uninformed opinions on the topic.

Edited to correct typo 'who' to 'how'

[Joe Hillshoist]

AGW, like war on whatever ties people into allegiance to the dominant narrative.

That narrative naturally promotes the need for large scale institutions to 'solve' our problems.

So do the seasons.

Winter???


pffft. Doesn't exist. Its just a construct to tie people to the dominant narrative,

[DrEvil]

I think Sounder may be suffering from 'Compulsive Narrative Syndrome'.

[Iamwhomiam]

Second thoughts:

I thought Snopes was thoroughly discredited as it's funded by Soros.

I should have written, "I thought climate change deniers were thoroughly discredited, you know, by Science."

Hmm, Dominant Narratives, (hee hee! I just misspelled 'narratives' as 'marratives', which seems fitting quite well to what continues to play out.)

"interest in one or another of these is sparked, and normally rational people get caught up in the excitement. When the fad disintegrates, some learn from the experience, others go on to new enthusiasms, and a few stick to their empty guns."

Which prompts this somewhat rational mind to ponder, Hmm, I wonder what's really root to all those who doubt our climate is changing while faced with abounding evidence that it is and is caused by carbon compounds introduced into our atmosphere? And my mind drifts, lost in wonder... Until it comes to me, the source of their mistrust:

[Harvey]

However, there is no doubt in my mind that the planet--soil, air, water-- is being intentionally damaged/poisoned, but not by us--although we do nothing to stop them

There's one of your main problems right there. 7 billion plus is quite a multiplier however small your footprint is, multiply it by 7 billion, it's quite a lot. We all begin to deny the object of our guilt, then hate it. Why wouldn't you choose what you want to believe? It's easier not to be responsible. After all others are far more responsible. Acquiring less, using less, it flies against the American dream.

The Sheep Look Up by John Brunner. 40 plus years of getting it more or less right. And counting.

[Sounder]

Sounder » 07 Mar 2016 03:36 wrote:AGW, like war on whatever ties people into allegiance to the dominant narrative.

That narrative naturally promotes the need for large scale institutions to 'solve' our problems.

So do the seasons.

Winter???


pffft. Doesn't exist. Its just a construct to tie people to the dominant narrative,

It's always amusing when folk cannot deal with words as written, yet feel so confident about creating alternate 'dialogue'.


Social conformity signaling is drowning out rationality here. Do we have a 'war' going on against winter?

And I did not say that those things do not exist as 'problems', I simply indicated my opinion that the 'problems' become incidental patsies in a war, used to corruptly monetize the better natures of the naive masses.

Deal with it or distract from it, I don't much care.