It's Time to Confront Climate Extremism

[Jack Hays]

So give me some quotes from any textbook or scientific organization which are not "extremist".

Virtually none are. They are conventional AGW pronouncements (Group "B" in the OP) with, usually, at least a nod in the direction of uncertainty.

 

[longview]

Not really. If you have a "science background", you will know that scientists realize how technically complex each field is, and tend to respect what their colleagues in other fields say about their own field. A cardiologist will defer to Having a "science background" does not qualify you to question the unanimous consensus of physicists, chemists, biologists, physicians, and public health specialists specializing in climate change from all around the world. Get a degree and several years of work experience in the field, you may be taken more seriously.

If they do not get the basics correct, what should we conclude about the details?

 

[ataraxia]

If they do not get the basics correct, what should we conclude about the details?

Who are you to judge the basics? This is like someone looking out from the rooftop at their house, seeing that the earth is flat, and concluding that everything else scientists say about the earth must be wrong too because they can’t even get the basics right.

 

[ataraxia]

Virtually none are. They are conventional AGW pronouncements (Group "B" in the OP) with, usually, at least a nod in the direction of uncertainty.

There is a knot in the direction of uncertainty in all science.

Extremism by definition means something outside of the mainstream, a fringe group. You cannot dismiss the unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet as fringe.

 

[Jack Hays]

There is a knot in the direction of uncertainty in all science.

Extremism by definition means something outside of the mainstream, a fringe group. You cannot dismiss the unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet as fringe.

I am not dismissing anything. The pronouncements of "every single scientific organization" are routinely exceeded by the sensationalist claims of climate extremists. This is why, for example, Chevron's successful defense against an extremist lawsuit was based on IPCC assessments. The extremist claims that dominated 2019 headlines are in fact well beyond the conclusions of climate research.

 

[longview]

Who are you to judge the basics? This is like someone looking out from the rooftop at their house, and seeing that the earth is flat, and concluding that everything scientists say about the earth must be wrong too.

I am not, I cited NASA's GISS for the data.
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect
The logic is simple, all the past doubling s of CO2 from ~ 1ppm to 280 ppm, have had a fully equalized
warming of roughly .825°C per doubling step, why should we expect the current doubling step to be any different?
Let's look at the GISS's data another way, from the energy imbalance standpoint.
Total energy imbalance is listed at 150 W/m2, 20% of that is from CO2, or 30 W/m2.
Divide that 30 W/m2 by the 8 doubling steps and we get a value for each doubling step of 3.75 W/m2.
Let's use the ACS formula for CO2 forcing to see how close that number is to their doubling number?
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society
The ACS gives an example of ΔFCO2 = (5.35 W·m–2) ln(265/185) = 1.9 W·m–2, but we just need the level for doubling CO2,
so 5.35 X ln(2)=3.708 W/m2, this is well within the margin of error for these type of measurements.
An analogy would be, do you have to be a mechanical Engineer to know if the car you purchased
with a stated MPG of 40, is actually performing close to that number?

 

[ataraxia]

So you are OK with more main stream sources?

 

[Deuce]

I am not, I cited NASA's GISS for the data.
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect
The logic is simple, all the past doubling s of CO2 from ~ 1ppm to 280 ppm, have had a fully equalized
warming of roughly .825°C per doubling step, why should we expect the current doubling step to be any different?
Let's look at the GISS's data another way, from the energy imbalance standpoint.
Total energy imbalance is listed at 150 W/m2, 20% of that is from CO2, or 30 W/m2.
Divide that 30 W/m2 by the 8 doubling steps and we get a value for each doubling step of 3.75 W/m2.
Let's use the ACS formula for CO2 forcing to see how close that number is to their doubling number?
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society
The ACS gives an example of ΔFCO2 = (5.35 W·m–2) ln(265/185) = 1.9 W·m–2, but we just need the level for doubling CO2,
so 5.35 X ln(2)=3.708 W/m2, this is well within the margin of error for these type of measurements.
An analogy would be, do you have to be a mechanical Engineer to know if the car you purchased
with a stated MPG of 40, is actually performing close to that number?

We've been over this. You can't calculate climate sensitivity on a napkin. It's absurd that you continue to claim you can.

 

[longview]

We've been over this. You can't calculate climate sensitivity on a napkin. It's absurd that you continue to claim you can.

Where do you think the 2XCO2 value of 3.71W/m2 comes from?

 

[Deuce]

Where do you think the 2XCO2 value of 3.71W/m2 comes from?

Do you think you can model future climate on a napkin, or don't you?

 

[Deuce]

Guys, cancel all the climate research grants. Turns out you don't need to spend a whole career on the subject. This guy longview can solve every climate calculation in a one-paragraph forum post! Weird that no climate scientist in history has done that particular calculation and shown it to his peers as proof it's all a big non-issue.

Makes you wonder why there is such a large range calculated for ECS. I mean, it's all one simple equation. Why are there so many different answers? Just us the calculator app on your phone!

 

[longview]

Do you think you can model future climate on a napkin, or don't you?

I do not think we can model future climate at all!
I do think that simple calculations can expose some of the fallacies of those who
claim we can model future climate, from limited variables like CO2.
So again, I will ask you, where think the 2XCO2 value of 3.71W/m2 comes from?

 

[TomFitz]

Oh shoot the messenger fallacy. Its funny that nutty alarmists always engage in poor logic and deflect away the fact that their lies are exposed.



Duh, because these corrupt institutions want their grant money, so they have to keep up the hyperbole.



Wrong, youre the one who's lying. You have utterly failed to refute whats on those websites, so all you can do is deflect.



LOL youre full of it. Show me the list of scientists who advocate AGW and their credentials. You keep claiming there are tens and thousands of them yet you have failed to name even one.



LOL more lies and foolishness. People arent investing in Tesla because theyre selling a lot of EVs, in fact their sales are less than 10% of that what Ford sells. People brought up the Tesla stock price because they like Elon, thats it.

You parroted a well known hoax, not once, but twice on this thread. Even being arrogant enough to linked to yourself peddling the same famous hoax on an earlier thread.

I don’t know anyone who invests their money because they “like” an individual.

Besides, Elon Musk is not a nice guy. Not by any means!

But he does see where the future is going.

And investors are following his (and everyone else in the renewable trade) lead.

I am not interested in playing your silly junk science game, especially when you repeatedly cite well known frauds as your case.

The scientific consensus is there. The technical and business models for battery farm management of peak demand have been proven. Wall Street and the utilities around the world are on notice, and investing accordingly.

The next F-150 will be electric. The Mache Mustang is due next year. Every single global care company has an electric program and will be expanding their offerings significantly in the next few years.

The global warming denial ship sailed a while back.

It’s not surprising that the reactionary flat earth right wing is the last to figure it out.

 

[Jack Hays]

Nature walking back extremism.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Climate science does an about-face: dials back the ‘worst case scenario’[/h][FONT=&quot]Opinion by Anthony Watts A surprising comment published January 29th in the leading scientific journal Nature said; “Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading – Stop using the worst-case scenario for climate warming as the most likely outcome — more-realistic baselines make for better policy.” This has thrown a monkey wrench in hundreds…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]

 

[Jack Hays]

The next F-150 will be electric. The Mache Mustang is due next year. Every single global care company has an electric program and will be expanding their offerings significantly in the next few years.

We shall see.

Germany’s Green New Deal Begins To Deliver: Industry Sees “Horrible Numbers”, A “Disaster”!

By P Gosselin on 11. February 2020
Germany’s onslaught on its famed automotive and production industries appears to be taking an economic toll as the country pushes ahead to go green by phasing out internal combustion engines and coal power plants.
Recently we reported how electricity prices are again slated to increase this year, and thus will continue to make German power among the most expensive worldwide.
A wave of green activism has led to tighter regulations against the internal combustion engines and to a planned phase-out of coal-fired power plants.
Teetering on recession
Just recently German online business daily Handelsblatt reported here that there are “new concerns about an economic slump in Germany” as “surprisingly weak figures are fueling new worries about a downturn”.
“Horrible numbers”…a “disaster”
“Experts spoke of ‘horrible numbers’, a ‘disaster’. Industry, construction, and energy providers produced a full 3.5 percent less in December than in the previous month,” the Handelsblatt reports.

December production plummets 6.8%
The economic bloodbath was even worse in the production sector which “fell even more sharply, with output falling by 6.8 percent – the sharpest drop since the end of 2009,” writes the Handelsblatt. “Concerns are growing again that the German economy may be in more difficult waters than expected.”
For Germany, “2019 was not only the worst year for industrial orders since 2008, it was also the first time since 2002 that German order books shrank for two years in a row,” reports Yahoo here.
Massive automotive layoffs
The German auto sector has been hard hit. For example, car maker Opel recently announced 2,100 job cuts in Germany. Late last year Daimler, owner of Mercedes Benz, announced plans “to ax at least 10,000 jobs,” Volkswagen’s Audi said “it would slash up to 9,500 jobs or one in ten staff by 2025 and car suppliers Continental and Osram announced staff and cost cuts.”
The Financial Times reported today that Daimler suffered its “worst results in decade” and that its earnings “plunged 60% in 2019 amid ‘Dieselgate’ woes.” Daimler also “refused to deny reports” that an additional 5,000 jobs could be cut.
The Financial Times adds: “Daimler is being forced to spend heavily on electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids in order to avoid fines from Brussels for breaching new emissions regulations.”
Other reasons cited for the poor German economic results are the ongoing global trade disputes. Figures are expected to come under even greater pressure due to the spreading corona virus in China.

 

[ataraxia]

Nature walking back extremism.

[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/11/climate-science-does-an-about-face-dials-back-the-worst-case-scenario/"]

[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Climate science does an about-face: dials back the ‘worst case scenario’[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Opinion by Anthony Watts A surprising comment published January 29th in the leading scientific journal Nature said; “Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading – Stop using the worst-case scenario for climate warming as the most likely outcome — more-realistic baselines make for better policy.” This has thrown a monkey wrench in hundreds…[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/11/climate-science-does-an-about-face-dials-back-the-worst-case-scenario/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]

I am pretty sure you are not reading these sources you cite. You are just reading the WUWT article and posting it here because it's the only thing that you have. Read the actual article and stop relying on Anthony Watts writting on WUWT to tell you what it's saying.

Better yet, just pick up some introductory textbooks on the subject and familiarize yourself with it.

This is what the Nature article you cite in the WUWT article actually says:

"Assessment of current policies suggests that the world is on course for around 3 °C of warming above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century — still a catastrophic outcome, but a long way from 5 °C7,8. We cannot settle for 3 °C; nor should we dismiss progress...This admission does not make climate action less urgent."
Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading

 

[ataraxia]

We shall see.

Germany’s Green New Deal Begins To Deliver: Industry Sees “Horrible Numbers”, A “Disaster”!

By P Gosselin on 11. February 2020
Germany’s onslaught on its famed automotive and production industries appears to be taking an economic toll as the country pushes ahead to go green by phasing out internal combustion engines and coal power plants.
Recently we reported how electricity prices are again slated to increase this year, and thus will continue to make German power among the most expensive worldwide.
A wave of green activism has led to tighter regulations against the internal combustion engines and to a planned phase-out of coal-fired power plants.
Teetering on recession
Just recently German online business daily Handelsblatt reported here that there are “new concerns about an economic slump in Germany” as “surprisingly weak figures are fueling new worries about a downturn”.
“Horrible numbers”…a “disaster”
“Experts spoke of ‘horrible numbers’, a ‘disaster’. Industry, construction, and energy providers produced a full 3.5 percent less in December than in the previous month,” the Handelsblatt reports.

December production plummets 6.8%
The economic bloodbath was even worse in the production sector which “fell even more sharply, with output falling by 6.8 percent – the sharpest drop since the end of 2009,” writes the Handelsblatt. “Concerns are growing again that the German economy may be in more difficult waters than expected.”
For Germany, “2019 was not only the worst year for industrial orders since 2008, it was also the first time since 2002 that German order books shrank for two years in a row,” reports Yahoo here.
Massive automotive layoffs
The German auto sector has been hard hit. For example, car maker Opel recently announced 2,100 job cuts in Germany. Late last year Daimler, owner of Mercedes Benz, announced plans “to ax at least 10,000 jobs,” Volkswagen’s Audi said “it would slash up to 9,500 jobs or one in ten staff by 2025 and car suppliers Continental and Osram announced staff and cost cuts.”
The Financial Times reported today that Daimler suffered its “worst results in decade” and that its earnings “plunged 60% in 2019 amid ‘Dieselgate’ woes.” Daimler also “refused to deny reports” that an additional 5,000 jobs could be cut.
The Financial Times adds: “Daimler is being forced to spend heavily on electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids in order to avoid fines from Brussels for breaching new emissions regulations.”
Other reasons cited for the poor German economic results are the ongoing global trade disputes. Figures are expected to come under even greater pressure due to the spreading corona virus in China.

Here's the actual story behind the slumping German automobile sales:
https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/german-industry-faces-image-crisis-amid-falling-sales

 

[Jack Hays]

I am pretty sure you are not reading these sources you cite. You are just reading the WUWT article and posting it here because it's the only thing that you have. Read the actual article and stop relying on Anthony Watts writting on WUWT to tell you what it's saying.

Better yet, just pick up some introductory textbooks on the subject and familiarize yourself with it.

This is what the Nature article cited in the WUWT article actually says:

"Assessment of current policies suggests that the world is on course for around 3 °C of warming above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century — still a catastrophic outcome, but a long way from 5 °C7,8. We cannot settle for 3 °C; nor should we dismiss progress...This admission does not make climate action less urgent."
Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading

Yes, that's what WUWT says. What's your point?

 

[Jack Hays]

Here's the actual story behind the slumping German automobile sales:
German auto industry faces an image crisis amid falling sales

Right in line. Your point?

 

[ataraxia]

Yes, that's what WUWT says. What's your point?

Most people, when confronted with the fact that what a website is saying about a scientific article and what the article is actually saying, would realize that the website is an unreliable, biased propaganda site.

The fact that you don't and continue to cite from it is just a testament to how desperately you want to believe it. Kinda sad, actually.

 

[ataraxia]

Right in line. Your point?

Nope, not at all. Actually, if you actually read the article, it says automobile sales in Germany are dropping because people don't think the industry is doing enough to go green.

 

[ataraxia]

Yes, that's what WUWT says. What's your point?

WUWT says that even a 3 degree change is catastrophic and absolutely unacceptable?

 

[Jack Hays]

Most people, when confronted with the fact that what a website is saying about a scientific article and what the article is actually saying, would realize that the website is an unreliable, biased propaganda site.

The fact that you don't and continue to cite from it is just a testament to how desperately you want to believe it. Kinda sad, actually.

The WUWT post provides an accurate account of the Nature article and includes a link to it for those who want to see for themselves.

 

[Jack Hays]

Nope, not at all. Actually, if you actually read the article, it says automobile sales in Germany are dropping because people don't think the industry is doing enough to go green.

And why is that single article more credible than the several which are linked in the NTZ post?

 

[Jack Hays]

WUWT says that even a 3 degree change is catastrophic and absolutely unacceptable?

That's an editorial comment that's beside the point. The important story is the walk-back from use of the worst-case scenario as a baseline.