Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[SV THIRD DAY]

Well well well....
Satellite Data 2015 Wasn’t Hottest Year On Record | The Daily Caller

Looks like the warmers have a problem on their hands....it ain't getting warmer!

But but but...it's the Daily Caller, what type of Scientific Journal is that?
Ah but the Raw Data my friends...the questions is WHY did it take the Daily Caller to make you aware of the Truth?

[fryewe]

This op-ed reads like Mugga has been ghost writing for some guy named Freeman Dyson. Who is this Dyson guy? Is he someone important? Does he have any credentials in the world of science?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...jMP/story.html

[Capt Phil]

Not certain about other CF folks but I've had about enough of these global warming/climate change bozos ranting on about their particular point of view sending copious amounts of data to support their arguments or positions... who really gives a **** as long as the weather is warm, the beer is cold and our women are hot! My apologies to those who take themselves seriously... Phil

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

This op-ed reads like Mugga has been ghost writing for some guy named Freeman Dyson. Who is this Dyson guy? Is he someone important? Does he have any credentials in the world of science?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...jMP/story.html

Or vice versa.

I'm aware of the name; I wasn't aware of his stance re CC. Interesting. Some reading to do.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Well well well....
Satellite Data 2015 Wasn’t Hottest Year On Record | The Daily Caller

Looks like the warmers have a problem on their hands....it ain't getting warmer!

But but but...it's the Daily Caller, what type of Scientific Journal is that?
Ah but the Raw Data my friends...the questions is WHY did it take the Daily Caller to make you aware of the Truth?

Maybe because it's coming out of the Univ. of Alabama. That's the heretic Dr. Cristy as I recall. Cristy, Happer, Curry -- all seriously credentialed but ostracized solely for rejecting AGW.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fryewe

This op-ed reads like Mugga has been ghost writing for some guy named Freeman Dyson. Who is this Dyson guy? Is he someone important? Does he have any credentials in the world of science?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...jMP/story.html

According to Wiki (sorry, I'm lazy), Freeman Dyson is a highly credentialed physicist out of Princeton. Believes in AGW but says the impacts are highly exaggerated and distract from other, more pressing issues. Now where have we heard these sorts of comments before? Also has big problems with the modeling which he says hasn't matched up with reality. But I really like this part:

He is among signatories of a letter to the UN criticizing the IPCC and has also argued against ostracizing scientists whose views depart from the acknowledged mainstream of scientific opinion on climate change, stating that "heretics" have historically been an important force in driving scientific progress. "[H]eretics who question the dogmas are needed ... I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies."

Dyson says his views on global warming have been strongly criticized. In reply, he notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."

* * *

In a 2014 interview, he said that "What I'm convinced of is that we don't understand climate ... It will take a lot of very hard work before that question is settled."


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Exile

Maybe because it's coming out of the Univ. of Alabama. That's the heretic Dr. Cristy as I recall. Cristy, Happer, Curry -- all seriously credentialed but ostracized solely for rejecting AGW.

But.....uhhh....what happened to the 97% consensus....

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

[COLOR="Navy"]I don't know when the youTube you cited was produced, but Luntz said he wrote the memo in 1998-99. Apparently it was used by Bush in a 2002 speech. Are you suggesting the scientific consensus was as strong back then as it was when Luntz was interviewed? Luntz himself acknowledged in the video that he wouldn't have used the same language again in light of the stronger consensus. It sounds like less of a "mea culpa" and more about the use of less alarmist language that more accurately reflected the state of the science at that time.

The consensus was about the same. Look at the history of the studies on consensus. The Luntz memo was written in 2002, Oreskes was published in 2004 - it takes time to get through peer review.

Some survey's that confirm that the majority of climate scientists support the scientific consensus on AGW
1. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Naomi Oreskes, 2004
- In a review of 928 climate related peer reviewed papers none challenged the consensus.
2. Survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service at George Mason University, 2008
- Survey finds that even by 2008 97% of climate scientists agreed the earth is warming and 75% accepted AGW is happening
3. Survey of Earth Scientists - Peter Doran & former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
- Approx. 90% of Scientists surveyed agreed that mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels
- Approx. 82% of Scientists surveyed agreed that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures
4. Expert credibility in climate change - Anderegg, Prall, Harold & Schneider, 2009
97–98% of climate researchers most actively publishing support AGW
5. The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change, Farnsworth & Lichter 2012
489 scientists were surveyed
- 97% of agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century
- 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring.
- 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
6. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - Cook, Nuccitelli et al. 2013
- "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming"
- "0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming."
7. Survey of Peer Reviewed Climate articles by James Lawrence Powell, 2013
- 10,883 out of 10,885 scientific articles agree: Global warming is happening, and humans are to blame

But this begs the question of why during the past seven years of the Obama administration, the term "climate change" as opposed to "global warming" has remained in consistent use?

In 1975, geochemist Wallace Broecker introduced the term “climate change” in an article published by Science. In 1979, a National Academy of Sciences report used the term “global warming” to define increases in the Earth’s average surface temperature, while “climate change” more broadly referred to the numerous effects of this increase, such as sea-level rise and ocean acidification.

Global warming look at temperature, which is one component of climate change.

As I learned in freshman geography, climate is the long term study of temperature, precipitation, winds, and seasonal variations. Climate change looks at the ramifications of those changes on the rest of the ecosystem.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile:

what about petitioning your local govt. to bring more renewables into the power grid? Your taxes may go up to pay for it, but you sound more than willing, if not eager, to bear the added costs, right?

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Provincially, and federally, we have elected governments who have made those commitments. Ontario has phased out coal; our new federal government has initiatives in that area. Including tax and utility increases.

In other words, pay a little extra and let the govt. take care of it. No personal responsibility required, except to preach to others that is.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Exile

Originally Posted by Exile:

what about petitioning your local govt. to bring more renewables into the power grid? Your taxes may go up to pay for it, but you sound more than willing, if not eager, to bear the added costs, right?



In other words, pay a little extra and let the govt. take care of it. No personal responsibility required, except to preach to others that is.

For a Great laugh....did you see the link posted to Liberal.ca.....I about laughed myself off the chair....

But that's what liberals do.
Mandate others to make themselves feel better.
Gun laws
Eco-Imperialist Laws
You name it...

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

This op-ed reads like Mugga has been ghost writing for some guy named Freeman Dyson. Who is this Dyson guy? Is he someone important? Does he have any credentials in the world of science?

Freeman Dyson speaks on his own expertise on climate change.

He portrayed me as sort of obsessed with the subject, which I am definitely not. To me it is a very small part of my life. I don’t claim to be an expert. I never did. I simply find that a lot of these claims that experts are making are absurd. Not that I know better, but I know a few things. My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have. I think that’s what upsets me.

Freeman Dyson Takes on <br/>the Climate Establishment by Michael D. Lemonick: Yale Environment 360

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Capt Phil

. who really gives a **** as long as the weather is warm, the beer is cold and our women are hot! My apologies to those who take themselves seriously... Phil

I never figured you for a "beggar thy neighbour" type.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Maybe because it's coming out of the Univ. of Alabama. That's the heretic Dr. Cristy as I recall. Cristy, Happer, Curry -- all seriously credentialed but ostracized solely for rejecting AGW.

Christy, Happer and Curry are far from ostracized. They are among James Inhofe's and Lamar Smith's anointed.

Christy and Curry, along with Richard Lindzen, were part of the American Physical Society's workshop when the APS reviewed its climate change policy.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements...eview-bios.pdf

BTW - Curry does not reject AGW.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The consensus was about the same. Look at the history of the studies on consensus. The Luntz memo was written in 2002, Oreskes was published in 2004 - it takes time to get through peer review.

Some survey's that confirm that the majority of climate scientists support the scientific consensus on AGW
1. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Naomi Oreskes, 2004
- In a review of 928 climate related peer reviewed papers none challenged the consensus.
2. Survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service at George Mason University, 2008
- Survey finds that even by 2008 97% of climate scientists agreed the earth is warming and 75% accepted AGW is happening
3. Survey of Earth Scientists - Peter Doran & former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
- Approx. 90% of Scientists surveyed agreed that mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels
- Approx. 82% of Scientists surveyed agreed that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures
4. Expert credibility in climate change - Anderegg, Prall, Harold & Schneider, 2009
97–98% of climate researchers most actively publishing support AGW
5. The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change, Farnsworth & Lichter 2012
489 scientists were surveyed
- 97% of agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century
- 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring.
- 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
6. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - Cook, Nuccitelli et al. 2013
- "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming"
- "0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming."
7. Survey of Peer Reviewed Climate articles by James Lawrence Powell, 2013
- 10,883 out of 10,885 scientific articles agree: Global warming is happening, and humans are to blame







Global warming look at temperature, which is one component of climate change.

As I learned in freshman geography, climate is the long term study of temperature, precipitation, winds, and seasonal variations. Climate change looks at the ramifications of those changes on the rest of the ecosystem.

And as I learned in freshman English, don't judge a book by its cover. I don't find persuasive the notion that the approx. 50% of the population that don't believe in AGW (and/or the seriousness of its impacts) are confused or misled because it's more commonly referred to as "CC" as opposed to "GW." Believers or not, I'm pretty confident everyone understands the theory to mean that the planet is warming. If not, we'd hear the term "climate change" from the Obama administration about as much as we hear "Muslim extremist." It's more likely they have stuck with "CC" because (a) it's easier to keep the narrative going during colder periods, and (b) it's more suggestive to the notion that humans are artifically altering the planet, and that's a "bad thing" in their minds & many others, regardless of impact.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

And as I learned in freshman English, don't judge a book by its cover. I don't find persuasive the notion that the approx. 50% of the population that don't believe in AGW (and/or the seriousness of its impacts) are confused or misled because it's more commonly referred to as "CC" as opposed to "GW." Believers or not, I'm pretty confident everyone understands the theory to mean that the planet is warming. If not, we'd hear the term "climate change" from the Obama administration about as much as we hear "muslim extremist." It's more likely they have stuck with "CC" because (a) it's easier to keep the narrative going during colder periods, and (b) it's more suggestive to the notion that humans are artifically altering the planet, and that's a "bad thing" in their minds & many others, regardless of impact.

There is an intentional strategy, based on the same tactics employed by the tobacco lobby, to dispute AGW. Same people, same tactics.

The "muslim extremist" comment is a pathetic attempt at deflection.

There is no colder period. It is warming.