Page 3 of 38 FirstFirst 1234567891011121328 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 758

Thread: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

  1. #41

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    I like how I can see you, in real time, find stories you like from your partisan sources and link them to, what you believe to be, the relevant thread.
    Last edited by alhoon; March 16, 2019 at 04:17 AM. Reason: off-topic insulting personal reference removed
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  2. #42
    Genava's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    751

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    "Climate science" is a relatively new field where the climate-change orthodoxy is ruthlessly enforced. Good luck getting in if you don't buy into the hysteria.
    John Tyndall, 1859: https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.co...0.1002/wea.386

    Svante August Arrhenius, 1896: http://www.rsc.org/images/arrhenius1...m18-173546.pdf

    Guy Stewart Callendar, 1938: http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/callendar_1938.pdf

    Gilbert Norman Plass, 1956: https://www.americanscientist.org/article/carbon-dioxide-and-the-climate



    President’s Science Advisory Committee Report of 1965 (Lyndon B. Johnson) talking about the carbon dioxide and climate change: http://www.climatefiles.com/climate-...arbon-dioxide/

    Wallace Smith Broecker, 1975: "Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"
    https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu//files...lwarming75.pdf

    Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
    http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/jou...eldman_CO2.pdf



    Position Statement of The Geological Society of America: https://www.geosociety.org/gsa/posit...osition10.aspx

    Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for many thousands of years. Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse-gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. The tangible effects of climate change are already occurring. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

    Scientific advances have greatly reduced previous uncertainties about recent global warming. Ground-station measurements have shown a warming trend of ~0.85 °C since 1880, a trend consistent with (1) retreat of northern hemisphere snow and Arctic sea ice; (2) greater heat storage in the ocean; (3) retreat of most mountain glaciers; (4) an ongoing rise in global sea level; and (5) proxy reconstructions of temperature change over past centuries from archives that include ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, boreholes, cave deposits, and corals. Both instrumental records and proxy indices from geologic sources show that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries (National Research Council, 2006). Earth’s surface has been successively warmer in each of the last three decades and each of those has been warmer than any decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 is likely the warmest 30 years in the northern hemisphere during the last 1,400 years (IPCC, 2013). This recent warming of Earth’s surface is now consistently supported by a wide range of measurements and proxies, including land- and satellite-based measurements.


    The geologic record contains unequivocal evidence of former climate change, including periods of greater warmth with limited polar ice, and colder intervals with more widespread glaciation. These and other changes were accompanied by major shifts in species and ecosystems. Paleoclimatic research has demonstrated that these major changes in climate and biota are associated with significant changes in climate forcing, such as continental positions and topography, patterns of ocean circulation, the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere, and the distribution and amount of solar energy at the top of the atmosphere caused by changes in Earth’s orbit and the evolution of the sun as a main sequence star. Cyclic changes in ice volume during glacial periods over the last three million years have been correlated to orbital cycles and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, but may also reflect internal responses generated by large ice sheets. This rich history of Earth’s climate has been used as one of several key sources of information for assessing the predictive capabilities of modern climate models. The testing of increasingly sophisticated climate models by comparison to geologic proxies is continuing, leading to refinement of hypotheses and improved understanding of the drivers of past and current climate change. Climate models have improved continuously and now reproduce observed continental-scale warming patterns over multiple decades (IPCC, 2013).


    Given the knowledge gained from paleoclimatic studies, several explanations for the ongoing warming trend can be eliminated. Changes in Earth’s tectonism and its orbit are far too slow to have played a significant role in the observed rate of temperature increase over the last 150 years. At the other extreme, large volcanic eruptions have cooled global climate for a year or two, and El Niño episodes have warmed it for about a year, but neither factor dominates longer-term trends. Extensive efforts to find any other natural explanation for the recent trend have similarly failed.
    As a result, greenhouse-gas concentrations and solar output are the principal remaining factors that could have changed rapidly enough and lasted long enough to explain the observed changes in global temperature. The 5th IPCC report (2013) concluded that solar irradiance changes contributed only a few percent to changes in radiative forcing of the atmosphere over the past century. Throughout the era of satellite observation, during periods of strong warming, the data show little evidence of increased solar influence (Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011; Lean and Rind, 2008).


    Greenhouse gas concentrations remain the major explanation for the warming. Observations and climate model assessments of the natural and anthropogenic factors responsible for this warming conclude that rising anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have been an increasingly important contributor since the mid-1800s and the major factor since the mid-1900s (Meehl et al., 2004). The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is now ~40% higher than peak levels measured in ice cores spanning 800,000 years of age, and the methane concentration is 1.5 times higher (IPCC, 2013). The measured increases in greenhouse gases are more than enough to explain the observed global temperature increase at Earth’s surface. In fact, considered in isolation, the greenhouse gas increases during the last 150 years would have caused a warming larger than that actually measured, but mechanisms that limit increases in near-surface air temperatures from aerosols, ocean heat storage, and possibly clouds have offset part of the warming. In addition, because the oceans take decades to centuries to respond fully to climatic forcing, the climate system has yet to register the full effect of recent greenhouse gas increases.


    These advances in scientific understanding of recent warming form the basis for projections of future changes. If greenhouse-gas emissions follow a likely trajectory with little to no effort to stabilize emissions (IPCC, 2013, RCP 8.5), by 2100 atmospheric CO2 concentrations will reach four times pre-industrial levels, for a total warming of 2.6 °C to 4.8 °C compared to 1850. Even under scenarios that take into account efforts to stabilize emissions, expected increases in global mean temperature exceed 2 °C by the year 2100. The likely changes in greenhouse gas concentrations and temperature would substantially alter the functioning of the planet in many ways. The projected changes involve the following risks to humans and other species: (1) continued shrinking of Arctic sea ice, with effects on native cultures and ice-dependent biota; (2) less snow accumulation and earlier melt in mountains, with reductions in spring and summer runoff for agricultural and municipal water; (3) disappearance of mountain glaciers and their late-summer runoff; (4) increased evaporation from farmland soils and stress on crops; (5) greater soil erosion due to increases in heavy convective summer rainfall; (6) longer fire seasons and increases in fire frequency; (7) severe insect outbreaks in vulnerable forests; (8) acidification of the global ocean; and (9) fundamental changes in the composition, functioning, and biodiversity of many terrestrial and marine ecosystems. In addition, melting of Greenland and West Antarctic ice (still highly uncertain as to amount), along with thermal expansion of seawater and melting of mountain glaciers and small ice caps, will cause substantial future sea-level rise, affecting densely populated coastal regions, inundating farmlands, and dislocating large populations (Melillo et al, 2014; IPPC, 2013). Because large, abrupt climatic changes occurred within spans of just decades during previous ice-sheet fluctuations, the possibility exists for rapid future changes as ice sheets become vulnerable to enhanced global warming associated with the greenhouse gas increases. Finally, carbon-climate model simulations indicate that 15%–40% of the anthropogenic CO2 “pulse” could stay in the atmosphere for longer than a thousand years, extending the duration of fossil-fuel warming and its effects on humans and other species. The acidification of the global ocean and its effects on ocean life are projected to last for tens of thousands of years and, on the basis of documented climate changes in the past, lead to extinction of species.




    Position statement of the American Chemical Society: https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/p...atechange.html

    The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities. Chemistry is at the heart of understanding the climate system and integral to addressing the development and deployment of new emission reduction technologies and clean energy alternatives. The American Chemical Society (ACS) acknowledges that climate change is real, is serious and has been influenced by anthropogenic activity. Unmitigated climate change will lead to increases in extreme weather events and will cause significant sea level rise, causing property damage and population displacement. It also will continue to degrade ecosystems and natural resources, affecting food and water availability and human health, further burdening economies and societies. Continued uncontrolled GHG emissions will accelerate and compound the effects and risks of climate change well into the future.


    International cooperation will be crucial to addressing climate change, and continued U.S. participation in efforts such as the Paris Agreement is essential. Many solutions to reduce GHG and pollutant emissions are known and should be implemented through policy changes, partnerships, and education. These mitigation policies (e.g. GHG emission reduction) must be augmented by improved approaches for anticipating and adapting to adverse and unavoidable impacts of climate change. Risk reduction by proactive mitigation and adaptation strategies is preferred over global climate intervention schemes where the outcome is difficult to predict and beyond our power to control. Continuing to improve and strengthen our societies’ scientific understanding and literacy concerning all aspects of climate change is vitally important, enabling us to make informed decisions at national and international levels and helping us to lessen the future risk of climate change.


    Climate Science Narratives & Presentations on the website of the American Chemical Society (very good introduction): https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...arratives.html
    The true heroes of science are the defenders of open-access like
    Alexandra Elbakyan. Even in my country, Switzerland, we cannot afford the access to all the publishers material. Sci-hub and Library Genesis help thousands of researchers in the world. Support them.

  3. #43
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,478

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    People studied the climate in ancient times, but that's not what I'm referring to. Climate science didn't become a "thing" until around the mid 20th century.

    The field of climate science emerged in the second half of the twentieth century. Though it is sometimes also referred to as “climatology”, it differs markedly from the field of climatology that came before. That climatology, which existed from the late-nineteenth century (if not earlier), was an inductive science, in many ways more akin to geography than to physics; it developed systems for classifying climates based on empirical criteria and, by the mid-twentieth century, was increasingly focused on the calculation of statistics from weather observations (Nebeker 1995; Edwards 2010; Weart 2008 [2017, Other Internet Resources]; Heymann & Achermann forthcoming). Climate science, by contrast, aims to explain and predict the workings of a global climate system—encompassing the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice sheets and more—and it makes extensive use of both theoretical knowledge and mathematical modeling. In fact, the emergence of climate science is closely linked to the rise of digital computing, which made it possible to simulate the large-scale motions of the atmosphere and oceans using fluid dynamical equations that were otherwise intractable; these motions transport mass, heat, moisture and other quantities that shape paradigmatic climate variables, such as average surface temperature and rainfall. Today, complex computer models that represent a wide range of climate system processes are a mainstay of climate research.

    The emergence of climate science is also linked to the issue of anthropogenic climate change. In recent decades, growing concern about climate change has brought a substantial influx of funding for climate research. It is a misconception, however, that climate science just is the study of anthropogenic climate change. On the contrary, there has been, and continues to be, a significant body of research within climate science that addresses fundamental questions about the workings of the climate system. This includes questions about how energy flows in the system, about the roles of particular physical processes in shaping climates, about the interactions that occur among climate system components, about natural oscillations within the system, about climate system feedbacks, about the predictability of the climate system, and much more.
    As for how credible climatologists are, from what I've seen and heard over the years, it's a heavily politicized field. The alleged consensus among climatologists that AGW is real, is about as credible as the consensus among Hindu priests that Christianity is false.

    [Judith] Curry is a true climatologist. She once headed the department of earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, until she gave up on the academy so that she could express herself independently. “Independence of mind and climatology have become incompatible,” she says. Do you mean that global warming isn’t real? I ask. “There is warming, but we don’t really understand its causes,” she says. “The human factor and carbon dioxide, in particular, contribute to warming, but how much is the subject of intense scientific debate.”...

    This brings us to why Curry left the world of the academy and government-funded research. “Climatology has become a political party with totalitarian tendencies,” she charges. “If you don’t support the UN consensus on human-caused global warming, if you express the slightest skepticism, you are a ‘climate-change denier,’ a stooge of Donald Trump, a quasi-fascist who must be banned from the scientific community.” These days, the climatology mainstream accepts only data that reinforce its hypothesis that humanity is behind global warming. Those daring to take an interest in possible natural causes of climactic variation—such as solar shifts or the earth’s oscillations—aren’t well regarded in the scientific community, to put it mildly. The rhetoric of the alarmists, it’s worth noting, has increasingly moved from “global warming” to “climate change,” which can mean anything. That shift got its start back in 1992, when the UN widened its range of environmental concern to include every change that human activities might be causing in nature, casting a net so wide that few human actions could escape it.

    Scientific research should be based on skepticism, on the constant reconsideration of accepted ideas: at least, this is what I learned from my mentor, the ultimate scientific philosopher of our time, Karl Popper. What could lead climate scientists to betray the very essence of their calling? The answer, Curry contends: “politics, money, and fame.” Scientists are human beings, with human motives; nowadays, public funding, scientific awards, and academic promotions go to the environmentally correct. Among climatologists, Curry explains, “a person must not like capitalism or industrial development too much and should favor world government, rather than nations”; think differently, and you’ll find yourself ostracized. “Climatology is becoming an increasingly dubious science, serving a political project,” she complains. In other words, “the policy cart is leading the scientific horse.”

    Full article

  4. #44
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,578

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    Is it me having spent too much time on history and TWC type games, or does what you describe sound like a typical crisis as described in History books?

    Cmon if we're talking of the north pole melting or something come up with something more drastic than average.
    If it's not extinction level, then it's in no way more dangerous, than say, an all out nuclear war.

    Now on this I'm not necessarily a denier, just there is some dislike to be found in the way this technical issue was turned into a moral issue.

    Even if Global Warming at extremely alarming levels exists and is happening, it's not via morality or proselytism that it will be solved, but via technical solutions. Let the Scientists and Engineers and Economists and whoever else do their thing.

    Sudden replacement of fossil fuels is not only extremely difficult but if it's too sudden will also give you a social crisis asides from economic crisis.

    Don't forget the yellow vests in France starting spark (albeit not whole cause) was Macron's tax on fuel thus making transportations much more expensive.

    Moralism/Preaching as a solution will just give you a group of believers and a group of non-believers. Not much more
    Does it look like I am making a moral case?
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  5. #45

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    Does it look like I am making a moral case?
    More of an emotional appeal than anything else.
    Not the type you would get from David MacKay's "Without Hot Air".

    By the way, for the curious, the book is free online with consent of the author.
    Last edited by fkizz; March 16, 2019 at 03:34 PM.
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  6. #46
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,578

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by fkizz View Post
    More of an emotional appeal than anything else.
    Not the type you would get from David MacKay's "Without Hot Air".

    By the way, for the curious, the book is free online with consent of the author.
    Saying whole socio-political systems will collapse to plunge tge world into chaos and conflict is an appeal to emotion and morality? Or is this your forced application of your stereotype of a "leftist"?
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  7. #47
    Genava's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    751

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    People studied the climate in ancient times, but that's not what I'm referring to. Climate science didn't become a "thing" until around the mid 20th century.
    "Ancient times" ? The examples I gave to you are 19th and 20th century scientists. Mostly known for their work in physics and chemistry. I was pointing you that the consensus is not only rooted in climatology but in other fields as well. Atmospheric sciences are simply applications of physics and chemistry. Climatology and climate modelling are not coming out from the void, they are built upon previous sciences and demonstrations.

    Your stance saying that the age of a scientific field is an argument to decide if this is legit or not comes from a logical fallacy.


    As for how credible climatologists are, from what I've seen and heard over the years, it's a heavily politicized field.
    I highly doubt that 19th century scientists were politically motivated. I highly doubt that 1950s and 1960s scientists working with the U.S. army and the NASA were politically motivated in the context of the Cold War. The political concern about climate change became politicized in the late 1980s, far after the consensus about CO2 having a significant effect on global temperature through greenhouse effect.

    Moreover, national academies from various countries with contradicting geopolitical interests agreed about the actual consensus and understanding of the anthropogenic climate change.

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/292/5520/1261
    http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

    You seem to be the one building your position about climate change according to your political view.

    The alleged consensus among climatologists that AGW is real, is about as credible as the consensus among Hindu priests that Christianity is false.
    I gave you examples of consensus and statements coming from physics, chemistry and geology on this issue. As I said, the understanding that CO2 has significant influence on global temperature is something well understood from a physical framework.

    Curry is a true climatologist
    Judith Curry recognizes that CO2 have significant impact on the energy balance of the Earth. She often used the publications from Kevin E. Trenberth as references. Before her retirement and her political crusade against the IPCC, she always wrote in her books that CO2 is a efficient greenhouse gas and has an effect on the water vapor content of the troposphere and that greenhouse effect is major parameter of the global temperature. If you don't believe me I can screenshot some parts.

    In fact, Judith Curry is only attacking the IPCC on their modelling and is only casting doubts about political manipulation and hoax. Her critics are often very dull. She has never said anything harsh about the physical basis behind the greenhouse theory. Her only scientific argument is that the clouds might compensate the increase in greenhouse effect. Which is totally contradicted by the evidences of the last decades. She has only opinions and no factual demonstrations to defend her view. She keeps saying that climate science is political and crooked but this is only an opinion.

    Most of the people are using her as a mean to protect their political opinions without understanding anything from what she says, excepted for the political part. She figured out how to make money easily by flattering the ego of pigeons.
    The true heroes of science are the defenders of open-access like
    Alexandra Elbakyan. Even in my country, Switzerland, we cannot afford the access to all the publishers material. Sci-hub and Library Genesis help thousands of researchers in the world. Support them.

  8. #48

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    Saying whole socio-political systems will collapse to plunge tge world into chaos and conflict is an appeal to emotion and morality? Or is this your forced application of your stereotype of a "leftist"?
    Well it's an emotional appeal. Such threat (or worse) can happen for a very diversified amount of reasons, such as:

    -epidemia
    -virus outbreak
    -nuclear conflict
    -food shortage
    -water shortage
    -(even bigger) economic collapse
    -civil war
    -war
    -power grids going off
    -undected cancer chemical having gone into food chain
    -high ritcher scale earthquakes
    -tsunamis
    -volcanos having sudden eruption
    -civilization colapse

    or even

    -a huge meteor crashing into earth, causing similiar extinction force that happened to dinossaurs

    And so on. Climate Change isn't "special" in potentially causing chaos and conflict.

    You should check the "Without Hot Air" book btw. It should be to your liking and dismantles political rethoric from both sides and goes scientific into the issue (or tries to)
    Last edited by fkizz; March 16, 2019 at 06:24 PM.
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  9. #49
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,478

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    "Ancient times" ? The examples I gave to you are 19th and 20th century scientists. Mostly known for their work in physics and chemistry. I was pointing you that the consensus is not only rooted in climatology but in other fields as well. Atmospheric sciences are simply applications of physics and chemistry. Climatology and climate modelling are not coming out from the void, they are built upon previous sciences and demonstrations.

    Your stance saying that the age of a scientific field is an argument to decide if this is legit or not comes from a logical fallacy.
    I'm saying even in ancient times people studied the climate, but climate science is a new field which came into being just a few decades ago, at a time when political interests would have found it very beneficial to furthering their objectives. You keep talking about a scientific consensus, when my point is that this field is actually heavily politicized and lacks credibility, so it doesn't matter whether 5% or 95% of them believe in AGW. The onus is on them to convince the public that AGW is true, and right now many people aren't convinced. It very much seems to be more of a political campaign than a scientific theory.

    https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uplo...tridge2018.pdf

    Garth W. Paltridge DSv FAA is an atmospheric physicist and was a chief research scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research before his appointment in 1990 to the University of Tasmania as Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies and (in 1992) as CEO of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre. He is currently Emeritus Professor at the University of Tasmania and a Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University. He is best known internationally for his work on atmospheric radiation and the theoretical basis of climate. He is a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science and a member of the Academic Advisory Council of the GWPF.
    Many climate scientists are much less sure about man-made global warming than they will admit in public, he says. But rather than reach out to skeptics in order to open up the debate and explore the uncertainties, they have instead closed ranks and rubbished anyone who disagrees with them:

    Some of the more vocal of the establishment climate researchers have fallen into a mode of open denigration of climate sceptics (“deniers” is the offensive popular terminology of the day). They insist that only researchers directly within the climate-change community are capable of giving authoritative advice. They insist that one can find true and reputable science only in peer-reviewed climate literature. But most significantly, they seem to have evolved a policy of deliberately excluding sceptics from climate-change forums of one sort or another, and indeed of refusing to take part in any forum where sceptics may share the podium.
    The modern equivalent with regard to AGW is that, despite the claim that 95% or more of climate scientists support the AGW establishment position, support for the position among the general public (of the western nations anyway) is only of the order of 50%. The reputation of climate science, and as a consequence the reputation of science in general, seems to have lost a good deal of its public gloss.
    It is not even certain that climate science qualifies as an actual science. Being driven by a political agenda rather than by experimentation and evidence, it is more akin to post-modernism:

    Post-modern science is a counterpart of the relativist world of post-modern art and design. It is a much more dangerous beast, where results are valid only in the context of society’s beliefs, and where the very existence of scientific truth can be denied. Post-modern science envisages a sort of political nirvana in which scientific theory and results can be consciously and legitimately manipulated to suit either the dictates of political correctness or the policies of the government of the day. At a more mundane level, there is little doubt that some players in the climate research establishment – not many, but enough to have severely damaged the reputation of climate scientists in general – have stepped across the boundary of what is generally regarded as acceptable scientific behaviour.
    Scientists — even climate scientists, Paltridge generously argues — are not generally “wicked, idiotic or easily suborned.” But they do have to eat, and almost all the research money right now is available for scientists pushing the alarmist side of the argument, not the skeptical one. Also, the whole field is mired in such uncertainty that is quite impossible for anyone — whether skeptic or alarmist — to prove their position.

    Climate research has to rely on spectacularly inaccurate data for information on Earth’s climate of more than a century or two ago; it has to rely on proxy information from tree rings and ice cores and corals and so on, and abstracting a coherent story from it all is something of a statistical nightmare. Even for the most recent century, the huge data sets of directly measured surface temperatures have their problems, and the stories that these data tell are revised in one way or another as new ideas about the correct method of analyzing the data appear on the scene. Such revisions make for tremendous arguments and competing claims about whether cherry picking of data has been used to support the predictions of the AGW theoretical models.

    Climate science is an example of what Funtowicz and Ravetz call ‘post-normal science’ in which ‘the facts are uncertain, values are in dispute, stakes are high and decisions are urgent’. In such circumstances it is virtually impossible to avoid sub-conscious cherrypicking of data to suit the popular theory of the time. Even Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein were not immune from the problem.
    It is nonetheless the case that once freed of the burden of having to earn a living or retain their tenure in an academe in thrall to the man-made global warming narrative, scientists do seem much more ready to take a skeptical position:

    There are many examples where the transition from paid employment in climate research to retirement has been accompanied by a significant change of heart away from acknowledging the seriousness of global warming. It seems that scientists too are conscious of the need to eat, and like everyone else must consider the consequences of public dissent from the views of the powers-that-be. One example was Dr Brian Tucker. He was the Director of the Australian Numerical Meteorology Research Centre, and subsequently became Chief of the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research. He was heavily involved in the development of the IPCC. During his time with CSIRO he was the ‘go to’ man for journalists and radio programmers seeking stories on matters to do with climate change. On retirement he became a writer and speaker for the Institute of Public Affairs, and greatly surprised his former colleagues with his very public change to an openly sceptical view on the subject.

  10. #50
    Genava's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    751

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    You keep talking about a scientific consensus, when my point is that this field is actually heavily politicized and lacks credibility, so it doesn't matter whether 5% or 95% of them believe in AGW.
    Your point is discrediting the consensus by saying that climate science is a heavily politicized field. Which is only an opinion.

    My point was to show you that the consensus is built in other fields and that the foundation of this consensus comes from physics, chemistry and geology.

    Explain to me how the evidences I listed before are heavily politicized:

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    John Tyndall, 1859: https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.co...0.1002/wea.386

    Svante August Arrhenius, 1896: http://www.rsc.org/images/arrhenius1...m18-173546.pdf

    Guy Stewart Callendar, 1938: http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/callendar_1938.pdf

    Gilbert Norman Plass, 1956: https://www.americanscientist.org/ar...nd-the-climate

    President’s Science Advisory Committee Report of 1965 (Lyndon B. Johnson) talking about the carbon dioxide and climate change: http://www.climatefiles.com/climate-...arbon-dioxide/

    Wallace Smith Broecker, 1975: "Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"
    https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu//files...lwarming75.pdf

    Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
    http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/jou...eldman_CO2.pdf

    Position Statement of The Geological Society of America: https://www.geosociety.org/gsa/posit...osition10.aspx

    Position statement of the American Chemical Society: https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/p...atechange.html
    The true heroes of science are the defenders of open-access like
    Alexandra Elbakyan. Even in my country, Switzerland, we cannot afford the access to all the publishers material. Sci-hub and Library Genesis help thousands of researchers in the world. Support them.

  11. #51
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,478

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Your point is discrediting the consensus by saying that climate science is a heavily politicized field. Which is only an opinion.

    My point was to show you that the consensus is built in other fields and that the foundation of this consensus comes from physics, chemistry and geology.

    Explain to me how the evidences I listed before are heavily politicized:
    No need. The onus is on them to demonstrate that they're right, not on me to demonstrate that they aren't. The fact of the matter is that they aren't very convincing. Whether AGW is true or not, the reality of the situation is that to many people, AGW looks less like science and more like a combination of politics and religion. They thought that politicizing it would make it more credible, but only the opposite has occurred. At this point the alleged scientific consensus that AGW is real, is little different from the consensus among pagan priests that we must abandon Christ. A simple "no thank you" is our only response.

  12. #52
    Genava's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    751

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    No need. The onus is on them to demonstrate that they're right, not on me to demonstrate that they aren't. The fact of the matter is that they aren't very convincing. Whether AGW is true or not, the reality of the situation is that to many people, AGW looks less like science and more like a combination of politics and religion. They thought that politicizing it would make it more credible, but only the opposite has occurred. At this point the alleged scientific consensus that AGW is real, is little different from the consensus among pagan priests that we must abandon Christ. A simple "no thank you" is our only response.
    You keep repeating your mantra but I see no arguments in your message. You are only expressing your view and your feelings.

    The onus is on them to demonstrate that they're right, not on me to demonstrate that they aren't. The fact of the matter is that they aren't very convincing.
    The links I gave you are discussing scientific evidences with numerous demonstrations. The fact that you didn't care to read even one of them seems to say a lot about how you build your opinion. They aren't convincing you because you refuse to read them.

    And I asked you about how they were heavily politicized in your view. What do you see as something political in the work of Gilbert Norman Plass for example?
    The true heroes of science are the defenders of open-access like
    Alexandra Elbakyan. Even in my country, Switzerland, we cannot afford the access to all the publishers material. Sci-hub and Library Genesis help thousands of researchers in the world. Support them.

  13. #53

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    "Countries that cause the most damage to environment are not Western. "
    "
    If you want to see effective action from the West to prevent damage to environment, that would require complete social and economic overhaul, something that is not practically possible without literal revolutions and/or coups of most Western governments. "
    To be fair, I'm completely fine with this. The problem is that the "technical" solutions we'd need to effectively combat global warming at this point couldn't be applied on an adequate scale in practically any Western country, let alone in the West as a whole, because the decision making infrastructure just isn't there.

  14. #54
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,478

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    You keep repeating your mantra but I see no arguments in your message. You are only expressing your view and your feelings.



    The links I gave you are discussing scientific evidences with numerous demonstrations. The fact that you didn't care to read even one of them seems to say a lot about how you build your opinion. They aren't convincing you because you refuse to read them.

    And I asked you about how they were heavily politicized in your view. What do you see as something political in the work of Gilbert Norman Plass for example?
    I gave you several examples of politics in climate science, but I'm not here to debate whether AGW is true or not, I'm just telling you why many people don't believe in it. You can call them unreasonable or unscientific, but that won't change their opinion.

  15. #55
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,578

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    I gave you several examples of politics in climate science, but I'm not here to debate whether AGW is true or not, I'm just telling you why many people don't believe in it. You can call them unreasonable or unscientific, but that won't change their opinion.

    Tell me, WHY you think this field is politicized... Who stands to gain and fund the idea that climate change is real? It is a costly and painful undertaking many people would rather ignore. Who the hell would politicize it if it waws not a real concern? It doesnt help politicians, corporations and even poorest of the people who'd rather consume stuff cheaply...

    The ONLY groups that stand to gain from politicizing this issue are big corporations, especially certain sectors that have massive lobbying power. And their interest lies in saying that climate change is not caused by them. And yet you think that this issue is politicized....by whom? The "left" ?

    It is an existential threat that can weak havoc and vast majority of the scientific field is rather sure of man-made impact. They also have nothing to gain from faking it...and there certainly haven't been billions of dollars of money pouring into making fake research for centuries to create the climate movement....
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  16. #56
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,478

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    Tell me, WHY you think this field is politicized... Who stands to gain and fund the idea that climate change is real? It is a costly and painful undertaking many people would rather ignore. Who the hell would politicize it if it waws not a real concern? It doesnt help politicians, corporations and even poorest of the people who'd rather consume stuff cheaply...

    The ONLY groups that stand to gain from politicizing this issue are big corporations, especially certain sectors that have massive lobbying power. And their interest lies in saying that climate change is not caused by them. And yet you think that this issue is politicized....by whom? The "left" ?

    It is an existential threat that can weak havoc and vast majority of the scientific field is rather sure of man-made impact. They also have nothing to gain from faking it...and there certainly haven't been billions of dollars of money pouring into making fake research for centuries to create the climate movement....
    Climate change alarmism is a godsend to an enormous number of politically-motivated groups. As I explained in another thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos
    @dogukan: Climate change alarmists are a large and very diverse group, with varying motivations. Some are simple neo-Luddites; they believe humanity must deindustrialize and return to a more 'natural' way of life. Others are more anti-Western; they believe the West must de-industrialize and allow the third-world to catch up to, or surpass the West. Others are internationalist Marxists; they believe the West must transfer much of its wealth to the third-world. Others are national socialists; they believe climate alarmism is their ticket to government control over the economy. Others are self-hating humans; they believe humanity is hurting Mother Earth and should be brought down a peg or two. Others are people with plans to profit financially off of environmentalist consumerism, green energy schemes, carbon cerdit scams, government subsidies, research funding, etc. As I mentioned earlier, these types virtually have a monopoly in the feild of "climate science", and environmentalism in general, and are extremely overrepresented in government. Many traditional environmentalists lament that their cause has been hijacked by all thse crazies and "watermelons", reds masquerading as greens.
    Look at this poster for a recent climate strike/march:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Last edited by alhoon; March 17, 2019 at 02:17 PM. Reason: Insulting Personal reference removed

  17. #57
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,237

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
    I gave you several examples of politics in climate science, but I'm not here to debate whether AGW is true or not, I'm just telling you why many people don't believe in it. You can call them unreasonable or unscientific, but that won't change their opinion.
    There is vast difference between opinions and facts. For records, opinions are more close to religion stuff than facts or perhaps even we can call it fanatism?

  18. #58
    Genava's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    751

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Look at this poster for a recent climate strike/march:
    The fact that marxism, deep ecology and other ideological theories try to use the climate issue to push forward their agenda is not an argument to contradict a scientific consensus which predates this political exploitation.

    The NASA, the Geological Society of America and the American Chemical Society agree with the consensus while having no interest in these theories. Most of the climate scientists are in favor of nuclear energy while most of the lefties using climate issue are from the anti-nuclear movement. Your view doesn't make any sense.
    The true heroes of science are the defenders of open-access like
    Alexandra Elbakyan. Even in my country, Switzerland, we cannot afford the access to all the publishers material. Sci-hub and Library Genesis help thousands of researchers in the world. Support them.

  19. #59
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,578

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    The conspiracist mind is so solidified in their black and whites that they are ready to blindly oppose anything that the other side "defends".

    What is ridiculous here is how they claim the economic stakes for confusing public opinion are sort of equal while it is extremely well documented that it is precisely the global elite that they claim to oppose that stands to gain from global economy going on at this rate.

    Some hippie marxos using climate to oppose capitalism doesnt create billions of dollars wotth of economic activity...

    In a country where boeings ex worker or something consults the president while planes come falling down, somehow people still need to scapegoat a "left"...


    Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  20. #60
    B. W.'s Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    2,576

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Virtually every scientist involved with the IPCC report is receiving money from the government in one form or another. There are plenty of scientists who are not on board with this globalist scheme.,, over 31,000 at last count:

    http://www.petitionproject.org/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •