Human-caused climate change - what the scientists are actually saying

[Pete in Panama]

..it depends which nation you "sit in" ..
I'm sure Saudi knows how much oil reserves they have left, for example .. but they are not likely
to be telling us (true, accurate figures)..

..and it stands to reason, that if you consume ever-increasing quantities of a finite supply, it will
soon become scarce.
..never mind the damage to the finite environment.

I wonder how much oil reserves remain in the Americas..

The universe is finite and being used up. In a few trillion years humanity will not be able to exist. Somehow I'm ok w/ that.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Sounds like you oppose charging interest for loans and you're ok w/ exploiting natural resources..

Perhaps you would like to explain to me, how one can "exploit natural resources" without
financing with usurious loans, in today's world.

I see that the industrial revolution was started at the same time as modern banking commenced
in Europe, post Reformation.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The universe is finite and being used up. In a few trillion years humanity will not be able to exist. Somehow I'm ok w/ that.

Oh yeah? Taking a trip to the moon/stars, are we?

 

[Pete in Panama]

Perhaps you would like to explain to me, how one can "exploit natural resources" without
financing with usurious loans, in today's world.

I see that the industrial revolution was started at the same time as modern banking commenced
in Europe, post Reformation.

Please bear with me here becase this is becoming a bit confusing to me. People have been both charging interest for loans and mining metals from the ground for something like 5,000 years. Are you saying that this is about to be used up and become no longer possible?

The universe is finite and being used up. In a few trillion years humanity will not be able to exist. Somehow I'm ok w/ that.

Oh yeah? Taking a trip to the moon/stars, are we?

You lost me there. Can we agree that everything is finite and unsustainable --that NOTHING lasts forever?

 

[anotherneil]

Here are just a few more of many scientists discussing human-caused climate change:


Howard Hayden - PhD, professor, and researcher (University of Connecticut)

Nicola Scafetta - PhD, research scientist & professor (Duke University)

John Ruhl - PhD & professor (Case Western Reserve University)

Brian Cox - PhD & professor (University of Manchester):

Tom Sheahen - PhD (Massachusetts Institute of Technology); author & researcher

 

[muhammad_isa]

Please bear with me here becase this is becoming a bit confusing to me. People have been both charging interest for loans and mining metals from the ground for something like 5,000 years. Are you saying that this is about to be used up and become no longer possible?

I'm fed up with answering your questions, as you seem to ignore mine..
Perhaps I should rephrase it..
i.e. how can you "exploit natural resources" without significant financing??

The increase in CO2 emissions began with the industrial revolution, which was fueled by
usurious finance (and speculative colonialism).

..so this is why it became significant .. it's the scale of things .. the size of companies and operations.
Without usurious finance, companies would not be able to monopolize, and spend huge sums of money.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Here are just a few more of many scientists discussing human-caused climate change:


Howard Hayden - PhD, professor, and researcher (University of Connecticut)

Nicola Scafetta - PhD, research scientist & professor (Duke University)

John Ruhl - PhD & professor (Case Western Reserve University)

Brian Cox - PhD & professor (University of Manchester):

Tom Sheahen - PhD (Massachusetts Institute of Technology); author & researcher

Thanks for the links, am downloading a couple for future viewing.

My situation is I'm trying to find someone to tell me what the AGW advocates are talking about. Most seem to say that the earth is heating over a degree C over the past century, that this is unprecedented and dangerous, and that it's caused by a man-made greenhouse effect. Yet when I speak w/ an individual they back off from the claim and don't say what they are offering.

You follow me?

 

[Pete in Panama]

I'm fed up with answering your questions,...

Say no more! Thanks for your time & maybe we can continue later on this or some other subject. Cheers!

 

[anotherneil]

Thanks for the links, am downloading a couple for future viewing.

My situation is I'm trying to find someone to tell me what the AGW advocates are talking about. Most seem to say that the earth is heating over a degree C over the past century, that this is unprecedented and dangerous, and that it's caused by a man-made greenhouse effect. Yet when I speak w/ an individual they back off from the claim and don't say what they are offering.

You follow me?

Sort of.

I remember being taught about human-caused global warming in my 10th grade biology class & at the time it didn't even occur to me to question or be skeptical of it; I simply took it as scientific fact.

My 10th grade PE teacher also made a statement that I remember from high school more clearly than anything else - well, except that when we started the chapter on sex ed, he said that he enjoyed teaching the topic. Both of these statements were made by him as we were settling down to start the class session for the day. The other thing he said was "trust no one." I found this to be quite a deep statement (and in hindsight it seems like advice I should've taken when being taught about human-caused global warming LOL).

Another rule of thumb life lesson I picked up a while ago was that if someone keeps changing their story, it's an indicator that they're adjusting the narrative & the reason for that is likely because they've covering up something or just being dishonest.

It seems to be what's happening with this sky is falling narrative, where first it was "global cooling", then "global warming", then they had to throw in the qualifier "human-caused" (or anthropogenic - AGW), then it got changed again to "climate change", "human-caused climate change", "climate disruption", etc.

Anyhow, back to my high school years, during my senior year, I worked as a warehouse tech for an HVAC contractor from Texas, that set up shop in my state & included a crew that was mainly from Texas. One of those individuals, who was sort of like a warehouse supervisor, liked to talk religion and listen to a religious radio station. He was what I think could be described as quite a devout evangelical Christian. As such, he was a young earth creationist and would try to persuade me that evolution (which BTW I also learned about in my 10th grade biology course) was a fabrication by the devil (something to that effect).

There were other science-related topics he liked to talk about, and I would basically be dismissive of what he was saying and considered most of it as religious fanaticism nonsense, including what he was saying about global warming. At first my thought was to look into what he was saying to rebut it, but when I did, I was surprised and found that there was actually substance to what he was saying.

On one hand, something like evolution is backed up by scientific evidence and study, and creationism does nothing to explain how we came about; on the other hand, climate change alarmism seems to be the product of crony capitalism.

That was back in the 90's, and I've been looking into this AGW issue. Over time I have found that the scientists seem to overwhelmingly be saying that there is no cause for alarm, contrary to what politicians, the media, celebrities, or climate change alarmism activists are saying. Much of this material asserting that humans-are causing catastrophic climate change problems that may be irreversible by burning hydrocarbons is from government-run entities, such as the UN and NASA, and the bulk of peer-reviewed articles you hear some bring up are funded by government grants. That might seem benign, but it isn't, because there's a conflict of interest when you have crony capitalist politicians in charge of making decisions about what to fund.

That's why I simply summarily reject this push by some that the peer-reviewed material is the ultimate go-to source for the issue. BTW, so far, not a single scientist who has written peer-reviewed articles endorsing AGW has been presented by those folks, which I suppose is an example of what you're saying.

Some of the scientists I've brought up do endorse AGW, but I think not many of them have authored such peer-reviewed articles. I don't necessarily fault them, because in some cases they're mathematicians, and they have to work on the raw data being passed on to them (assuming they actually have access to the raw data) and probably don't have much control over how reliable that data is.

 

[muhammad_isa]

People have been both charging interest for loans and mining metals from the ground for something like 5,000 years..

..so what do you think was the foundation for the industrial revolution?
Where did the industrialists get their money from?

The Industrial Revolution, sometimes divided into the First Industrial Revolution and Second Industrial Revolution, was a period of global transition of the human economy towards more widespread, efficient and stable manufacturing processes that succeeded the Agricultural Revolution. Beginning in Great Britain, the Industrial Revolution spread to continental Europe and the United States, during the period from around 1760 to about 1820–1840.
Industrial_Revolution - Wikipedia

The textile industry was the first to use modern production methods,  and textiles became the dominant industry in terms of employment, value of output, and capital invested.
See .. without capital, we have no industrial change.
I'm not a Communist, but neither am I a Capitalist. People want to make it all about science, but
that is not the complete picture at all !

 

[anotherneil]

More scientists discussing human-caused climate change:


Christopher Essex - PhD & professor (The University of Western Ontario)

Ian Plimer - PhD & professor (University of Melbourne)

David Bellamy - PhD & professor (University of Nottingham)

 

[Pete in Panama]

Sort of.

I remember being taught about human-caused global warming in my 10th grade biology class & at the time it didn't even occur to me to question or be skeptical of it; I simply took it as scientific fact.

My 10th grade PE teacher also made a statement that I remember from high school more clearly than anything else - well, except that when we started the chapter on sex ed, he said that he enjoyed teaching the topic. Both of these statements were made by him as we were settling down to start the class session for the day. The other thing he said was "trust no one." I found this to be quite a deep statement (and in hindsight it seems like advice I should've taken when being taught about human-caused global warming LOL).

Another rule of thumb life lesson I picked up a while ago was that if someone keeps changing their story, it's an indicator that they're adjusting the narrative & the reason for that is likely because they've covering up something or just being dishonest.

It seems to be what's happening with this sky is falling narrative, where first it was "global cooling", then "global warming", then they had to throw in the qualifier "human-caused" (or anthropogenic - AGW), then it got changed again to "climate change", "human-caused climate change", "climate disruption", etc.

Anyhow, back to my high school years, during my senior year, I worked as a warehouse tech for an HVAC contractor from Texas, that set up shop in my state & included a crew that was mainly from Texas. One of those individuals, who was sort of like a warehouse supervisor, liked to talk religion and listen to a religious radio station. He was what I think could be described as quite a devout evangelical Christian. As such, he was a young earth creationist and would try to persuade me that evolution (which BTW I also learned about in my 10th grade biology course) was a fabrication by the devil (something to that effect).

There were other science-related topics he liked to talk about, and I would basically be dismissive of what he was saying and considered most of it as religious fanaticism nonsense, including what he was saying about global warming. At first my thought was to look into what he was saying to rebut it, but when I did, I was surprised and found that there was actually substance to what he was saying.

On one hand, something like evolution is backed up by scientific evidence and study, and creationism does nothing to explain how we came about; on the other hand, climate change alarmism seems to be the product of crony capitalism.

That was back in the 90's, and I've been looking into this AGW issue. Over time I have found that the scientists seem to overwhelmingly be saying that there is no cause for alarm, contrary to what politicians, the media, celebrities, or climate change alarmism activists are saying. Much of this material asserting that humans-are causing catastrophic climate change problems that may be irreversible by burning hydrocarbons is from government-run entities, such as the UN and NASA, and the bulk of peer-reviewed articles you hear some bring up are funded by government grants. That might seem benign, but it isn't, because there's a conflict of interest when you have crony capitalist politicians in charge of making decisions about what to fund.

That's why I simply summarily reject this push by some that the peer-reviewed material is the ultimate go-to source for the issue. BTW, so far, not a single scientist who has written peer-reviewed articles endorsing AGW has been presented by those folks, which I suppose is an example of what you're saying.

Some of the scientists I've brought up do endorse AGW, but I think not many of them have authored such peer-reviewed articles. I don't necessarily fault them, because in some cases they're mathematicians, and they have to work on the raw data being passed on to them (assuming they actually have access to the raw data) and probably don't have much control over how reliable that data is.

Whoa there's a lot there. What really struck me was the instruction from the prof to "trust no one". That would mean that we should start w/ the prof himself and go out & trust whoever we meet. It's a contradiction.

We're hearing a lot of complaining from a lot of people. Many advocates for AGW present vague objections, something about how we're at odds w/ a destructive human caused warming of the earth. To be scientifically useful their claim should state how much the earth has heated over what time and something to show how this heating is new and bad. It's this clarification of the claim that I can't find. The fact that many scientists are unhappy is unfortunate but if they won't say why they're unhappy then I can't do anything for them.

 

[Yerda]

That was back in the 90's, and I've been looking into this AGW issue. Over time I have found that the scientists seem to overwhelmingly be saying that there is no cause for alarm, contrary to what politicians, the media, celebrities, or climate change alarmism activists are saying.

The scientists are pretty unanimous in screaming from the rooftops that their findings are terrifying. You are choosing to listen to a few cranks instead.

World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice

Twenty-five years ago, the Union of Concerned Scientists and more than 1700 independent scientists, including the majority of living Nobel laureates in the

academic.oup.com

Much of this material asserting that humans-are causing catastrophic climate change problems that may be irreversible by burning hydrocarbons is from government-run entities, such as the UN and NASA, and the bulk of peer-reviewed articles you hear some bring up are funded by government grants. That might seem benign, but it isn't, because there's a conflict of interest when you have crony capitalist politicians in charge of making decisions about what to fund.

Scientists at Shell and other huge oil companies were reporting on climate change decades ago.

What Big Oil knew about climate change, in its own words

Transcripts and internal documents show how the industry shifted from leading research into fossil fuels’ effect on the climate to sowing doubt about science.

theconversation.com

 

[Pete in Panama]

The scientists are pretty unanimous in screaming from the rooftops that their findings are terrifying. You are choosing to listen to a few cranks instead.

World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice

Twenty-five years ago, the Union of Concerned Scientists and more than 1700 independent scientists, including the majority of living Nobel laureates in the

academic.oup.com

Scientists at Shell and other huge oil companies were reporting on climate change decades ago.

What Big Oil knew about climate change, in its own words

Transcripts and internal documents show how the industry shifted from leading research into fossil fuels’ effect on the climate to sowing doubt about science.

theconversation.com

We got a couple of views on scientific insight here. For me if someone posted links about how the world's scientists were in agreement that water was not wet, I'd go over to the sink & check and if I saw that water was in fact wet I'd either conclude that the world's scientists were mistaken or perhaps those scientists never said such nonsense from the getgo.

That's my take on this climate confusion. What I'm hearing is that something's bad. Many (but not all) say that the worst part is the heating of the earth. For me it's impossible to approach the question rationally w/o clarity. Can you tell me what's "bad"?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Can you tell me what's "bad"?

Greed

 

[anotherneil]

Here are some additional scientists discussing human-caused climate change:


Joseph D’Aleo - professor (Lyndon State College)

Denis Rancourt - PhD & professor (University of Ottawa) with Tony Heller (BS in Geology - ASU & Masters in Electrical Engineering – Rice University)

Terence Kealey - PhD, professor & vice chancellor (University of Buckingham)

Jay Lehr - PhD (University of Arizona); ground water hydrology & geological engineering

William Briggs - PhD, professor (Cornell University), visiting professor (Central Michigan University), research scientist

 

[Yerda]

We got a couple of views on scientific insight here. For me if someone posted links about how the world's scientists were in agreement that water was not wet, I'd go over to the sink & check and if I saw that water was in fact wet I'd either conclude that the world's scientists were mistaken or perhaps those scientists never said such nonsense from the getgo.

You can read the papers - there are thousands of them. You can read the IPCC reports - there are hundreds of the world's leading experts producing those. You could refer to every major scientific body on the planet - they will all tell you the same thing.

That's my take on this climate confusion.

What's confusing you?

What I'm hearing is that something's bad. Many (but not all) say that the worst part is the heating of the earth. For me it's impossible to approach the question rationally w/o clarity. Can you tell me what's "bad"?

The Earth is heating rapidly, I'm sure you know this. The likely effects are thoroughly documented. None of them are good for humans.

 

[Pete in Panama]

We got a couple of views on scientific insight here. For me if someone posted links about how the world's scientists were in agreement that water was not wet, I'd go over to the sink & check and if I saw that water was in fact wet I'd either conclude that the world's scientists were mistaken or perhaps those scientists never said such nonsense from the getgo.

You can read the papers - there are thousands of them. You can read the IPCC reports - there are hundreds of the world's leading experts producing those. You could refer to every major scientific body on the planet - they will all tell you the same thing....

Work with me on this because we're not communicating. What I said was that if the world's scientists said water was not wet, what I would do would be to see for myself. You said was that every single paper agreed and that not one single scientist disagreed. We're not seeing the same thing here but the issue is not what the scientists say, but rather whether water is wet or not.

That's my take on this climate confusion. What I'm hearing is that something's bad. Many (but not all) say that the worst part is the heating of the earth. For me it's impossible to approach the question rationally w/o clarity. Can you tell me what's "bad"?

...What's confusing you?

Some say that the earth is one degree C hotter now than it was a century ago, that this increase is extraordinarily bad, and that it's caused by a man made greenhouse effect. Other people don't say that, they say something different.

The Earth is heating rapidly, I'm sure you know this. The likely effects are thoroughly documented. None of them are good for humans.

Do you say that a man made greenhouse effect has raised the earth's temp. one degree C over what it was a century ago and that this is seriously bad for humans? Please tell me if that's what you say and if you don't agree please tell me what numbers would you agree to.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you say that a man made greenhouse effect has raised the earth's temp. one degree C over what it was a century ago and that this is seriously bad for humans? Please tell me if that's what you say and if you don't agree please tell me what numbers would you agree to.

The global average and combined land and ocean surface temperature show a warming of 1.09 °C (range: 0.95 to 1.20 °C) from 1850–1900 to 2011–2020, based on multiple independently produced datasets.  The trend is faster since 1970s than in any other 50-year period over at least the last 2000 years.  Within this long-term upward trend, there is short-term variability because of natural internal variability (e.g. ENSO, volcanic eruption), but record highs have been occurring regularly.
Instrumental_temperature_record - Wikipedia

..so are you suggesting that the upward trend is mere coincidence, and has nothing to do with
human activities?

 

[Yerda]

Work with me on this because we're not communicating. What I said was that if the world's scientists said water was not wet, what I would do would be to see for myself. You said was that every single paper agreed and that not one single scientist disagreed. We're not seeing the same thing here but the issue is not what the scientists say, but rather whether water is wet or not.

Maybe, you could explain what you're getting at because you lost me a bit there.

Some say that the earth is one degree C hotter now than it was a century ago, that this increase is extraordinarily bad, and that it's caused by a man made greenhouse effect. Other people don't say that, they say something different.

Who says that "earth is one degree C hotter now than it was a century ago, that this increase is extraordinarily bad"?

I haven't seen any discussion to this end.

Do you say that a man made greenhouse effect has raised the earth's temp. one degree C over what it was a century ago and that this is seriously bad for humans? Please tell me if that's what you say and if you don't agree please tell me what numbers would you agree to.

The consequences of just over a degree rise in the pre-industrial baseline aren't necessarily a catastrophe. The risks appear to compound rather quickly when we get over 2 degrees warming due to the nature of feedback loops and possibility of runaway heating.