A Balanced View of Climate Change

[Foxfyre]

Science has never even attempted to assert that questions regarding AGW are unallowed. It takes place every day all across the planet. That the views of deniers have failed to take hold among climate scientists is not the fault of censorship but of the quality of the science. AGW is still a subject of intense research and no one has ever claimed that all is known on the topic. This argument reminds me of those who questioned evolution. It is a complex topic about which complex conversations take place. Anyone advocating a binary, simplistic, take it or leave it approach has simply identified themselves as purveyors of pseudoscience.

And no one prevents anyone, in THIS country at least, from objecting to government remedies to address it. Write your senators and representatives, post your opinions to the newspapers and flood the internet. But remember that those who may disagree with you possess the same freedoms. Freedom of speech is not freedom from being criticized.

News flash for those who can't read: the author did NOT deny that AGW is happening. Why don't you actually read the whole article and then you might not seem so clueless about what the topic is.

And you might read up also on the fact that nobody using ANY study or facts that don't support AGW as an existential threat to Planet Earth is granted any government monies to study the issue. Further they are not allowed to work for any of the organizations who are pushing that as a fact including most of the media. And any information questioning the government or 'scientists' who push AGW is generally seriously buried or eliminated from search engines on the internet. Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel even went public to say that the credentials should be pulled for ANY meteorologist who questions AGW.

 

[Crick]

News flash for those who can't read: the author did NOT deny that AGW is happening. Why don't you actually read the whole article and then you might not seem so clueless about what the topic is.

How about you reading the work of Bjorn Lomborg and find out where he's actually coming from and of what he's trying to convince you? Then we could get back to what the term "balanced" actually means.

And you might read up also on the fact that nobody using ANY study or facts that don't support AGW as an existential threat to Planet Earth is granted any government monies to study the issue.

What evidence do you have supporting that? Neither Bjorn Lomborg nor Richard Tol had any problem getting their work published. Neither have Judith Curry, Freeman Dyson, Will Happer, Ian Pilmer, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Willie Soon or Sallie Bailunas.

Further they are not allowed to work for any of the organizations who are pushing that as a fact including most of the media.

What evidence do you have to support that?

And any information questioning the government or 'scientists' who push AGW is generally seriously buried or eliminated from search engines on the internet.

What evidence do you have to support that?

Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel even went public to say that the credentials should be pulled for ANY meteorologist who questions AGW.

Would you object to removing a doctor's license to practice medicine who rejected the germ theory of disease?

I know when you read my demands for evidence you just think I'm a jerk and you don't have the time to waste on me. But what you ought to be thinking is "Why DON'T I have the evidence?" It's because the people you've been reading are bad scientists if they are scientists at all (Lomborg isn't) and they have been lying to you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Science has never even attempted to assert that questions regarding AGW are unallowed. It takes place every day all across the planet. That the views of deniers have failed to take hold among climate scientists is not the fault of censorship but of the quality of the science. AGW is still a subject of intense research and no one has ever claimed that all is known on the topic. This argument reminds me of those who questioned evolution. It is a complex topic about which complex conversations take place. Anyone advocating a binary, simplistic, take it or leave it approach has simply identified themselves as purveyors of pseudoscience.

And no one prevents anyone, in THIS country at least, from objecting to government remedies to address it. Write your senators and representatives, post your opinions to the newspapers and flood the internet. But remember that those who may disagree with you possess the same freedoms. Freedom of speech is not freedom from being criticized.

Yeah? Tell that to Heidi Cullen who wanted credential pulled from any meteorologist who questioned the AGW religion. Tell that to all forced out of the IPCC who dared to ask uncomfortable questions or offered an opinion different from the AGW religionists. Tell that to social media who at best shadow banned and at worst suspended accounts of those questioning the AGW religion.

 

[Crick]

Yeah? Tell that to Heidi Cullen who wanted credential pulled from any meteorologist who questioned the AGW religion. Tell that to all forced out of the IPCC who dared to ask uncomfortable questions or offered an opinion different from the AGW religionists. Tell that to social media who at best shadow banned and at worst suspended accounts of those questioning the AGW religion.

Do you have ANY evidence of ANY of your claims? ANY?

 

[Libby von H]

Well ... here's what you posted:



Yes, dear, honest government is expensive ...

I honestly thought you meant enforcing exist law would be enough to solve whatever problems we're seeing ... like not trading with Hamas or Iran ... I'm pretty sure that's illegal in the United States ... and I wouldn't classify those laws as "green energy law" ...

What Green Laws concern you? ... do you object to Oregon outlawing coal-fired electricity? ... forcibly shuttering all the coal power plants in the entire State? ... a sweep of the governor's pen and them power plants were stone cold within a month ... and We the People cheered ...

BIDEN knows and barely anyone on here does ,that the chief emitters HAVE INCREASED DRASTICALLY

INDIA

India’s Plans to Double Coal Production Ignore Climate Threat​

The south Asian giant is setting new targets to use more coal, despite committing to transitioning away from fossil fuels.

CHINA (EVEN WORSE!)

China doubles down on coal with rapid roll-out of new railway track to the world’s largest deposit​

• 257km line from Zhundong open pit to Urumqi will increase the mine’s transport capacity to more than 100 million tonnes a year

IF YOU DID NOT KNOW THIS, THINK : "MAYBE I KNOW NOTHING AT ALL
Why did Biden want so bad the

Disinformation Governance Board (DGB) !!​

Because facts are he is klling the future and pretending to be helping.

 

[Crick]

BIDEN knows and barely anyone on here does ,that the chief emitters HAVE INCREASED DRASTICALLY

INDIA

India’s Plans to Double Coal Production Ignore Climate Threat​

The south Asian giant is setting new targets to use more coal, despite committing to transitioning away from fossil fuels.

CHINA (EVEN WORSE!)

China doubles down on coal with rapid roll-out of new railway track to the world’s largest deposit​

• 257km line from Zhundong open pit to Urumqi will increase the mine’s transport capacity to more than 100 million tonnes a year

IF YOU DID NOT KNOW THIS, THINK : "MAYBE I KNOW NOTHING AT ALL
Why did Biden want so bad the

Disinformation Governance Board (DGB) !!​

Because facts are he is klling the future and pretending to be helping.

https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/PlattsContent/_assets/_images/latest-news/020824-china-solar-capacity-coal-electricity-renewable-energy-hydro-wind.png

 

[ReinyDays]

BIDEN knows and barely anyone on here does ,that the chief emitters HAVE INCREASED DRASTICALLY

INDIA

India’s Plans to Double Coal Production Ignore Climate Threat​

The south Asian giant is setting new targets to use more coal, despite committing to transitioning away from fossil fuels.

CHINA (EVEN WORSE!)

China doubles down on coal with rapid roll-out of new railway track to the world’s largest deposit​

• 257km line from Zhundong open pit to Urumqi will increase the mine’s transport capacity to more than 100 million tonnes a year

IF YOU DID NOT KNOW THIS, THINK : "MAYBE I KNOW NOTHING AT ALL
Why did Biden want so bad the

Disinformation Governance Board (DGB) !!​

Because facts are he is klling the future and pretending to be helping.

I'm sorry ... I don't remember stating that India and China were examples of good government ... what manner of ignorant strawman are you arguing with? ...

Everybody can emit all the carbon dioxide gas they want, their money is none of my business ... those Chinese products we buy are made with Iranian oil which in turn supports Hamas ... anti-semitism at it's finest ...

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you have ANY evidence of ANY of your claims? ANY?

I've posted the evidence again and again. Have you posted any evidence that anything Lomborg said in that article is not true?

 

[ding]

The earth's orbit around the Sun is not exactly circular. It's oblique. (Egg shaped)

On top of this even the oblique orbit has a rotation that too is oblique....meaning that our distance from the sun is constantly in motion. This planet is moving in a minimum of 10 directions at time...possibly more but it's difficult to tell because there are no stationary points in space...everything is in motion.

Meanwhile our upper atmosphere is constantly bleeding off any heat developed on the earth's atmosphere into the vastness of space. (Which hasn't gotten any warmer yet)

And there has yet to be a climate model that accounts for all of these parameters yet.

Where I'm all in favor of efficiency and lowering pollutants....I'm not in favor of knee jerk solutions to problems that have not been clearly established or causes identified.

Sure, we can blame human birth rates on stork migration patterns...but correlation does not equal causation.

Orbital cycles can’t cause a 2C decrease in surface temperature. But a disruption of the ocean’s circulation of heat to the Arctic can.

The vast amount of heat is stored in the ocean, not the atmosphere.

 

[ding]

It's completely intellectually dishonest to state support for scientific understanding the mechanics and health of the biosphere yet then condition the acceptance of that understanding upon displeasure with economic outcomes. There's no actual concern for the biosphere. There's no 'balance'. There's only the pursuit of infinite growth while rejecting any costs or concepts that our systems have limits.

Which is exactly why man will continue with urbanization and deforestation which are much bigger problems than 120 ppm of incremental atmospheric CO2.

 

[JohnDB]

Orbital cycles can’t cause a 2C decrease in surface temperature. But a disruption of the ocean’s circulation of heat to the Arctic can.

The vast amount of heat is stored in the ocean, not the atmosphere.

Rethink what you just said...

The ocean's circulation of heat is affected by jet streams....which is affected by thermal radiation from external sources. (The Sun)

The jet stream increases in strength and decreases in strength....(fluid dynamics at work here too)

Now the heat generated by cities is insufficient to affect anything on the same scale the Sun does especially as the upper atmosphere bleeds off the heat into the vastness of space.

AND

There's only one Nation that produces more carbon than all the rest combined. And it's not the USA. It's not Europe or Africa either. (CCP) Where greenhouse gasses are not good....they still are not capable of stopping the cooling effect of the upper atmosphere. (Laws of thermodynamics) slowed? Maybe...but not by a LOT.

2⁰ has been claimed for decades and the research has been proven to be fraudulent...and I seriously doubt it's authenticity.

What I do see is that the Sun is not stable as it turns in 6 directions at a time itself with the planets moving around it in at least 10 directions at the same time.

No climate model yet accounts for all factors....maybe AI will one day if someone accurately programs it. Until then it's political agendas that have precedence over the truth.

 

[ding]

Rethink what you just said...

The ocean's circulation of heat is affected by jet streams....which is affected by thermal radiation from external sources. (The Sun)

The jet stream increases in strength and decreases in strength....(fluid dynamics at work here too)

Now the heat generated by cities is insufficient to affect anything on the same scale the Sun does especially as the upper atmosphere bleeds off the heat into the vastness of space.

AND

There's only one Nation that produces more carbon than all the rest combined. And it's not the USA. It's not Europe or Africa either. (CCP) Where greenhouse gasses are not good....they still are not capable of stopping the cooling effect of the upper atmosphere. (Laws of thermodynamics) slowed? Maybe...but not by a LOT.

2⁰ has been claimed for decades and the research has been proven to be fraudulent...and I seriously doubt it's authenticity.

What I do see is that the Sun is not stable as it turns in 6 directions at a time itself with the planets moving around it in at least 10 directions at the same time.

No climate model yet accounts for all factors....maybe AI will one day if someone accurately programs it. Until then it's political agendas that have precedence over the truth.

Don’t need to rethink it. The vast majority of heat is stored in the ocean.

Ancient Ocean Currents May Have Changed Pacing and Intensity of Ice Ages - The Earth Institute - Columbia University

Warning of a forthcoming collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation - Nature Communications

The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) is a major tipping element in the climate system. Here, data-driven estimators for the time of tipping predict a potential AMOC collapse mid-century under the current emission scenario.

www.nature.com

 

[ding]

Agreed as it is well known that it the Sun/Ocean dynamo that dominates the weather processes of the planet.

Yes and the sun’s major influence very well may be it’s effect on wind patterns.

 

[Robert W]

Yes and the sun’s major influence very well may be it’s effect on wind patterns.

It is seldom commented on but the major factor in climate are the Clouds. Check global views of Earth to confirm this. I keep wondering when the shit will hit the fan that democrats keep promising us all. Here in Idaho they brag we have high snow levels. I believe CA is loaded with snow. I know Death Valley has been cool.

 

[Crick]

I've posted the evidence again and again. Have you posted any evidence that anything Lomborg said in that article is not true?

Yes. You can find thousands of pages of it, very neatly organized, at www.ipcc.ch. How about a link to some of this evidence you've posted "again and again" in support of his claims? Where are your links?

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. You can find thousands of pages of it, very neatly organized, at www.ipcc.ch. How about a link to some of this evidence you've posted "again and again" in support of his claims? Where are your links?

My claims are that IPCC information is tainted. So you'll have to do better than just refer me to thousands of pages.

 

[Robert W]

My claims are that IPCC information is tainted. So you'll have to do better than just refer me to thousands of pages.

Let's start with his alarming proof. This from the IPCC report.

A.1 Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocallycaused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850-1900in 2011-2020. Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, with unequalhistorical and ongoing contributions arising from unsustainable energy use, land use andland-use change, lifestyles and patterns of consumption and production across regions,between and within countries, and among individuals (high confidence). {2.1, Figure 2.1,Figure 2.2}

We are talking of a report spanning from 1850 until 2024. How many years is that? It is covering about 175 years. Humans population has vastly increased.

So what makes the report so alarming?

Read the change in 175 years. Twice read it. What makes it alarming?


Well it is not alarming to me. We have some posters who think this is enormous. They ring alarm bells furiously. Why are they so negative?

Borg looks at the condition from the vantage of economics. If we are FORCED to act as we are also Alarmed, it has a vast cost. Where will that support come from?

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's start with his alarming proof. This from the IPCC report.

A.1 Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocallycaused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850-1900in 2011-2020. Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, with unequalhistorical and ongoing contributions arising from unsustainable energy use, land use andland-use change, lifestyles and patterns of consumption and production across regions,between and within countries, and among individuals (high confidence). {2.1, Figure 2.1,Figure 2.2}

We are talking of a report spanning from 1850 until 2024. How many years is that? It is covering about 175 years. Humans population has vastly increased.

So what makes the report so alarming?

Read the change in 175 years. Twice read it. What makes it alarming?


Well it is not alarming to me. We have some posters who think this is enormous. They ring alarm bells furiously. Why are they so negative?

Borg looks at the condition from the vantage of economics. If we are FORCED to act as we are also Alarmed, it has a vast cost. Where will that support come from?

That's the thing. He isn't questioning or challenging that there will be warming up to and into the next century or that humans have likely contributed to that, and there will likely be a cost for that though nowhere near the apocalypse predicted by the religionists/alarmists. The remedies being demanded by those religionists/alarmist will be far more costly thousands of times over to the point of unsustainability while eliminating much/most of the people's liberties and quality of life.

Not a single leftist on this thread have discussed that concept but simply condemn Borg and any of us who see any merit in his argument.

 

[Robert W]

That's the thing. He isn't questioning or challenging that there will be warming up to and into the next century, and there will likely be a cost for that though nowhere near the apocalypse predicted by the religionists/alarmists. The remedies being demanded by those religionists/alarmist will be far more costly a thousand times over to the point of unsustainability while eliminating much/most of the people's liberties and quality of life.

Not a single leftist on this thread had discussed that concept but simply condemn Borg, any of us who see any merit in his argument.

I agree totally. I blame our Media for a lot of the problematic issues. They create fiction and it inflames the public. I delivered papers as a youth and recall how back then the papers were more journalistic and less propaganda. Why the Media? Because they have the people willing to lie to us.

 

[Crick]

My claims are that IPCC information is tainted. So you'll have to do better than just refer me to thousands of pages.

You have no evidence whatsoever to support that claim. Does that not bother you?