• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Los Angeles keeps setting record summer temperatures... but no global warming!

Media_Truth said:
Tobacco and Climate Change parallels are very valid.
Click to expand...
Not by a long ways.

Media_Truth said:
Scientific research on the harmful effects of tobacco began to emerge, and of course the cigarette companies didn't like this. Once the scientific data became so conclusive and non-argumentative, everybody realized that smoking was harmful. Even then, however, the tobacco companies continued their highly-financed misleading campaigns. Exactly the same with climate change. I can see a future where townships that are severely impacted by climate change file lawsuits against the Heartland Institute, Exxon, Donor's Trust and others.
Click to expand...
The opposite is true with the climate sciences. The more that is learned, the more we see it isn't the threat it is said to be.
 
Media_Truth said:
Tobacco and Climate Change parallels are very valid. Scientific research on the harmful effects of tobacco began to emerge, and of course the cigarette companies didn't like this. Once the scientific data became so conclusive and non-argumentative, everybody realized that smoking was harmful. Even then, however, the tobacco companies continued their highly-financed misleading campaigns. Exactly the same with climate change. I can see a future where townships that are severely impacted by climate change file lawsuits against the Heartland Institute, Exxon, Donor's Trust and others.
Click to expand...

I read something on an Exxon site that suggested they accepted the theory of human caused climate change and how the needed to respond. I believe that some oil companies accept the science and are taking steps to diversify, even as others in the industry are funding groups that challenge the science.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Not by a long ways.


The opposite is true with the climate sciences. The more that is learned, the more we see it isn't the threat it is said to be.
Click to expand...

If so, that’s wonderful news. Given that, what policies would you suggest? Burn more coal? Get rid of mileage standards? Ignore wind and solar? In what direction should we move based on your discovery?

How do skeptics explain how a *portion* of the GOP appears to be the only conservative party in the world that objects to the science? Why could I find no articles in Science or Scientific American that question the generally accepted theories? Can you refer me to peer reviewed articles that support your contention that the danger has lessened? Should China be encouraged to build more coal fired plants and abandon their investment in alternatives?

The ball is in your court.
 
Nickyjo said:
If so, that’s wonderful news. Given that, what policies would you suggest? Burn more coal? Get rid of mileage standards? Ignore wind and solar? In what direction should we move based on your discovery?
Click to expand...
OMG... What compels you to go to extremes?

You pull such nonsense and expect an answer?

Nickyjo said:
How do skeptics explain how a *portion* of the GOP appears to be the only conservative party in the world that objects to the science? Why could I find no articles in Science or Scientific American that question the generally accepted theories? Can you refer me to peer reviewed articles that support your contention that the danger has lessened? Should China be encouraged to build more coal fired plants and abandon their investment in alternatives?

The ball is in your court.
Click to expand...
The "general theories" are not in question. It is the quantitative part assigned to the variables which are obviously in error.

There are other studies related to CO2 that gives lower sensitivities. the science is not settled!
 
Lord of Planar said:
OMG... What compels you to go to extremes?

You pull such nonsense and expect an answer?


The "general theories" are not in question. It is the quantitative part assigned to the variables which are obviously in error.

There are other studies related to CO2 that gives lower sensitivities. the science is not settled!
Click to expand...

Question evasion alert! Look at all those Peer Reviewed studies. Oh My!
 
Media_Truth said:
Question evasion alert! Look at all those Peer Reviewed studies. Oh My!
Click to expand...

Oh, please do.

Find me where they decided the sensitivity of CO2, with solid methodology.

Hint... it doesn't exist. they speculated at the Co2 sensitivity. They based it on beliefs of the variables, rather than hard proof.

I have followed and read the studies. have you? Of course you haven't. You are always appealing to the authority of the political pundits.
 
Nickyjo said:
I read something on an Exxon site that suggested they accepted the theory of human caused climate change and how the needed to respond. I believe that some oil companies accept the science and are taking steps to diversify, even as others in the industry are funding groups that challenge the science.
Click to expand...

Exxon has publicly taken the position that AGW is serious, and a future threat to mankind, however their advertorials express a different outlook, and have undermined efforts to combat AGW.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/exxon-global-warming-science-study.html

They found that Exxon’s climate change studies, published from 1977 to 2014, were in line with the scientific thinking of the time. Some 80 percent of the company’s research and internal communications acknowledged that climate change was real and was caused by humans.

But 80 percent of Exxon’s statements to the broader public, which reached a much larger audience, expressed doubt about climate change.

Here is the source study for the New York Times article:

Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977?2014) - IOPscience

In contrast, ExxonMobil advertorials overwhelmingly take the position of doubt (e.g. peer-reviewed publications versus advertorials: p = 0.045, FET). Of the 58% (21/36) of advertorials that take a position, 62% (13/21) express 'Doubt' (figure 2(b)). Most of the remainder express a mixed position (5/21 = 24%). Often, they express the opinion that concern over climate impacts is alarmist, such as a 1995 advertorial entitled 'The sky is not falling,' which asserted, 'The environment recovers well from both natural and man-made disasters' [112] (table 4).
....
However, on the question of whether ExxonMobil misled non-scientific audiences about climate science, our analysis supports the conclusion that it did. This conclusion is based on three factors: discrepancies in AGW communications between document categories; imbalance in impact of different document categories; and factual mispresentations in some advertorials.
....
CONCLUSION
Available documents show a discrepancy between what ExxonMobil's scientists and executives discussed about climate change privately and in academic circles and what it presented to the general public. The company's peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and internal communications consistently tracked evolving climate science: broadly acknowledging that AGW is real, human-caused, serious, and solvable, while identifying reasonable uncertainties that most climate scientists readily acknowledged at that time. In contrast, ExxonMobil's advertorials in the NYT overwhelmingly emphasized only the uncertainties, promoting a narrative inconsistent with the views of most climate scientists, including ExxonMobil's own. This is characteristic of what Freudenberg et al term the Scientific Certainty Argumentation Method (SCAM)—a tactic for undermining public understanding of scientific knowledge [57, 58]. Likewise, the company's peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and internal documents acknowledge the risks of stranded assets, whereas their advertorials do not. In light of these findings, we judge that ExxonMobil's AGW communications were misleading; we are not in a position to judge whether they violated any laws.
 
Nickyjo said:
I read something on an Exxon site that suggested they accepted the theory of human caused climate change and how the needed to respond. I believe that some oil companies accept the science and are taking steps to diversify, even as others in the industry are funding groups that challenge the science.
Click to expand...
We call companies like Exxon and Shell, oil companies, but the name is not really accurate, they are energy companies.
They do not sell oil, but rather finished fuel products.
Their manufacturing business, (refineries)turn the raw material oil, into fuels (energy)for the transport market.
For their first century and a half, the feedstock for their raw material has come from the ground,
in the form of organic oil.
I contend that the oil companies know, that the cheap easy oil has already been found and extracted.
Fracking is a symptom of fields not producing like they used to.
In the future oil will be more expensive, and difficult to extract.
The demand for fuel products is still viable and for things like aircraft and shipping, will be for decades.
I think the path forward is for the refineries to make their own feedstock from atmospheric CO2, Water, and wholesale electricity.
Fuel - Sunfire
It is difficult for most people to think of gasoline or diesel as environmental fuels,
but they can be made carbon neutral, as long as the source of the energy is carbon free.
 
Lord of Planar said:
OMG... What compels you to go to extremes?

You pull such nonsense and expect an answer?


The "general theories" are not in question. It is the quantitative part assigned to the variables which are obviously in error.

There are other studies related to CO2 that gives lower sensitivities. the science is not settled!
Click to expand...

Fair enough. So you mean we should go a bit slower based on new info? I assume that if there are more studies that show things aren't as bad, we will adjust. Then again, when communism fell, I thought we might need adjust. But we found new bogeymen.
 
Nickyjo said:
Fair enough. So you mean we should go a bit slower based on new info? I assume that if there are more studies that show things aren't as bad, we will adjust.
Click to expand...
Not slower on new information, but to actually understand what the sciences say about it.

Very few papers say what the pundits claim they say. We have liars all over the place.

Nickyjo said:
Then again, when communism fell, I thought we might need adjust. But we found new bogeymen.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that is a sad thing.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Not slower on new information, but to actually understand what the sciences say about it.

Very few papers say what the pundits claim they say. We have liars all over the place.



Yes, and that is a sad thing.
Click to expand...

So why aren’t the people who have it right publish their stuff, testify in Congress and end all this foolishness. Then of course, we have to convince all the scientists in other countries.
 
Nickyjo said:
So why aren’t the people who have it right publish their stuff, testify in Congress and end all this foolishness. Then of course, we have to convince all the scientists in other countries.
Click to expand...

There are several reasons, including those who probably have it closer to the facts, still dn't have certainty.

there is no way to test the models for the large size of the earth system. It really isn't well understood. What is easily recognized is the the alarmists predictions are wrong, and that warming is less than said from greenhouse gasses.
 
Nickyjo said:
So why aren’t the people who have it right publish their stuff, testify in Congress and end all this foolishness. Then of course, we have to convince all the scientists in other countries.
Click to expand...
They have and continue to do so.
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf
Back in 2001, MIT Professor Dr. Richard Lindzen, and in 2017 Georgia Tech Professor Dr. Judith Curry.
https://science.house.gov/sites/rep...uments/HHRG-115-SY-WState-JCurry-20170329.pdf
 
longview said:
They have and continue to do so.
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf
Back in 2001, MIT Professor Dr. Richard Lindzen, and in 2017 Georgia Tech Professor Dr. Judith Curry.
https://science.house.gov/sites/rep...uments/HHRG-115-SY-WState-JCurry-20170329.pdf
Click to expand...

Good for them. Has their work been peer reviewed, tho I note one of the articles disparages peer reviews in this area. Let the best scientists win.

But I still don’t see how we can do wrong by curbing emissions and taking the other steps suggested by scientists. It’s sad that this has become so political. I am naturally suspicious of conservative skeptics because in general they oppose restrictions on business and assume that their position is influenced by their ideology, much as business spread doubt about smoking, acid rain, smog, etc. True, we on the left are easily prone to use government laws and regs to resolve problems, but I don’t see the kind of funding from business interests to promote the theory as there appears to be to debunk it.

Seems to me that with conservatives in control of the US govt, they could put together a panel to conduct a study of the issue. If it’s balanced, the democrats probably might still squawk but couldn’t prevent it from working. Til then I think McCain’s comment I entioned somewhere makes sense. If human caused climate change is real, we need to do something. If not, much of what we are asked to do is probably good for other reasons.
 
Nickyjo said:
Good for them. Has their work been peer reviewed, tho I note one of the articles disparages peer reviews in this area. Let the best scientists win.

But I still don’t see how we can do wrong by curbing emissions and taking the other steps suggested by scientists. It’s sad that this has become so political. I am naturally suspicious of conservative skeptics because in general they oppose restrictions on business and assume that their position is influenced by their ideology, much as business spread doubt about smoking, acid rain, smog, etc. True, we on the left are easily prone to use government laws and regs to resolve problems, but I don’t see the kind of funding from business interests to promote the theory as there appears to be to debunk it.

Seems to me that with conservatives in control of the US govt, they could put together a panel to conduct a study of the issue. If it’s balanced, the democrats probably might still squawk but couldn’t prevent it from working. Til then I think McCain’s comment I entioned somewhere makes sense. If human caused climate change is real, we need to do something. If not, much of what we are asked to do is probably good for other reasons.
Click to expand...

Sorry to butt in, but there are some misconceptions here.
1. Most skeptical scientists are not notably conservative in their politics. Among the Europeans and Israelis most seem to be Social Democrats.
2. Resources devoted to fake problems are not available to address real problems, thus needlessly consigning billions of people to poverty and deprivation. Bjorn Lomborg has been eloquent on this point.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry to butt in, but there are some misconceptions here.
1. Most skeptical scientists are not notably conservative in their politics. Among the Europeans and Israelis most seem to be Social Democrats.
2. Resources devoted to fake problems are not available to address real problems, thus needlessly consigning billions of people to poverty and deprivation. Bjorn Lomborg has been eloquent on this point.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was talking about skeptical conservative politicians who dislike regulations, not scientists. As to your second point, McCain (and humbly, I) was referring to attempts to curb the emissions from coal, better mileage standards, and other practices that are advisable whether or not human action influences the climate negatively.
 
Nickyjo said:
Sorry, I was talking about skeptical conservative politicians who dislike regulations, not scientists. As to your second point, McCain (and humbly, I) was referring to attempts to curb the emissions from coal, better mileage standards, and other practices that are advisable whether or not human action influences the climate negatively.
Click to expand...

Coal is a fair point. If CO2 isn't central to climate then mileage standards don't matter,
 
Jack Hays said:
Coal is a fair point. If CO2 isn't central to climate then mileage standards don't matter,
Click to expand...

What about smog, dependence on oil, inevitable spills, the particularly dirty oil we appear to be getting from Canada through the pipeline, etc.? And then there is fracking and it’s attendant problems. Not to say that solar and wind don’t have downsides, but the restrictions on fossil fuels seemed to have made things better in many ways.
 
Nickyjo said:
What about smog, dependence on oil, inevitable spills, the particularly dirty oil we appear to be getting from Canada through the pipeline, etc.? And then there is fracking and it’s attendant problems. Not to say that solar and wind don’t have downsides, but the restrictions on fossil fuels seemed to have made things better in many ways.
Click to expand...

None of that is as serious as the hype. Fossil fuels are the basis for a decent life for billions.
 
Jack Hays said:
None of that is as serious as the hype. Fossil fuels are the basis for a decent life for billions.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Which is why developing nations get a pass on some restrictions. But my point was to take the long view of how we have dealt with this stuff (tobacco, smog, acid rain, ozone, etc.) over the past three generations: LA's air is appreciably cleaner, acid rain has lessened, etc. There has been both hype and denial surrounding each problem, but we have generally moved in the right direction, since the (democratic!) mayor of Denver suggested in the 1970s that its black cloud of smog in winter might have "blown in from Seattle". If human caused warming is not as serious or more serious, in time we will adjust. Poorer nations don't have the slack we have, as noted, but we have zig-zaged in generally a progressive direction, liberals pushing and conservatives providing brakes as necessary. We'll be fine, so long as we don't hear the sky is falling on the left and see the right bringing snowballs into Congress.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Not by a long ways.


The opposite is true with the climate sciences. The more that is learned, the more we see it isn't the threat it is said to be.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why 2015-2017 are the three warmest years on record. But you would NOT get paid if you said that.
 
Media_Truth said:
Yeah, that's why 2015-2017 are the three warmest years on record. But you would NOT get paid if you said that.
Click to expand...

Can you separate natural and man-made causes?

And of the man made cause, can you just consider that the variables are more or less effect than claimed by the pundit?

What if CO2 warms has enough negative feedback as not to be as much of a forcing agent as claimed?

Aerosols... What if these are more potent than you believe? Do you realize that an invisible layer of soot can be enough to double the absorption of heat by the ice?

What if the effects cause by cities are simply skewing the thermometer readings significantly?

There is no way that any reputable scientist who understood the variables would toe the line by the IPCC et. al. None of it is in any finality in papers. The pundits have to cherry pick from papers and misconstrue the papers for their agenda. Statistics in science do not make fact!
 
Nickyjo said:
Good for them. Has their work been peer reviewed, tho I note one of the articles disparages peer reviews in this area. Let the best scientists win.

But I still don’t see how we can do wrong by curbing emissions and taking the other steps suggested by scientists. It’s sad that this has become so political. I am naturally suspicious of conservative skeptics because in general they oppose restrictions on business and assume that their position is influenced by their ideology, much as business spread doubt about smoking, acid rain, smog, etc. True, we on the left are easily prone to use government laws and regs to resolve problems, but I don’t see the kind of funding from business interests to promote the theory as there appears to be to debunk it.

Seems to me that with conservatives in control of the US govt, they could put together a panel to conduct a study of the issue. If it’s balanced, the democrats probably might still squawk but couldn’t prevent it from working. Til then I think McCain’s comment I entioned somewhere makes sense. If human caused climate change is real, we need to do something. If not, much of what we are asked to do is probably good for other reasons.
Click to expand...

You stated,"So why aren’t the people who have it right publish their stuff, testify in Congress and end all this foolishness. "
I simply pointed out that published Scientist have presented their findings to congress, and both have many peer reviewed publications.
It is not a case of curbing emissions, but if we have a replacement energy source for the emissions that are curbed.
Curbing emissions through efficiency is a good idea.
There is a move afoot to do a red team blue team approach, and it is being resisted by the AGW proponents.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/08/...ting-climate-science-should-not-be-cage-match
 
Here's my post from December 6th 2017:

Steve Case said:
Here's a link to NOAA's Climate at a Glance:
Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
the selections are:

Parameter: Maximum Temperature
Time Scale: 6- Month
Month: October
Start Year: 1895
End Year 2017
State.../ California
...City: Los Angeles

You don't need a trend line to see that summer time temperatures in the past have been warmer.
Click to expand...

If you follow that link today here's what it looks like:

image.png


No, NOAA didn't change the temperature that much, they just cut off the record prior to 1945.
So what reason did they do that other than they don't want people to see it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom