Whats important (2 Viewers)

[Jon]

The following video gives a brief overview of the 97% claim. But I've watched much more indepth videos where they have interviewed people who's names have been put forward as supporters of the 97% deception and yet said they lied about their position.

 

[jpl458]

I'm sure if we keep looking we will eventually find some law he broke and some lawsuit will finally put him in jail. Don't forget the Stalin era saying "Show me the man and I'll find you a crime". (OK, I paraphrased)

I sure hope for your sake that you don't live in NY and that no woman (or man, let's not be sexist) from your past has a vendetta against you because as long as the law that the NY Legislature put in place specifically so that the Bergdolf woman could accuse Trump of ra**, is still in effect, YOU are in jeopardy. Since no proof of wrongdoing is actually required to bring suit, it is the perfect "law". It can be applied against the people we don't like at will just to embarrass them.

I love the way that RFK, Jr's been whining about having his speech suppressed by the left and yet he has no trouble at all with attempting to suppress the speech of Hannity and other talking heads he disagrees with You go for it RFK, call for all the boycotts you want, the Democrats don't recognize hyprocasy even when it is coming out of their own mouths. Just stop complaining that they are suppressing your right to speak.

That's old news. Maybe that's why the deadline is just two years away. I'd sell my house on Martha's Vineyard in a hurry, Mr Obama Yes, melting all the glaciers on Greenland will add enough fresh water to the ocean to stop the North Atlantic conveyor system of which the Gulf stream is the part that brings the warm water up from the Gulf of Mexico to moderate the temperature of the British Isles and western europe. It will also cover most of Florida in water. I'm pretty sure this was first reported 50 years ago. And it actually did happen around 400,000 years ago. Greenland was green and not covered by an ice sheet for approximately 11,000 years during that period.

It is not likely that anyone here would dispute the concept of "climate change". The climate has been changing throughout the history of the earth. But, the first modern humans didn't appear until about 100,000 years ago in Africa - this makes us all Africans BTW. And it has been less than 100 years that we've been putting measurable amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So, what/who was the proximate cause of all the previous ice ages/warm ages? Have you read any of the studies that warming of the earth by a couple of degrees would actually be a boon to mankind due to the increased vegetation that would result and the larger land mass that would be habitable year round?

Once the left can separate "climate change" from "humans are the proximate cause", we can have a rational discussion and actually plan for a future with Florida gone, no land bridge connecting North and South America, and NYC under water. I don't hold much hope of this happening any time soon because these are the same people who bought into the "masks stop virus'" lie and who went into hiding for two years. People who will believe that you must wear your mask while walking around in a restaurant to prevent catching COVID but you are "safe" while you are sitting, will believe anything the government tells them "If you like your doctor, you can keep him" comes to mind as another of the left's great lies to the American public.

1 Club

 

[AccessBlaster]

A little wobble here a little elliptical there, 1,000 years later you have a +- degree variation in the climate. Trillions of dollars later an asteroid plows into us that we never saw coming knocking back into the stone age. 10,000 years later liberals startup again..

 

[GaP42]

And Jon (and Pat) you might in a reciprocal process consider reading from this blog: a site/ writer advocating critical thinking. It is not dedicated to the climate debate or overtly political viewpoints. The particular view that you get so hung up about of being 97% is largely irrelevant to the extent that there is clearly overwhelming consensus among those that undertake scientific research in climate change.
These are articles from the site where climate change topics are discussed: climate change - NeuroLogica Blog (theness.com)
However you might be interested in the item relating to the IPPC Report: IPCC 2021 Report on Climate Change - NeuroLogica Blog (theness.com)
It is only a 5min read and not simply a re-hash of what was stated in the report.

BTW Jon: cherry-picking - do you think the particular set of data presented was selected by Cruz was not just selected on the basis of that which supported his narrative? Was there more data available, a wider view?
As a skeptical thinker we have to evaluate the motives of those who ask the questions too. Was it an opportunity for a politician to promote his agenda? All politicians promote their own agenda! They are not in the game of making a scientific argument or assessment.

 

[Jon]

If you like to read up about critical thinking and rationality, you might like https://www.lesswrong.com/. It is the go to place on the topic.

I've watch a large number of videos on climate change, from both sides. It seems you think my view is that I am saying the majority of climate scientists are wrong. But I stated what my beliefs are in an earlier post, and I clearly did not say that. Instead, I am pointing out that when a large number of those promoting the common narrative (that climate change is mostly caused by humans), but support this view using bogus claims like the 97% one, over-egg the pudding by exaggerating and then years later having to make excuses, and deliberately tweaking the climate models to get the outcome they want (i.e. scare people), then you have to question the validity of the rest of what they say.

The 97% claim is hardly irrelevant when these scientists are using that very statistic to support the view that there is an overwhelming consensus. If there was such a consensus, why don't they use something valid rather than a bogus statistic? I think those critical thinkers know the answer: they like the 97% claim because it sounds overwhelming, and they don't care whether it is actually true or not. Politics, not science. And if they are prepared to play fast and loose with the truth, with what other facts are they happy to do the same?

As for the IPCC, maybe you have not heard any of the testimony of whistle-blowers. This article also covers other scandals and corruption regarding climate scientists and their associated bodies.

Lawrence Solomon: Finally it's safe for the whistleblowers of corrupted climate science to speak out

The greatest scientific fraud of the century will be laid bare, along with its corrupt enablers in government, academia, industry and the media

financialpost.com

Regarding Cruz, to me it was clear that the guy being grilled was spouting utter rubbish. He could not answer the questions properly, lied about referring to "the pause", used the bogus 97% claim and just kept repeating that the unsettled science is settled. If you have scientists who disagree, at what point do you consider it settled? When over 50% say X is true? 97%? Or perhaps when all the skeptics views are silenced in fear of their careers and livelihoods? Once that happens you can get your consensus, but it is a consensus by oppression, just like in North Korea.

As a skeptical thinker we have to evaluate the motives of those who ask the questions too.

Yes indeed, and as skeptical thinkers, evaluate the motives of climate scientists who would be out of a job if they said there was no climate change mostly caused by humans.

One last thing. I am sure you are aware that correlation is different to causation. Seeing the increase in CO2 emissions rise at the same time as global warming does not mean that the majority of that rise is due to CO2. Since 1965, there has been a correlation between the measles rate in the US and marriages, but it doesn't mean that one causes the other.

 

[GaP42]

I will have to take my "leave" from this discussion - family business. I would urge you Jon to focus on what is important - don't get tied up in knots over the 97% figure, don't spout the extreme stuff like "just like in North Korea" - come on - get real. You are pretending/ deluding yourself and it does you no favours. Skeptics / deniers - if their claims are debunked, but they keep spouting the rubbish like "the pause", then do they not become the radicals, crying poor because they cannot get funding for stuff after what they have spouted is bunk?

Did you read the item suggested?

 

[Pat Hartman]

Once that happens you can get your consensus, but it is a consensus by oppression, just like in North Korea.

Very much the way doctors who didn't buy the COVID lie were threatened with "cancellation". When you cannot win your argument - which is that HUMANS are causing climate change since no one disagrees that the Earth's climate perpetually changes - and so resort to name calling and bogus statistics, there can't be a rational discussion. Like, can/should coastal cities be abandoned? Is there a way to make China and India clean up their acts or must the US devolve to the stone age alone? Will the Obama's sell their ocean front property on Martha's Vineyard? Maybe they don't believe the lies either.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

@GaP42 - We can focus on what is important very easily.

The first thing that is important is the sniff test. See if something stinks.

The infamous "Mann hockey-stick graph" was controversial in its time. But recently it was revealed that Mann has lost his data and cannot regenerate an updated version for this year. Something that might have been the most important scientific finding in ecology in decades... and he lost his data. As a Ph.D. (chemist) myself, I can tell you that research protocol in the computer age is that you make secure copies of your raw data. You make backups of the backups. You get a printer and paper and ink and you print out your data and seal it in a safe-deposit box. The method used to generate the last part of the hockey stick was questionable and now we can't even put it under modern scrutiny. This STINKS of a cover-up. Particularly with various kinds of contradictory evidence having arisen to show that the "substitution" that occurred to make the "bend" in the hockey stick might have been questionable. Hard to be sure any more because he LOST HIS F'ing DATA! As a scientist, I am more upset by that than I am for the original conclusions.

It is perhaps hard for you to accept, but this "climate change furor" is a "liberal approach" to the problem of wealth redistribution. You won't LET yourself see that. I am as human as the next person, but my Ph.D. studies taught me how to identify personal vs. other concerns in analyzing a problem. I learned to disassociate myself from any feelings I might have had in a particular problem. I learned how to tell whether I had an improper expectation and I learned how to split myself away from such expectations. I do not claim absolutely that the "climate change" furor is totally political - but I can detect a strong influence of politics playing an overly significant and interfering part in the discussion. And that kind of interference CANNOT occur for scientific reasons, but surely can occur for political reasons.

The next thing that is important is the Zen approach - first, do we have a problem; second, if so then what do we do about it; third, what if we can't do anything?

I will agree that the climate is changing. Ho-hum, not news. Tree-ring evidence and geologic fossil evidence and a few other obscure methods have already told us that much. Changes have occurred over the last several hundred thousand years. The "97% consensus," however, included folks who said "Human activity MIGHT have contributed to the effect" and "A contribution from human activity cannot be ruled out." Yeah, I'd say that those tenuous statements contribute to a strong consensus. So even though that 97% number is shaky, for argument's sake let's assume it was right. So what is next? The USA is doing its best to reduce emissions. Other countries are also trying.

But let's ask the question, "WHY did the emissions increase in the first place a hundred years ago or so?" They increased because of increased activities to improve our standard and style of living. Why? Because it takes energy applied to construction and production activities to do more than what you WERE doing before then. And we had an increasing population who needed places to live and work.

Why does the planet take more energy now than it did 100 years ago? Because we have more people now living on the planet who desperately want to improve THEIR standards of living as well. They see our standard of living and (no "duh" here) want it for themselves. Why do immigrants flock to the USA? Standard of living, I guess. So... how do less advanced nations gain more energy to apply to such improvements? Burning fossil fuels. Well, gee, it's what we've done for millennia - wood, coal, now oil... gotta love them fossil fuels.

Well, we have identified the culprits right there... all those uppity poverty-stricken peasants who want to live better. Now let's tell all those emerging nations that they will have to do without that kind of improvement because it is poisoning the planet. Oh, and by the way, when you say that, remember (a) there are lots of such countries and (b) they have a vote in the U.N. in case anyone decides they are doing something you don't like.

You want to REALLY know why we have increased CO2 in the air? All of those religions that still cling to "go forth and multiply." We have too many people on the planet; people who are sick and tired of living in poverty. I'll leave it to YOU to tell them to stay there in their mud-floored huts with no clean water for cooking or sanitation. But until you can convince them of how evil they are being by contributing to climate change, you should expect them to continue to burn the heck out of fossil fuels.

So what's next, chief?

 

[Jon]

.

I will have to take my "leave" from this discussion - family business. I would urge you Jon to focus on what is important - don't get tied up in knots over the 97% figure, don't spout the extreme stuff like "just like in North Korea" - come on - get real. You are pretending/ deluding yourself and it does you no favours. Skeptics / deniers - if their claims are debunked, but they keep spouting the rubbish like "the pause", then do they not become the radicals, crying poor because they cannot get funding for stuff after what they have spouted is bunk?

Did you read the item suggested?

OK, I see there is no argument above. I know it can be difficult to argue against points that hit home. You still haven't gotten the grant thing, despite explaining it to you. Again, when the grant money is provided for those who agree that climate change is mostly man-made, none of that money goes to the alternative view. It has nothing to do with the validity of the alternative view, but the political view of those providing it.

I read some of it, but I've already seen countless videos and articles from both sides. To me, it appears you don't really understand the arguments from the contrarian view, or discount them because you don't like them.

The majority view called it "the pause", not the skeptics. Do a little bit more research!

As for the 97% figure, you do not seem to have a decent explanation for how this discredits those who use it. I think you've got yourself tied up in knots over it as you struggle to give a response, so you deflect. What is important is to focus on is credibility, and the 97% figure doesn't help.

I know you like Greta and her exceedingly large carbon footprint, but not all of us want to be like her.

 

[Jon]

I'll leave it to YOU to tell them to stay there in their mud-floored huts with no clean water for cooking or sanitation. But until you can convince them of how evil they are being by contributing to climate change, you should expect them to continue to burn the heck out of fossil fuels.

Doc, its a classic case of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. When you already have your own immediate safety, next shelter, and third social stuff sorted, you can start to think about other things like future climate change. But when you are motivated by where your next meal will come from, climate change is rather redundant. And you can't change millions of years of DNA programming that lead to how we are motivated.

But I know you understand that anyway, just wanted to state it for others.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Yes, absolutely DO know about Maslow's pyramid.

 

[jpl458]

This is my problem exactly. Once you insist on suppressing opposing views, you've lost the moral high ground as well as any credibility your argument might hold. If you review multiple opinions, you will find those that think that a small increase in CO2 (WE but NOT China and India, have gone a long way toward reducing our carbon emissions) is actually good for humans because it increases the ability to grow food crops. Stupid suggestions like spreading "stuff" in the upper atmosphere to block the sun would have huge negative consequences. We have actual, recent history to confirm this from several huge volcanic eruptions that have taken place in the past 200 years. Putting an umbrella over the earth to lower the temperature will kill millions because of the damage done to food crops. This is a non-starter. We don't need a flawed model when we have empirical evidence.

In my lifetime, the US has made huge strides in reducing pollution as well as carbon emissions. When was the last time the Monongahela caught fire When I drive in a car, the highways and city streets are no longer littered with trash. The sky over LA is blue (except when it is overcast) rather than green. My only trip to LA was in the 70's and the sky was a very sickly shade of green. In the same timeframe, I took a trip to Washington, DC. You could almost walk on the water in the Tidal Basin it was so polluted. If you walked the streets of Manhattan for an hour and then blew your nose, you would see soot on the tissue. You couldn't swim in the Hudson or any other major river in the country.
We could reduce emissions even further and faster if we could use nuclear power for energy. Solar and wind are not ready for prime time. They take too much space and have to be built too far away from population areas. Battery storage isn't viable so electricity needs to be generated as it is consumed and the sun doesn't shine at night or when it is overcast. Forcing people to use electric vehicles is dumb given the state of our electric grid. Did you notice the warnings that happen in the summer about NOT charging your car because it would cause brownouts????? I guess you can just stay home. Using electric buses in cities is a good idea. Cars, trucks, not so much. Tanks used for warfare - absolutely idiotic. So stupid there isn't even any discussion. I'm sure the Chinese are laughing hysterically at us for this idea along with the worries about flight suits for pregnant women.


Rather than believing other people's interpretations of what Trump says, perhaps, you might consider actually listening to the whole speech so the words have some context. Then you can apologize for even believing he recommended such a stupid thing. Most of what you think you know about Trump, you heard from people who hate him and distort every single thing he says. His rally speeches are boring and repetitive (he's not the great speaker he fancies himself to be) so I rarely watch them but his prepared speeches are always much more interesting.

My opinions - not that anyone should care -
1. Earth's climate is in constant flux.
2. Weather does not = climate
3. Pollution does not = climate
4. People create too much waste. Do you use single serve water bottles at home? Do you use plastic wrap or plastic/glass containers to store food? Do you use rolls of paper towels when you are cleaning or washable cloth rags? Do you use pre packaged coffee pods in your Keurig or do you use loose coffee in refillable containers? We can ALL reduce our carbon footprint - especially our plastic waste.
5. We should not build permanent structures on barrier islands. Leave them for temporary structures and recreation.
6. We should use the most efficient power generation method our technology will support - nuclear.
7. We should power fleet vehicles with natural gas rather than diesel or gasoline. So city trucks, UPS, etc. should use electric where feasible, otherwise natural gas. NYC has already figured out that electric doesn't work for snow plows - which are just garbage trucks with plows attached.
8. Taking away our gas stoves and gas water heaters is beyond the pale. light bulbs were bad enough.
9. Climate change does not cause forest fires. People should not be building in areas subject to forest fires or flooding for that matter. It is simply hubris to believe that we control nature.
10. Forest fires are caused by lightning or human carelessness. In California, if the tree-huggers would allow annual controlled burns near populated areas, the out of control dangerous fires would be significantly less frequent.
11. Climate change does not cause hurricanes or any other weather.
12. If the climate models cannot accurately predict the path of a tropical storm, how do you expect them to predict actual climate change? Let us not forget the UK model that sent the world into a tizzy and terrified half the population when it predicted a 10% mortality rate for COVID. Did I miss the retraction and apology when the actual rate turned out to be less than that of a bad seasonal flu? OOPS. Sorry you lost your job. Sorry, your business was destroyed and you were bankrupted. Sorry your kids lost two years of education and are now terrified of strangers.
13. Dense urban development causes local "weather". Heat and humidity for example. It would be a good thing is the roofs of buildings could be covered with grass and trees to cure some of the ill effects of all that asphalt.

8. There are no plans to take away gas stoves.
9. But drought caused by climate change creates kindling and thus increases odds of massive fires.
11. As a former USAF weather man I strate: hurricanes feed off warm water, the hotter the water the more violent the storm. The heat from the hot water rises, the rotation of the earth (coriolis effect) causes it to rotate.. When I worked in the severe weather warning center is KC, we had a discussion regarding a comment by someone the we should drop an A bomb into the eye and blow it apart. However, the chief forecaster, LtCol Robert C. Miller opined that the bomb would just create a hurricane of cosmic proportions. And, due to climate change the oceans are getting hotter.
12. Long range forecasting for atmosphere is difficult, but improving. There are a lot of data points to be considered. It used to take 12 hours to calculate the Rate of Change in Vorticity. Now they can do it in less than 10 seconds.

 

[Pat Hartman]

8. What starts in California ends up affecting us all.
9. Weather patterns vary from year to year. Some years are wet, some are dry. You don't understand the underlying cycle wet and dry. All years will never be wet and all years will never be dry unless the local climate is changing permanently as it has for the Sahara for example. The area surrounding Timbuktu has been becoming dryer for centuries and the city is no longer the great place it was 800 years ago. Were humans the proximate cause of the desertification of Timbuktu? Surely you can't blame it on the US. We didn't even exist. or was it natural causes? or can't we talk about it because it doesn't fit the narrative? When we have a rainy season, we get lots of undergrowth. When the cycle turns dryer, that undergrowth goes from green to brown and drys up. Wet, fresh growth does not burn well. Dry, old growth burns exceptionally well. If you keep the undergrowth from getting out of hand in the places where the city is encroaching on the forest, then there is much less to burn when the weather turns dry. That is what controlled burns are for but tree-huggers are dead set against controlled burns. They'd rather see people die and entire cities burn to the ground. When the forest is wild, the best management is to simply let it burn as we are finally doing in Yellowstone. That is what nature intended. For forests near inhabited areas, burning the old dead stuff, makes room for new seeds to sprout because sunlight reaches the forest floor. Of course, we could prevent people from building in the canyons around LA. I wouldn't be against that. Just try to get all those rich people to give up their fabulous views and move to the flats
11. True, warmer water provides fuel for hurricanes.
12. You can't forecast the weather. How can you forecast "climate change"?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

12. You can't forecast the weather. How can you forecast "climate change"?

Oh, Pat... that's so EASY. Just forecast how much money you want to relocate to other countries.

 

[GaP42]

A brief return - Jon - I said I have family business to attend to - a funeral is good reason to tke leave and no concession is made to your false claims. Taking furth leave from this now!

 

[Jon]

A brief return - Jon - I said I have family business to attend to - a funeral is good reason to tke leave and no concession is made to your false claims. Taking furth leave from this now!

I have nothing to add. I will leave you with my false claims.

 

[jpl458]

@GaP42 - We can focus on what is important very easily.

The first thing that is important is the sniff test. See if something stinks.

The infamous "Mann hockey-stick graph" was controversial in its time. But recently it was revealed that Mann has lost his data and cannot regenerate an updated version for this year. Something that might have been the most important scientific finding in ecology in decades... and he lost his data. As a Ph.D. (chemist) myself, I can tell you that research protocol in the computer age is that you make secure copies of your raw data. You make backups of the backups. You get a printer and paper and ink and you print out your data and seal it in a safe-deposit box. The method used to generate the last part of the hockey stick was questionable and now we can't even put it under modern scrutiny. This STINKS of a cover-up. Particularly with various kinds of contradictory evidence having arisen to show that the "substitution" that occurred to make the "bend" in the hockey stick might have been questionable. Hard to be sure any more because he LOST HIS F'ing DATA! As a scientist, I am more upset by that than I am for the original conclusions.

It is perhaps hard for you to accept, but this "climate change furor" is a "liberal approach" to the problem of wealth redistribution. You won't LET yourself see that. I am as human as the next person, but my Ph.D. studies taught me how to identify personal vs. other concerns in analyzing a problem. I learned to disassociate myself from any feelings I might have had in a particular problem. I learned how to tell whether I had an improper expectation and I learned how to split myself away from such expectations. I do not claim absolutely that the "climate change" furor is totally political - but I can detect a strong influence of politics playing an overly significant and interfering part in the discussion. And that kind of interference CANNOT occur for scientific reasons, but surely can occur for political reasons.

The next thing that is important is the Zen approach - first, do we have a problem; second, if so then what do we do about it; third, what if we can't do anything?

I will agree that the climate is changing. Ho-hum, not news. Tree-ring evidence and geologic fossil evidence and a few other obscure methods have already told us that much. Changes have occurred over the last several hundred thousand years. The "97% consensus," however, included folks who said "Human activity MIGHT have contributed to the effect" and "A contribution from human activity cannot be ruled out." Yeah, I'd say that those tenuous statements contribute to a strong consensus. So even though that 97% number is shaky, for argument's sake let's assume it was right. So what is next? The USA is doing its best to reduce emissions. Other countries are also trying.

But let's ask the question, "WHY did the emissions increase in the first place a hundred years ago or so?" They increased because of increased activities to improve our standard and style of living. Why? Because it takes energy applied to construction and production activities to do more than what you WERE doing before then. And we had an increasing population who needed places to live and work.

Why does the planet take more energy now than it did 100 years ago? Because we have more people now living on the planet who desperately want to improve THEIR standards of living as well. They see our standard of living and (no "duh" here) want it for themselves. Why do immigrants flock to the USA? Standard of living, I guess. So... how do less advanced nations gain more energy to apply to such improvements? Burning fossil fuels. Well, gee, it's what we've done for millennia - wood, coal, now oil... gotta love them fossil fuels.

Well, we have identified the culprits right there... all those uppity poverty-stricken peasants who want to live better. Now let's tell all those emerging nations that they will have to do without that kind of improvement because it is poisoning the planet. Oh, and by the way, when you say that, remember (a) there are lots of such countries and (b) they have a vote in the U.N. in case anyone decides they are doing something you don't like.

You want to REALLY know why we have increased CO2 in the air? All of those religions that still cling to "go forth and multiply." We have too many people on the planet; people who are sick and tired of living in poverty. I'll leave it to YOU to tell them to stay there in their mud-floored huts with no clean water for cooking or sanitation. But until you can convince them of how evil they are being by contributing to climate change, you should expect them to continue to burn the heck out of fossil fuels.

So what's next, chief?

The last paragraph was spot on, Doc.