The Attempt to Establish a Climate Ministry of Truth

Frankly when I studied Physics and Chemistry, the way you talk would never be allowed in class rooms on science.

Why when I studied this for my FAA license in 1980 wasn't it a serious topic? Actually it was not even a topic.

I swear, once you got exposed to Carbon it became the monster. I do not get it at all.

 

But you claimed the Antarctic or Deserts do not matter.

 

Antarctica has been cooling.

 

Climate change isn't something that would need to show up in pilot training.

As an instrument rated pilot, I went through that weather instruction, too. Obviously, there are seasonal differences that need to be understood by pilots.

But, that isn't the topic of our global changing climate patterns caused by a warming Earth. Pilots don't have to worry about drought conditions becoming more common. They don't have to worry about increased rainfall that is happening since years ago, either, as that's just more of the same kind of weather that is always a possibility.

On the other hand, agriculture does have to be very concerned, as they have to choose crops, plan on planting and harvesting times, determine how to accomplish irrigation, etc., etc. When climate patterns change, serious issues emerge.

 

Do you understand your making claims that were not dreamed possible 3 decades back?
Nobody was discussing global warming. They did discuss global cooling though.
I have addressed this with some of my fellow pilots. It is pure BS. The sky is not falling down.

If you like discussing the Arctic and Antarctic, poor areas to locate Carbon, since Trees do not grow in Ice at all, but shun the deserts where there is more Carbon due to plants living there, you are not serious.

 

Climatology, as far as the social phenomenon, functions more like a religion than a science based viewpoint.

When a little swedish girl with feetal alcohol syndrome cries and says how dare you while sneering at people is called an activist it's not science based.

These people that follow this religion call skeptics heretics though they use the word denier but it means the same thing.

I've wracked my brain trying to come up with an overarching plot behind this but I don't think there is. Some people believed Harold camping. People followed Jim Jones to Jones town and committed suicide.

In general I think people need to believe in something. And people poking holes in the climate catastrophe narrative undermines their beliefs. Laws regarding this are like laws against heresy. They need to establish a ministry of truth. Because the narrative is threatened.

 

Science has been discussing climate change for longer than 3 decades.

I have NO idea what you think your last paragraph means.

 

Yes, there can't be laws against what individuals choose to believe.

And, its unfortunate that the USA is pretty darn pathetic at science education.

So, slowing the spread of total nonsense is a complex task.

 

I have long been intrigued by the incongruity of anthropogenic global warming's surprisingly thin evidence base and the adamancy of its advocates. Their use of the term "denier" to describe those skeptical of AGW suggests a state of mind outside that commonly associated with scientific inquiry. I was recently struck by a juxtaposition which may explain (at least in part) this phenomenon.

One side is a book I first encountered fifty years ago, The Pursuit of the Millennium by Norman Cohn. The other is a new (2017) book, Searching for the Catastrophe Signal by Bernie Lewin. There is a long tradition of millenarian thought in western civilization, and it's not surprising that chiliastic yearning has survived the decline in formal religious practice in the 20th and 21st centuries. This may be the key to understanding the psychology of AGW advocacy. Replace the biblical "end times" with a postulated hothouse Earth and present a millennium of renewable, carbon-free energy sources, and it all fits together pretty snugly.

Nothing but absolute faith in the righteousness of their cause can really explain the maneuvers of AGW advocates in the early IPCC. Even more to the point is their continuing pride in those maneuvers -- several of them are among Lewin's most important sources.

The Pursuit of the Millennium - Norman Cohn - Oxford University Press[/h]https://global.oup.com/academic/.../the-pursuit-of-the-millennium-9780195004564
May 15, 1970 - The end of the millennium has always held the world in fear of earthquakes, plague, and the catastrophic destruction of the world. At the dawn ...

Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of ... - Google Books[/h]https://books.google.com/books/about/Searching_for_the_Catastrophe_Signal.html?id...
Nov 21, 2017 - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the IPCC - is the global authority on climate science and behind some of the most important ...
Eschatology and Global Warming

 

I recall I believe you mentioned this in the past.
Why on earth did you fall for this when you should know better?

I did not make the claim that pilots waste time on climate when they actually study weather all the time. Every flight should start with a weather briefing.

If you do not believe in warming deserts, why believe in warming forests?

You ought to know a lot more about clouds as I have a hunch you do.
What effect do Clouds have on climate?

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3038/the-anatomy-of-glacial-ice-loss/

 

That's obsolete.
Body Of Evidence: All Of Antarctica Is Cooling… Peninsula Cooling Since Long Before Greta Was Born
By P Gosselin on 19. September 2021

Share this...
The IPCC 6th Report seems to have missed a lot, hasn’t it? Recent publications since the 5th Report show ALL OF ANTARCTICA, including the peninsula, has cooled since the late 1990s.

Friday I wrote about how the entire continent of Antarctica (except its peninsula) was found by leading scientists to be cooling significantly.

The publication by Zhu et al, however, found that the Antarctic Peninsula had been warming – but not a statistically significant rate – over the past 4 decades.

Now in a reader comment Kenneth has brought to our attention to three scientific publications that show the peninsula has in fact been cooling since the late 1990s, after having warmed since the early 1950s!



Image source: sciencedirect.com

Here are the three terribly inconvenient papers for those still believing the lie the South Pole is warming, when in reality it is cooling at a “statistically significant” rate.

1. https://www.nature.com/



2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/



3. https://www.nature.com/



According to Kenneth: “The cooling since the 1990s hadn’t fully taken over the warming from 1979-1999 yet, so that’s why the overall trend is still a slight, statistically insignificant warming when referencing the entire 40-year period.”

 

Which of my science courses do you think lacked enough education to discuss climate?
1. Physics in high school then in College
2. Chemistry in College
3. Calculus and more

I read words by alarmists. I do not read science from them.

 

Well, you deny the scientific mainstream, and in a rapid fire discussion such as this board it is useful to have a shorthand, even though it may not be absolutely accurate in all facets.

Do you have a preferred name for those who reject the vast majority of scientists the world over?

 

Skeptics.

 

Evangelism always seems to involve proclamations of a sinful world.

The purveyors of these proclamations always act as though they are speaking for some higher knowledge.

In our last discussion you lost every ounce of credibility you could ever dream of having.

 

No, climate IS important to pilots. The weather patterns are not the same in the winter as they are in the summer. Other seasons can present challenges, too.

The point is that climate CHANGE, the fact that there are changes in our climate that take place over numbers of years, is not pertinent to flights taken by pilots. Pilots don't have to look at their watch and say, "Well, it's 2021 so I better revise my flight plan."


And, it has NOTHING to do with whether you should get a weather briefing.

 

By what? By proposing you consider what NASA, NOAA and others are saying???

 

Appeals to an inflatable authority is common in most religions.

Excuses for appeals to infallibly authority is a common religious debate tactic

The faithful.

 

Name dropping doesn't impress me. You should already know this.

Science is a process. What we accept today can be debunked tomorrow. Clutching onto your magical beliefs isn't really of any value here.

 

You should look at the IPCC reports.

They give sources of forcing along with indications of magnitude and with error bars so you can see how accurate the particular measurement is considered to be.

Moisture in the atmosphere is one of the more difficult challenges, as I understand it.

So, you should be interested!!

 

I'm not "name dropping".

These ARE some of the places where you should be looking for information on climate.

I agree that science DOES improve over time - that's the very best ANY human enterprise can hope for.

But, that is NOT an excuse for ignoring the most reliable information we have today.

 

Except you're not looking for reliable; you're looking for bias confirmation.

 

ALL of them.

UNLESS you have been actively studying a field that pertains to climate through to a PhD.

In that case, you would be published.

You can't take courses in those fields and then think you know more about climate than NASA, NOAA, US and world universities, and the rest who have the resources and focus to actually study climate.

 

Among the believers there seems to be an outbreak of cannibalism. At least that's entertaining.
Greta Thunberg Lashes Out at Deep Green World Leaders
Eric Worrall
Greens eating their own – can anybody ever be green enough for Greta? . . .