Climate and the number of deniers

[Jon]

Do plants fart?

 

[Pat Hartman]

glad you weren't hurt apparently

Thanks. Who knows the cost of a new bumper because they will have replace the entire skin which wraps around the back of the car plus probably the baffles beneath it. I have a pretty high deductible for my collision coverage so I'm probably going to end up paying for the whole thing myself. But, I've saved a ton of money over the years by having a very high deductible. I got burned this time only because the driver that caused the accident left the scene and unless I get lucky and the police find him, I'm on the hook for fixing the damage but considering the amount of time I spend in bumper to bumper traffic, and the number of times I was rear ended, it's paid off. For one car I owned,I thought I had a sign on the back that said "hit me please". That car was a Saturn and it was awesome except for being a "hit me" magnet. I think it was because the car was dark and low so people didn't see it. The first three hits damaged all the cars that hit me but never even left a scratch on my bumper. The last one broke the hinge in the driver's seat but still no marks on the bumper. The hit was so hard the poor girl who hit me totalled her car and it needed to be towed. Luckily, I had a big cooler in the back seat that I was bringing back to a friend and it was just the right length to keep my seat back upright or I would have had to have my car towed also.

In a similar incident 7/3/2019 (i remember the exact day because it is a good friend's birthday) was a similar situation except we were stopped at a light and there was a car in front of me so my car got squished between an SUV and a pickup. It was a Honda Accord and so not a tiny car but my airbags deployed and the car was totalled. The engine drops. It was amazing how the car collapses to save the passengers. You have no idea how much getting hit in the face with an airbag hurts. It is probably better than going through the windshield though. In that accident, both my thumbs were hyperextended. Nothing broke but I could not use my thumbs for two weeks. Try putting on your pants with no thumbs. And I had headaches for weeks.

 

[moke123]

Do plants fart?

Yes. They fart oxygen.

 

[Jon]

Part of the problem with the climate change coverage is that the elites ignore the rules. Just ask John Kerry and his private jet owning wife. One rule for them, another for us lemmings. How much credibility does it lends to those who massively enrich themselves on the back of hyperbolic documentaries like An Inconvenient Truth? Does not Al Gore fly around in private jets, or something like that?

 

[Jon]

Yes. They fart oxygen.

That is the funnist thing I've heard all week! Bravo!

 

[AccessBlaster]

Part of the problem with the climate change coverage is that the elites ignore the rules. Just ask John Kerry and his private jet owning wife. One rule for them, another for us lemmings. How much credibility does it lends to those who massively enrich themselves on the back of hyperbolic documentaries like An Inconvenient Truth? Does not Al Gore fly around in private jets, or something like that?

They can't defend their own rhetoric, they move on to the next "the sky is falling" scenario.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Where is proof of what you say?

It is easily found on the net, but if you were diligent, you would have done that search yourself before making the claim.

Here is an easy one, from a reliable source, that shows that the 97% claim is flawed in many ways.

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

Belief in the scientific community in human-caused climate change is clearly below 97%, a close review of the evidence shows, but the claim continues to be widely publicized and defended. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about global warming to change their views?

www.forbes.com

and another that clearly indicates the 97% claim was BADLY flawed.

Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues: op-ed

In the lead-up to the Paris climate summit, massive activist pressure is on all governments, especially Canada’s, to fall in line with the global warming agenda and accept emission targets that could seriously harm our economy.

www.fraserinstitute.org

That's just two. I've got more.

The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up | Richard Tol

Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong

www.theguardian.com

Commentary: The myth that "97% of scientists agree" about a climate crisis – Alex Epstein - Energy News, Top Headlines, Commentaries, Features & Events - EnergyNow.com

Most climate scientists agree that we have some climate impact. This does not at all justify the rapid elimination of fossil fuels. Myth: 97% of climate scientists agree that we face a climate crisis that requires the rapid elimination of fossil fuels. Truth: Most climate scientists agree that...

energynow.com

jpl458, if you read the article that first made that 97% claim and examined the nature of the questionnaire that led to that result, we would have to say that the survey was fundamentally flawed. It asked a wide-ranging question but made a contrarily specific and narrow claim. It went from general to specific without a proper foundation. And DON'T tell me I don't understand how to set up experiments. DON'T tell me I don't understand statistics. The "Doc" in my name is NOT an accident.

The REAL reason we have climate change is Earth. As it happens, we are exiting from an Ice Age so OF COURSE the planet is going to get hotter. Has been since the big blizzards of the 1880s.

Now, let me clarify my position. I don't care that you think the climate is changing for anthropomorphic reasons. But for health reasons, I would like to clean up the air, water, and soil too. My reasons differ from yours yet we want similar results.

The worst of the greenhouse gases is one that doesn't get mentioned nearly as often as carbon dioxide. I'm talking methane, which is a natural result of digestion and decay. Swamps and rain forests are FULL of methane due to rotting vegetation and termite flatulence. Cows contribute, but so do horses, goats, pigs, sheep, dogs, cats, and people. (My wife has threatened to turn me in to the U.N. regarding volume of air pollution.)

If you want to say that the weather is getting hotter, I would agree. If you say it is primarily anthropogenic, I would have to laugh in your face. AT MOST there may be a CONTRIBUTION from human activities. But the termination of the Ice Age is the REAL cause of all of this heat. It is part of a natural Earth cycle.

 

[jpl458]

My argument is that the argument has become polluted by politics.

The climate does change. There is likely to be some human element. How much is up for debate.

What I liked about your response is that it was precise and to the point. Somethng that you can get your head around. Not 3,000 words of nothing verifiable, and in the form of a rant. Thanks.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Ultimately, I think the AI revolution will solve many of these potential climate issues, if they are indeed possible to solve or mitigate.

The problem with asking AI is that it was "trained" on Progressive Liberal headlines and is a statistical tool at this time. Until we get a REAL AI that fully passes the Turing test and no foolin' around about it, any AI answer will be suspect as well.

 

[Steve R.]

The mere fact that the narrative was changed from a specific context of "global warming" to a vague all inclusive phrase that becomes meaningless "climate change" is a red flag that the whole narrative is a fraud.
Over indicators that this narrative is fraudulent:

• Those pushing it, don't actually modify their lifestyles to minimize their impact on the environment. But they want you to minimize your impacts on the environment through regulations.
• Proposed "solutions" tend to be in the future, so those advocating those solutions will not be around to verify if those solutions actually worked. In the meantime, they will get rich and powerful for selling their snake oil.
• Proposed "solutions" tend to be non-solutions. If man causes global warming, then we need population control. Proposing yet to be discovered technological solutions (that may never be discovered) simply ameliorates the effect man has on the environment. It does not end nor does it reverse environmental degradation.
• Proposed "solutions" reduce the standard of living. Some quickie examples, there are calls to eat insects instead of cows. There are calls to eliminate single family dwellings and have massive apartments instead.

 

[Galaxiom]

100% of scientists used to think the earth was flat, too

Nonsense. The world was known to be a sphere long before the nonsense publication of a US school textbox that claimed early seafaring explorers were worried about sailing off the edge.

The knowledge of it being spherical goes back at least to Aristotle with the written record petering out prior to this.

 

[Cotswold]

I think that more people should read
Climate Uncertainty and Risk - Rethinking Our Response by Judith A. Curry
Anthem Press (2023)

Too many politicians appear to be so obsessive as if they almost belong to a cult when it comes to climate issues.
Predictions by the IPCC and parroted by others have typically had London underwater by 2012. Temperatures rising by 10°c by 2030 etc, etc.
The King, when Prince Charlie has said often that we only have two years to sort it out.
There has been more CO2, higher sea levels and higher temperatures in past millenniums.
If it is all about fossil fuels then why has China built more coal fired power stations in the last 40 years than the whole of Europe in 120 years?
If temperatures are rising only because of fossil fuel use? Unfortunately for the rest of us, Russia and China consider higher temperatures advantageous.

One thing is certain and that is that eventually another ice age will occur. How will Europe and most of North America manage when they are covered in a 3km thick ice sheet? From the last ice age, it is only 10,000 years ago that warming started and we don't actually know if that warming cycle is at its end.

 

[Galaxiom]

That was after 90% of scientists thought it was the advent of a new ice age.

That notion was upon the recognition in the 1970s of the cyclic nature of glaciation in the geological record. We are are nearing the end of an interglacial period and due for temperatures to be falling. That was what they were expressing. The fact that temperatures are rising instead prompted investigation. The extensive data collection is unequivocal.

The factors that affect the fluctuations in global temperatures are quite well understood by modern science. There are no explanations for the current rapid temperature rise other than the increase in greenhouse gasses.

The denialist idea that scientists simply had it wrong when expecting temperatures to fall is among the lamest excuses given.

was when they decided they had to call it "change" because they had no freaking idea what the weather would be tomorrow let alone in 50 years.

The planet's average temperature is warming. That is about average global climate, not weather. You clearly are incapable of comprehending the difference.

Fools pointed out periods of cold weather claiming it was evidence there was no warming so the term "climate change" was introduced such that the fools might better understand. In fact the extreme cold weather in places is also a product of overall global warming.

 

[Galaxiom]

One hundred percent of people once believed that humans had no effect on the planet. Funny how the deniers only talk about the changes in science that suit their prejudices.

 

[Jon]

The problem with asking AI is that it was "trained" on Progressive Liberal headlines and is a statistical tool at this time. Until we get a REAL AI that fully passes the Turing test and no foolin' around about it, any AI answer will be suspect as well.

Doc, we are only 1 to 3 years away from "thinking" AI. Many believe PhD level thinking is just 1 year away. Then we are likely to get an intelligence explosion, where AI rapidly scales to super-intelligence. How? You have a million PHD level AI's all researching AI at the same time. The pace of innovation for AI then goes through the roof and this self-iterative process leads to it rapidly climbing the intelligence ladder.

@Uncle Gizmo will be trying to log into ChatGPT and it will say, "Sorry, not available. Thinking about thinking."

 

[Jon]

For those who are so certain about the mainstream climate change hypothesis, I urge you to also look at the dissenting arguments. If you don't, you have closed your mind.

Start off with someone like Dr Judith Curry, a climatologist who was villified and cancelled because she dared to bring up "uncomfortable truths".

Here are a couple of videos. The second video is a lecture full of slides, if you prefer that sort of thing.

 

[DickyP]

Nothing is every as simple as it seems. I personally absolutely believe the climate is changing but the evidence quoted about human influence is often flaky to be charitable. When Al Gore produced the 'convincing' - An Inconvenient Truth - his sources were described as "taking a bowl of water out of the fridge in summer and one out of the oven in winter and concluding summers are colder than winters".

Also the amount by which human intervention is increasing warming is estimated as between 1% and 10%. When I was at school in the 1960s my geography teacher - Mr Tidswell, nicknamed 'Pengy' - using the cyclical record of climate change over time pointed out that by 2020 the world temperature would be greater than we are now trying to achieve by 2050!

Add to this that even if the apparent scientific consensus is correct, if we reduced our carbon emissions to zero today it would have little impact of the change. We should be concentrating of coping with it and not a forlorn attempt to stop the impossible.

 

[CJ_London]

One hundred percent of people once believed that humans had no effect on the planet.

Do you have any evidence for that?

 

[Lightwave]

Do you have any evidence for that?

I suspect the assumption is that if you go back far enough in humanities history if you don't know you are on a planet you are unlikely to have a concept of what weather is and how it relates to the idea of a globe to which climate is tied.

 

[CJ_London]

Ah - an assumption- not that different from today then