Merkel's husband is sending Ivanka and Melania Trump to learn about climate change https://t.co/YFmBJxueeF https://t.co/epjlz0a9vf
"Let nature run its course" seems to be the only way to teach some old dogs new tricks. The young understand climate change. The old are too ossified.
@SamO >>>>The young understand climate change. The old are too ossified.
What's the cutoff? 65, 70, 82?
Climate change denying is much like religion. It is taken as faith by many that it does not exist even though facts show that it does in fact exist.
It's a state of mind, JT. But the solution is the same: more cheesecake and fries.
Some are skeptical about AGW due to the plethora of contradictory and unfulfilled predictions of the apocalypse. Allow me to explain…
Recently I saw a number of news reports that “prominent scientists…including former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres and physicist Stefan Rahmstorf”, have declared that we have but three years in which to save the world from the effects of climate change:
That sounded familiar. So I enlisted my good friend Google to do a little research— specifically, searching for warnings in which we have X years left to save the world from the effects of climate change.
The “prominent scientists” behind the latest warning might be surprised to know that “The planet, as we know it, has been given a deadline: 10 years.” And this was just a couple of months ago:
So, which is it? 10 years or 3 years?
Well, neither. It turns out that we actually only have ONE YEAR in which to act or “risk losing our way of life as we know it”:
But in 2015 another Prominent Scientist said “We have 10 years left to start making a global transition to a low carbon world.” So I guess it's about eight years...from now, anyway.
In January 2009, James Hansen told us that Obama “Has four years to save Earth”. In fact, “Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration…”
Of course, we are long past the 10-year drop dead date Al Gore warned us of in January, 2006.
There’s lots more of this stuff, but it’s a cool morning and I have old motorcycles to ride. The point is that Joe Sixpack (that ignorant, mouth-breathing troglodyte who's, you know, SKEPTICAL) has been seeing such warnings for years, and when the deadline blows by, there’s naught but a new warning issued with no acknowledgement of the old.
The best way to educate climate change deniers, short of a mandatory stay in a re-education camp, would be to have a simple, consistent, and verifiable message. IMHO.
All very well, but how do you figure some of the most inquisitive, skeptical, intelligent, trained and rock star like scientists believe AGW is real? Please don't tell me 'this isn't a popularity contest'! Thank you :-)
I think you fail to take into account that they are not saying that the results will fully materialize in x-years, but rather the trajectory will be so far along that reversing it will not be possible. Say a missile is fired and it is going to strike a target in 10 minutes. Just because after 5 minutes the target has not yet been destroyed is not evidence that it won't be.
Why do so many people think that if something doesn't happen immediately, it isn't happening at all?
I guess this is why so many men deny they are going bald.
LOL. Good one. SO_S90D
The frog in warming water feels good at first but soon dies from the heat not even realizing what is happening
It's all about the "deplorables" confusing their personal preferences and prejudices with facts.
Im with Dramsey.
I took a course in critical thinking from the University of Washington titled "Calling Bullshit."and they identified 4 items on how to spot potential false studies in publications in science. Climate change fits 3 of the 4 criteria. 1. If models are "flexible" the results are likely false. Ee know there are plenty of different models on this. 2. If the topic has lots of money supporting it the outcomes of the studies are likely false, as the bias for an outcome to fit a narrative or result is just too strong for humans not to tinker with the results or input of data. 3, If the subject is very trendy or popular then the outcome is likely false. Again for the same reasons as number 2. This study was done back in 2005 regarding scientific publications in medicine and they found that with science most papers that got published were likely false or highly flawed and that the ones that did not get published were much more accurate than the ones that got published.
Science in case no one has noticed keeps changing its conclusions over time. Not a bad thing but needs to be looked at with skepticism in subjects open to debate. Mathmatics no or physics no chemistry no, but something as complicated as the climate that has yet to be fully understood or the human body and its reactions to medicine etc one needs to not just accept the dogma.
Just look at what they say about our diets versus 30 years ago, don't eat butter go with margarine, eggs are bad for you, take this drug only to find out 30 years later the side affects far outway the benefits. Science is loaded with a history of the facts changing over time. ever heard of Neuroplasticity? the word did not exist 30 years ago yet now we know so much more about the brain and there is so much to learn yet.
When someone says "the science is settled" clearly does not understand science or the history of it.
"The young understand climate change." What? Do the young understand one of the most complicated things on Earth more easily than the old, while the old understand most other things better than the young do? Could Einstein understand climate change when he was 60? I'm young compared to him at that age - 48, and I believe that because I've been lied to time and time again by tree huggers and other nature lovers about things like the disappearance of the Amazon and the sea turtles and alligators, I am VERY skeptical about "climate change" now. Why did they have to change its name from global warming to climate change? When I meet a person who has totally changed his/her name, I am very skeptical about that person. I wonder why they had to change their name. I wonder if they are some kind of scammer, wanted by the law, or are trying to avoid people who they have ripped off in the past. I feel the same way about "climate change" . . . since it used to have a completely different name. BTW, I do indeed believe in global warming. After-all, it's been happening . . . slowly . . . for about 30,000 years, right?
I've recently done some analysis based on information that NOAA publishes. My analysis lead me to believe that in the mid 1970s the climate in the U.S.A. had become cooler (at least in the summer time), but then it warmed back up gradually over about 5 to 10 years . . . and yes, it's been about as hot in the past couple of years as it has ever been over the past 100 years, according to their data, which goes back to the late 1800s (more than 100 years). The thing I can't figure out is why, after decades of pollution by all the cars that were burning gasoline like crazy, with no pollution control devices involved, in the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s, did the summers get cooler, if "global warming" was caused by humans. BTW, they call that period the mini ice age. Look it up. There were articles about it in National Geographic, I believe.
Another thing I've noticed is that for many years we've been warned about the sea level rising. It does that you know. It has done that a few times . . . and not just a few inches or even just a few feet. There are fossil records that show it. I've found shells on the ground inland here in Florida, in places that are at least 6 feet above sea level. Supposedly much of Florida was a sea floor at one time. Maybe it will be again some day. But with all the warnings, I haven't seen any difference in the highest high tides over the past 40 years . . . so when is it coming? I'm continuing to be hopeful, because when it comes, my inland property will become more valuable as beachfront property. ;)
Unfortunately the predictions of so many well-meaning people have not come true . . . and the young are unaware of the many past false predictions, because they are so ignorant. Many do so little research into it that they don't deserve a voice. All they do it watch a movie about "climate change" and its terrible affects, and they think they know all about it. It's as if they don't realize that the movie is presenting a story made by a person to tell the story that person wanted to tell. So the young read and hear what climate change proponents publish, and THAT is why the young "understand" climate change. The fact is though, they understand very little bout climate change or the so-called scientists who publish much of the data that supports the most recent climate change theories. What they understand is that most older people don't seem to give a darn about the environment, and they see how many people in positions of power seem to care nothing about pollution, and that is reflected in their feelings about climate change. It makes them more likely to believe that climate change has indeed been caused by humans and is our fault . . . but particularly their parents' fault . . . and maybe their grandparents' fault too. In a way that's a good thing. Distrusting the elderly is smart. After-all, the elderly have their own best interests in mind, not the best interests of the young. They don't seem to care about what's going to happen in 50 years, because they're not going to be around then . . . and their kids will adapt. At least that seems to be the attitude . . . so many of them don't seem to care about pollution. The fact is though, pollution sucks . . . not because it creates climate change, because it might not . . . but because it pollutes our communities and gives us cancer and who knows what else?!? So we should all drive electric cars and have solar panels on our roofs . . . or at least put Tesla's new solar roofs on our homes . . . because we just can't trust the power companies to do the right thing. We also need to get rid of fission powered nuclear reactors and replace them with fusion powered reactors. That needs to happen sooner, rather than later.
. . . and now I'll put on my fireproof suit to survive your flaming.
BTW, did you know that the Amazon was supposed to be completely gone by 2010? Take a look at it on Google Earth.
@SCCRENDO (July 8, 2017)
<< It's all about the "deplorables" confusing their personal preferences and prejudices with facts. >>
"Climate Change" is a cultish disguise of AGW, obviously intended to enhance the emotional impact of any opposition to the AGW racket by the suggestion that it is a crime against mother nature. "Denier" is clearly an insult, implying mindlessness, as in lack of facts and arguments. The term "Climate Change Deniers" is thus dismissive of any possible opposition, because it relegates it to the heap of laughable, irrational bias, and it should be rejected as both offensive and underhanded.
Your adoption of "deplorables" – the goofy, self-defeating utterance of a failed politician and presidential candidate – is emblematic of your own confusion, bias, and ill faith regarding the AGW racket (justifiable alternate terms are ruse, fraud, hoax, gaffe, idiocy, pseudo-science, and more of the same).
You should study the posts entered above by Dramsey and Dofpic and then embark on a journey of sincere Atonement for all of your hate-mongering, sinful, extremist alt-Left positions, preferences, and alternate facts.
The best way to educate anybody about climate is to pay attention to what climate scientists say.
Here, Spencer discusses the differences between RSS and UAH data. If you don't like what he has to say, he has a blog for you to comment on. If your comment is worthy of a response, he will reply to you. I don't know of any other climate scientist who allows as much public access to his work as Spencer does.
If you think Spencer is nothing more than a stupid creationist, go ahead, tell him that!
The best way to follow this is by following majority expert scientific opinion.
I guess we have been invaded by a sequence of denier posts on this thread so I will address each briefly.
@Dofpic. Some valid points but you cannot dispute climate science on generalizations. You need to look at the science in a critical manner. Firstly there is one hypothesis and model for climate change and global warming. That it is happening is completely settled science. You are indeed correct that it is complex subject and certain aspects are debated. But these points are just fine tuning rather that debating the hypothesis. The only people debating are Mitch's little crowd, many with questionable credentials, who indeed are the ones revceiving funding from the Koch brothers and other questionable organizations. These people are indeed the minority, whether it is 3% or something similar. Seriously. To suggest 97 % of reputable scientists are on some government payroll stretches credibilty. It's only Syria and the TRump regime that don't support climate change remediation.
@Remnant. Climate change is excellent science. Climate change denial, Holocaust denial, evolution denial and intelligent design are cultish invalidated opinions by groups of deplorables
@scottelly. Quite a lengthy opinion but not supported by any scientific facts.
For the benefit of the deniers reading this site lets do some fact checkinghttp://thebulletin.org/trump-fact-check-climate-policy-benefits-vastly-e...https://www.skepticalscience.com/why-gop-climate-obstruction-indefensibl...https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=3790
There are those like Captain Planet who want to persuade by opinion. And then there are people like me who want to persuade with data!
Check out how close RSS and UAH data is. And RSS scientists are pro AGW!
The likes of Captain Planet, Better Red Than Dead, and whatnot will tell you Spencer and Christy are quacks. Apparently, NOAA doesn't think so! I guess Captain Planet and his crowd know better than NOAA!
MItch. Do you even understand what you are posting? This is the trophospheric temp anomaly for May 2017. Yes there is an anomaly for trophospheric measurement that your quack scientists seem to often forget. But the overall picture is linked and summarized from that site. So perhaps read this.https://www.neck.noaa.gov/news/global-climate-201705
"The best way to educate climate change deniers". I've come to the conclusion that until there is a very significant change in sea level, mass extinctions,...pick your global disaster,...opinions and conclusions will not change. If things happen too slowly, then people simply adapt and all of it seemingly goes unnoticed. Major changes must happen in a very short period of time, and it has to happen where they live, and has to be something that affects lives. Anything short of a slap in the face and folks may not notice or even care.
Having said all that, I hope all of this global warming is more hype than concern, but at the same time I am one to "prepare for the worst and hope for the best".
Hey Captain Planet, you can choose whatever month you want on the ncdc site. You don't like May? OK, choose another month!
You can't educate anyone with a closed mind. Science frauds don't last in peer review.
Mitch. You miss the point completely. This is the temperature anomaly that they are showing in the measurement of trophospheric temperature that your quack scientists know about but often forget to show in their denier graphs. As my good friend @bb0tin used to say "get your cousin to explain it to you". If you dont have a cousin I will lend you mine. Read the link I gave you which perhaps you may understand.https://www.neck.noaa.gov/news/global-climate-201705
"And then there are people like me who want to persuade with data!"
Bad data, cherry picked data, delibaretely misinterpreted data? All very pursuasive, I bet. :-)
Hey Better Red Than Dead, NOAA uses RSS and UAH data. Spencer and Christy get their funding from NOAA. Is it your contention that NOAA is stupid for using UAH data, and funding Spencer's and Christy's research?!!!
No it's my contention that the way you see data, any data is suspect. This after fruitlessly trying to have a real debate over this issue for the last 3 years.
Hey ozone hole Mike, all you have to do is look at data. What I notice about you global warming worshippers, is that if you don't like what the data shows, then you just declare the data wrong. Of course this is just the complete opposite of what the late great Richard Feynman advised. He said that if the data does not match your theory, then your theory is wrong!
There is also a thing some call it common sense. It says if majority scientific opinion says it's warming and it's too dangerous to ignore, the sane among the humans follow that advise and try to do good.
Then there are others endlessly and arrogantly litigating that common sense.
@Mitch. The data is correct and that's why smart people follow it. You cherry pick stuff and claims it contradicts the data. When the majority of the world understands what is going on do you really think that a cherry picked graph by someone like you who didn't even do science and doesnt understand science is going to convince the world to doubt climate change.
I can't help but notice the pompous, sanctimonious Captain Planet appointing himself as the ultimate Judge of Intelligence in the Forum!
Everyone who has spoken/corresponded with you for more than 5 minutes know you and Remnant are fools.
@Mitch. Looks like the denier group don't just have a judge. There is a whole jury on this forum. And its you guys, your quack scientists, the Trump regime and Syria vs the world.
Nothing much has changed in over 500 years when it comes to refusing to believe what is:
>>>In a letter to Kepler of August 1610, Galileo complained that some of the philosophers who opposed his discoveries had refused even to look through a telescope:
My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth.
Mitch misquotes Feynman. But, that's not important if we consider: Experiments on gravity do not fit Newton's theory. But I hope no one tries to walk off buildings as a consequence.
You see, if a model has flaws but is still able to predict outcomes, go with the model.
@SCCRENDO (July 9, 2017)
<< Firstly there is one hypothesis and model for climate change and global warming. That it is happening is completely settled science. >>
Why can't you be honest about this, ALLCAPS?
There is more than one model for either ACC or AGW. Besides, you cannot talk about settled science if what you have is hypotheses and models.
You're carrying a delusional – or, at best, demagogic – message of "settled science", which is an oxymoron. Science is never settled.
Wherefore, AGW and your "Settled Climate Science" have been designed as religious, worship-based entities where dissent and debate are not allowed, under penalty of being excommunicated from the scientific community as a "denier", a sanctimonious insult which implies apostasy and the opprobrium of the anointed.
I've got one more theory (alternate theory, if you will) that gravity is simply an enormous hoax. Those who say it isn't settled can always talk to me.
And the earth is obviously flat.
And now Shaq is a member so . . . obviously true. With the great weight on men on the side of concave, only a few real thinkers would entertain the flatness of the earth.
Remnant: Accordingly, gravity is not a settled science. Nonetheless, I do not encourage you to walk off tall buildings.
Dear Deniers and apologists,
You have as much evidence for your position as Flat-Earthers do for theirs, i.e. NONE.
Live in your fantasy world of make-believe where humans releasing carbon has no influence on the world.
By the way, even Exxon agress with the science of AGW. Are they part of this global warmist conspiracy?
But explaining science to ANTI-scientific minds is frustrating. And when old cranks willfully won't understand, I will remember the words of frustration felt by John Drayton in Look Who's Coming to Dinner:
"And if I tried to explain it the rest of your life you will never understand. You are 30 years older than I am. You and your whole lousy generation believes the way it was for you is the way it's got to be. And not until your whole generation has lain down and died will the dead weight of you be off our backs! "
Thanks for the link to the Flat Earth Society. I think those guys have almost as much fun as the publishers of "The Journal of Irreproducible Results."
Hey 60cc SamO, have you even bothered to look at climate data from the previous century? It is there, free to the public to obtain. All I am trying to do is get some folks to have a look, and come up with your/their own conclusions instead of following a herd over a cliff!
As a weatherman, I will testify that there is NO 97% CONSENSUS AMONG MY COLLEAGUES! Quite the contrary. Most of my colleagues think AGW is bullcrap! About 30% are agnostic, and only one I know of is all out pro AGW theory! And he told me how shocked he is that nobody else believes in AGW theory! So, this 97% consensus you keep hearing over and over again is nothing but pure propaganda; a blatant lie that keeps getting bandied about in the news media and goofy liberals over and over again!
@Remnant. So please show me the alternate hypotheses for climate change and show me the science behind which is correct and which isn't? Let's see how honest you can be about this. Following that could you show me the scientific data supporting intelligent design? Also do you accept gravity as settled science???
Isaac Newton's idea on gravity was "settled" science until Einstein came along. I mention this because I've noticed how you global warming worshippers keep quizzing us climate realists about whether we believe in gravity or not!
@Mitch, did the Einstein gravitational theory change the fundamental Newtonian physics of gravity?
Your feeble attempts to analogize are rather comical. Are you that comedian weatherman in NYC? Or are you an accidental comedian?
Well, Hellasmarter Dude, I recall from Physics courses, The Science Channel, and National Geographic that Einstein introduced the idea that gravity = acceleration, and that it was a result of matter warping time and space. Matter bends the fabric. This was a radical departure from Newtonian Physics. And a Brit, Arthur Eddington, was proud to prove Einstein's theory as a major "modification" to Newton's laws.
@Mitch, when we approach light speed travel, your tortured attempts to back yourself out of the logic bog you're in will be (ahem) relatively relevant.
This has NOTHING to do with the consensus that AGW is real and a threat. The number of your "weathermen" colleagues not believing in AGW would be like the number of physical therapists who believe they know better than orthopedic surgeons.
Mitch. Perhaps you are understanding science. It was only recently that we found evidence for the graviton. But despite the progress in science Newton understood that if an apple broke off from a tree and you are standing underneath it will hit you on the head. Same with climate change. We know what is happening and it ain't good. But details will almost certainly be refined.
“I think it is important to reason from first principles rather than by analogy. The normal way we conduct our lives is we reason by analogy. [When reasoning by analogy] we are doing this because it’s like something else that was done or it is like what other people are doing — slight iterations on a theme.
First principles is kind of a physics way of looking at the world. You boil things down to the most fundamental truths and say, “What are we sure is true?” … and then reason up from there.
And what I am trying to point out to you Kool-Aid drinkers of Al Gore's Apocalyptic cult is that we have actual data of our climate history; both instrumental and proxy. And what is happening now is neither alarming, abnormal, or out of the ordinary. What is happening now fits well within the fluctuation of natural climate variation. And there is no fingerprint of AGW concerning extreme weather events per the climate research of Dr. Pielke, and tropical cyclone research by Dr. Landsea. Landsea, in particular showed the spine he had back in 2005 when he resigned from the IPCC. He was pressured by AGW advocate Dr. Kevin Trenberth to show that the busy tropical cyclone season of 2004 was due to human caused global warming. Landsea basically flipped Trenberth the bird on that one. Landsea was extremely brave to do this because both 2004 and 2005 were incredibly active tropical cyclone years for the Atlantic Basin. The AGW advocates tried to get Landsea to climb aboard the global warming bandwagon. He refused, much like his mentor Dr. William Gray. Dr. Landsea wrote an open letter to the community to announce his resignation from the IPCC. And he did not pull any punches! It was so tempting to draw a conclusion that the busy hurricane seasons of 2004 and 2005 were due to human caused global warming. That way, the research dollars would flow flow flow without restrictions!
THERE HAS NOT BEEN A MAJOR HURRICANE LANDFALL ON THE USA SINCE HURRICANE WILMA OF 2005!!!
Small wonder Dr. Landsea is now the Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center. He was proven right, and the AGW advocates were muted!
SCCRENDO - stop pitching the idea that you know what the hell is going on. You don't, neither do I, nor does anyone.
The pitch to be made is, we can meet our energy needs through cleaner methods. As stewards of the planet, that is the avenue we should pursue.
Cue the "you are denier" incoherent psycho babble you are best known for.