Sorry, but I cried wolf on climate change

You say this, even as the science that you profess your devotion to erodes under your feet here. The science demonstrates that the hyperbole and the fear folks, like you, express is baseless. Sorry your religious ecstasy is in danger....

 

I am not 69. I am 76. Apparently I'm too old to understand your youthful position. Did you also know that science found cooling in the 1970's? I remember the headlines stating that the planet was moving into another ice age. But my post didn't say any of things for which you accuse me so I will ignore your rebuttal.

 

You talk about rational thought and then you make impossible claims. That would appear to me that you are the one incapable of rational thoughts.

 

You are, of course, referring to the climate hucksters here, right?

 

Breaking the “record”.
The problem with that lies in the fact that we don’t really know when temperatures “break records”.
And what is the time range of those records?

And what are you trying to compare these two decades to?

As far as I remember, predictions from 20 years ago didn’t materialize.
I know why it happened, but not many people want to look into this issue seriously.

 

No one "knows" that because it's not true

SOME scientists SPECULATED about that...and then abandoned the idea as they found it to be false

 

Trust the thermometers - it ain't hard to do.

 

Weren't any thermometers 25000 years ago.

Besides, it isn't the thermometers which are the problem. It is the location of the thermometers. Most official thermometers are located at airports. Over they years there is more human activity near the airport which causes the thermometer to be no longer representative.

 

Nuclear power is the best, mate.
If Australia had gone nuclear in the 1970's we could have had a string of reactors
along the West Coast somewhere. We could have had some of the lowest and
cleanest energy - and this would have supported industry, the environment and
even for export. But no, the Greens wanted coal power. Then they wanted solar
power. Then it was wind power.

 

Good one.

No, they didn't. 2 scientists made a mistake, a bad one. They had to retract their paper, and nearly lost their jobs. That got picked up in the news, they loved the story. They never did get around to talking about the retraction.

But that's back in the real world.

 

Nuclear is going to be crucial.

But the designs back then were crap.

 

What is the difference between denying AGW, and accepting it but claiming that we should not take all the steps necessary to mitigate its effects? Or accepting it but claiming that those efforts are political?

I stand by what I said. The only ones who refer to "climate change" as "the end of the world" are and have always been science denialists. Nobody else. And I should add that the same goes for those who refer to those trying to mitigate the effects as "Marxists" or "socialists"... or any other term that they have no idea what the meaning is, but they use it anyway because it sounds "nasty". I couldn't care less if they gave testimony before Congress, or they're an uniformed Trumpist with no idea of how Science works posting on PF.

If you don't understand that what mitigation efforts are necessary (and possible) is something scientists and experts are figuring out as we go along, and claim that they are just politically motivated, you are a full-fledged science denier.

 

Common sense. However, I will explain my view and the view of many, if not most scientists.

People affect the climate. It would be impossible not to. Even little boy's lighting matches affect the climate. The primary effect of humans is warming because there are few things they could do to cool it.

The amount of the effect of humans is a guess, at best.

The amount of change which we can make is a guess, at best.

Our ability to accurately forecast the change is a guess, at best.

 

Thanks for repeating made-up quotes. But nobody but science denialists takes right wingnut media seriously

 

https://news.mongabay.com/2019/08/m...y-forbes-diatribe-on-amazon-fires-commentary/

 

You mean....gasp..... like some of them are "speculating" today? like that? LOL

 

From the book, Apocalypse Never.
Some highlights from the book:

• Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress
  
  
• The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land
  
  
• The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium
  
  
• 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%
  
  
• We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities
  
  
• Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%
  
  
• Greenpeace didn’t save the whales, switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did
  
  
• “Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300% more emissions
  
  
• Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon
  
  
• The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants

So.... when folks, like AOC suggest the world ends in 12 years, you now categorize her as a "Denier"??? That seems super problematic then for your 2020 DNC planks...

 

Obviously since atmospheric temperature records are kept which, I believe is since 1850.

To everything before these two decades.

I don't know what "predictions" you're talking about. Predictions that the atmospheric temperature would behave as I described exist since 50 years ago (some with surprisingly accurate modeling, BTW). Exxon had internal papers that were secret until a couple of years ago which date from 40 years ago concluding that this would happen.

 

If you were talking about a single thermometer, that argument might have some validity. But you are talking about thousands of thermometers which have been added under different conditions at irregular time intervals and irregular locations intervals. There are probably thousands of ways to measure global temperature. The one you choose depends largely on your desired outcome.

 

"Most of us are aware that our cars, our coal-generated electric power and even our cement factories adversely affect the environment. Until recently, however, the foods we eat had gotten a pass in the discussion. Yet according to a 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), our diets and, specifically, the meat in them cause more greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, and the like to spew into the atmosphere than either transportation or industry."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...a 2006,than either transportation or industry.

 

Here's the actual quote:

“Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?' "

Comment?

 

Again: The only ones who refer to "climate change" as "the end of the world" are and have always been science denialists.

Misquoting AOC, even after she has repeatedly stated that it was a misquote and what it was she was sayng, does not change that fact. Did this author withdraw his "end of the world" statement? Otherwise, he's just another lame flat-earther looking for a book-deal to sell to the gullible Trump-suppoter-like anti-science crowd.

 

Fake Political Science like Fake News is now fully exposed.
Virtually no one still believes these scams.
Certainly not the "scientists" who have hyped the nonsense.

 

Ok, so 14 years ago. This is now. and the science is different. Feel free to become informed.

 

Direct quote....
"
"Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?' " she said.

That isn't a context issue, it's a direct quote.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., made the remark during an interview with writer Ta-Nehisi Coates at the MLK Now event in New York City celebrating the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.

Source:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...casio-cortez-climate-change-alarm/2642481002/

Hardly a denialist source of news for the faithful, wouldn't you agree? Now, she has certainly tried to walk that back, but it is, none the less, an accurate quote of AOC. So, there is no "misquoting", And as for Schellenberger, a climate activist himself, notably the director of Environmental Progress.org isn't suggesting that the world will end, in fact, he is slamming the notion and those who profess it in the climate change community. You know that AOC isn't the only faithful acolyte here to have suggested it, right? Al Gore, Michael Mann, Michael Moore, lots of folks in fact, legions of Hollywood celebrities, Musical superstars, the internet is littered with their hysteria. As far as you claiming Schellenberger is a "flat Earther"... Now that's hysterical. Thanks for demonstrating how unresearched, how unsourced, and generally BS your analysis is.