Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
As you brush your teeth, take showers, oil also can be safely used. And look at the progress that has been made in the past half a century. I used to see terrible smog. Today the skies are clear. I used to see the SF Bay so dirty and polluted. Today it is clean for the most part. Rivers used to catch on fire. This is in the past.Wrong question.
We're not talking about whether there's a problem with oil, we're talking about narratives from different sides.
What's wrong with oil? It pollutes, it causes a ton of problems like health problems. Cities with huge amounts of dirty cars end up with huge amounts of smog. Go to Delhi or somewhere and you can actually see it.
And their damned hockey stick. This is a flaw that is enormous. They make the time part of the graph so shrunk yet the temperature is dramatically expanded. That kind of nonsense drives me nuts. The truth is the rise is darned close to being a flat line and not a hockey stick.Their models are flawed and biased. See post #12 for the details. I am showing you that real world data shows that the GHG effect of the atmosphere never fully materializes at the surface of the planet let alone 450% of its full GHG effect like they predict 280 ppm of CO2 will accomplish.
It is conclusive proof their models are flawed.
I prefer science that is not diluted by politicians. This is a major flaw with the IPCC. While the alarm bells ring like crazy, it is not the true scientists ringing that bell, it is the politicians that show us the report and they spend time on models that are hardly one bit of help.The rest of your comment was quoted in the very next line. And what is a cuck?
That someone in 1964 noted that convection will cool the planet below what a pure SB analysis would show does not refute the assessment of the IPCC or the climate scientists on whose work it is based. They all understand convection and its effects far better than they were understood in 1964. What made you think any different? Because you thought it would bring you closer to the truth or that it would at least seem to support your argument?
Follow the science. It won't take you where you're currently sitting.
Apparently in the world Crick inhabits, he still trusts the models that so far are not accurate, only he keeps hoping upon hope that in the future they will be accurate. He cheers on global warming it looks like to me.It was backed up by what you parsed out, you disingenuous cuck.
And ignores real world data.Apparently in the world Crick inhabits, he still trusts the models that so far are not accurate, only he keeps hoping upon hope that in the future they will be accurate. He cheers on global warming it looks like to me.
If we make the scale big enough we CAN turn it into a straight line. And then all the heat waves and sea level rise would stop, right Robert?And their damned hockey stick. This is a flaw that is enormous. They make the time part of the graph so shrunk yet the temperature is dramatically expanded. That kind of nonsense drives me nuts. The truth is the rise is darned close to being a flat line and not a hockey stick.
Which sounds as reasonable as attributing all warming to a minor GHG when in reality the planet is still naturally warming up to its pre-glacial temperature like it always does before temperature plunge.If we make the scale big enough we CAN turn it into a straight line. And then all the heat waves and sea level rise would stop, right Robert?
The very slow rise in temperature up to about 2 degrees over 150 years was the faulty hockey stick we are discussing. Should 2 of anything over 150 years show a rapid rise?If we make the scale big enough we CAN turn it into a straight line. And then all the heat waves and sea level rise would stop, right Robert?
Crick comes up with weird ideas of science. Such that a rise of 2 degrees over 150 years is a thing to fear.Which sounds as reasonable as attributing all warming to a minor GHG when in reality the planet is still naturally warming up to its pre-glacial temperature like it always does before temperature plunge.
Crick is not a scientist as he admits but when a true climate scientist talks, he acts as if he is right and the scientists talking are all wrong. Lindzen is totally wrong per Crick. So is Curry. So is Happer, so is Christie. All dumb ass scientists who are all experts in climate are per Crick, simply wrong and Crick is right. Wait, per Crick the politicians are also correct. And most of them are lawyers.And ignores real world data.
Good, becausee that is no longer the case.I prefer science that is not diluted by politicians.
No. It WAS a major flaw with the IPCC.This is a major flaw with the IPCC.
You're confused Robert. The effort of politicians on early Assessment Reports was too MINIMIZE the alarm.While the alarm bells ring like crazy, it is not the true scientists ringing that bell, it is the politicians that show us the report and they spend time on models that are hardly one bit of help.
Wow.I spent many years on committees. We had a saying that a camel is a horse designed by a committee.
I think the problem with committees is more "too many cooks spoiling the broth". Committees may suffer from limiting themselves to what is politically feasible, but a committee is never going to decide to take over the world.Politics always based on committees.
The IPCC conducts no science Robert, nor do they fund any research. They use highly qualified scientific experts to assess the published science and write reports about it with the intent to provide informed guidance to the folks making policy.Science does not need such constraints.
I don't give a shit WHAT the politicians say, but a WHOLE lot of climate scientists say that Richard Lindzen is a paid stooge for the fossil fuel industry, uses bad science and values naysaying over the truth (see his opinions on tobacco and lung cancer)This is why the message of Professor Lindzen a true expert on this subject is so damned important. He tells us that climate is not the dire risk so pronounced daily by the politicians.
It does? Do you have a link Robert? Obviously not. That you would make such a comment only underscores how weak is your understanding as to the the basics of scientific research.Science says about guns, as an example, that they are man made machines that when loaded with ammo will fire a projectile at a target when the trigger is squeezed.
I'd love to argue gun control Robert, but this is not the place. What is it you think this has to do with the Judith Curry report or Dr Lindzen's views?But the politicians call this gun violence. I ask all politicians, show me guns that break windows, hunt down victims to kill them. The gun is not violent, it is humans.
I assure you that Lindzen, Curry, Happer, Christie and many more scientists do not ignore convection.And I ask here as I asked in the pinned thread, do you actually think the world's climate scientists and the models they've created ignore convection?
Well since what you say is not part of my argument at all, to make my points clear is that committees are not often experts but busybodies who are there to help make decisions. And we can tell by the politicians work that often those are wrong decisions. Such as to depend on a tiny number of scientists that supposedly hate Lindzen and other special climate scientists and call them crazy.I think the problem with committees is more "too many cooks spoiling the broth". Committees may suffer from limiting themselves to what is politically feasible, but a committee is never going to decide to take over the world.
Perish the thought I believe they do science. They issue reports. After you talked about this, I started to examine who authors the reports by the IPCC and for gosh sake, it was not the scientists, but the politicians who wrote the reports that you now claim rebuffed efforts to make it serious in the first place. Well Dr Crick, do you truly believe this planet is in the process of destruction? And when will it destruct Great Nostradamus?The IPCC conducts no science Robert, nor do they fund any research. They use highly qualified scientific experts to assess the published science and write reports about it with the intent to provide informed guidance to the folks making policy.
Judith Curry is well known as a genuine climate expert. If she warns me, I pay attention.
Read the entire article if you have an interest.
NETZERO is impeding progress on UN Sustainable Development Goals
by Judith Curry “Working in global energy and development, I often hear people say, ‘Because of climate, we just can’t afford for everyone to live our lifestyles.’ That viewpoint is worse than patro…judithcurry.com
I earlier this day 12/7/23, mentioned Bidens harm to Africa. She focuses in on this too.
"NETZERO is impeding progress on UN Sustainable Development Goals
Posted on December 5, 2023 by curryja | 53 Comments
by Judith Curry
“Working in global energy and development, I often hear people say, ‘Because of climate, we just can’t afford for everyone to live our lifestyles.’ That viewpoint is worse than patronizing. It’s a form of racism, and it’s creating a two-tier global energy system, with energy abundance for the rich and tiny solar lamps for Africans.” – Kenyan activist and materials scientist Rose Mutiso
“To deny the developing world access to the very infrastructure that has propelled us forward, all in the name of an uncertain future, is not environmentalism, but neocolonialism masquerading as virtue.” – Earth Scientist Matthew Wielicki"
How can that be true. Did you ask Dr. Lindzen? Guess what? I asked the man. I did not expect him to reply to my email but he did. And probably because I had talked in 1961 to one of the Scientists at MIT about one of my proposals so I name dropped Lindzen. And he knew Professor Taylor who I communicated directly with.I don't give a shit WHAT the politicians say, but a WHOLE lot of climate scientists say that Richard Lindzen is a paid stooge for the fossil fuel industry, uses bad science and values naysaying over the truth (see his opinions on tobacco and lung cancer)
They are scientific hells angels. They are a damned cult.Hampering development and prosperity for everyone except the CCP is the entire point of the AGW Cult
Until the discredited denier Curry publishes science, nobody has to pay any attention to her.Judith Curry is well known as a genuine climate expert. If she warns me, I pay attention.
Read the entire article if you have an interest.
NETZERO is impeding progress on UN Sustainable Development Goals
by Judith Curry “Working in global energy and development, I often hear people say, ‘Because of climate, we just can’t afford for everyone to live our lifestyles.’ That viewpoint is worse than patro…
I earlier this day 12/7/23, mentioned Bidens harm to Africa. She focuses in on this too.
"NETZERO is impeding progress on UN Sustainable Development Goals
Posted on December 5, 2023 by curryja | 53 Comments
by Judith Curry
“Working in global energy and development, I often hear people say, ‘Because of climate, we just can’t afford for everyone to live our lifestyles.’ That viewpoint is worse than patronizing. It’s a form of racism, and it’s creating a two-tier global energy system, with energy abundance for the rich and tiny solar lamps for Africans.” – Kenyan activist and materials scientist Rose Mutiso
“To deny the developing world access to the very infrastructure that has propelled us forward, all in the name of an uncertain future, is not environmentalism, but neocolonialism masquerading as virtue.” – Earth Scientist Matthew Wielicki"
You need to pay attention to who it was that told you they were not accurate.Apparently in the world Crick inhabits, he still trusts the models that so far are not accurate,
They have been accurate for a long while. What I keep hoping is that you and others like you will finally gain enough knowledge to comprehend the truth and find whatever it actually takes to admit you've been wrong. And then start voting for people who feel the same way on this topic.only he keeps hoping upon hope that in the future they will be accurate.
I celebrate the acquisition of evidence.He cheers on global warming it looks like to me.
Have you ever used a micrometer? Or other scientific instruments?You need to pay attention to who it was that told you they were not accurate.
These are from Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? - Carbon Brief
These have been posted before and I'm fairly certain you'd seen them. If so, why would you claim that models are not accurate?
View attachment 870940
View attachment 870942
View attachment 870944
View attachment 870945
View attachment 870946
View attachment 870948
View attachment 870951
View attachment 870952
They have been accurate for a long while. What I keep hoping is that you and others like you will finally gain enough knowledge to comprehend the truth and find whatever it actually takes to admit you've been wrong. And then start voting for people who feel the same way on this topic.
I celebrate the acquisition of evidence.
At the moment I am much more concerned about super cold weather than warm weather. Heat waves are weather. Sea level rise is very very slow and very very small. I do not expect this to harm the fishes in the sea.If we make the scale big enough we CAN turn it into a straight line. And then all the heat waves and sea level rise would stop, right Robert?
