Finally, an Unbiased and Objective Climate Science Report

[ding]

I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert. I will only rely on and believe the experts who are still saying that AGW and climate change concerns need to be addressed before there are catastrophic and very costly results.

Are you asking for some links to expert opinions?

Or are you still in denial?

Where exactly is this catastrophe?

 

[ding]

Here's the opinion of Judith Curry of the educated denialist side:



Judith made it much easier for those who aren't experts on the topic.

We now have both denialists and climate experts saying the same thing!

Judith Curry holds a nuanced position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), often described as "neo-skepticism". While she acknowledges that the planet is warming and that human-produced greenhouse gases contribute to it, she emphasizes the uncertainties in climate models and the potential for natural climate variability to influence warming trends. She also questions the affordability and effectiveness of mitigation strategies.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Acceptance of Warming and Human Influence:
  Curry accepts that the Earth is warming and that human activities, particularly the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, play a role in this warming.
  
  
• Emphasis on Uncertainty:
  She highlights the inherent uncertainties in climate models and the difficulty of accurately predicting future climate scenarios. She believes that natural climate variability might be a more significant factor than currently acknowledged.
  
  
• Questioning Mitigation Strategies:
  Curry has expressed skepticism about the feasibility and effectiveness of large-scale efforts to mitigate climate change. She has suggested that focusing on adapting to climate change, rather than solely trying to prevent it, might be a more pragmatic approach.
  
  
• Advocacy for Open Debate:
  Curry has advocated for a more open and honest debate about climate change, emphasizing the need to consider different perspectives and uncertainties. She has criticized the perceived overconfidence of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) regarding climate projections.
  
  
• "Neo-Skepticism":
  Some social scientists have characterized her position as "neo-skepticism" due to her acceptance of some aspects of climate change while simultaneously expressing strong doubts about the extent and urgency of the problem.
  
  
• Concerns about Climate Models:
  Curry has voiced concerns that climate models might overestimate the extent of future warming and that they may not adequately account for natural climate variability.

 

[hjmick]

Where is your rebuttal to the CONTENT of post one article..... snicker........

You didn't point out anything obvious because you are avoiding commenting the article content while you are making the dumb confirmation bias argument that doesn't address anything thus you are batting zero.

I do not need a rebuttal, I don't necessarily disagree with the content. I was merely pointing out the fact that you consider the article "unbiased" because it confirms what you already believe.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I do not need a rebuttal, I don't necessarily disagree with the content. I was merely pointing out the fact that you consider the article "unbiased" because it confirms what you already believe.

LOL, I didn't make that headline it was written that way, which YOU would have quickly noticed if you clicked on the link.

Thus you made an assumption that was wrong.

Cheers.

 

[80zephyr]

The Triumph of Science: The Incredible Story of Smallpox Eradication - NFID

As NFID celebrates its 50th anniversary with a look back at significant moments in public health history, few achievements can compare to the eradication of smallpox

www.nfid.org

And? Still not the state of science today.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Molecular Regulation of Sexual Preference Revealed by Genetic Studies of 5-HT in the Brain of Male Mice - PMC

To whom should a male directs his mating? While it is a critical social interaction, little is known about molecular and cellular mechanisms controlling mammalian sexual preference. Here we report that the neurotransmitter 5-HT is required for male ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Cool article.

How many genders did it say?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The shift in public opinion means that undermining the science will increasingly have little or no effect. So climate change deniers are switching to new tactics. One of Britain’s leading deniers, Nigel Lawson, the former UK chancellor, now agrees that humans are causing climate change, despite having founded the sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation in 2009.

Not to mention the shift for Michael Mann.

How much did GM and Ford lose on EVs last year?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The idea that climate change is too expensive to fix is a more subtle form of climate denial. Economists, however, suggest we could fix climate change now by spending 1% of world GDP. Perhaps even less if the cost savings from improved human health and expansion of the global green economy are taken into account. But if we don’t act now, by 2050 it could cost over 20% of world GDP.

I agree, wasting trillions of dollars on more expensive, less reliable green energy while not fixing the "problem" is moronic.

 

[EMH]

While she acknowledges that the planet is warming and that human-produced greenhouse gases contribute to it

that completely disqualifies her from having any credibility at all, and surface air pressure proves it.


Her "warming" never existed in the ACTUAL DATA save Urban Heat Island Effect.


The data from the atmosphere, satellites and balloons show no warming, surface air pressure documents no warming = Earth not warming

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The $2.8 billion in federal lobbying spending by the oil and gas industry from 1998 to 2023 dwarfs the roughly $429.3 million spent by environmental interest groups over the same period

Billions of wasted government spending, even before the Green New Deal idiocy.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert. I will only rely on and believe the experts who are still saying that AGW and climate change concerns need to be addressed before there are catastrophic and very costly results.

Are you asking for some links to expert opinions?

Or are you still in denial?

If you have no links, how do you know you are relying on experts?

I'm no expert on the subject either, but I do have logic, reason, common sense.

The so-called 'experts' have been predicting catastrophe for at least five decades now. But as each of their dire predictions come and go, they just shrug, move the goal posts on up the road, and make a new prediction that will keep the grant money flowing to them.

We have spent trillions and trillions in green energy projects that so far have not produced a single improvement in the climate so far as anybody can show us. Those trillions and trillions could have been used for things that actually benefit us. Measurable benefit.

According to the 'experts' of years ago, the ice caps and glaciers should all be melted now, the polar bear should be extinct, and our coastal cities should all be awash in rising seas. Violent and extreme weather should have greatly increased across the planet.

Well the ice caps and glaciers are still there, the polar bear population and health is doing just fine, and none of our coastal cities are underwater yet. The data shows that there is no trend to more hurricanes, tornadoes or other violent/extreme weather. There are more some years than others just as there has always been since humankind has been keeping track of that.

Maybe it's time we should stop being so gullible as to what 'expert' opinions are and start looking for maybe at least some of their predictions to come to pass before trusting that they actually have a clue re what our climate here on Earth will and will not do?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Some of the earliest scientific assessments of the impact of fossil fuels on the planet were undertaken mostly by fossil fuel companies themselves. A 2023 analysis from Harvard University researchers showed that Exxon Mobil made accurate warming projections in internal reports as early as 1977. Exxon never made their findings public, and instead embarked on a decades-long campaign to sow public doubt about the threat of climate change.

Exxon discovered that CO2 trapped IR?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Although a significant majority of Americans have believed that the planet is warming since the late 1990s, the political cache of climate deniers has continued to fluctuate. Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who were once co-owners of Koch Industries, built their wealth in large part from petrochemical production and refining oil. According to data from the University of Massachusetts, Koch Industries is one of the top 25 carbon polluters in the U.S.

As part of their vast network of political influence, the Kochs have directly financed dozens of groups that promoted climate change denial and obstructed policy solutions in Congress. Historically, much of their spending is directed toward “dark money” groups, whose political power expanded rapidly after the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC removed limits on outside spending.

Although a significant majority of Americans have believed that the planet is warming since the late 1990s,

And it was cooling up until about 1979.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Off topic but there are more than two genders.

And again the denialists find a reason to deny the facts brought to them by mainstream science.

How many are there?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Exxon discovered that CO2 trapped IR?

He is LYING as Exxon didn't publish science papers on CO2 and related issues, they were internal memos and company papers that discussed it.

I could post a few threads that were written by a Geologist about it........, there is a reason why Exxon keeps winning those lawsuits.......

 

[EMH]

He is LYING as Exxon didn't publish science papers on CO2 and related issues, they were internal memos and company papers that discussed it.

I could post a few threads that were written by a Geologist about it........, there is a reason why Exxon keeps winning those lawsuits.......

CO2 FRAUD planted those.

What the taxpayer really "bought" by funding CO2 FRAUD. If you know you are a fraud, you need to "create evidence."

Another thing they planted was about Antarctic Sea Ice...

Earliest satellite images of Antarctica reveal highs and lows for sea ice in the 1960s

Recovered satellite images of Antarctica showed a larger sea ice extent than ever measured before—but the record was short lived. The record was broken in September 2014, only weeks after the discovery.

www.climate.gov

"the new record high for Antarctic Sea Ice was broken in September 2014,"

That article is cited because it is typical of the Co2 FRAUD. All of a sudden, they found something... yeah right...

"While NASA never really lost the data (it was stored in federal archives) they did lose the ability to access it for nearly 40 years. Recovered images of Antarctica showed a greater extent of sea ice than ever measured before by scientists"

Translation - the Co2 FRAUD fudged old data and lied to make the upward slope of Antarctic Sea Ice look flatter....

 

[EMH]

If you have no links, how do you know you are relying on experts?

I'm no expert on the subject either, but I do have logic, reason, common sense.

The so-called 'experts' have been predicting catastrophe for at least five decades now. But as each of their dire predictions come and go, they just shrug, move the goal posts on up the road, and make a new prediction that will keep the grant money flowing to them.

We have spent trillions and trillions in green energy projects that so far have not produced a single improvement in the climate so far as anybody can show us. Those trillions and trillions could have been used for things that actually benefit us. Measurable benefit.

According to the 'experts' of years ago, the ice caps and glaciers should all be melted now, the polar bear should be extinct, and our coastal cities should all be awash in rising seas. Violent and extreme weather should have greatly increased across the planet.

Well the ice caps and glaciers are still there, the polar bear population and health is doing just fine, and none of our coastal cities are underwater yet. The data shows that there is no trend to more hurricanes, tornadoes or other violent/extreme weather. There are more some years than others just as there has always been since humankind has been keeping track of that.

Maybe it's time we should stop being so gullible as to what 'expert' opinions are and start looking for maybe at least some of their predictions to come to pass before trusting that they actually have a clue re what our climate here on Earth will and will not do?

And the truth about all of that is right here on USMB...

Thread 'Since Co2 does nothing, what does cause Earth climate change?'

Jun 11, 2023

The first part is understanding what is climate and what is weather. Climate is the parameters of Earth that allow certain ranges of weather. We don't get Cat 10 canes now, but we would if Earth had no ice.

What are the parameters of climate that can change?

Ocean levels
Atmospheric thickness
Temperature
Humidity


What controls those?

The amount of ice on the planet. Period. Ocean level is 100% inversely correlated to Earth ice content (on land, not sea ice, which is pathetically small) - duh. Trapped in ice age glacier is compressed gas. When it snows 10 feet, you can compress...

• EMH
• Replies: 544
• Forum: Environment

• 
• 
• 

Thread 'Apparently we really need a "debate" over the term ICE AGE because y'all are all wrong...'

Jun 23, 2023

What is an ICE AGE?

Most apparently still believe it is a terrifying horror movie event where Earth all at once freezes up. The data has never supported such a scenario. Since 2010, there has been a massive effort to re-write Earth climate history into a series of rapid "glaciations" and ice retreats, as if "Day After Tomorrow" movie is accurate... LOL!!! What was North American Ice Age before 2010 is now spun into a series of rapid "ice ages" where it took a mere 75k years for the "ice age" to start in Northern Canada and put 2.5 mile thick glaicers on Chicago. This is "Milankovich"...

• EMH
• Replies: 338
• Forum: Environment

• 
• 
• 

 

[Old Rocks]

Now you are all over the place the topic is about a report on Climate issues.

You show that YOU have nothing against the post one article.

It remains unchallenged.

Unchallenged? LOL The only people that think that are idiots like you.

Position Summary​

Human-induced increases in greenhouse gasses, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), are the main drivers of recent global warming. Sound public policy and successful climate change mitigation and adaptation require scientifically validated assessment of current and future climate impacts.
This position statement (1) provides information for policy decisions that guide mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the current and future impacts of human-induced climate change; (2) summarizes the scientific basis for the consensus among earth scientists that human activities are the primary cause of recent global warming; (3) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate change reach projected levels; and (4) recommends opportunities for GSA members to advance our understanding of climate change.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Climate Change - GSA Position Statement 10

www.geosociety.org

Society must undertake transformative action now to mitigate and adapt to the climate crisis​

The Challenge
The global climate crisis, unequivocally driven by human activities that increase greenhouse gases (GHGs)i emissions, is proving increasingly costly and disruptive worldwide.
The responsibility for and impacts of the crisis are distributed unequally among different regions, populations, and sectors. To reduce loss of life, suffering and worsened inequities, faster and more comprehensive actions must be taken to mitigate the causes and adapt to the effects. Inclusive and strategic climate actions can increase the diversity of solutions, lead to greater equity, well-being, and security, and protect the human right to a healthy and sustainable environment.ii​

​

The Evidence and Projections for Natural Systems

https://www.agu.org/science-policy/position-statements/climate

​

 

[Old Rocks]

And the truth about all of that is right here on USMB...

Thread 'Since Co2 does nothing, what does cause Earth climate change?'

Jun 11, 2023

The first part is understanding what is climate and what is weather. Climate is the parameters of Earth that allow certain ranges of weather. We don't get Cat 10 canes now, but we would if Earth had no ice.

What are the parameters of climate that can change?

Ocean levels
Atmospheric thickness
Temperature
Humidity


What controls those?

The amount of ice on the planet. Period. Ocean level is 100% inversely correlated to Earth ice content (on land, not sea ice, which is pathetically small) - duh. Trapped in ice age glacier is compressed gas. When it snows 10 feet, you can compress...

• EMH
• Replies: 544
• Forum: Environment

• 
• 
• 

Thread 'Apparently we really need a "debate" over the term ICE AGE because y'all are all wrong...'

Jun 23, 2023

What is an ICE AGE?

Most apparently still believe it is a terrifying horror movie event where Earth all at once freezes up. The data has never supported such a scenario. Since 2010, there has been a massive effort to re-write Earth climate history into a series of rapid "glaciations" and ice retreats, as if "Day After Tomorrow" movie is accurate... LOL!!! What was North American Ice Age before 2010 is now spun into a series of rapid "ice ages" where it took a mere 75k years for the "ice age" to start in Northern Canada and put 2.5 mile thick glaicers on Chicago. This is "Milankovich"...

• EMH
• Replies: 338
• Forum: Environment

• 
• 
• 

Damn, but you talk nonsense. Ah well, only every Scientific Society in the world, every National Academy of Science, and every major University say exactly the opposite of your nonsense. They all have policy statements that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. And now as we see the climatologists predictions happening, fires on every continent save Antarctica, extreme flooding events on all the continents, all at unprecedented levels, you continue to flap-yap and show yourself to be a fool. LOL

 

[Stryder50]

Damn, but you talk nonsense. Ah well, only every Scientific Society in the world, every National Academy of Science, and every major University say exactly the opposite of your nonsense. They all have policy statements that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. And now as we see the climatologists predictions happening, fires on every continent save Antarctica, extreme flooding events on all the continents, all at unprecedented levels, you continue to flap-yap and show yourself to be a fool. LOL

Not as much as the nonsense you talk and believe.
When Galileo proposed that the Earth revolved around the Sun he was ridiculed by every science society and organization of the day for going against the consensus opinion of the Sun, and the whole of the Cosmos, revolving around the Earth.

Data and facts are what make science, not opinions and consensus, especially when such is the result of submitting to expectations for funding.

CO2 at 400 ppm = 400 parts per million = 400/1,000,000 = 4/10,000 = 1/2,500

Anyone with a brain and common sense would be suspicious of claims that one part can transfer a slight amount of retained heat to another 2,499 parts.
No one has proven, such as under laboratory conditions, where one part of CO2 has transferred it's heat to the other 2,499 parts of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, etc. which matches the percentages of atmosphere we are dealing with.

ACC and AGW are pure hokum, flim-flam, pseudo-science.