Climate: The Movie

[carmanmemoranda]

Main takeaway from this thread: it obviously isn't a settled matter.

Science is never a settled matter. It is always being challenged, and therefore sometimes changes, as knowledge increases.

Most scientists agree there is sufficient evidence, to try to do something about it. Everybody with or without any scientific background has to believe man is contributing. It just depends on how much. It is better to do something, than nothing.

The other choice is to do nothing and wait to be proved right.

 

[Odds]

You aren't reading people's posts correctly and are then jumping to conclusions. I didn't say that any of the observable phenomena mentioned mean that man made climate change isn't real, I asked, as an aside, what others make of these things and why the climate emergency hypothesis - uniquely amongst all areas of science - has these strategies and behaviours associated with it.

An interesting question - perhaps it's down to the way governments have tried to dodge around the issue for decades; the way oil companies have poisoned the science to their advantage in protecting the huge profits made by fossil fuels, feeding each other's narrative to maintain the economic system so clearly geared up to maintain the billionaires playground among the jet-set. While the poor become poorer the rich have increased their wealth since the covid pandemic and each conference designed to extract promises from world leaders to contribute increased funding for climate change prevention and research is kicked further down the road - what's another ten years matter?

Over thirty years after the first Cop conference the data increasingly shows it matters a lot more than governments would like to admit.

The fossil fuel industry, political lobbyists, media moguls and individuals have spent the past 30 years sowing doubt about the reality of climate change - where none exists. The latest estimate is that the world’s five largest publicly-owned oil and gas companies spend about US$200 million a year on lobbying to control, delay or block binding climate policy.

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. The IMF estimates that efficient fossil fuel pricing would lower global carbon emissions by 28%, fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46%, and increase government revenue by 3.8% of the country’s GDP. Developing a green economy provides economic benefits and creates jobs. Improving the environment and reforestation provides protection from extreme weather events and can in turn improve food and water security.

 

[noseall]

Read the methodologies of the consensus guesstimation studies.

CBA to go back.

However, you have access to these links? So why not post them up please?

 

[Notch7]

You will have to go back earlier in the thread. Several posted.

So you don’t have it.

Thought not

 

[Notch7]

uniquely amongst all areas of science - has these strategies and behaviours associated with it.

It doesn’t. Abortion, covid vaccines, covid lockdowns, MMR,…..all have had the same behaviours and protested associated with them

You are just trying to build a conspiracy theory


I suggest you stick to the science……..sorry I mean start basing your argument on the science.


And you’ve still not addressed why you posted a documentary built on misinformation and myths …..which totally discredits anything you post, as it shows your cognitive bias allows you to believe misinformation.

 

[Notch7]

... definitely not settled

In your opinion.

So far you’ve not provided any evidence to support your argument.

Emotions abd conpiracy theories are not arguments

 

[Notch7]

IPCC's New "Hockey Stick" Temperature Graph - Climate Etc.

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published their latest assessment report (AR6) in 2021. In 2023, the Clintel Foundation published a report which criticizes AR6. Clintel is short for Climate Intelligence, and the Clintel Foundation doesn’t think … Continue...

judithcurry.com

Good read from an expert climatologist. For those who want to skip to the conclusions - basically, IPCC reporting has been making odd data selection choices in what appears to be a desire to contrive an alarming hockey stick temperature graph. The use of normal standardisation methods for treating the data would have shown totally different temperature patterns - actually falling temperatures if anything.

... definitely not settled.

Berty, please do some research before posting. Your “evidence” comes from a scientist funded by the fossil fuel industry.

Do you have any sources not from fossil fuel interests?



You say: “Expert climatologist”

A more truthful description is: “ president of Climate Forecast Applications Network, a consulting company, whose clients include oil and gas”

Judith Curry background:

1) works for: Climate Forecast Applications Network’s clients included petroleum companies, electric utilities, and natural gas energy traders, and that she charged $400 an hour for her consulting services.

2) Judith Curry has become well-known since the mid-2000s for taking public stands that align with debunked climate change denial arguments

3) Judith Curry blogged that she agreed with then-President-elect Donald Trump’s description of climate change as a “hoax,”

4) Judith Curry used to work at Georgia tech during which time Chevron an oil company gave the university $12 million funding

https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-big-oil-bankrolls-research-bias-at-georgia-institute-of-technology/

Big Oil Bankrolls Research Bias at Georgia Institute of Technology​

Report Finds Big Oil Grants to Major Universities May Compromise Integrity of Scientific Research

Judith Curry

Judith Curry Credentials Background Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and professor emerita of the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she chaired the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences from 2002–2014. She is the president of Climate Forecast Applications Network, a...

www.desmog.com

Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues

Why can't we have a civil conversation about climate?

www.scientificamerican.com

Judith Curry - SourceWatch

www.sourcewatch.org

 

[IT Minion]

You aren't reading people's posts correctly and are then jumping to conclusions. I didn't say that any of the observable phenomena mentioned mean that man made climate change isn't real, I asked, as an aside, what others make of these things and why the climate emergency hypothesis - uniquely amongst all areas of science - has these strategies and behaviours associated with it.

Why do you think it's unique? Did you miss the hole in the Ozone layer?

 

[gas112]

cut and pasted

"Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global warming is happening is less relevant than whether the climatologists do. A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. “The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not agree.”2 Those who have signed the letter represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the United States, of whom there are about 60. McMichael and Haines quote the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is widely believed to “prove” that climate change induced by humans has occurred.3 The original draft document did not say this. What happened was that the policymakers’ summary (which became the “take home message” for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, “In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”4

Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation. Most members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that current climate models do not accurately portray the atmosphere-ocean system. Measurements made by means of satellites show no global warming but a cooling of 0.13°C between 1979 and 1994.5 Furthermore, since the theory of global warming assumes maximum warming at the poles, why have average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88°C over the past 50 years?5"

 

[berty3000]

Most scientists agree there is sufficient evidence, to try to do something about it. Everybody with or without any scientific background has to believe man is contributing. It just depends on how much. It is better to do something, than nothing.

I know the science isn't settled, that's why I've said it. I was responding to numerous posters on here who claim it is. It is also common to hear it stated in the media and amongst people who should know better.

Do you have evidence for your first sentence? The consensus estimation studies don't count.

The rest of your post is describing the precautionary principle. That we should do something just in case, which is fair enough. However, this also leaves the question: how much and how long is a piece of strong?

Policy makers and other interests are referring to the situation as "an emergency" and this notion is baked into government policy in the Western countries, although not most of the others. The idea of an emergency calls for extreme and urgent action and this is what we are seeing with massive impacts on out energy security, energy prices, the cost of fuel, and in numerous other ways. This is an abuse of the precautionary principle.

 

[berty3000]

Berty, please do some research before posting. Your “evidence” comes from a scientist funded by the fossil fuel industry.

Do you have any sources not from fossil fuel interests?



You say: “Expert climatologist”

A more truthful description is: “ president of Climate Forecast Applications Network, a consulting company, whose clients include oil and gas”

Judith Curry background:

1) works for: Climate Forecast Applications Network’s clients included petroleum companies, electric utilities, and natural gas energy traders, and that she charged $400 an hour for her consulting services.

2) Judith Curry has become well-known since the mid-2000s for taking public stands that align with debunked climate change denial arguments

3) Judith Curry blogged that she agreed with then-President-elect Donald Trump’s description of climate change as a “hoax,”

4) Judith Curry used to work at Georgia tech during which time Chevron an oil company gave the university $12 million funding

https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release-big-oil-bankrolls-research-bias-at-georgia-institute-of-technology/

Big Oil Bankrolls Research Bias at Georgia Institute of Technology​

Report Finds Big Oil Grants to Major Universities May Compromise Integrity of Scientific Research

Judith Curry

Judith Curry Credentials Background Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and professor emerita of the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she chaired the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences from 2002–2014. She is the president of Climate Forecast Applications Network, a...

www.desmog.com

Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues

Why can't we have a civil conversation about climate?

www.scientificamerican.com

Judith Curry - SourceWatch

www.sourcewatch.org

Notch maligns yet another highly qualified climate scientist along with some nutters online.

Even if true, it makes absolutely no difference if an oil company has provided funding for scientists who they agree with. Any more than it matters if nuclear or renewable companies do the same, which they do. Receiving funding doesn't automatically turn people into liars. Their honesty or credibility will be proven through their methods and how rigorous they are. Science does require funding and most if not all of the government funding is directed towards those who will support the emergency and net zero policies.

The way to disprove Curry's views isn't to provide links to a blog and a magazine calling her a "heretic" but to explain why the hypothesis and methods are flawed. And it definitely isn't to accuse them of being liars or otherwise attack their characters without evidence - you can get into trouble for that and for good reason.

 

[IT Minion]

Their honesty or credibility will be proven through their methods and how rigorous they are.

Zero published papers since her resignation from university to focus on her new company.

Yeah, proven.

 

[berty3000]

CBA to go back.

However, you have access to these links? So why not post them up please?

They are on the thread, why should I go back and get them for you? Lazy ****. You are as bad as Notch.

 

[berty3000]

You say: “Expert climatologist”

A more truthful description is: “ president of Climate Forecast Applications Network, a consulting company, whose clients include oil and gas”

More inaccuracies.

Notch goes mad because somebody way more qualified than him holds different opinions... Notch is more like the one on the left...

 

[berty3000]

Zero published papers since her resignation from university to focus on her new company.

Yeah, proven.

I posted a link to her website concerning a controversy regarding IPCC data and how/why they are presenting it that way. That is the thing to discuss here and you are invited to think about it for yourself and comment. Not go off digging for dirt on the person reporting it using whatever sordid website you keep frequenting. That is what stupid people do.

As they say:

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."