Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

The foremost expert on the co2 molecule on the planet and another scientist to be cancelled, obviously collecting Megabucks from big oil... one may find the study mentioned in my previous post below:

Study suggests no more CO2 warming

Precision research by physicists William Happer and William van Wijngaarden has determined that the present levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor are almost completely saturated. In …

wattsupwiththat.com

 

[Joules MM1]

498 pages in this thread
the last post dated October 30 2020

when popularity clouds urgency

Canada broke its temperature record for a third straight day on Tuesday - 49.6C (121.3F) in Lytton, British Columbia.

Canada weather: Dozens dead as heatwave shatters records

The country has recorded its highest ever temperature - 49.6C (121.3F) - for the third day in a row.

www.bbc.com

Heat Wave Sets Records in US Pacific Northwest

Temperatures are forecast to remain significantly above normal for days

www.voanews.com

 

[basilio]

Don't worry Joules. "The Sun rises in the East and sets in the West." "Guns don't kill, people kill."

Climate Change denial in all its forms is still alive and well.
There have been a number of original CC skeptics who over time and with more evidence recognised the reality of what is happening. Probably the most notable one was Richard Muller. I think it's worth highlighting his contribution the debate.

After previous skeptics Richard Muller painstakingly reviewed all the evidence around global warming and the human impact and came up with his analysis he was duly crucified by the cliamte denier community

OUR HISTORY​

Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of climate skeptics. They organized a group of scientists to reanalyze the Earth’s surface temperature record, and published their initial findings in 2012. Berkeley Earth became an independent non-profit 501(c)(3) in August 2013.

From 2010-2012, Berkeley Earth systematically addressed the five major concerns that global warming skeptics had identified, and did so in a systematic and objective manner. The first four were potential biases from data selection, data adjustment, poor station quality, and the urban heat island effect. Our analysis showed that these issues did not unduly bias the record. The fifth concern related to the over reliance on large and complex global climate models by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the attribution of the recent temperature increase to anthropogenic forces. We obtained a long and accurate record, spanning 250 years and showed that it could be well-fit with a simple model that included a volcanic term and, as an anthropogenic proxy, CO2 concentration. We concluded that the record could be reproduced by just these two contributions, and that inclusion of direct variations in solar intensity did not contribute to the fit.

We released our analysis, programs and established an open database with all the raw data used in our studies. We believe that now it is our responsibility to communicate our findings, in particular with prominent stakeholders familiar with the reasons for global warming skepticism that Berkeley Earth addressed.

We have several major objectives for our continuing work. We plan further scientific investigations on the nature of climate change, a major education and communications program to strengthen the scientific consensus on global warming, and work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the places that will be the worst emitters over the next 30 years. One key element of this latter program will be to try to forge a new coalition between industry and environmental groups for the use of cleanly-produced natural gas as a bridging fuel to slow global warming over the next few decades – with a particular focus on China.

About Berkeley Earth - Berkeley Earth

Berkeley Earth is an independent U.S. non-profit organization focused on environmental data science. OUR MISSION AND PURPOSE Global warming is the defining environmental challenge of our time. The need for quality, unbiased scientific information about global warming could not be more urgent...

berkeleyearth.org

 

[basilio]

Liked this analysis of the evidence around CO2 as a critical driver of our heating planet. The writer started doing as response to one of the typical responses to an earlier story he produced that noted how global heating was rapidly melting perma frost

As always, I expected skeptical pushback — but nothing as extreme as this:

As CO2 has had no noticeable effect on climate in 600 million years, until 15- 20 years ago, when carbon tax was invented, any alleged climatic effects can be ignored.

Anyway well worth a read.

Here’s What Real Science Says About the Role of CO2 as Earth’s Preeminent Climatic Thermostat

Our relatively thin atmospheric cocoon that protects us from meteor impacts and radiation also makes for a habitable climate, thanks to the greenhouse gases it contains — carbon dioxide first and foremost.

www.discovermagazine.com

 

[wayneL]

So, bas et al would consider me a climate change denier.

Our power bill is about $160 per quarter (no solar).
We only put the bin out about once every three weeks and recycle out once every two months.

We buy Australian where we can, especially if packaging is at a minimum.

We do almost everything by hand, almost no gadgets or machines, we don't use a dryer, all washing gets hung out.

Our vehicle choices are, to our best knowledge, to have the least impact on the planet overall, but also the least impact on humanity (slave labour and all that sort of thing)

Our food choices also reflect that philosophy... Good health outcomes, but also as far as we can ascertain, the least environmental damage to the planet

Etc

We try to encourage our friends and circle influence to be the same.

When I meet my maker I will be happy to detail how I was a climate change denier.

I wonder if the alarmists can be so proud of their lifestyle?

 

[rederob]

498 pages in this thread
the last post dated October 30 2020

when popularity clouds urgency

It has been interesting to look at some of parallels with covid-19 and the pseudoscience spawned by many, not to mention to moronic antivaxxers, and the irresponsible folk who think their personal freedoms are being destroyed.
Their style is usually anecdote and pseudoscience when not repeating debunked claims. Elsewhere in one of ASF's threads @bellenuit went to great lengths to correct misunderstandings about data which often occurs when people don't understand the full context of an issue.

Then we have the likes of @wayneL above who spend a lot of time avoiding accepted science when they are not otherwise using pseudoscience or drawing from climate science deniers to post in this thread. No doubt @wayneL has a very low carbon footprint, which is commendable, but he also swims in hypocrisy:

If we debate hypotheses, lets not use emotive, historically emotion charged terms suxh as denier.

As we note from post #9495 both alarmist and denier are regularly used.
In scientific debate, however, these terms are not being used.
In lay discussion it does sound reasonable that a person who consistently denies the veracity of science is called a climate science denier. On the other hand, the denialist camp often uses exaggerated claims about climate which out of context might seem alarming.
Should we be alarmed about our future climate?
Not really.
For all practical purposes anthropogenic climate change has moved from hypothesis to theory. If there was a reasonable counter to it then, given the tens of millions of dollars poured into organisations wanting to prove it wasn't the case, you would think that over the past 3 decades it would have materialised!
We should not be alarmed because climate science projections are trending as expected.
What we should be is disappointed.
Disappointed that politics has interfered with the adoption of policies and practices that should be in place to mitigate an extremely undesirable climate future.

 

[wayneL]

It has been interesting to look at some of parallels with covid-19 and the pseudoscience spawned by many, not to mention to moronic antivaxxers, and the irresponsible folk who think their personal freedoms are being destroyed.
Their style is usually anecdote and pseudoscience when not repeating debunked claims. Elsewhere in one of ASF's threads @bellenuit went to great lengths to correct misunderstandings about data which often occurs when people don't understand the full context of an issue.

Then we have the likes of @wayneL above who spend a lot of time avoiding accepted science when they are not otherwise using pseudoscience or drawing from climate science deniers to post in this thread. No doubt @wayneL has a very low carbon footprint, which is commendable, but he also swims in hypocrisy:

As we note from post #9495 both alarmist and denier are regularly used.
In scientific debate, however, these terms are not being used.
In lay discussion it does sound reasonable that a person who consistently denies the veracity of science is called a climate science denier. On the other hand, the denialist camp often uses exaggerated claims about climate which out of context might seem alarming.
Should we be alarmed about our future climate?
Not really.
For all practical purposes anthropogenic climate change has moved from hypothesis to theory. If there was a reasonable counter to it then, given the tens of millions of dollars poured into organisations wanting to prove it wasn't the case, you would think that over the past 3 decades it would have materialised!
We should not be alarmed because climate science projections are trending as expected.
What we should be is disappointed.
Disappointed that politics has interfered with the adoption of policies and practices that should be in place to mitigate an extremely undesirable climate future.

That's the nicest ad hominem insult I've ever got from you Robee...

Thanks bro

BTW... ***** You

 

[Humid]

So, bas et al would consider me a climate change denier.

Our power bill is about $160 per quarter (no solar).
We only put the bin out about once every three weeks and recycle out once every two months.

We buy Australian where we can, especially if packaging is at a minimum.

We do almost everything by hand, almost no gadgets or machines, we don't use a dryer, all washing gets hung out.

Our vehicle choices are, to our best knowledge, to have the least impact on the planet overall, but also the least impact on humanity (slave labour and all that sort of thing)

Our food choices also reflect that philosophy... Good health outcomes, but also as far as we can ascertain, the least environmental damage to the planet

Etc

We try to encourage our friends and circle influence to be the same.

When I meet my maker I will be happy to detail how I was a climate change denier.

I wonder if the alarmists can be so proud of their lifestyle?

Geez your're in for a shock here.....excuse the pun
$1/day supply charge here anyway did you live in a cave ,$160 a quarter is amazing!

 

[wayneL]

Geez your're in for a shock here.....excuse the pun
$1/day supply charge here anyway did you live in a cave ,$160 a quarter is amazing!

Lot of 12v lighting and using the wood BBQ on the verandah.... And fast showers ?

 

[Humid]

Lot of 12v lighting and using the wood BBQ on the verandah.... And fast showers ?

I reckon the daughters hairdryer would be costing me that
Mrs has had the wood fire going all day and she's outside on the phone.....I just pay the bills and shutup

 

[wayneL]

I reckon the daughters hairdryer would be costing me that
Mrs has had the wood fire going all day and she's outside on the phone.....I just pay the bills and shutup

We have the double edged sword of not having daughters (or sons).

No hairdryer bills, but miss out on that delight

 

[basilio]

It is interesting to do a little duck diving into the murky waters of CC denial.

There is absolutely no doubt that dense, complex , creative paper by Happer and Windjaarden that announced the "possible peaking" (wow!!) of global heating due to rises in CO2 has been widely flogged in the fours corners of denial.

As well it should of course. In fact if it was true they should get a dozen Nobel Prizes each for such a ground breaking discovery. But hey that isn't going to happen is it ? And for exactly the same reason no Physics Journal with any sort of Peer Review process would touch it with a barge pole.

I did find a very interesting story however of a public debate a few years back on the topic of how wonderful our earth would be with CO2 levels at 2000 plus PPM (Currently 415 plus and burning down the house..) The debate and almost all the material reflected the views of William Happer.

It's long story but it is interesting to see just how the ol guy tortures tables, cherry picks research to a pip and ignores absolutely everything he possibly can that doesn't fit his pre paid story. And of course he wraps it up in his special tasty sauce of dense, complex, creative physics.

Debating Climate Science: Uncovering the Truth Behind William Happer and the “More CO2 is Better” Claim ​

June 29, 2019 / JeffreyBennett / Climate/Global Warming Science, Op/Ed Pieces


Please also see this post as published on Medium.
If you follow news about climate science and politics, you’ve probably heard of William Happer, who is one of the forces behind the Trump Administrations plans to go forward with a panel to “investigate” whether global warming really poses the threats claimed by most scientists; he may also lead the proposed panel. Happer’s views are perhaps best summarized by this quote from an op-ed that he co-authored:¹

“Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.” — William Happer, Wall Street Journal, 8 May 2013

You might wonder where a view like this comes from, and as it turns out, I recently had the opportunity to gain some insight into the truth behind the “more CO2 is better” claim. This came about because I engaged in a formal debate (hosted by The Soho Forum in New York City) against a guy by the name of Craig Idso, who shares Happer’s views. Indeed, in researching both individuals, I found virtually no daylight between any of their claims. Moreover, it appears likely that two Idso-led groups — the “NIPCC” and the “Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change” (more on those organizations below) — provide the source material behind many or most of Happer’s statements.

Given the potential prominence of the proposed Happer-led panel, I’ve decided to share my insights from the debate in this post. I hope that people of all political persuasions will find these insights enlightening.

Debating Climate Science: Uncovering the Truth Behind William Happer and the “More CO2 is Better” Claim - Jeffrey Bennett

Please also see this post as published on Medium. If you follow news about climate science and politics, you’ve probably heard of William Happer, who is one of the forces behind the Trump Administrations plans to go forward with a panel to “investigate” whether global warming really poses the...

www.jeffreybennett.com

 

[wayneL]

It is interesting to do a little duck diving into the murky waters of CC denial.

There is absolutely no doubt that dense, complex , creative paper by Happer and Windjaarden that announced the "possible peaking" (wow!!) of global heating due to rises in CO2 has been widely flogged in the fours corners of denial.

As well it should of course. In fact if it was true they should get a dozen Nobel Prizes each for such a ground breaking discovery. But hey that isn't going to happen is it ? And for exactly the same reason no Physics Journal with any sort of Peer Review process would touch it with a barge pole.

I did find a very interesting story however of a public debate a few years back on the topic of how wonderful our earth would be with CO2 levels at 2000 plus PPM (Currently 415 plus and burning down the house..) The debate and almost all the material reflected the views of William Happer.

It's long story but it is interesting to see just how the ol guy tortures tables, cherry picks research to a pip and ignores absolutely everything he possibly can that doesn't fit his pre paid story. And of course he wraps it up in his special tasty sauce of dense, complex, creative physics.

Debating Climate Science: Uncovering the Truth Behind William Happer and the “More CO2 is Better” Claim ​

June 29, 2019 / JeffreyBennett / Climate/Global Warming Science, Op/Ed Pieces


Please also see this post as published on Medium.
If you follow news about climate science and politics, you’ve probably heard of William Happer, who is one of the forces behind the Trump Administrations plans to go forward with a panel to “investigate” whether global warming really poses the threats claimed by most scientists; he may also lead the proposed panel. Happer’s views are perhaps best summarized by this quote from an op-ed that he co-authored:¹

“Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.” — William Happer, Wall Street Journal, 8 May 2013

You might wonder where a view like this comes from, and as it turns out, I recently had the opportunity to gain some insight into the truth behind the “more CO2 is better” claim. This came about because I engaged in a formal debate (hosted by The Soho Forum in New York City) against a guy by the name of Craig Idso, who shares Happer’s views. Indeed, in researching both individuals, I found virtually no daylight between any of their claims. Moreover, it appears likely that two Idso-led groups — the “NIPCC” and the “Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change” (more on those organizations below) — provide the source material behind many or most of Happer’s statements.

Given the potential prominence of the proposed Happer-led panel, I’ve decided to share my insights from the debate in this post. I hope that people of all political persuasions will find these insights enlightening.

Debating Climate Science: Uncovering the Truth Behind William Happer and the “More CO2 is Better” Claim - Jeffrey Bennett

Please also see this post as published on Medium. If you follow news about climate science and politics, you’ve probably heard of William Happer, who is one of the forces behind the Trump Administrations plans to go forward with a panel to “investigate” whether global warming really poses the...

www.jeffreybennett.com

I reckon Happer might have an inkling or two about the co2 molecule.

Just a thought.

 

[rederob]

It is interesting to do a little duck diving into the murky waters of CC denial.

There is absolutely no doubt that dense, complex , creative paper by Happer and Windjaarden that announced the "possible peaking" (wow!!) of global heating due to rises in CO2 has been widely flogged in the fours corners of denial.

It remains alive and well @basilio.
The narratives created by actual scientists like Happer that deny climate change are mind boggling. They don't get much traction nowadays - except in the world of those welded on to AGW denial such as we can see from @wayneL's post above - because they have little to do with what is actually occurring and have no explanatory powers.
For example, what could be the possible explanation for the sea ice extent chart posted above by @Joules MM1?
I propose excessive use of hairdryers by those living in a @Humid climate .

 

[wayneL]

It remains alive and well @basilio.
The narratives created by actual scientists that deny climate change are mind boggling. They don't get much traction nowadays - except in the world of those welded on to AGW denial - because they have little to do with what is actually occurring and have no explanatory powers.
For example, what could be the possible explanation for the sea ice extent chart posted above by @Joules MM1?
I propose excessive use of hairdryers by those living in a @Humid climate .

The explanation is of course climate change. The debate is causation, especially as it relates to regionality of such.

 

[rederob]

The explanation is of course climate change. The debate is causation, especially as it relates to regionality of such.

Unless there is a compelling hypothesis to counter AGW theory there is no practical debate to be had.
The notion that causation has regionality is nonsensical as AGW can only be derived globally (it's given away by the "G" in AGW).
The climatic effects of AGW will differ regionally due to factors such as changing ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns.

 

[wayneL]

Unless there is a compelling hypothesis to counter AGW theory there is no practical debate to be had.
The notion that causation has regionality is nonsensical as AGW can only be derived globally (it's given away by the "G" in AGW).
The climatic effects of AGW will differ regionally due to factors such as changing ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns.

Roger Pielke Snr disagrees, as do many others

 

[rederob]

Roger Pielke Snr disagrees, as do many others

If they disagree then they should offer an explanation that is more credible.
Consilience overrides pettiness.

 

[wayneL]

If they disagree then they should offer an explanation that is more credible.
Consilience overrides pettiness.

Pielke Snr, et al are petty? Wow rederob.

These people are in fact warmists, but have a more considered view of regionality, globallality(sic) and causation, based on data rather than politics and funding.

 

[rederob]

Pielke Snr, et al are petty? Wow rederob.

These people are in fact warmists, but have a more considered view of regionality, globallality(sic) and causation, based on data rather than politics and funding.

Offer something worth our time rather than your opinions.
If you have science that suggests AGW is flawed then offer it to us.
Your ability to present a case at ASF is not particularly good.