Climate and the number of deniers

[Isaac]

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.

The point stands, 100% of scientists have been wrong about things before. Take your pick and go back to Aristotle if you must ?

 

[Isaac]

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.

We're not the ones claiming that a high percentage of consensus equals truth; You are.
It doesn't matter that 100% of people once believed humans had no effect on the planet.
It does matter that 100% of scientists once believed all sorts of nonsense - and then in some cases 100% of them changed their mind every few years until the matter was better understood

 

[Pat Hartman]

We are are nearing the end of an interglacial period and due for temperatures to be falling.

Don't we still have a 2000 year window to stay within previous cold periods? It's not like they end on the same day and have exactly the same duration.

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

No one who has any education at all denies that the climate of earth over the millennia has varied from extremely cold to extremely warm. We developed in one of its warmer periods and lived through a moderate cold period. And then ~ 700 years ago we had a small ice age that lasted about 400 years that along with the plague killed off a lot of people. But in the course of 4.5 million years, humans represent a tiny blip of time and we have been using fossil fuels in quantities that "scientists" deem excessive for around 200 years. Carbon dioxide is plant food. A little more in the atmosphere makes plants happy. A little more warming expands the growing area for food crops.

There are no explanations for the current rapid temperature rise other than the increase in greenhouse gasses.

What caused greenhouse gasses to increase during other climate change periods? We weren't there so it wasn't us.

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

So why do the climate alarmists always blame bad weather on climate change. I know they are different. I was just using one of your own analogies. Every time we have a high temperature period they cry the sky is falling. Every time we have a bad hurricane, they cry the sky is falling. Neither has anything to do with climate change and reducing CO2 emissions isn't going to stop weather from being variable and occasionally extreme.

Claiming that humans are the proximate cause of climate change is hubris. Yes, the climate is changing? Can we do anything about it? Not enough to matter if cutting CO2 is your only solution. How about controlling population and even aiming to reduce it? That would make a huge difference but still never come even close to stopping the climate from changing. How about getting China and India to stop building coal fired electric plants? I think China is still on track to build a new one very week. Why do you give them a pass? They are contributing far more CO2 to the atmosphere than we are.

Insisting that reducing CO2 is the ONLY solution is downright idiotic.

So, those are the 2 bones of contention, no one thinks the climate doesn't change so you really need to find a better pejorative than "climate deniers". We disagree that humans are the proximate cause and that CO2 reduction is the only solution. If we could ever get past that hurdle, we could actually collaborate productively on protecting humans from climate change which is inevitable.

Yes, we need to do better to clean up our environment and reduce our waste products. Plastic is very destructive as a waste product and we use way too much of it. One way to do that is to use MORE Nuclear power rather than less. NOTHING would go further toward reducing CO2 emissions than to bring on more Nuclear plants. But another group of crazies is blocking that. Why not pick on those people?

Another big saver is to convert large fleets of local trucks like the PO and the garbage trucks and plows and local delivery services to natural gas. Infrastructure doesn't have to be built because these vehicles all go home at night and so they can refuel then. Much natural gas is just burned off because so much is produced by oil wells and there isn't enough market for it. Then we don't have to be dependent on China for most of the rare earth minerals we need for batteries which themselves are impossible to recycle and so very bad for the planet.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

A little more in the atmosphere makes plants happy. A little more warming expands the growing area for food crops.

Based on the increased warmth and increased rainfall attributed to climate change, and based on my observation of how high the grass is growing in some areas where I take my daily walk, the plants are VERY happy. Ecstatic, perhaps.

But seriously, it is part of the balance of nature. Where there is extra warmth there is extra energy, which increases evaporation and atmospheric currents that lead to more rain. That evaporation and the rain storms bleed off extra energy so that we don't become a desert everywhere. Right now, south Louisiana and (in fact many of the the Gulf Coast and East Coast states) have enough afternoon storms and remnants of tropical storms that we have no chance of becoming a desert anytime soon.

Insisting that reducing CO2 is the ONLY solution is downright idiotic.

You're singin' my song, sister.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Maybe in a few years, the Sahara will start shrinking again if rainfall in the Sahel increases. Some scientists think humans are the cause of at least 1/3 of the more than 10% increase in size over the last century. Not sure how that can be if the increase in CO2 brings more rain. But nothing needs to make sense or be consistent in certain circles.

The Sahara Desert Is Growing. Here's What That Means

The Sahara — the world’s biggest desert — is getting even bigger. It has grown by as much as 18 percent during the past century, and climate change is partly responsible.

www.livescience.com

 

[Isaac]

They just came out with a new fear and intimidation tactic to grab power: That humans are destroying the planet by breathing.

Once they make you think your very existence is the threat, you are more willing to do anything they say.

But let's allow Covid to be our teacher. Let's glean something from it and never forget. They exagerated something in a massive way to grab power and held on as long and hard as they could. Climate change is the never-ending covid, justifying anti-democratic and authoritarian things to give them more power.

 

[DickyP]

Do you believe dairy cows play a part in climate change do to flatulence?

Yes and no! Grass fed cattle produce minimal flatulence, whereas feed fed cattle produce masses.

 

[jpl458]

That 97% report has been debunked endlessly. In fact the author even assumed positions that scientists took when they never explicitly stated those positions themselves. Scientists have come out and said they never said what the author claimed. But the politicians still ran with it. Why use fake reports if the arguments are so good?

Jon, I was qurious and found this. I hope youe read it and give me yoyr thoughts. It's lengthy, but it is worth it. Some interesting graphs.

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

In the past 60 years, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 100 times faster than it did during the end of the last ice age.

www.climate.gov

 

[AccessBlaster]

Yes and no! Grass fed cattle produce minimal flatulence, whereas feed fed cattle produce masses.

I love a good grass fed steak as well as anyone, but you have to twist the facts into a pretzel to believe cows play any part in climate change. It's a money grab, it's a way to stimulate stagnant money in a different direction i.e. green jobs.

 

[jpl458]

They just came out with a new fear and intimidation tactic to grab power: That humans are destroying the planet by breathing.

Once they make you think your very existence is the threat, you are more willing to do anything they say.

But let's allow Covid to be our teacher. Let's glean something from it and never forget. They exagerated something in a massive way to grab power and held on as long and hard as they could. Climate change is the never-ending covid, justifying anti-democratic and authoritarian things to give them more power.

What power, over what. I think that 1,219,847 deaths from covid is pretty serious. That number is not an exageration. And covid 19 still exists.

 

[Jon]

Jon, I was qurious and found this. I hope youe read it and give me yoyr thoughts. It's lengthy, but it is worth it. Some interesting graphs.

Regretfully, I am short of time nowadays so will have to pass. I did look into all this sort of stuff in the past, and came to the conclusion this stuff is a lot more uncertain than it is made out to be.

Consider this perspective. None of us here are scientists with deep understanding of an extremely complex set of cause and effect variables that make up the earths climate variability. Bit of a mouthful that, but hope it made sense. Ultimately, we rely on those individuals who might have some expertise in their specific area. However, people are full of shit. They are full of biases, political perspectives, financial motivations, social pressures and a whole bunch of other things. These all influence what they say, or how they perceive data. Just look at he placebo effect and how rational people can get a drug benefit when it is just a sugar pill.

I would wager that I can predict someones views on the climate change argument with over 80% accuracy give just one bit of information: Biden or Trump. And since the science and arguments behind climate change should have nothing to do with politics, the fact that I can make a good prediction like this just shows that politics has inserted itself between science and reality.

Or in other words, most peoples perspectives on climate change have nothing to do with the science, and all to do with the politics.

 

[Isaac]

What power, over what. I think that 1,219,847 deaths from covid is pretty serious. That number is not an exageration. And covid 19 still exists.

Okay, for starters, we found out the death rate from Covid was about 50% of what it was originally reported to be. that IS an exaggeration

 

[jpl458]

Regretfully, I am short of time nowadays so will have to pass. I did look into all this sort of stuff in the past, and came to the conclusion this stuff is a lot more uncertain than it is made out to be.

Consider this perspective. None of us here are scientists with deep understanding of an extremely complex set of cause and effect variables that make up the earths climate variability. Bit of a mouthful that, but hope it made sense. Ultimately, we rely on those individuals who might have some expertise in their specific area. However, people are full of shit. They are full of biases, political perspectives, financial motivations, social pressures and a whole bunch of other things. These all influence what they say, or how they perceive data. Just look at he placebo effect and how rational people can get a drug benefit when it is just a sugar pill.

I would wager that I can predict someones views on the climate change argument with over 80% accuracy give just one bit of information: Biden or Trump. And since the science and arguments behind climate change should have nothing to do with politics, the fact that I can make a good prediction like this just shows that politics has inserted itself between science and reality.

Or in other words, most peoples perspectives on climate change have nothing to do with the science, and all to do with the politics.

Thanks for the response. The thing I liked in the link I sent was that charts and graphs were based on empericle onservations, at a specific site and, they correlated the rise in fossil fuel use to the rise in CO2, using actual measurments of parts per million since 1958. There was a lot of text, and for the most part, it made sense. I took a lot of science in school, and learned that sciense is not a belief system, it is based on empericle observation, and observation can lead to inferencing, if you can't explain what you measure. In the video you sent, which I have viewed more than once, the speaker, and the charts end at a specific point. What if it keeps going beyond that point? Thanks again for the info.

 

[jpl458]

Okay, for starters, we found out the death rate from Covid was about 50% of what it was originally reported to be. that IS an exaggeration

Do you have proof of that? Who is we? Is there documentation?

 

[Isaac]

Do you have proof of that? Who is we? Is there documentation?

I'm not going to take the time to find it right now, but it was on all news channels and wasn't in dispute. Many states ended up correcting their death statistics down by about half. You can research it to see the 'sources', which were mostly state health departments (who had been reporting every person who died-and-also-had-had-covid as a "covid death", which conservatives were saying from the beginning was obviously untrue.

 

[Pat Hartman]

No one is arguing that the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising.

A quote from the article:
By the time continuous observations began at Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958, global atmospheric carbon dioxide was already 315 ppm. Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in human history. In fact, the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts were this high was roughly 3 million years ago, during the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period, when global surface temperature was 4.5–7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5–4 degrees Celsius) warmer than during the pre-industrial era. Sea level was at least 16 feet higher than it was in 1900 and possibly as much as 82 feet higher.

If you do a little math and divide 4.5 billion by 800,000, you get 5,625. So, the author is looking at a sample consisting of 1/5,625 th of the actual data and the sample is not even random and the author is saying this is reality. If the sample could be random and provide data points across the entire 4.5 billion years, it would be more reliable. I think that non-random samples of such a large data set are not valid for this purpose. It's like polling all the people in some small town in northeast Connecticut and saying Republicans represent 95% of the population whereas if you polled the same number of people across the entire state, you would get a very different result because Connecticut is largely Democrat leaning.

Anyone who does research will tell you that your sample dictates your result and so you can control your results by controlling your sample. It is simple math. Granted, we don't have ice cores that go back 4.5 million years. I don't know what the oldest one we have is but I think it is about 3 million years because prior to that we had no polar ice for some period of time. That severely impacts our ability to obtain older samples. So, rather then cherry pick the recent 800,000 year period, why not use the whole 3 million year period if we have sufficient samples that show the 3 million years?

Also, the author makes the assumption that CO2 emissions are the only cause of the rise in average temperature.

How do we know that the CO2 amounts and the average temperature during the Mid-Pliocene period are not "earth normal" when you consider the entire 4.5 million years. You cannot take such a small set of data that is not even random and make the pronouncements this scientist is making.

PS, Most of the Florida peninsula is under 40 feet of elevation. The coasts are much lower. Adios Miami. Doc is in serious jeopardy in New Orleans also. I'm looking at property in Tennessee

 

[jpl458]

I'm not going to take the time to find it right now, but it was on all news channels and wasn't in dispute. Many states ended up correcting their death statistics down by about half. You can research it to see the 'sources', which were mostly state health departments (who had been reporting every person who died-and-also-had-had-covid as a "covid death", which conservatives were saying from the beginning was obviously untrue.

Yeah,I understand, you don't have the time to back up what you claim.

 

[Isaac]

Yeah,I understand, you don't have the time to back up what you claim.

Right. Especially when you're the type that just asks that for everything everybody says - even the things you know full well are widely known already, such as covid deaths being overreported by about 100%. You like to try to drown people in the Process of citing sources but by over-doing it to include the things widely agreed upon and already widely reported, you show your true colors.

Someone will probably come along behind me and post a source who has more patience with you than I.

 

[AccessBlaster]

You like to try to drown people in the Process of citing sources but by over-doing it to include the things widely agreed upon and already widely reported, you show your true colors.

 

[moke123]

Someone will probably come along behind me and post a source who has more patience with you than I.

I hope so . I couldn't readily find anything.

I googled "were covid deaths over reported"

CDC data does not show that 99% of COVID-19 deaths were due to other causes

THE FACTS: A misrepresentation of CDC figures has led to accusations online that COVID-19 deaths are being overstated.

apnews.com

COVID-19 deaths during core pandemic years were likely under-counted

The number of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. may have been under-counted during the first two years of the pandemic. A new study from the University of Minnesota College of Liberal Arts, Boston University and University of Pennsylvania, published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of...

twin-cities.umn.edu

New Analysis Reveals Many Excess Deaths Attributed to Natural Causes Are Actually Uncounted COVID-19 Deaths

The new study provides the most compelling data yet to suggest that excess mortality rates from chronic illnesses and other natural causes were actually driven by COVID-19 infections.

www.bu.edu