Climate

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search

I don't care if people believe in, or disbelieve in AGW theory: there's evidence to support at least some of both sides points. I do care that we can't even talk about it, because so many people are 100% sure that anyone who doesn't agree with them is greedy, evil, uninformed, and destroying the planet. The truth is far more nuanced.

Most Climate Skeptics I know, came to their position by being more informed than the other side. They understand the basics of CO2, where the entire Greenhouse Effect ranks in the list of Climate Forcing Factors, or the facts about our Climate History, Ocean Rise, Glacial Melt, and Hurricanes. Whereas I can't say the same for the other side. (To be fair, it's the 95% of vocal Climate Advocates that give the rest a bad name).

What the AGW advocates know is:

  • what the media and celebrities like Leonardo Dicaprio have told them
  • since they don't check facts, they believe there's unanimity in AGW theory (some 97% Climate Consensus) which is completely debunked.
  • many have been trained to reflexively write off all Climate Skeptics as kooks or paid shills, without ever looking at their Resume's of achievements, and why they put their reputations on the line
  • most ignore that the Climate Industrial Complex is a bunch of scientists and politicians that can parlay fear-mongering into votes, money and power (the modern snake-oil salesman).

Thus when we have a non-event like backing out of the Paris Climate Accord, even though it did couldn't have made the slightest difference in the actual climate, the seals have been trained to bark on cue.

Years ago, I did a Toastmasters Speech on Climate Change. There was a Documentary called The Climate Hustle (2016): while only OK, if a viewer isn't bored by the ground it covered, then they are not qualified to have an informed opinion.

Here's a few Climate Links and Climate Quotes, and finally Climate Memes. The Meme's aren't very constructive (just humorously mocking the hypocrisy and ignorance of the loudest advocates). But if you the other side is comparing scientific skepticism to Holocaust denial, then all that's left is to mock them back.

A question I often ask, is if I can point out anything that the other side doesn't know, is why? If we were having an honest discussion, then the best way to address that, is to present the other sides strongest arguments, then refute it. Why then has the AGW not done that, and gone with exaggerations, constructs and ad hominem's instead?

Climate

Skepticism is the best of the isms. It is critical thinking, it is science (the scientific method), and vise versa. Question everything, doubt what you're told, look for the other side of the story, or as Ronald Reagan put the Russian proverb, "doveryai no proveryai" (Trust but verify). If someone is not skeptical of what they are told, and won't question or consider facts that don't support their view, that doesn't make them a bad person: but they're not a practicing person of science, logic, reason or critical thinking. If they can't accept their biases or that truth, then they're not a self-aware person.

If you read FakeNews sites like Newsweek, WaPo or NYT, or read the tweets of far-left loons like Kamala Harris, you'd think the President put a radical anti-Science guy in charge of Climate Change study, instead of distinguished Princeton Physics professor emeritus, fellow of the American Physical Society, member of the National Academy of Science and the JASON group, who doesn't deny that increasing CO2 might have some small influence on climate. But does question the magnitude of the influence, whether the benefits of more CO2 are being ignored, and the cost/benefits of reducing CO2. more...
If you believe a slew of articles that are out there like these Tipping Point articles , then earth has passed the carbon tipping point (400 ppm of CO2, which we cross the other day), which means 6-7° of more warming is coming, which will; destroy humanity, cook off the planet, flood our cities, and we're doomed. Good, now maybe the know-nothings will shut the hell up and let us get on with our lives, while they're repeatedly proven wrong over the coming decades, just like they have been for the last couple hundred years. more...
While there's no single cause for more/bigger/fires, there are many cumulative ones. Virtually all of them made California worse by adopting Green/Democrat/Left policies that had unintended consequences. The folks decided to do anything in the name of "environmentalism", while more reasonable people warned them that their policies would result in bigger wildfires. Now that reaped those consequences, instead of owning their mistakes, and learning, they want to blame: (a) Global Warming (b) Trump (for insensitively repeating what their own reports said) (c) make excuses like "we don't technically own all the land we manage/regulate" (d) spend 10x as much on electric car subsidies (or 100x as much on trains), as clearing dead trees. It's one thing to be foolish, it's another thing to do it with a megaphone. more...
Sheep1.jpg
To begin with, consensus isn't Science. Consensus is either the bandwagon fallacy or the appeal to authority fallacy. Consensus/popularity is politics. Science is skepticism. Places that use the 97% Scientific Consensus for AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) fall into one of two groups: (a) those completely unaware of where that comes from (b) those that are dishonest polemics who know how shoddy the claim is (studies are), but they publish them anyway. There really isn't a lot of middle ground on this one. The actual consensus is surprisingly small, and the studies that say otherwise are embarrassingly bad, and the one thing that most Scientists seem to have a stronger consensus on, is that IPCC and the media are misleading the public (and overhyping things). more...
Climate.png
  • CO2 has never caused any global warming (that we can tell) in the historical record. None.
  • Historically, warming causes the oceans to release more CO2, and then we saw CO2 rise as a result of the other warming.
  • Some speculate that the CO2 released from this warming magnified the warming that was happening, but that doesn't explain why we cooled down again (even with higher CO2 levels).
  • Remember, we had ice ages with 7,000 or 8,000 ppm of CO2, and for the last few million years the average CO2 level has been over 1,000 ppm (twice the current levels).
  • We’ve gone up from 300-400 PPM in the last 200 years -- however, half of that happened before man contributed much to the CO2 cycle at all (beginning around 1950 when man first crossed the 1 gigaton/year level), and much of the rest was due to the Oceans releasing CO2. more...
Some articles debunking common climate "truths", that aren't so true. more...
Climate-quotes.jpg
So much wrongness. From the contradictions between cooling vs. warming, the devastation caused by the pollution or warming/cooling that never came, to the ice caps that are still fine, to the glaciers that never went away, or the plants and animals that are still thriving and so on. Malthusian catastrophe's predicted since time immemorial. The point isn't that we shouldn't study this stuff, it's that we should look at it with the skeptical eye of mature adults who have a clue as to how wrong the religion of Science has been in the past, to know to not overreact like gullible emotional children today. more...
  • What impacts the climate? In order of importance they are: Solar output, variations in the Earths Orbit (Milankovitch cycle), Volcanism, Meteorological events, Plate Tectonics, Ocean Variability, Radiative forcing (greenhouse effect is a small part of this), Flora and Fauna
  • Radiative forcing is one of the weakest of the forcing factors impacting the Earth's climate. The greenhouse effect is a second weakest part of radiative forcing. And CO2 is a very small part of the greenhouse effect. And man contributed a minuscule amount of CO2.
  • Every part of forcing factors are still debated, especially the important ones carbon sequestration, cloud albedo, and CO2 scrubbing (how fast can the earth correct for increases in CO2). If the earth wasn't a self-balancing system, then why didn't we cook-off in the last 4.5B years, or back when we had 10x the CO2 we have today? more...
  • Radiative forcing is one of the weakest of the forcing factors impacting the Earth's climate. The greenhouse effect is a second weakest part of radiative forcing. And CO2 is a very small part of the greenhouse effect. How small? Mankind contributes 14Gt of the 22,056,773+ Gt of all greenhouse gasses in our system (about .0004%). more...
PoleDancer.png
Remember when Katrina happened and all the networks were predicting more and stronger hurricanes. Ignoring the math of the situation (that global warming was supposed to impact the upper atmosphere and poles first, not the heat-sync of oceans -- and that would actually reduce storms), they were still trying to scare their most gullible rubes. Since 2005, we've had an almost drought of strong/big hurricanes. But if another one hits, we can bet regardless of the statistical realities, that the media will blaming it on Climate Change. Just like they did the California Drought, Fires, or the best chicken-little imagineering that I heard recently: Syria and ISIS. more...
Kaczynski.jpeg
Science is skepticism. If someone isn't a skeptic, then they're not a scientist: they're a politician. So the point isn't who is on this list, but who isn't. While I believe people are entitled to their own opinions (pro/con on this issue), if someone is dismissing Nobel laureates and career scientists like Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever, or the ex heads of NASA, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and so on, then I want to see their pedigree, or evidence for thinking those folks are ignorant deniers that don't know what they're talking about. more...
AGWMyth.jpg
Yearly, the watermelon environmentalists (Green on the outside, red on the inside), re-release another chicken-little prediction about how everything environmentally is worse than they thought, because the oceans are warming more than they previously released. The problem is that the people who don't know a forcing factor from an albedo effect (and their rubes/audience) don't seem to read or understand the points they're making -- and those that do, aren't listened to. more...
ParisClimateAccord.png
Trump withdrew from Obama's non-binding agreement (either that unconstitutional treaty). And agreed to consider future ones, if there's a better deal. This was because anyone that glanced at it, knew it wasn't a good deal or about climate but wealth redistribution (from America and American businesses/jobs). And of course the left/media that disliked it under Obama, suddenly loves it, lies to its base about what it means, and their followers are in hysterics about something that did no good, a lot of bad, and since they can't argue on the merits, they use fallacies and lies to tell each other about what a big deal this is. This article covers the details. more...
Ehrlich.jpg
Professor Paul R. Ehrlich did a shallow plagiaristic pessimistic derivative of Hardin and Malthus, entitled "The Population Bomb". Basically saying that if you didn’t give government all your money and rights now so they could enact compulsory population control. there would be mass starvations and war in the 1970’s and 1980’s that would wreck civilization. He is credited with being one of the founders or at least inspirations behind Earth Day/Week. Despite the opposite of all his predictions coming true, he claims to this day that his book was, "way too optimistic”. Showing this old dog can’t learn from his mistakes. And because his ideas were so wrong, and derivative, he’s won every award the left can throw at him: Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, MacArthur Prize, UN, American Institute of Biological Sciences — it’s like the whose who of those that don’t know what’s what. more...
TOC.jpg
We often get dire warnings about Malthusian Catastrophes, Ehrlich's population bombs and how individuals can't be trusted to manage shared interests. We need government to protect us from ourselves. History shows the opposite: individuals form small governments for common interests better than big governments, unless big government stops them. more...