Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

I just laugh at this 'settled science'. It was settled by the 'experts' in the 1978 video I posted. I remember it well. When that didn't work out it became 'greenhouse gases' and global warming. Now it's just 'climate change'. We get lied to over and over. They say it's CO2 causing the warming. During the last ice age, CO2 levels were higher than they are today. As shown in some earlier charts on this thread, temperatures were higher in the 1930's than today....with lower CO2 levels. So called climate warming can't be tied to CO2 levels.....and that's a problem for the left....since they want to destroy the fossil fuel industry.



In the 1930's, CO2 was 310 PPM and much HOTTER than in the 1970's when CO2 was 340 PPM. The science is settled.....CO2 can't be proven to cause global warming.

 

Understood. My point is if climate change is irreversible in a little over a decade, and we are all going to drown or starve we ought not to be quibbling about maybe it isn’t safe, maybe it’s too expensive, maybe fuel is finite.

It’s the quickest way to low carbon emissions but it isn’t seriously being considered. Thinking people must ask why.

I’m no fan of Greta either. Wasn’t a fan of Obama as president. But when either is right about something, I’ll acknowledge it. She is correct on one point but even the climate change faithful ignore her on that point. Odd, isn’t it?

 

I didn't say I wasn't a fan. I think she serves a valuable role in promoting awareness and encouraging protest, especially in the youth. I just wouldn't rely on her for detail on complex issues.
Out of interest, what is the one point you think she is right about? I could list several.

 

None.

 

Specifically her criticism of economic considerations taking precedence over environmental ones.

 

Yes, the desire for eternal growth is unsustainable.
She's also right to admonish previous generations for allowing things to get so bad on their watch while it is her generation that will suffer the consequences.
Imagine coming into a world where animals like the elephant or rhinoceros are likely to go extinct in the wild during your lifetime.

 

Or possibly because you didn't articulate it.

 

You mean that individuals are insignificant, forced tyranny must be used. That is what that argument sounds like.

Until GM...voluntarily builds a LUV pickup that gets 60mpg, or an electric version, regardless of profit, or a government forces them too, individuals are needed both to vote and make their own sacrifices. Those that are not individually sacrificing already cannot possibly convince those who don't believe the message that change is needed.

 

That's us. She'll see the last of Polar and Grizzly bears, whales and one of what are probably one of her favorites, reindeer, along with seals, many species of fish, birds and hundreds more. We are in the midst of what is the largest of the "Great Dyings" ever, exceeding even the Permian disaster. The world will be a silent and impoverished place before the end of this century and most all animals left will be domestic or captive.

 

Domestic and international pressure. The exact same way that I propose limiting pollution in the United States.

 

The thing is that GM can EASILY build that and make beaucoups bucks doing so. The only thing they have to change is their ****** Business Model. That's it, that's what Trump and the Military- Petroleum Complex are killing half the world's species and a lot of our children for, not their money, no, that's guaranteed under any circumstance. No, the only thing that WILL change eventually will be what gets taught in Bus Adm classes.

And they wonder why we hang them on lamposts now and again.

 

Cant sell something the public doesn’t want.

 

Oh my, resort to hysterics much? Too bad your alarmist claptrap isn’t backed up by facts.

 

If you track that population against the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, you quickly realize that the linkage is not caused by exhilaing CO2. And we can further confirm that by studying the isotopes of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Almost all of the CO2 that is being added yearly to the upper atmosphere is the type created by the combustion of fossil fuels.

The only people advocating population control as a solution are nutjob right wingers trying to craft a strawman.

 

I have already addressed why both of your main points are factually and fundamentally wrong. And yet you are continuing to espouse the same dumb ****.

The earth was not warmer in the 1930s and only 1/8th of climatologists from the 1970s believed that the earth would start cooling. Today, it is less than 2% of climatologists who think the earth's warming trend will reverse.

 

Humans are the current cause for one of the most significant mass extinction events in our planets history.

 

If I shared your belief that results of warming are negative in summation I would agree with you on Thunberg.

 

Please be specific. How will you apply this pressure?

 

You didn't and can't address **** because during the last ice age, CO2 levels were much higher than they are today. The whole climate nutter farce is based on rising CO2 levels. I debunked the entire bullshit global warming/climate change hoax with one post.

 

Same place their predictions come from.

 

Given the prevalence of Fake Science and Fake Science "News" there is no excuse for any objective critical thinking human being to believe scientists. They lie like rugs.

""Efforts to reproduce the work showed that the enzymes do not catalyze the reactions with the activities and selectivities claimed. Careful examination of the first author's lab notebook then revealed missing contemporaneous entries and raw data for key experiments. The authors are therefore retracting the paper."
The announcement is the latest example of the "reproducibility crisis" facing the sciences."
BBC, Nobel Prize-winning scientist Frances Arnold retracts paper
3 January 2020.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50989423

 

Individuals form the business model, by buying their crap. The company that used to build tiny trucks, has a Prius, but not a tiny truck here, such as the Kei; "unsafe at any speed" may be more involved in that decision. And even the Kei, or Chinese variants are not as efficient as they could be. It is individuals, their demand, not military-petroleum complexes, that make them buy a bigger vehicle than they need. No military-petroleum complex is involved in outlawing small efficient vehicles, or in rejecting the improved electrical grid in Bush's first energy policy to stop ANWR. We also have vast numbers of people on this Earth who used to ride bicycles that now ride two strokes, and our Military-Petroleum Complex had nothing to do with that.

Individuals have to be convinced first, some by example of showing how it can work; hanging from lampposts probably will just convince them this is about tyranny not the environment.

 

So they messed up the polar bear scare, and instead of learning from their mistake they double down with mass extinction.

 

Imo, China will do as they always do... which is what ever they think is in their best interests.
The only way to pressure them is by Research that makes the case for what is in their best interest. And, in fact, this has already been successfully accomplished. The Chinese are aware of the swelling problem of pollution in their cities. It is already bad, and at some point it become embarrassingly intolerable.

the Chinese are also acutely aware of the acute threat that AGW poses for China itself. China relies upon glacial melt water from the Himalayas. Those glaciers are shrinking in response to warming climate. This reality presents a substantial long term threat. The Chinese are taking substantial policy decisions to address pollution and ghg issues. But, of course, China has a massive and rapidly growing economy... so the changes will be incremental rather than instantaneous.

 

Thanks for proving my point.