You should be afraid and you should act

[Crick]

Blip on the earth time radar...........keep drinking the koolaid.

You keep saying that but it doesn't mean anything in this context. Is there any chance you might actually try to answer questions I've put to you?

 

[Crick]

Not the times..... a geologist
The IPCC haven't they admitted it's not really about the climate ...yep
What you have for breakfast? It better of not been carbon intensive

Gerhard is a retired petroleum geologist who believes global warming stopped in 1998. Hmm... let's see

Climate change: Last decade confirmed as warmest on record

Global data from three agencies also shows that 2019 was the second warmest year since 1850.

www.bbc.com

I'd say Dr Gerhard was... wrong.

If you'd like me to go through his article in the Times point by point I will.

 

[Dadoalex]

Maybe it's just you.

View attachment 942891

MSN

No, it's the overwhelming stench of MAGAT dumbassery.

 

[jc456]

You keep saying that but it doesn't mean anything in this context. Is there any chance you might actually try to answer questions I've put to you?

That doesn't make a blip of sense. a blip is a blip. Do you know what a blip in time means? I highly doubt it, you're demonstrating an inability as always of addressing a post directed your way. You were asked to show the data from millions of years ago that show the rates of increase.

 

[Delldude]

You keep saying that but it doesn't mean anything in this context. Is there any chance you might actually try to answer questions I've put to you?

Tell me what would happen with a 1.5C temp raise?
Or 3.0 temp raise?
And what could be done about it?

 

[Crick]

Lee Gerhard's opinion piece in the Washington Times, linkedto by poster Deplorable Yankee

OPINION:​

​

Climate scientists would be less likely to issue dire warnings of planetary doom if they gave more credence to the geological history of the past several million years. Instead, they rely on computer models that are biased by the preconceptions of their manipulators and incapable of accounting for the myriad factors influencing global temperatures.​

​

The doctor will have to explain the significance of the geological history of the past several million years or provide some evidence that contemporary climate scientists are, in fact, ignoring that information. The computer models, as I have repeatedly demonstrated here, have done an admirable job of predicting climate behavior. See Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? - Carbon Brief

​

Minuscule recent warming, whatever the cause, is inconsequential in light of the long record of data found in Antarctica ice cores that go back 800,000 years.​

​

Dr Gerhard has no basis (nor expertise) to characterize the observed warming as "miniscule". The rate of CO2 increase and temperature increase are both unprecedented over the last 3 million years. Modern humans have only existed for the last one fifteenth of that span.

​

The bottom line is that Earth is colder by nearly 3 degrees Celsius than it was 3,000 years ago and is just now climbing out of its longest cold spell of the last 10,000 years. Blaring headlines about record heat waves of the past 100 years are meaningless, hysterical blather.​

​

This statement is demonstrably FALSE. The Holocene Climate Optimum, 6,000 years ago, was the peak temperature of our current interglacial period and global temperatures had been slowly falling ever since till the Industrial Revolution when we began emitting massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and temperatures began to climb.

​

A deeper dive into geologic history — based partly on the record stored over millions of years in deep-ocean sediments — shows that today’s carbon dioxide concentrations of 420 parts per million are a fraction of past levels that reached 5,000 ppm and more.​

​

True. But they are now 50% higher than at any point within a span many times the length of human existence.

​

Carbon dioxide is nearly at its lowest level ever since plant life began so many millions of years ago and well below the optimum amount for the health of most vegetation.​

​

Again, they are now 50% higher than at any point since homo sapiens first appeared. Attemping to argue that they are too low is absolutely unsupportable.

​

In fact, the 280-ppm concentration of the mid-19th century is uncomfortably close to the point at which plant life dies — below 150 ppm.​

​

The good doctor is being intentionally deceptive. The CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere was not 280 +ppm in just the mid-19th century. It has been that value for the last 3 million years. To suggest our efforts put all plant life at risk is a blatant lie.

​

Given that all life depends on adequate amounts of this gas, proposals to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide are nothing less than reckless.​

​

No one has ever suggested that we should attempt to lower CO2 values below 280 ppm and, given all our efforts have so far succeeded only in minutely slowing the acceleration of our annual emissions (ie, they are still increasing yearly, just not as rapidly), the risk of pushing them below the level they held for 3 million years with NO human emissions is effectively zero. The doctor is simply, once again, lying to us.

​

Any global increase in carbon dioxide will be beneficial and have nearly no impact on future temperature.​

​

This is unsupportable nonsense and note that the good doctor makes no attempt whatsoever to do so. Obviously, increasing CO2 causes global warming which has had and will have numerous deleterious consequences.

​

In contrast, demonstrated in the “bible” of human history and climate change compiled by the late professor Hubert Lamb at the University of East Anglia, cold kills.​

​

Dr Lamb, the founder of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA), would disagree completely with everything Dr Gerhard is suggesting.

​

During the Little Ice Age in parts of England, the “yearly number of burials exceeded the births from the 1660’s until about 1730,” he reported.​

​

Are we actually expected to take this comment seriously? Does anyone out there believe this to be relevant?

​

Why, then, are so many demonizing fossil fuels? The wealth enabled by coal, oil and natural gas has provided the leisure — and funding — for numerous researchers to focus on climate change instead of struggling to stay alive. Global society is absolutely dependent upon cheap and plentiful energy for its survival. Why would some demand that civilization retreat from useful energy sources to bring back mass starvation, poverty and horse-drawn buggies?​

​

It has certainly provided Dr Gerhard the funding to focus on denying climate change. See the list of his actual affiliations below and note how they differ from the sanitarily redacted version this Washington Times article provides.

​

To dream of a utopian world is perhaps admirable, but to inflict suffering upon society through ignorance of science is deplorable.​

​

I agree completely. I disagree completely on who it is in this exchange that's ignoring science.

​

Humanity is deprived of precious learning when so many favor the ideology and fearmongering of climate alarmists over the meticulous research of eminent physical scientists such as Richard Alley, professor of geoscience at Pennsylvania State University, who pioneered studies of ice cores, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who explored the incredible complexity of atmospheric physics.​

​

The number of scientists whose work Gerhard is hoping to refute outnumber deniers like Alley and Lindzen several hundred-to-one.

​

We could easily name dozens of others similarly credentialed, who are largely unknown outside the scientific community.​

​

As we and Dr Gerhard know, the vast majority of scientists - and especially climate scientists - accept AGW theory.

​

The public is “protected” from empirical data by legacy and social media censors who eagerly broadcast the supposed need to restrict global warming to 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celsius — artificial constructs with no scientific basis.​

​

What empirical data does the doctor believe we are being "protected" from? This?

Keeling Curve - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or this?

Global Temperature Report for 2023 - Berkeley Earth

2023 was the warmest year on Earth since direct observations began, and the first year to exceed 1.5 °C above our 1850-1900 average.

berkeleyearth.org

​

We thus suffer the consequences of unwarranted regulatory intrusions into daily life, be they restrictions on heating, air conditioning, dishwashers and stoves or the increased price and reduced availability of electricity. The effects of these range from annoying to life-threatening.​

​

What regulatory intrusions have ANY of us suffered with regard to heating, air conditioning, dishwashers or stoves? None. These are alarmist lies.

​

There is no global climate emergency. There is, however, a widespread knowledge crisis.​

​

I'd be tempted to say that it is Dr Gerhard that is suffering the knowledge crisis but I'm afraid his problem is more simple: he is knowing telling falsehoods. The man is a liar.

​

• Lee Gerhard is a senior scientist emeritus at the University of Kansas, past director of the Kansas Geological Survey, member of the CO2 Coalition, retired Getty Professor of Geological Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines, and co-author of “Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change.” He has a doctorate in geology.​

​

Dr Gerhard spent the better part of his life working in the petroleum industry yet for some reason that doesn't get a single mention in this text. Below, from his own CV we get a more accurate picture of where he might be coming from.

Affiliations​

• Gerhard and Associates — Consultant and Independent Petroleum Geologist.16
• Thomasson Partner Associates Inc. (TPA) — Associate.17
• Supron Energy Corp — Exploration Manager, Rocky Mountain Division (1981 – 1982).18
• Sinclair Oil and Gas Company — Region Stratigrapher (1965 – 1966), Exploration Geologist (1964 – 1965).19
• American Association of Petroleum Geologists* — Member. Past co-chair of “The Climate Change Issues Committee.”20
• The Heartland Institute — “Global Warming Expert.”21
• The Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP) — Past “Allied Expert.” The NRSP is now defunct.22

All endnotes from “Curriculum Vitae, Lee C. Gerhard” (PDF). Thomasson Partner Associates, Inc.

 

[Delldude]

Obviously, increasing CO2 causes global warming which has had and will have numerous deleterious consequences.

That has been successfully proven incorrect in this very thread.

Dr Gerhard spent the better part of his life working in the petroleum industry yet for some reason that doesn't get a single mention in this text.

Would that be the same industry that your IPCC comedy show clowns are so concerned about? Maybe the man has some serious experience in that field relating to CC.....but no, just like your hero's, any counter opinion is verboten.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The rate of CO2 increase and temperature increase are both unprecedented over the last 3 million years.

You can't show that the rate of temperature increase over the last 150 years is unprecedented.

 

[Crick]

Tell me what would happen with a 1.5C temp raise?
Or 3.0 temp raise?
And what could be done about it?

Do you accept that the current rate of CO2 and temperature increase is unprecedented in the last 1,000 years?

 

[Delldude]

Do you accept that the current rate of CO2 and temperature increase is unprecedented in the last 1,000 years?

No

 

[Crick]

Tell me what would happen with a 1.5C temp raise?
Or 3.0 temp raise?
And what could be done about it?

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

 

[Crick]

That has been successfully proven incorrect in this very thread.

Where has that (that CO2 causes global warming which has deleterious effects) been "proven"? Please link to the post.

Would that be the same industry that your IPCC comedy show clowns are so concerned about? Maybe the man has some serious experience in that field relating to CC.....but no, just like your hero's, any counter opinion is verboten.

Fossil fuels are the source of almost every molecule of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere above 280 ppm. So, yes. And his experience provides a potential explanation as to why his science should be so abysmal.

 

[jc456]

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

Crap is crap!!

 

[jc456]

Where has that (that CO2 causes global warming which has deleterious effects) been "proven"? Please link to the post.

there are no deleterious effects. Name one

Fossil fuels are the source of almost every molecule of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere above 280 ppm. So, yes. And his experience provides a potential explanation as to why his science should be so abysmal.

You can't prove that you fking asshole! dude, you are really and asshole. You are some punk with absolutely nothing of respect for anyone. You fking cuck!!!!

I'll challenge your over egoed asshole and let's debate you pretentious cuckwad!!!

 

[Crick]

I mispoke

That has been successfully proven incorrect in this very thread.

Where? Please link to the post.

Would that be the same industry that your IPCC comedy show clowns are so concerned about?

The combustion of fossil fuels is responsible for virtually every molecule of CO2 above the preexisting 280 ppm, so yes.

Maybe the man has some serious experience in that field relating to CC..

And it gives us a potential explanation for his abysmal science.

...but no, just like your hero's, any counter opinion is verboten.

Counter opinions are no problem at all - as long as they can back themselves up with good science.

 

[Delldude]

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

IPCC isn't very reliable as a source, proven to be highly biased and politicized.

 

[Crick]

IPCC isn't very reliable as a source, proven to be highly biased and politicized.

Show us proof that they are highly biased and politicized. Show us evidence that they aren't "very reliable".

 

[Delldude]

Show us proof that they are highly biased and politicized.

Did previously.............

 

[Crick]

Did previously.............

Bullshit.

 

[jc456]

Counter opinions are no problem at all - as long as they can back themselves up with good science

When will you provide good science?