New report on climate change released today

[repoman]

The major problem with climate science is that the entirety of its argument about GW/CC is based entirely on computer models.

To this point in time they have proven to be spectacularly wrong. Science is based on scepticism. When a hypothesis is proposed, the true scientist constructs an experiment that will either validate the proposal, or reject it.

The problem with oxymoronic climate science is that all their hypotheses are aimed at some mythical point in the future, thereby making the construction of appropriate experiments impossible.

What ensues then is basically belief, which as Swizzle has already pointed out, which the alarmists/activists have taken up with religious fervour!

You are either very ignorant or a liar or a parrot for shills. This is the same as a creationist saying that only fossils are useful for proving or disproving evolution, when extant DNA is airtight proof of evolution.

I don't understand how you can be so wrong.

 

[scombrid]

Yay. Another old physicist tripping outside his field.

Professor Happer argued that humanity would benefit from more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is at historically low levels.

The period of history is relevant. Why are you ignoring that?

Almost all plant life would benefit from more CO2, which is why farmers pump it into their greenhouses, Happer explained.

You know what farmers also control? Weeds. Available water. Nitrogen, phosphorous, and other nutrients. You don't just pump in more CO2 and poof magic more plants.

Kind of a dumb statement but then he isn't a biologist or agronomist so maybe we can forgive him?

, noting that experiments show plants grow better and faster when CO2 levels are doubled, tripled, and even quadrupled.

Not all plants and not under all conditions. Some crop plants yes. Others no. Some nuisance plants do awesome.

Just dumping nutrients into the environment isn't always a net benefit. The algae blooms plaguing Florida are a result of too much nitrogen, phosphorous, CO2, and warmer water.

Dissolving extra CO2 into the water is causing problems as well.

Dr. Happer also showed that, in the Earth’s past, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were far, far higher than they are today. “It is measured in thousands of parts per million rather than hundreds, as we have today,” he explained,

What animals existed at that time?

humans exhale about two pounds of CO2 each day just by breathing. “The EPA is just completely bonkers,” the professor added, highlighting the absurdity of having a federal agency wage a war on what scientists refer to as “the gas of life.”

Yeah, you know there's building codes on what type of ventilation you have to have for what number of people in a given space because too much of that "gas of life" is harmful to aerobic things like people?

If nothing else, the Earth has already done this experiment many times, because in the geological past CO2 levels have been four times, five times, even higher than today,

Yeah, earth was perfectly hospitable to warm blooded mammals through all those 'experiments'.

and life flourished all over the Earth and in the oceans too.

What life?

So it’s nonsense, [CO2 is] not a pollutant.”

So we can put you in a room without ventilation then?

 

[Gun Nut]

The major problem with climate science is that the entirety of its argument about GW/CC is based entirely on computer models.

To this point in time they have proven to be spectacularly wrong. Science is based on scepticism. When a hypothesis is proposed, the true scientist constructs an experiment that will either validate the proposal, or reject it.

The problem with oxymoronic climate science is that all their hypotheses are aimed at some mythical point in the future, thereby making the construction of appropriate experiments impossible.

What ensues then is basically belief, which as Swizzle has already pointed out, which the alarmists/activists have taken up with religious fervour!

You are either very ignorant or a liar or a parrot for shills. This is the same as a creationist saying that only fossils are useful for proving or disproving evolution, when extant DNA is airtight proof of evolution.

I don't understand how you can be so wrong.

I understand how people can be easily swayed to reject science. It's complicated. You have to be at least above average in intelligence to grasp it. Statistically, that means that MOST people are not capable of directly understanding it, and need to trust the scientific method and the people that utilize it to discover knowledge.

Remember in school, especially math class, "Show Your Work"... you had to prove you know how to get the answer to the problem and not just guess the number. Makes sense, right? Well, the Scientific Method is all about "showing your work"... which has proven, over millennia, to work much better at finding knowledge than "just believe me". Sometimes the answer to the question is mundane, but in showing your work you have revealed an approach, which others can use in novel ways.... the shoulders of giants, upon which the future stands, can be yours... if you show your work.

Anyway, that is how I became to trust the knowledge that Science produces. I can read their work (and totally not understand it)... but just knowing it is there for anyone (smarter than me) to rip apart and point out the flaws, satisfies my otherwise annoying skepticism.

So, computer models. He don't like them... or he don't trust them... yet here he is.. on a computer... using it and shit.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a computer just a fancy calculator? All computers really do is add numbers together really really fast, right? So he don't trust calculators? How on Earth does he do his taxes?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anyway, that is how I became to trust the knowledge that Science produces. I can read their work (and totally not understand it)... but just knowing it is there for anyone (smarter than me) to rip apart and point out the flaws, satisfies my otherwise annoying skepticism.

Exactly. You don't need to have a full understanding of what they are saying. Looking at what the other side says about the findings and you'll get a pretty good idea of which side is right. Also, look for serious flaws in claims. I do not recall the book but it was a rebuttal to a lot of environmentalism--at it started out looking some mercury(?) contamination numbers--which were expressed in parts per million. It then pointed out that several fish had been examined to get that number and claimed the real result should be divided by the number of fish. It's parts per million, not quantity per fish! I stopped reading at that point, a few pages into the book. In the social sciences you'll find an awful lot of research that ignores known confounding factors.

 

[angelo]

The major problem with climate science is that the entirety of its argument about GW/CC is based entirely on computer models.

To this point in time they have proven to be spectacularly wrong. Science is based on scepticism. When a hypothesis is proposed, the true scientist constructs an experiment that will either validate the proposal, or reject it.

The problem with oxymoronic climate science is that all their hypotheses are aimed at some mythical point in the future, thereby making the construction of appropriate experiments impossible.

What ensues then is basically belief, which as Swizzle has already pointed out, which the alarmists/activists have taken up with religious fervour!

You are either very ignorant or a liar or a parrot for shills. This is the same as a creationist saying that only fossils are useful for proving or disproving evolution, when extant DNA is airtight proof of evolution.

I don't understand how you can be so wrong.

My challenge stands and has not been disproved. Again. I'll ask, name one, just one example of a doomsday climate disaster in the past 30-40 years that any alarmist can point to as evidence of it's claims by so called climate scientists! What's happened to the millions of climate refugees that
should have inannandiated more habitable regions of the planet? The complete Eastern seaboard of Australia, coastal areas of America, Europe, all The Netherlands Venice should be under 20-30 meters of seawater. All should have been under meters of seawater a decade ago.

 

[repoman]

Angelo watch this, which EXACTLY covers your last post.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The major problem with climate science is that the entirety of its argument about GW/CC is based entirely on computer models.

To this point in time they have proven to be spectacularly wrong. Science is based on scepticism. When a hypothesis is proposed, the true scientist constructs an experiment that will either validate the proposal, or reject it.

The problem with oxymoronic climate science is that all their hypotheses are aimed at some mythical point in the future, thereby making the construction of appropriate experiments impossible.

What ensues then is basically belief, which as Swizzle has already pointed out, which the alarmists/activists have taken up with religious fervour!

You are either very ignorant or a liar or a parrot for shills. This is the same as a creationist saying that only fossils are useful for proving or disproving evolution, when extant DNA is airtight proof of evolution.

I don't understand how you can be so wrong.

My challenge stands and has not been disproved. Again. I'll ask, name one, just one example of a doomsday climate disaster in the past 30-40 years that any alarmist can point to as evidence of it's claims by so called climate scientists! What's happened to the millions of climate refugees that
should have inannandiated more habitable regions of the planet? The complete Eastern seaboard of Australia, coastal areas of America, Europe, all The Netherlands Venice should be under 20-30 meters of seawater. All should have been under meters of seawater a decade ago.

Batting 0 for 0 is not a failure.

Where is a failed scientific prediction of climate doomsday by now?

 

[angelo]

Angelo watch this, which EXACTLY covers your last post.

A comedy sketch to defend the alarmist position? Is that really the best warmists can do?

 

[angelo]

Science is a falsifiable peer reviewed experimental hypothesis. Not computer modeled if or buts. If a scientific theory fails, it's back to the drawing board and starting all over again. So far ALL the computer modeling of vanishing ice caps and alarming rising of the seas have failed to eventuate. So what happens? Oops, " we have to change the name or the layperson will call it out as BS. Thus Climate Change came into being. That way every single weather event can be attributed to " climate change." Dead fish in a river, drought, floods, in some brainless quarters, even an earthquake. Freezing Winter, scorching Summer, cyclones/typhoons, ect, ect, ect, all can be attributed to climate change. The IPCC is a political body not a truly a scientific body, and it's the reason many honest scientists have left that body while their credibility is still intact. And who can blame them!

 

[scombrid]

Freezing Winter

Haven't had a freeze at my house since 2010. I harvested papayas and pineapples in February. I live in USDA cold hardiness zone 9B.

 

[southernhybrid]

I thought this thread was dead but since it's still going, I will post the latest from the EPA. That's Trump's EPA, so this is a bit surprising.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/new-epa-document-tells-communities-to-brace-for-climate-change-impacts/2019/04/27/09cf8df6-6836-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html?utm_term=.edee35017e98

The Environmental Protection Agency published a 150-page document this past week with a straightforward message for coping with the fallout from natural disasters across the country: Start planning for the fact that climate change is going to make these catastrophes worse.

The language, included in guidance on how to address the debris left in the wake of floods, hurricanes and wildfires, is at odds with the rhetoric of the EPA’s own leader, Andrew Wheeler. Just last month, Wheeler said in an interview with CBS that “most of the threats from climate change are 50 to 75 years out.”

Multiple recent studies have identified how climate change is already affecting the United States and the globe. In the western United States, for example, regional temperatures have increased by almost 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1970s, and snowmelt is occurring a month earlier in areas, extending the fire season by three months and quintupling the number of large fires. Another scientific paper, co-authored by EPA researchers, found that unless the United States slashes carbon emissions, climate change will probably cost the United States hundreds of billions of dollars annually by 2100.

The U.S. government’s main climate change website, Climate.gov, features a detailed explanation of how the science has evolved in recent years, including how federal researchers have contributed to the field.

“Scientists are increasingly able to distinguish evidence of human-induced climate change from natural variability,” according to the government explainer.

But the research into extreme event attribution is hardly limited to the government. Since 2011, the American Meteorological Society has compiled an annual assessment of how human-caused climate change probably affected the strength and frequency of extreme events such as record heat waves, droughts and wildfires.

The group has said that of the more than 130 peer-reviewed studies published as part of the annual reviews, about 65 percent have identified the fingerprints of climate change in extreme weather events, while about 35 percent found no clear connection.

 

[ZiprHead]

Angelo watch this, which EXACTLY covers your last post.

A comedy sketch to defend the alarmist position? Is that really the best warmists can do?

While you have a strange sense of humor, I really doubt you watched the video. The video directly addressed so many of your flawed arguments and your only response is to claim it is comedy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Science is a falsifiable peer reviewed experimental hypothesis. Not computer modeled if or buts. If a scientific theory fails, it's back to the drawing board and starting all over again. So far ALL the computer modeling of vanishing ice caps and alarming rising of the seas have failed to eventuate. So what happens? Oops, " we have to change the name or the layperson will call it out as BS. Thus Climate Change came into being. That way every single weather event can be attributed to " climate change." Dead fish in a river, drought, floods, in some brainless quarters, even an earthquake. Freezing Winter, scorching Summer, cyclones/typhoons, ect, ect, ect, all can be attributed to climate change. The IPCC is a political body not a truly a scientific body, and it's the reason many honest scientists have left that body while their credibility is still intact. And who can blame them!

You still haven't come up with an example of a failed doomsday prediction by the scientists.

 

[AirPoh]

Angelo watch this, which EXACTLY covers your last post.

A comedy sketch to defend the alarmist position? Is that really the best warmists can do?

While you have a strange sense of humor, I really doubt you watched the video. The video directly addressed so many of your flawed arguments and your only response is to claim it is comedy.

It's Fox News. I think he's got a point.

 

[ZiprHead]

While you have a strange sense of humor, I really doubt you watched the video. The video directly addressed so many of your flawed arguments and your only response is to claim it is comedy.

It's Fox News. I think he's got a point.

Apparently you haven't watched the video too.

 

[angelo]

Angelo watch this, which EXACTLY covers your last post.

A comedy sketch to defend the alarmist position? Is that really the best warmists can do?

While you have a strange sense of humor, I really doubt you watched the video. The video directly addressed so many of your flawed arguments and your only response is to claim it is comedy.

I'm sick of ad nauseam claims of what may be. I Keep repeatably asking for just one scellot of evidence made in the last 4 decades or so of dire predictions that has eventuated! Now there's a wide eyed bimbo telling all those who are in awe of this stupid bimbo, [and that's most of the posters to this thread] that the Earth has just 12 years left until doomsday! Exactly the same thing was stated 40 years ago.

The elephant in the room which of course is never mentioned, or ignored by the left is the fact that less than 30 years ago the world's population was less than half of today's population of well over 7 billion people who all breath in oxygen and exhale CO2, not to mention each and every human on this planet's carbon footprint.

 

[angelo]

Science is a falsifiable peer reviewed experimental hypothesis. Not computer modeled if or buts. If a scientific theory fails, it's back to the drawing board and starting all over again. So far ALL the computer modeling of vanishing ice caps and alarming rising of the seas have failed to eventuate. So what happens? Oops, " we have to change the name or the layperson will call it out as BS. Thus Climate Change came into being. That way every single weather event can be attributed to " climate change." Dead fish in a river, drought, floods, in some brainless quarters, even an earthquake. Freezing Winter, scorching Summer, cyclones/typhoons, ect, ect, ect, all can be attributed to climate change. The IPCC is a political body not a truly a scientific body, and it's the reason many honest scientists have left that body while their credibility is still intact. And who can blame them!

You still haven't come up with an example of a failed doomsday prediction by the scientists.

Hold on! Why are you trying to reverse what I've been continuously asking the alarmists to provide me with?

 

[ZiprHead]

While you have a strange sense of humor, I really doubt you watched the video. The video directly addressed so many of your flawed arguments and your only response is to claim it is comedy.

I'm sick of ad nauseam claims of what may be. I Keep repeatably asking for just one scellot of evidence made in the last 4 decades or so of dire predictions that has eventuated! Now there's a wide eyed bimbo telling all those who are in awe of this stupid bimbo, [and that's most of the posters to this thread] that the Earth has just 12 years left until doomsday! Exactly the same thing was stated 40 years ago.

The elephant in the room which of course is never mentioned, or ignored by the left is the fact that less than 30 years ago the world's population was less than half of today's population of well over 7 billion people who all breath in oxygen and exhale CO2, not to mention each and every human on this planet's carbon footprint.

Not one thing you said addressed anything I said. Try harder.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While you have a strange sense of humor, I really doubt you watched the video. The video directly addressed so many of your flawed arguments and your only response is to claim it is comedy.

I'm sick of ad nauseam claims of what may be. I Keep repeatably asking for just one scellot of evidence made in the last 4 decades or so of dire predictions that has eventuated! Now there's a wide eyed bimbo telling all those who are in awe of this stupid bimbo, [and that's most of the posters to this thread] that the Earth has just 12 years left until doomsday! Exactly the same thing was stated 40 years ago.

The elephant in the room which of course is never mentioned, or ignored by the left is the fact that less than 30 years ago the world's population was less than half of today's population of well over 7 billion people who all breath in oxygen and exhale CO2, not to mention each and every human on this planet's carbon footprint.

I have repeatedly asked for an example of a scientific claim of doomsday that didn't come true.

- - - Updated - - -

Science is a falsifiable peer reviewed experimental hypothesis. Not computer modeled if or buts. If a scientific theory fails, it's back to the drawing board and starting all over again. So far ALL the computer modeling of vanishing ice caps and alarming rising of the seas have failed to eventuate. So what happens? Oops, " we have to change the name or the layperson will call it out as BS. Thus Climate Change came into being. That way every single weather event can be attributed to " climate change." Dead fish in a river, drought, floods, in some brainless quarters, even an earthquake. Freezing Winter, scorching Summer, cyclones/typhoons, ect, ect, ect, all can be attributed to climate change. The IPCC is a political body not a truly a scientific body, and it's the reason many honest scientists have left that body while their credibility is still intact. And who can blame them!

You still haven't come up with an example of a failed doomsday prediction by the scientists.

Hold on! Why are you trying to reverse what I've been continuously asking the alarmists to provide me with?

You keep talking about failed predictions--yet you don't have any examples of them. All you have is popular press claims, not scientific claims.

 

[angelo]

While you have a strange sense of humor, I really doubt you watched the video. The video directly addressed so many of your flawed arguments and your only response is to claim it is comedy.

I'm sick of ad nauseam claims of what may be. I Keep repeatably asking for just one scellot of evidence made in the last 4 decades or so of dire predictions that has eventuated! Now there's a wide eyed bimbo telling all those who are in awe of this stupid bimbo, [and that's most of the posters to this thread] that the Earth has just 12 years left until doomsday! Exactly the same thing was stated 40 years ago.

The elephant in the room which of course is never mentioned, or ignored by the left is the fact that less than 30 years ago the world's population was less than half of today's population of well over 7 billion people who all breath in oxygen and exhale CO2, not to mention each and every human on this planet's carbon footprint.

Not one thing you said addressed anything I said. Try harder.

You've provided me with one catosphere directly attributed to GW/CC as predicted by some prophets of doom 3-4 decades ago? Which one would that be? As a certain naive politician from Queensland would say : please explain!