CO2 Alarmism

[Heyo]

Yes. It is a buffered system. Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth rates.

So, there is still a small, by humans induced part of the sum of all CO2 that is not bound in the carbon cycle. This small part cumulates in the atmosphere as we can see in measured rising CO2 levels?
(And additionally we can see that that CO2 is from fossil sources by the ratio of C isotopes?)

 

[Yazata]

Hi, Wellwisher.

The main problem with the science of climate change

I think that there are lots of points where it can be questioned.

1. How large is it? The data seems to suggest about a 1.6 degree C upward change in mean global temperatures since the middle 19th century, with 2/3'ds of that since the 1990's.

2. Is this outside the range of natural climate change? In magnitude, certainly not, it's dwarfed by warming at the end of the last ice age. In rapidity of change, perhaps.

3. What are the potential impacts? Lots of apocalyptic fantasizing here. "Extinction level event!" "Earth turning into Venus!" "Save the Planet!!" Actually, impacts are hard to predict and might be beneficial many places. Longer growing seasons in northern Eurasia and Canada for instance. Some current deserts might turn back into grasslands suitable for wheat cultivation. (But that might be balanced by other areas (California?) turning into dry deserts.) This is where your point is most persuasive Wellwisher. All of the alarmism about the future is based on models. (Models that in many cases are engineered so as to produce the results their creaters desire.) Models that simply by their nature can't be tested until their predictions come to be (or more likely don't).

4, What is responsible, assuming that it's anthropogenic? From the industrial revolution up to 1990, a period that saw Europe's (and America's) age of coal, only experienced about a 0.5 C degree increase in mean temperatures. What has happened since 1990 to increase the magnitude and the rate? In short, the industrialization of China and the environmentally unfriendly manner of that industrialization. It's otherwise been a period of deindustrialization in the West.

5. If global warming is to be halted, what needs to be done? First and foremost, addressing China's contribution to producing greenhouse gasses. Without that, destroying capitalism or whatever the unspoken goal really is won't accomplish a thing, apart from the destruction of Western civilization.

 

[Revoltingest]

More actual data that leftists ignore. Less than 1 degree warming for a century!

The new Pause lengthens: now 7 years 6 months

This is a misleading factoid, per NASA data.
For example, it ignores the effects in the Arctic,
eg, greatly increased land erosion because of
far less protection by frozen seas.

 

[Father Heathen]

So we're supposed to believe that the entire international scientific community are all collaborating on a convoluted conspiracy from which they would have nothing to gain but everything to lose, so we should instead trust the fossil fuel lobby who would never disseminate disinformation or propaganda to further special interests and profit driven agendas?

 

[Revoltingest]

More actual data that leftists ignore. Less than 1 degree warming for a century!

The new Pause lengthens: now 7 years 6 months

The Loony Left is indeed a problem for the recognition
of GW & its effects. When histrionic celebrities like AOC
claim the world will end in a decade or so, it causes the
deniers to become even more entrenched.
But you can't argue that GW isn't real just because of
slavering extremists. Look at the problem at the poles,
where minor temperature increases reduce ice, causing
erosion & decreased planetary albedo.

 

[sun rise]

More propaganda. The OP is full of falsehoods and utter unscientific BS. Climate change is real and more and more visible but the people promoting falsehoods refuse to look at the clear evidence that is all around us and getting more obvious every day.

This reminds me of people who would stand on a beach when a tsunami is about to roll in and say that the tsunami is not real because where is the water.

 

[Heyo]

Models that simply by their nature can't be tested until their predictions come to be (or more likely don't).

Models can be and are tested on existing data. You feed the model with past data and see if it predicts what has really happened. It is not a guarantee that there aren't factors which might have had little influence in the past and will have more in the future but it shows that the model isn't wrong given the data that is used.

 

[wellwisher]

The current claim of manmade climate change violates the philosophy of science. Let me explain how. If for the sake of argument, we were indeed experiencing manmade climate change, this is still the one in only time this type of phenomena has ever occurred in the history of the earth or any other planet that we know of, in the whole universe. The philosophy of science requires at least a second or duplicate event so we can know this is even possible. One of a kind is not validated science.

A good example of how the philosophy of science is supposed to work, was connected to the team of scientists who claimed to have performed cold fusion several years ago. Like man made climate change, this was a one of a kind event. Unlike climate change, science did not ignore the philosophy of science and call this unique event settled science. Rather several teams attempted to repeat the experiments but were not successful. One of the kind is not valid science. it needs another such event. Why is this legal loophole now being allowed?

My concern is a bunch of bonehead politicians who claim settled science will try to fix this one of kind event, when there is no second point to verify the events so they draw the correct line. Picture if Cold Fusion was allowed the watered down science standard, and we bet the farm on the one unique cold fusion event. This is why one of a kind violates the philosophy.

 

[QuestioningMind]

What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.

Richard Lindzen -MIT

What exactly is this 'coalition of powerful special interests' that's been able to outmaneuver the most powerful special interest coalition in the history of the world, the manufacturers of fossil fuels? What IS this mysterious coalition that has MORE money and political influence than the oil industry? HOW has this mysterious coalition managed to convince 98% of all scientists trained in the field to lie about it? Do you have any actual evidence that this coalition exists and that it's bribed or blackmailed imminent scientists around the world to make up this vast hoax?

The real question that historians will have is how did the fossil fuel industry and a bunch of politicians manage to create so much doubt in the minds of the public concerning something for which the scientific evidence is so clear and undeniable.

 

[Heyo]

The current claim of manmade climate change violates the philosophy of science. Let me explain how. If for the sake of argument, we were indeed experiencing manmade climate change, this is still the one in only time this type of phenomena has ever occurred in the history of the earth or any other planet that we know of, in the whole universe. The philosophy of science requires at least a second or duplicate event so we can know this is even possible. One of a kind is not validated science.

A good example of how the philosophy of science is supposed to work, was connected to the team of scientists who claimed to have performed cold fusion several years ago. Like man made climate change, this was a one of a kind event. Unlike climate change, science did not ignore the philosophy of science and call this unique event settled science. Rather several teams attempted to repeat the experiments but were not successful. One of the kind is not valid science. it needs another such event. Why is this legal loophole now being allowed?

My concern is a bunch of bonehead politicians who claim settled science will try to fix this one of kind event, when there is no second point to verify the events so they draw the correct line. Picture if Cold Fusion was allowed the watered down science standard, and we bet the farm on the one unique cold fusion event. This is why one of a kind violates the philosophy.

You should read up on what is considered a "repeat experiment" in the philosophy of the scientific method.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So we're supposed to believe that the entire international scientific community are all collaborating on a convoluted conspiracy from which they would have nothing to gain but everything to lose, so we should instead trust the fossil fuel lobby who would never disseminate disinformation or propaganda to further special interests and profit driven agendas?

Easy way to answer that question.

Follow the money.

See where the funding comes from.

 

[Debater Slayer]

When histrionic celebrities like AOC
claim the world will end in a decade or so, it causes the
deniers to become even more entrenched.

Deniers who would take her stance out of context would probably remain misinformed about climate science either way.

This is what she actually meant per her own clarification, in case anyone is interested in checking it out:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rips GOP for taking 'world ending in 12 years' prediction literally

 

[Revoltingest]

Deniers who would take her stance out of context would probably remain misinformed about climate science either way.

What she gives them is a target to discredit
AGW (their view, not mine). This lets them
feel more certain of their position.

 

[Debater Slayer]

What she gives them is a target to discredit
AGW (their view, not mine). This lets them
feel more certain of their position.

I think the epistemic approach of most people who take their information about climate change from politicians and celebrities instead of the scientific community probably has far bigger issues than one sarcastic comment could affect one way or the other.

What AOC or any other politician says about climate science should have precisely zero effect on whether or not a reasonable person accepts the scientific consensus on climate change. The sad reality is that too many seem enamored with celebrities and politicians and treat them as their primary sources of info, though.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think the epistemic approach of most people who take their information about climate change from politicians and celebrities instead of the scientific community probably has far bigger issues than one sarcastic comment could affect one way or the other.

What AOC or any other politician says about climate science should have precisely zero effect on whether or not a reasonable person accepts the scientific consensus on climate change. The sad reality is that too many seem enamored with celebrities and politicians and treat them as their primary sources of info, though.

Loopy celebrities opining on GW, viruses, vaccines, etc.
Ugh.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Loopy celebrities opining on GW, viruses, vaccines, etc.
Ugh.

Reminds me of an article I saw that had a title along the lines of, "Ricky Gervais shuts down animal testing in 10 minutes." Since his view contradicted the scientific consensus about the usefulness of medical testing on animals, I looked up his scientific credentials to see how he managed to formulate that blazingly fast "refutation" of a widely employed scientific practice.

You guessed it: he had none. Should have probably stayed in the Office instead of contributing to demonization of medical animal testers with unscientific, ideologically motivated comments.

 

[Revoltingest]

Reminds me of an article I saw that had a title along the lines of, "Ricky Gervais shuts down animal testing in 10 minutes." Since his view contradicted the scientific consensus about the usefulness of medical testing on animals, I looked up his scientific credentials to see how he managed to formulate that blazingly fast "refutation" of a widely employed scientific practice.

You guessed it: he had none. Should have probably stayed in the Office instead of contributing to demonization of medical animal testers with unscientific, ideologically motivated comments.

Comedians have great power when mocking things.
Too bad. I've read that a great many young folk
actually get their news from late nite comics like
Stephen Colbert.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Comedians have great power when mocking things.
Too bad. I've read that a great many young folk
actually get their news from late nite comics like
Stephen Colbert.

I tried watching Trevor Noah a couple of times. (I liked Jon Stewart, so I thought I'd give Noah a shot too.)

I vividly recall cringing at how much bandwidth I wasted in those two instances.

 

[Revoltingest]

I tried watching Trevor Noah a couple of times. (I liked Jon Stewart, so I thought I'd give Noah a shot too.)

I've seen them a little.
Ugh...neither entertaining nor informative.
Commercials showing Samantha Bee are the worst.

 

[Father Heathen]

Easy way to answer that question.

Follow the money.

See where the funding comes from.

Exactly!
Top oil firms spending millions lobbying to block climate change policies, says report
How a powerful US lobby group helps big oil to block climate action
Exxon Lobbyist Caught On Video Talking About Undermining Biden's Climate Push
How to spot the tricks Big Oil uses to subvert action on climate change
Fossil Fuel Lobbyists at Climate Talks: What Are They Trying to Achieve?
Revealed: BP and Shell back anti-climate lobby groups despite pledges
How Oil Lobbyists Use a Rigged System to Hamstring Biden’s Climate Agenda
Oil companies discourage climate action, study says
How the Fossil Fuel Industry Conned the American People
Big Oil Is Trying to Make Climate Change Your Problem to Solve. Don't Let Them