Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040

[AlbqOwl]

Source of your Gish gallop?

Many different sources that I have linked over time. I named the folks and the dates as the reason I remain a skeptic whenever they make one of these scary predictions that so far have not come to pass.

 

[Quaestio]

And they've admitted it in moments of candor.

We are not just scientists, but human beings as well. Like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.
Stephen Schneider
https://www.azquotes.com/author/21358-Stephen_Schneider
​

And let's see that quote mine in the original context shall we? Here's an article by Stephen Schneider about how his words were dishonestly taken out of context:

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/environmental.cfm

Hey thanks bubba for another great example of dishonest quote mining by climate truthers.

 

[Quaestio]

Many different sources that I have linked over time. I named the folks and the dates as the reason I remain a skeptic whenever they make one of these scary predictions that so far have not come to pass.

Many different sources? Really?

Don't worry, I already found exactly the same list of dishonest quote mining crap on various conservative blogs and online rags like the Conservative Tribune.
It must be just an amazing coincidence that they all had the same list as you, right?

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The devastating forest fires in California is just one of many examples of how modern and developed countries still are very vulnerable to extreme weather. There global warming will lead to more and more extreme weather events.

https://easac.eu/press-releases/det...r-events-european-national-science-academies/

You also for example have this report from the US intelligence community under Donald Trump, that on page 16 and forwards warns about the threats from global warming.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Testimonies/2018-ATA---Unclassified-SSCI.pdf

So we have both a duty and opportunity to try to reduce global warming and it’s devastating effects. There you have many positive examples from around the world. For example that even American coal states like Indiana is abandoning coal for cheaper renewable energy.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/0...ith-renewables-will-save-customers-4-billion/

While Scotland already got 68 percent of their electricity from renewable energy in 2017.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...scotland-climate-change-oil-gas-a8283166.html

 

[bubbabgone]

And let's see that quote mine in the original context shall we? Here's an article by Stephen Schneider about how his words were dishonestly taken out of context:

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/environmental.cfm

Hey thanks bubba for another great example of dishonest quote mining by climate truthers.

hmmmm. You had better look at your own link again. The quote I gave you was what Schneider confirmed and the context doesn't change it.
He was complaining about words he didn't say that were added by someone else. I didn't include those words in my quote. He was troubled by being a scientist and also being deceptive to achieve his purpose.
Except for the troubled scientist part it's just like you. You got that deceptive part nailed but to be fair, it looks like that's only because you've just adopted the groupthink purpose. You don't know any better.

Once again, address what Hulme said about the IPCC ... "governed by a Bureau consisting of selected governmental representatives, thus ensuring that the Panel's work was clearly seen to be serving the needs of government and policy. The Panel was not to be a self-governing body of independent scientists." Was he lying?
And about AGW itself he said it was "a classic example of post-normal science". Maybe you don't know what that means.
What he said should be your concern ... not who reported what he said.
So what about it.

 

[bubbabgone]

I've been reading the Heartland Institute's latest NIPCC 'document'. It's been a few years since I bothered wading through one. Can't actually call it a 'book' - more a short piece of anti-science political propaganda for the fossil fuel industry and right wing 'libertarians'. The authors are like the who's who of climate science deniers. Fred Singer (was also a paid shill of the Tobacco Industry) Bob Carter (an Ozzie crank), an Idso (from the Idso family of cranks). Really?

What's sad is that gullible scientifically illiterate people who don't bother to think for themselves and do any fact checking, actually believe this easily debunked dishonest rubbish. That's the whole point of why groups like Heartland do it. They let "useful idiots" do a lot of their work for them by mindlessly regurgitating this crap.

Always interesting to see where a lot of the conspiracy theory and pseudoscience claims parroted on blogs/online conservative rags originate.

Lotsa posts last night. You're starting to sound like you're losing it. Spittle-on-the-keyboard kinda frantic. Have you never been confronted with your misapprehensions before? It happens to everyone. Accept it and move on.

Here ... get this book. Read it. It's a good one. Take your time. Calm down. It's also a Heartland publication.


I can recommend others if you like but the main thing is to begin to get you off the alarmist hamster wheel, you cute little rodent you.

 

[Threegoofs]

Lotsa posts last night. You're starting to sound like you're losing it. Spittle-on-the-keyboard kinda frantic. Have you never been confronted with your misapprehensions before? It happens to everyone. Accept it and move on.

Here ... get this book. Read it. It's a good one. Take your time. Calm down. It's also a Heartland publication.
View attachment 67244245

I can recommend others if you like but the main thing is to begin to get you off the alarmist hamster wheel, you cute little rodent you.

Friends don’t let friends read crap published by Heartland.

 

[Threegoofs]

While bubba tries to distract from the real issue by whining about personalities and conspiracy theories and ‘indoctrination’ and whatever denier crap he learned ten years ago, I’ll just remind everyone that the issue is the absolutely clear rising temperatures on earth shown here:

Which, I’ll note, has been steadily rising during the denier whining of the last few decades.

And this ride in temperatures is clearly anthropogenic, with a clearly defined mechanism, and in fact, this mechanism was known, modeled and accurately predicted decades ago, as shown in this graphic:

 

[Buzz62]

You keep repeating the same conspiracy lie about Roger Revelle. Typical climate truther who never bothers to check the facts.

What lie are you talking about?

 

[Buzz62]

Everything you wrote is pure BS. Another example of gullible ignorant climate truthers believing and mindlessly parroting any old evidence-free, fact-free crap they read/watch on conspiracy blogs/youtube.

OK then...did Revelle recant his finding or not?

 

[Lord of Planar]

You pretend your position is "anything is possible". That's a stupid position and can be applied to anything, but that's not your position. That's just some BS you use to take fake high ground and falsely berate others. Let's be real. Everyone knows anything is possible. Stop the childish crap, be a man and take a position. Stop with the coward crap.


"I'm just saying anything is possible and you're closed minded."


Pathetic horse****. Take that crap to the CT subforum where it belongs. You and your hologram plane buddies can cry about closed mindedness and wail victim there.

Too bad you misrepresent my words. How do you expect me to respond to you always misrepresenting what I say? How can you hold a master degree when you cant comprehend that words have meaning?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Many different sources? Really?

Don't worry, I already found exactly the same list of dishonest quote mining crap on various conservative blogs and online rags like the Conservative Tribune.
It must be just an amazing coincidence that they all had the same list as you, right?

I don't know what crap you read, but again, if you can dispute any one of those examples as inaccurate, go for it. Have a pleasant day.

 

[ecofarm]

Too bad you misrepresent my words. How do you expect me to respond to you always misrepresenting what I say? How can you hold a master degree when you cant comprehend that words have meaning?

Crybaby BS. As expected.

"Poor me! No one will listen! But I know the Truth!"

Yeah, we haven't heard that before. I'm sure you're so special, this time it's true. Spare us. No one wants to hear your victim routine, it only validates victim boys.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Crybaby BS. As expected.

"Poor me! No one will listen! But I know the Truth!"

Yeah, we haven't heard that before. I'm sure you're so special, this time it's true. Spare us. No one wants to hear your victim routine, it only validates victim boys.

LOL...

No.

I'm just tired of people who cannot understand simple words, and think they mean what ever they want.

 

[ecofarm]

LOL...

No.

I'm just tired of people who cannot understand simple words, and think they mean what ever they want.

Maybe it's you.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Maybe it's you.

No, it's you. You are not responding to what I say. You are responding to something else.

Since you cannot comprehend simple words, and mix up what is said, there is no way you earned a masters.

 

[ecofarm]

No, it's you. You are not responding to what I say. You are responding to something else.

Since you cannot comprehend simple words, and mix up what is said, there is no way you earned a masters.

"No one will listen, no one understands, and I gots da troof."

:lol:



Pobrecito, do you want me to look at your coloring books?

 

[Cassandra]

My question has yet to be answered so I put this out to anyone...

Given that none of the climate skeptics on this thread are themselves scientists , why do you believe the handful of scientists who are skeptics, as apposed to the overwhelming majority who are not skeptics? I understand that as non scientists, we must take many things "on faith" just as I did when I vaccinated my kid years ago. How is this different?

Given that a reduction in the reliance of dirty fossil fuels comes with a suite of positive byproducts- cleaner air, cleaner waterways, healthier bodies, a safer less vulnerable infrastructure, fewer wars and conflicts over oil, more efficient transportation systems... Where is the down side?

Some of you appear to believe that C.C. is a reality but you think there is a different, non-anthropogenic explanation. Why would you WANT to believe that we are impotent human beings , unable to change anything?

 

[Lord of Planar]

"No one will listen, no one understands, and I gots da troof."

:lol:



Pobrecito, do you want me to look at your coloring books?

Wow... Does that attitude get you far in life?

 

[Lord of Planar]

My question has yet to be answered so I put this out to anyone...

Given that none of the climate skeptics on this thread are themselves scientists , why do you believe the handful of scientists who are skeptics, as apposed to the overwhelming majority who are not skeptics? I understand that as non scientists, we must take many things "on faith" just as I did when I vaccinated my kid years ago. How is this different?

Funny, as it's only a handful of scientists who make alarmist claims. Most remain silence, as they are in fear of losing their jobs. Some have lost their jobs. They get blacklisted.

If you actually took the time to read climate papers, you would see the scientists offer supporting evidence for AGW, but rarely ever explicitly endorse it. That's because they are writing a narrative for a paycheck, in the form of earning for work done. Many of them get part of the government grant.

Follow the money. There is more than 100 times the money spent to show AGW, than there is to show reality.

 

[ecofarm]

Wow... Does that attitude get you far in life?

When your "academics" are exposed as blog fraud and typical CT victim narrative, you then wanna get personal? haha

Crawl back under your CT rock and wait for the next passerby.

 

[Jack Hays]

My question has yet to be answered so I put this out to anyone...

Given that none of the climate skeptics on this thread are themselves scientists , why do you believe the handful of scientists who are skeptics, as apposed to the overwhelming majority who are not skeptics? I understand that as non scientists, we must take many things "on faith" just as I did when I vaccinated my kid years ago. How is this different?

Given that a reduction in the reliance of dirty fossil fuels comes with a suite of positive byproducts- cleaner air, cleaner waterways, healthier bodies, a safer less vulnerable infrastructure, fewer wars and conflicts over oil, more efficient transportation systems... Where is the down side?

Some of you appear to believe that C.C. is a reality but you think there is a different, non-anthropogenic explanation. Why would you WANT to believe that we are impotent human beings , unable to change anything?

I'm a historian by academic background. The important insight here is from Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
The hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) derives from the work of Svante Arrhenius and his conclusion that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to rising temperatures. Although he lived well into the 20th century, this work of his is properly seen as an excellent product of 19th century science.
In our time, the 19th century-derived AGW hypothesis is being displaced by bigger, newer 21st century science led by figures such as Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv. Their work centers on the interaction of solar output with galactic cosmic rays (GCR's), sometimes called the cosmic ray flux.
This 21st century work continues the long term trend of scientific discovery, pushing Earth and humans ever farther from the center of the universe. It is a reminder of our very modest place therein.

 

[Threegoofs]

I'm a historian by academic background. The important insight here is from Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
The hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) derives from the work of Svante Arrhenius and his conclusion that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to rising temperatures. Although he lived well into the 20th century, this work of his is properly seen as an excellent product of 19th century science.
In our time, the 19th century-derived AGW hypothesis is being displaced by bigger, newer 21st century science led by figures such as Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv. Their work centers on the interaction of solar output with galactic cosmic rays (GCR's), sometimes called the cosmic ray flux.
This 21st century work continues the long term trend of scientific discovery, pushing Earth and humans ever farther from the center of the universe. It is a reminder of our very modest place therein.

This is possibly the stupidest thing Ive ever read.

 

[ecofarm]

This is possibly the stupidest thing Ive ever read.

You didn't know that in the 1800s everyone thought the weather was controlled by people and we have since, slowly, come to understand that we don't control the weather?

Didn't you watch Bonanza? They were talking about it all the time. "Darn it, Hoss, why are you trying to invent gasoline? Don't you know that leads to global warning?" Little Joe knew.

Learn some history.

 

[Lord of Planar]

When your "academics" are exposed as blog fraud and typical CT victim narrative, you then wanna get personal? haha

Crawl back under your CT rock and wait for the next passerby.

It's so easy to tell you are clueless on the topic when you speak of CT narrative.

Everyone sees it!