Climate Alarmists Are Doing it Wrong

[SearchingforPeace]

Well "The guy" is basically just the outcome of my bluntness and clumsy English. To be honest SfP doesn't strike me as a person with bad intentions, however he obviously isn't a scientist and observes the problem from more political point of view. (just as majority of people) However when you go into that perspective you can't understand the problem since media on both sides are saying all kinds of things, however this isn't science but dirty political struggle. Suggested solutions to the problems are also bad or incomplete, but that doesn't change the fact that we have the problem in geochemical sense. (as videos that I posted suggest)

You are very naive if you believe there is not a massive political struggle that underlies the entire climate change issue.

Scientists and governments would not be falsifying data and altering old findings if it was not a political issue. I can prove this if anyone isn't aware of the issue.

No one with any understanding of science would ever actually cite the alleged 97% consensus (which does not exist). I can also prove this fairly easily. Of course, science doesn't work on consensus (a consensus process would be social, not scientific).

If it wasn't political, they would easily admit that the climate scientists in large numbers pushed global cooling before the data blew up those models. And yes, I can prove this.

If it wasn't political, they wouldn't be trying to throw opponents in jail for actually providing errors in their models and theories.

I have studied science and feel very comfortable reading scientific papers. I am very comfortable with my ability to understand theory and facts, as well as see through propaganda.

Science today is not some pure research and search for truth. Instead it is highly driven by the quest for funding. It isn't pretty.

So, science at its source is highly politicized, because if the narrative fails, if the fear mongering stops working, there goes the funding.

So, my basic assessment is that climate science isn't really developed enough to accurately predict much. The alarmists have made numerous predictions and they have failed, for the most part.

In normal, non politicized science, that would be ok. There would be no reason to attack those who poke holes in the narrative.

But with millions of dollars on the line, the incentive for disingenuousness and dishonesty increases.

In my lifetime, I have met many important folks, of all areas. Whenever I met some extremely arrogant person trying to pull rank or intimadate me, I know they are afraid and weak on their arguments. Really confident people actually can look at weaknesses and see them as opportunities for improvement.

So, I don't doubt the climate changes. I doubt the narratives and models. Given everything I have read, it is mostly a political matter, not a scientific one. Even the alarmist climate scientists admitted this year that their models were inaccurate and failed to account for vital data points.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

I don't know. I mean I don't think he's an evil environmental terrorist and am sure he loves his children, but he has a rather offensive emphasis on touting absurd and easily debunked claims about global cooling, etc ...it's excessive. Like. ..most people who don't care, who are just selfish, or maybe oblivious, or simply uncertain of whom to trust, don't really talk about climate science at all. If they do, it's in passing, like maybe a couple of comments, but they don't start multiple threads or attempt to persuade others. It strikes me as politically odd, even, coming from someone who backed Bernie Sanders, as he was universally recognized as the only major American candidate who had a solid and truly ethical stance on environmental policy. Clinton does not, she spread hydraulic fracturing throughout the world, accepts bribes from oil companies in the form of campaign donations, and has been blamed for the murder of indigenous environmental activist, Berta Caceres, whose daughter came up from South America JUST TO PROTEST THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTIONS. SFP isn't your typical disengaged self absorbed oblivious person who simply doesn't know or care, he isn't even on the American right wing...the whole business is extraordinarily bizarre. In the beginning I thought he might be trolling me, now I'm just at a loss to what his motivation could possibly be, because it does not even make sense. It strikes me as some one with an axe to grind to egoistic purposes.

There's a difference between saying "yes but some environmentalists are hypocritical" (the inconvenient truth is that Al Gore needs a smaller house) or arguing about SOLUTIONS ...and actively attempting to wage a forum crusade against climate science.

But anyway, overall, you are correct of course.

Do you really not understand what I have stated about global cooling?

I am not claiming we are cooling, but that contrary to your repeated statement, there was a large scale global cooling alarmism prior to the global warming alarmism.

Here is the post where I showed it:

Since most are skipping the other thread (for good reason), I decided to post also over here, since this thread is where the weak assertion was made about the 75 article being the source of global cooling talk in the 1970s.....if it were only....


Oh, for the supposedly nonexistent scientific global cooling push, prior to 1975 (and no, I didn't research all these myself but found them in one second on a googoe search):

from the referenced 1975 Newsweek

1975 Science News article in full referencing a National Academy of Science report calling for immediate action on global cooling

A July 18, 1970 NY Times article over cooling concern

A 1971 Science article discussing a possible coming ice age.

A 1972 newspaper article about a looming ice age

That is a 1974 article on global cooling....

That is a 1974 article....

A 1973 article referencing a National Science Foundation report predicting global cooling....

A 1974 NYT article.....

A 1972 Time Mag article....

A 1974 article

And a 1974 tv documentary to end this....

There are many more. Unfortunately, that Scientific American article was really just a republished blog post from an environmentalist site.

But, hey no one ever thought about global cooling before 1975 Newsweek article.... right ?

And no real scientists ever pushed the idea.....right?

You never responded to that post. If you read through the articles, you will have no doubt about the reality of predictions of an ice age in the 70s.

But, again, all those articles could be faked, I guess. Oh, one even shows the 1940 warming that the alarmists have tried to remove....inconvenient.

In some ways, the climate change issue is really like 1984 and newspeak. They really are trying to shape the future by lying about the past.... good thing not everything is digital yet.....

 

[Virtual ghost]

I don't know. I mean I don't think he's an evil environmental terrorist and am sure he loves his children, but he has a rather offensive emphasis on touting absurd and easily debunked claims about global cooling, etc ...it's excessive. Like. ..most people who don't care, who are just selfish, or maybe oblivious, or simply uncertain of whom to trust, don't really talk about climate science at all. If they do, it's in passing, like maybe a couple of comments, but they don't start multiple threads or attempt to persuade others. It strikes me as politically odd, even, coming from someone who backed Bernie Sanders, as he was universally recognized as the only major American candidate who had a solid and truly ethical stance on environmental policy. Clinton does not, she spread hydraulic fracturing throughout the world, accepts bribes from oil companies in the form of campaign donations, and has been blamed for the murder of indigenous environmental activist, Berta Caceres, whose daughter came up from South America JUST TO PROTEST THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTIONS. SFP isn't your typical disengaged self absorbed oblivious person who simply doesn't know or care, he isn't even on the American right wing...the whole business is extraordinarily bizarre. In the beginning I thought he might be trolling me, now I'm just at a loss to what his motivation could possibly be, because it does not even make sense. It strikes me as some one with an axe to grind to egoistic purposes.

There's a difference between saying "yes but some environmentalists are hypocritical" (the inconvenient truth is that Al Gore needs a smaller house) or arguing about SOLUTIONS ...and actively attempting to wage a forum crusade against climate science.

But anyway, overall, you are correct of course.

It is not nice to talk behind person's back but to me he simply seem as a person that doesn't have the technical knowledge (and he knows this). Therefore he retreats into the climate change deinial zone in order to try cutting the issue at the "root". Especially since that position has much much more publically available data/claims, so it is easier to defend such positions against the others. This is why what media are doing is disgusting since they polarize people based on half scientific claims. Therefore the whole thing in America came to position of being pop culture conspiracy theory.




Anyway summer melt of the Arctic ocean seems to be exceptionally strong this year. It will be one of the two strongest on the record so far, only the all time record of 2012 is bellow in ice sufrace surviving the summer. (the 2012 was the year when a number of trends overlaped and created very good melting conditions)

And here is how this looks like when placed into a graph/context.
On the side you can turn off or on the data for each year since the record started in 1979.
The overall trend is clearly down, it is unlinear due to many factors but we are clearly moving towards ice free Arctic.
However once it is gone there will be strong shift in how the whole climate works, since one of the key components will be gone. (ice on North pole during summer)


LINK

 

[Virtual ghost]

You are very naive if you believe there is not a massive political struggle that underlies the entire climate change issue.

Scientists and governments would not be falsifying data and altering old findings if it was not a political issue. I can prove this if anyone isn't aware of the issue.

No one with any understanding of science would ever actually cite the alleged 97% consensus (which does not exist). I can also prove this fairly easily. Of course, science doesn't work on consensus (a consensus process would be social, not scientific).

If it wasn't political, they would easily admit that the climate scientists in large numbers pushed global cooling before the data blew up those models. And yes, I can prove this.

If it wasn't political, they wouldn't be trying to throw opponents in jail for actually providing errors in their models and theories.

I have studied science and feel very comfortable reading scientific papers. I am very comfortable with my ability to understand theory and facts, as well as see through propaganda.

Science today is not some pure research and search for truth. Instead it is highly driven by the quest for funding. It isn't pretty.

So, science at its source is highly politicized, because if the narrative fails, if the fear mongering stops working, there goes the funding.

So, my basic assessment is that climate science isn't really developed enough to accurately predict much. The alarmists have made numerous predictions and they have failed, for the most part.

In normal, non politicized science, that would be ok. There would be no reason to attack those who poke holes in the narrative.

But with millions of dollars on the line, the incentive for disingenuousness and dishonesty increases.

In my lifetime, I have met many important folks, of all areas. Whenever I met some extremely arrogant person trying to pull rank or intimadate me, I know they are afraid and weak on their arguments. Really confident people actually can look at weaknesses and see them as opportunities for improvement.

So, I don't doubt the climate changes. I doubt the narratives and models. Given everything I have read, it is mostly a political matter, not a scientific one. Even the alarmist climate scientists admitted this year that their models were inaccurate and failed to account for vital data points.

I never claimed that there isn't a bunch of people that are not trying to profit out of this and that media are spreding all kinds of misinformation and that there are all kinds of experts on the issue that don't get the problem. However not every country structures it's scientific work on market basis/principles.


But as I said before we have enough observable/measured data in term of parcticle physics, Arctic ice concentrations, glacer melt and wild weather to understand that we going in the wrong direction. Therefore in 2016 climate models are no longer primary source of information on the issue, since the process is heavily on the way already and it is observable. Feel free to go through my post around the thread.


But I guess we can disagree on this until the end of time.

 

[Thalassa]

Do you really not understand what I have stated about global cooling?

I am not claiming we are cooling, but that contrary to your repeated statement, there was a large scale global cooling alarmism prior to the global warming alarmism.

Here is the post where I showed it:



You never responded to that post. If you read through the articles, you will have no doubt about the reality of predictions of an ice age in the 70s.

But, again, all those articles could be faked, I guess. Oh, one even shows the 1940 warming that the alarmists have tried to remove....inconvenient.

In some ways, the climate change issue is really like 1984 and newspeak. They really are trying to shape the future by lying about the past.... good thing not everything is digital yet.....

Yes I believe one of three things:

1) you can't tell the difference between defying social authority, and just anti-socially or narcissistically believing you know everything, without having the intellectual capacity or moral capacity to defer to people who have devoted their lives to study of objective matters like climate science ...I say this because your political beliefs don't even add up...unless your entire agenda is focused on defying anything to do with the mainstream left, so anything that might have been even remotely suggested by a politician you don't like, you immediately believe the opposite of...this is utterly irrational, and the point of being an alt-left progressive, or non partisan voter, isn't to just blindly defy anything the other side said...it's to identify real corruption but continue to deal with individual issues intelligently

Or

2) you work in a field which will change, adjust or switch to another type of technology due to global warming, and you don't like change

Or

3) you didn't go to college so don't know the difference between a valid and invalid source of scientific evidence

Have a day. Make sure you bring a coat, since you think it's about to freeze up in here.

 

[Thalassa]

You are very naive if you believe there is not a massive political struggle that underlies the entire climate change issue.

Scientists and governments would not be falsifying data and altering old findings if it was not a political issue. I can prove this if anyone isn't aware of the issue.

No one with any understanding of science would ever actually cite the alleged 97% consensus (which does not exist). I can also prove this fairly easily. Of course, science doesn't work on consensus (a consensus process would be social, not scientific).

If it wasn't political, they would easily admit that the climate scientists in large numbers pushed global cooling before the data blew up those models. And yes, I can prove this.

If it wasn't political, they wouldn't be trying to throw opponents in jail for actually providing errors in their models and theories.

I have studied science and feel very comfortable reading scientific papers. I am very comfortable with my ability to understand theory and facts, as well as see through propaganda.

Science today is not some pure research and search for truth. Instead it is highly driven by the quest for funding. It isn't pretty.

So, science at its source is highly politicized, because if the narrative fails, if the fear mongering stops working, there goes the funding.

So, my basic assessment is that climate science isn't really developed enough to accurately predict much. The alarmists have made numerous predictions and they have failed, for the most part.

In normal, non politicized science, that would be ok. There would be no reason to attack those who poke holes in the narrative.

But with millions of dollars on the line, the incentive for disingenuousness and dishonesty increases.

In my lifetime, I have met many important folks, of all areas. Whenever I met some extremely arrogant person trying to pull rank or intimadate me, I know they are afraid and weak on their arguments. Really confident people actually can look at weaknesses and see them as opportunities for improvement.

So, I don't doubt the climate changes. I doubt the narratives and models. Given everything I have read, it is mostly a political matter, not a scientific one. Even the alarmist climate scientists admitted this year that their models were inaccurate and failed to account for vital data points.

Virtual Ghost is a scientist, and this is his area. I guess you were too busy arguing to notice. He's far from "naive" as he's repeatedly said that there are people on both sides who are politicizing the issue.

I guess NASA doesn't have an understanding of science then. Here's where they explain that scientific consensus is based on extensive world wide research and peer reviewed journals. This is not an issue unique to the US, or even the West. Japan has the largest climate station, after NASA.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus


Like, who do you think you are? Who do you think you know?

They're trying to throw people in jail for being a danger to humanity. That's what you're failing to see. These people are criminals who spread propaganda for short term profit. You aren't going to prison for denying climate science, no one cares what you think. I did before, but I see that you are a lost cause.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Virtual Ghost is a scientist, and this is his area. I guess you were too busy arguing to notice. He's far from "naive" as he's repeatedly said that there are people on both sides who are politicizing the issue.

I guess NASA doesn't have an understanding of science then. Here's where they explain that scientific consensus is based on extensive world wide research and peer reviewed journals. This is not an issue unique to the US, or even the West. Japan has the largest climate station, after NASA.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus


Like, who do you think you are? Who do you think you know?

They're trying to throw people in jail for being a danger to humanity. That's what you're failing to see. These people are criminals who spread propaganda for short term profit. You aren't going to prison for denying climate science, no one cares what you think. I did before, but I see that you are a lost cause.

That is not true. I have education in this field but today I do something else in life.
However I still have enough knowledge on the topic to still be clearly above average in understanding the topic, especially since I study this aspect just for fun.

 

[Thalassa]

That is not true. I have education in this field but today I do something else in life.
However I still have enough knowledge on the topic to still be clearly above average in understanding the topic, especially since I study this aspect just for fun.

That may make you a more reliable source in his eyes, since he thinks people actually working at NASA - some of the finest minds of our time - are making all this up and lying to him for profit. Apparently the moon landing was also faked and NASA actually is a front to protect the illuminati.

I mean, since environmental activists are more likely to be arrested or murdered on a global scale and are first to be suspected for "domestic terrorism" it's going to put him in grave danger to put the mafia thugs in prison who are obscuring science, misleading the American right wing for financial gain, and the primary cause for environmental destruction and murder of people in developing countries to obtain their resources.

 

[Thalassa]

To summarize succinctly why I will not "respect" the uneducated opinion of global cooling theory:

1) no one who posted in this thread as a "skeptic" even has the level of education required to even question "the model" let alone the scientific research background or authority to challenge data from NASA and other highly credible global climate scientists, of which there is a 97 percent consensus, and yes, scientific consensus exists, and anyone who doesn't know how or why certainly shouldn't be behaving as if they know what they are talking about, as most college mid year freshmen or sophomores have already been taught to spot credible sources of peer reviewed academic consensus. To summarize, an arm chair hypothesis does not stand against a heavily researched established theory.

2) "the model " isn't even required to observe global warming anymore, since data is observable even to people with a moderate grasp on physical and biological sciences, no longer must one be a physicist or chemist, as the "theory" has moved with disturbing speed from abstract to concrete

3) the right wing has much more to lose to science than the left, though I certainly agree that there are hypocritical people on the left, it is the right who are hanging on like bratty two year olds to fossil fuels, factory farming, and the exploitation of poor communities, because while they can rhetoric their way out of the moral conversation, sociopaths that the leading denial propaganda types are, they are terrified of the prospect of scientific proof that their behavior is not only unethical, but objectively criminal in light of scientific discovery

 

[Cellmold]

Destructive beauty.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Like, who do you think you are? Who do you think you know?

I am merely a person with a brain who chooses to use it. I hope all others can learn to think for themselves, but, unfortunately, too many lack either the ability or the will to do so.

They're trying to throw people in jail for being a danger to humanity. That's what you're failing to see. These people are criminals who spread propaganda for short term profit. You aren't going to prison for denying climate science, no one cares what you think. I did before, but I see that you are a lost cause.

Lol, there are a lot of people who may be a danger to humanity. But freedom is something holy and precious. Freedom to believe and doubt are fundemental principles. And to speak one's mind. Speaking one's mind and opposing policy positions isn't criminal.

Only totalitarian folks can't accept dissent. It is a good sign of holding a weak argument when someone tries to win by silencing others. Any open minded person can hear diametrically opposed views and not get too bothered.

Unfortunately, anti-Enlightenment folks today want to prevent opposing views from being heard. It is so sad.

To think, it was in my life time that the ACLU fought for and won the right of neo-Nazis to march through a community of Holocaust survivors. Here is the Huff Post piece on it.

How far we have come in so short of time. So sad.....

And if you didn't care what I think, you would stop replying to my posts...... except you still have never acknowledged you were wrong about the global cooling movement of the 60s and 70s..... no matter the proof presented here... interesting.....

 

[Thalassa]

I am merely a person with a brain who chooses to use it. I hope all others can learn to think for themselves, but, unfortunately, too many lack either the ability or the will to do so.



Lol, there are a lot of people who may be a danger to humanity. But freedom is something holy and precious. Freedom to believe and doubt are fundemental principles. And to speak one's mind. Speaking one's mind and opposing policy positions isn't criminal.

Only totalitarian folks can't accept dissent. It is a good sign of holding a weak argument when someone tries to win by silencing others. Any open minded person can hear diametrically opposed views and not get too bothered.

Unfortunately, anti-Enlightenment folks today want to prevent opposing views from being heard. It is so sad.

To think, it was in my life time that the ACLU fought for and won the right of neo-Nazis to march through a community of Holocaust survivors. Here is the Huff Post piece on it.

How far we have come in so short of time. So sad.....

And if you didn't care what I think, you would stop replying to my posts...... except you still have never acknowledged you were wrong about the global cooling movement of the 60s and 70s..... no matter the proof presented here... interesting.....

Really? Because it's pretty arrogant for you to assume that I'm an alarmist or that Virtual Ghost is naive when you obviously don't even know that scientific consensus exists and how or why (that "consensus is only social this is what science is" was a real hoot and a holler). You've spent the majority of this thread snickering at and baiting people (or trying to bait people) who are more educated than yourself on the matter, including dismissing the science department of USC as being "the natural history museum was fun when I was a kid" and presuming you know more than the entire earth's climate scientists.

I addressed the global cooling thing and told you that it's been disproven since 1980.

Honestly, if you were merely talking to me I'd assume you were merely guilty of poorly informed mansplaining, but your comments to Virtual Ghost have convinced me that isn't the case, and you simply have an arrogance so profound you are incapable of being taught...since you clearly haven't taken so much as a university level science class, let alone are informed enough to even debate this subject with the comical smugness you have presented here.

There are very small numbers of skeptics for every theory from evolution to plate tectonics, just to put this in perspective, and honestly paranoid skepticism does no one any good in people who willfully resist scientific education, and instead rely on off topic rambling about Nazis (a sure sign your thread is over).

Good lord. I'm out.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Really? Because it's pretty arrogant for you to assume that I'm an alarmist or that Virtual Ghost is naive when you obviously don't even know that scientific consensus exists and how or why (that "consensus is only social this is what science is" was a real hoot and a holler). You've spent the majority of this thread snickering at and baiting people (or trying to bait people) who are more educated than yourself on the matter, including dismissing the science department of USC as being "the natural history museum was fun when I was a kid" and presuming you know more than the entire earth's climate scientists.

I addressed the global cooling thing and told you that it's been disproven since 1980.

Honestly, if you were merely talking to me I'd assume you were merely guilty of poorly informed mansplaining, but your comments to Virtual Ghost have convinced me that isn't the case, and you simply have an arrogance so profound you are incapable of being taught...since you clearly haven't taken so much as a university level science class, let alone are informed enough to even debate this subject with the comical smugness you have presented here.

Good lord. I'm out.

Lol, sexism, irrational assumptions, and arrogance, all in one post! Genius!

Post after post you call me ignorant, stupid, and arrogant, yet demonstrate that you are merely projecting.

And you still can't read and comprehend: it isn't whether scientists moved away from global cooling, but whether the climate scientists in large numbers pushed the idea back in the 70s and 60s. You denied this repeatedly, but I presented evidence.

And you are teaching school kids about climate change?!?!?! So sad..

 

[erm]

it isn't whether scientists moved away from global cooling, but whether the climate scientists in large numbers pushed the idea back in the 70s and 60s. You denied this repeatedly, but I presented evidence.

No you didn't, you keep posting media articles. The media will go nuts about studies and scientists, not science, and dramatize it to earn money. Even, say, the BBC has this issue, if to a lesser extent. Even then those articles are selective, and I can't find a study on the media back then, but I can on the science.

Most scientists never accepted global cooling. Even back then most of the literature suggested warming, but yes there were proportionally more that suggested cooling than there are now, and it was pushed by some.

You have an extreme reaction to being wrong about things.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I saw this today and thought of this thread, seemed a good place to post it: xkcd: Earth Temperature Timeline