Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
FurriesRock

Climate Change is a Hoax

4,163 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Doug1o29
50 minutes ago, FurriesRock said:

The authors of the NIPCC series have no such conflicts. The series is funded by three private family foundations without any financial interest in the outcome of the global warming debate."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/#ea7438d428eb

Then why don't you cite them instead of Forbes?

Doug

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29

Re:  NIPCC

Craig Idso is a climate scientist.  He has published several articles on the topic, which is the usual definition of "scientist."

His Bachelor's is in Geography.  He has a Masters in Agronomy and a Ph.D. in Geography.  He is a former Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy. 

 

Remember Peabody Energy?

"Oh, Daddy, won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County/

Down by the Green River where Paradise lay?

I'm sorry, my son, but you're too late in asking

Mr. Peabody's coal train has hauled it away."     --John Denver

That Peabody Energy.

 

Idso is also the lead author of a number of articles sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a shill organization paid for by polluting companies.  In an unauthorized release of documents, Idso indicated he received $11,600 a month from Heartland (No conflict of interest?).  He is a member of several professional societies, several of which, I am also a member.

 

S. Fred Singer, one of Idso's co-authors at NIPCC, is a physicist.  His contributions have included an article that says that smoking does not contribute to lung cancer and that the ozone hole is not real.  He co-authored an article with Dennis Avery:  Unstoppable Global Warming:  Every 1500 years.  It concerns itself with the Bond Cycle, a subject that I agree needs more work.  Singer is (or was) a legitimate scientist, a physicist, not a climatologist.

 

Robert M. Carter is (or was) a legitimate scientist.

 

Contrary to the statement above, NIPCC is an arm of the Heartland Institute.

For another view on NIPCC, here is an article by Climate Science and Policy Watch:  http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/

 

Rather than beat our gums about whether this-or-that political organization is/is not a reliable source of information, how about we stick to peer-reviewed articles published in scientific journals?

So what, exactly, are you claiming?

Doug

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

Can the OP explain what human rights are being infringed upon by climate change?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo

Man-made climate change may be overstated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
26 minutes ago, seanjo said:

Man-made climate change may be overstated.

Early on, it was.  Climatologists could see dire threats looming and recognized that if they just continued quietly writing research articles, nothing would get done.  So there was some deliberate exaggeration.  These were picked up by activists and blown all out of reasonable proportion.  And that created the mess we have now.

If both activists and scientists had stuck strictly to the truth, maybe things would have gone better.  And maybe nothing at all would have been done.

At least, much of the world has already converted to clean energy and the US is reluctantly following along.  We missed our chance to be world leaders, to really be great.  But instead of "Make America Great Again," we made MAGA mean "My Attorney Got Arrested."  And that pretty well says it until we clean up our politics.

 

All-in-all, I think we are moving along at a reasonable rate.  Aging technology is being replaced as it wears out.  You can't convert to clean technology until clean technology exists.  And if you convert too soon, a more-efficient (and cleaner) technology will come along and undercut your investment.  This may be happening with wind.  Wind is cheaper than any other form of energy, including gas-fired turbines.  But solar (perovskites) may well be cheaper in five years.  If a lot of people start converting on their own, energy companies, who have invested heavily in wind, may lose their shirts.  Grabbing the first thing off the shelf may not be the smartest approach.

Doug

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aaron2016

Some famous quotes that are relevant to this topic.  Do you agree with them?

 

Carl Sagan (1980)
“Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny.”

Lewis Thomas (1980)
“Science is founded on uncertainty. Each time we learn something new and surprising, the astonishment comes with the realization that we were wrong before.  In truth, whenever we discover a new fact it involves the elimination of old ones.”

Alfred North Whitehead (1919)
"The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanations of complex facts. We are apt to fall into the error of thinking that the facts are simple because simplicity is the goal of our quest. The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be, Seek simplicity and distrust it.”

Galileo (1610)
“In science the opinions of a thousand are not worth as much as one tiny spark of reason in an individual man.”

Ernest Mayre (1982)
“It is curious how often erroneous theories have had a beneficial effect for particular branches of science.”

William Bragg (1957)
"The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them."

Claude Lev-Strauss (1990)
“Nor must we forget that in science there are no final truths.”

 

 

Edited by Aaron2016
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
15 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

Some famous quotes that are relevant to this topic.  Do you agree with them?

 

Carl Sagan (1980)
“Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny.”

Lewis Thomas (1980)
“Science is founded on uncertainty. Each time we learn something new and surprising, the astonishment comes with the realization that we were wrong before.  In truth, whenever we discover a new fact it involves the elimination of old ones.”

Alfred North Whitehead (1919)
"The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanations of complex facts. We are apt to fall into the error of thinking that the facts are simple because simplicity is the goal of our quest. The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be, Seek simplicity and distrust it.”

Galileo (1610)
“In science the opinions of a thousand are not worth as much as one tiny spark of reason in an individual man.”

Ernest Mayre (1982)
“It is curious how often erroneous theories have had a beneficial effect for particular branches of science.”

William Bragg (1957)
"The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them."

Claude Lev-Strauss (1990)
“Nor must we forget that in science there are no final truths.”

 

 

After a time, some things settle down.  We have known of the greenhouse effect for something like 150 years.  Doesn't seem likely that's going to be overturned any time soon.  And the rise in CO2 has been tracked since 1959.  That's history.  We can't go back and change it.  Same with the rise in temps.  That happened.  There's NO doubt about it.

But things get a little foggier when you're looking ahead instead of behind.  We are just now reaching the point with climate models where they are accurate enough to make useful predictions.  The highway department needs to know how much water will be coming down that creek.  We need to be able to tell them.  When is the next flood like September 2013 or Big Thompson going to hit Colorado?  They've had two thousand-year floods in 50 years.  Should they bother rebuilding some of those roads? How about New Bern, North Carolina?  Should they even re-build some parts of town?  Is another storm like Florence going to hit in five, or ten, years?  If you're an insurance company, how much should you charge for insurance?  Should you even offer insurance in high-risk areas?  What is a high-risk area?  This isn't some political debate.  We need these answers.  And climate science is the only way we're going to get them.

Doug

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
11 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Pffft.. that's NOTHING. I've got LEAVES ! :D 

Although I'm already thinking of branching out a bit :) 

What concerns me most is that I incorrectly typed "through" instead of "threw". Must be those co2 levels in the Troposphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
11 hours ago, FurriesRock said:

False, stop putting words in my mouth.

Do you know what a straw man fallacy is?  

 

If Climate Change is a hoax created by scientists, as you claim, there would be no reason to change the way we live, correct?  So how is the part of my post you highlighted, "So you suggest keep going the way we are" putting words in your mouth?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
11 hours ago, FurriesRock said:

So this is what you call doom and gloom? :lol: 

Are you even reading the articles you're linking?  Taking one snapshot of one of your articles,

Meteorologists have developed remarkably effective techniques for predicting global climate changes caused by greenhouse gases. One paper, by Stott and Myles Allen of Oxford University, predicted in 1999, using temperature data from 1946 to 1996, that by 2010 global temperatures would rise by 0.8C from their second world war level. This is precisely what has happened.

Trying to predict and prevent increasing cases of droughts, floods, heatwaves, hurricanes etc.. isn't doom and gloom by mad scientists who are controlled by evil Govts.  It's called awareness.

In actual fact most scientists work for private companies or Universities and most Govts in this world, at least the more powerful, are run by elected politicians, so there is no grand conspiracy to subdue the populace because natural disasters affects everybody. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
11 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

there is no grand conspiracy to subdue the populace 

You've just proved that there is by not being aware of it. And there's no getting away from the logic I employed in making that statement. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
On 9/17/2018 at 7:40 AM, Aaron2016 said:

Just a guess, but is it possible that co2 levels are rising because the Earth is naturally heating which causes the co2 levels to rise without human intervention?  I think the 'experts' may have put the egg before the chicken and mixed up the symptom with the cause.

Under natural conditions, CO2 rise FOLLOWS temperature rise by about 300 years.  Surface temps go up, followed by a rise in ocean temps.  Warm water can hold less CO2 than cold water, so it outgasses CO2 to the atmosphere.  This is what happened at the beginning of the Younger Dryas.

But what we have now is not natural.  Humans - not the ocean - are adding CO2 to the atmosphere.  So the CO2 concentration goes up about the same time that surface temps go up.

Doug 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
32 minutes ago, oldrover said:

You've just proved that there is by not being aware of it. And there's no getting away from the logic I employed in making that statement. 

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
4 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Doug

I'm intrigued, but I don't get it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
On 9/17/2018 at 8:20 AM, FurriesRock said:

I just read this one.  It's not what I would call doom-and-gloom.  I believe Mann actually said those things.  What he said about the effects of climate change are being supported by research.  Climate change is not creating new weather; it is making what would normally have happened worse.  Florence would have hit North Carolina regardless.  But without climate change it wouldn't have hung around so long, thus less rain would fall in any one location.  And the disaster would have been smaller.

BTW:  the slowdown in storm's rate of travel is the result of a slowing of the jet stream, caused by climate change.

Doug

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
3 minutes ago, oldrover said:

I'm intrigued, but I don't get it?

Only two answers:  "yes" and 'no."  The question makes no sense unless you either were or are a wife-beater.  Logic doesn't always work.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
2 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Only two answers:  "yes" and 'no."  The question makes no sense unless you either were or are a wife-beater.  Logic doesn't always work.

Doug

I see.

I think you're part of the conspiracy now. For all I know I might be. It's that insidious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
On 9/15/2018 at 7:56 AM, FurriesRock said:

As it turns out, that very snowfall is explained by climate change.

The Polar Vortex moved to its new winter home over Greenland back in 2007/2008.  That was the climate change in question.  In its new position, it blocks prevailing storms, which divert southward to get around it.  What's southward?  Canada, New England, Great Britain, Europe.

So they were right about climate change, but wrong about which form it would take.

Doug

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
13 minutes ago, oldrover said:

I see.

I think you're part of the conspiracy now. For all I know I might be. It's that insidious. 

 

Edited by Doug1o29
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29

I work from actual data.  Like tree rings and historical records, all of which look backward.  Looking back, it's easy to see and measure climate change.  Oklahoma City's 30-year temperature running average was 59 degrees F. in 1920.  It rose to 61 in 1936, then dropped back to 59 by 1980 and is now back to 61.  That's taken directly from written observations.  I have no need to rely on somebody else's interpretation.  I can make my own.  And my own confirms that climate change has happened.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Climate change isn't a hoax. Spring, summer, fall, winter. Happens every year.:lol:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
7 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Climate change isn't a hoax. Spring, summer, fall, winter. Happens every year.:lol:

Climate is a 30-year average.  Hard to get that in just one season.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
On 17/09/2018 at 9:14 AM, Black Red Devil said:

The south east Missourian telling the world how it really is! :P

Instead, a site supported by NASA and dedicated to Climate Change shows temperature anomalies to be real and proportionally speeding upwards in the last twenty years.

image.png.3c20001c085f74471d7eaf3c69cceace.png

link

Also there is strong belief among the scientific community and the dedicated and specialist organisations who believe that not only Climate Change is real but caused by man.

Now, if you believe that the most intelligent human beings on this planet (Scientists and Academics) are all in cahoots with Govts around the world to subdue the populace, well yeah, pigs fly too.

 

Oooooh.. an incontrovertable graph. Temperatures are rising.. and fast. 

... umm.. since 1880. I wonder what happens if we go further back in time than that ? 

2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg

Hmm.. suddenly it doesn't look QUITE so impressive, does it ? 

Incidentally.. that bit labelled "Medieval Warm Period" ? That led to a food surplus that transformed our society, and heralded the beginning of the Renaissance. 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
6 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Oooooh.. an incontrovertable graph. Temperatures are rising.. and fast. 

... umm.. since 1880. I wonder what happens if we go further back in time than that ? 

2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg

Hmm.. suddenly it doesn't look QUITE so impressive, does it ? 

Did you deliberately cut off the graph in 1936?  We've had 0.75 degrees C warming since then.  If you extended that to 2018, you'd show that we're off the top of the chart.  Your chart is misleading.  Did you know that before you posted it?

Doug

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Professor Buzzkill

Doug, you study trees and plants right?

I heard recently, though it is hard to confirm online, that plants die when CO2 levels drop below 150ppm. Our planet was at less than 180ppm coming out of the last ice age, where plants at altitude died due to lack of CO2. 

 

In your opinion, what is the ideal level of CO2 in the atmosphere, considering we are going through a "greening" of the earth atm that is unprecedented?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.