Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom
...............
there is so much out there about this - I don't really need to provide a lot of sources - a quick google search will find you thousands of links
of course there are the climate change deniers
and there are those who say what little we can do won't be nearly enough
just one link:
from the article:
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. "
couldn't resist one more link - story about Siberia, one of the coldest places on earth where there is human habitation - they now face 100 degree days and multiple wildfires caused by them
https://eos.org/articles/siberian-heat-w....
.
Anyone who studies climate science is familiar with Judith Curry. She's a slippery devil. She knows climate change is real and potentially catastrophic. But for a hefty fee, she was formerly available to tell the world that it wasn't certain. Some people will do anything for money. Since things have advanced so quickly in the last several years, she has basically retired from her role and taken herself out of public view.
Check her quotes in this interview.
"it's clear that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet"
"a catastrophe is possible"
Edit: So you are incorrect in your assertion that she disagrees with me. She isn't saying that I'm wrong. She is simply saying that the future is uncertain. And she's right .... we could have a nuclear war next week or the Yellowstone Caldera could pop and that would change the Earth's climate in ways that can't be predicted. Her role was like a tax attorney. To find a loophole and try to amplify it for the benefit of the people who wrote her big checks. Now **** has gotten bad enough that either she or her patrons have decided it unwise for her to continue doing that.
Anyone who studies climate science is familiar with Judith Curry. She's a slippery devil. She knows climate change is real and potentially catastrophic. But for a hefty fee, she was formerly available to tell the world that it wasn't certain. Some people will do anything for money. Since things have advanced so quickly in the last several years, she has basically retired from her role and taken herself out of public view.
Check her quotes in this interview.
She's not denying that climate change is real. Just that there is a lot of uncertainty as to how much of it is caused by human activity.
She's not denying that climate change is real. Just that there is a lot of uncertainty as to how much of it is caused by human activity.
And the words "a lot" (of uncertainty) are deliberately vague and unspecified.
She's knows that virtually all of global warming over the last century is caused by human emissions. She knows that the ice cores extracted from Antarctica show that CO2 levels were between 160 and 280 ppm for the 800,000 years preceding the 20th century and she knows that the only cogent explanation for them rising to 425 ppm in the last century is human emissions. Nothing else make a lick of sense.
But she also knows that there are some unspecified natural variables which might be causing a minor swing. So there is a lot of uncertainty about a TINY piece of the puzzle.
So ... she is paid to wordsmith in a way that is clearly deceptive but without any math. It could be 96% caused by humans and it could be 98% caused by humans and she can say that's a LOT of uncertainty because there is no scientific definition of the words "a lot".
People are sleazy and they'll do anything for a buck. Judith Curry was one of them. Why do you think she isn't still doing it ?
She's not denying that climate change is real. Just that there is a lot of uncertainty as to how much of it is caused by human activity.
You're using the historical positions of a person who has abandoned her role as the person with a scientific credential who casts doubt. She doesn't want to hang for treason when the **** hits the fan.
B. Brainwashed
C. Bought off and controlled with large sums of money
D. Blackmailed
E. All of the above except A.
So let me get this straight. You're saying that a guy who was paid $36M by Exxon in 2023 and is supervised by a board of directors responsible to the investors of a company with a $500B market cap is going off the reservation by acknowledging that climate change is real and the board is letting him do it ?
I appreciate your commitment to trolling. Either that or the quality of your psilocybin. One or the other .... it's A+.
Dude, I showed you before that the claim that 97% of climate scientists agree on anthropogenic climate change was fraudulent BS.
And lol wikipedia.
If she did say that, she's certainly changed her mind now.
Dude i told you what you showed dated almost 15 years ago.
I know it s sound impossible for anti science like yourself but lot has happened since then….
AND i just quote one of your sources that agrees lol….
She's not denying that climate change is real. Just that there is a lot of uncertainty as to how much of it is caused by human activity.
No she doesnt .
She did previously about some scientific Papers 15 years ago .
She absolutely agree on the general mainstream that human are the cause but the danger might not be that certain tho she did say its possible it could be catastrophic ….
Climate science 101
1) Energy or EMR (electromagnetic radiation) has wave / particle duality. Waves have frequency and wavelength across a spectrum. The science of measuring the spectrum is called spectrometry.
2) Visible light from the sun is smaller wavelength and higher frequency that heat aka infrared radiation.
3) Matter is composed of particles called atoms with a heavy nucleus and a cloud of electrons. Atoms bound together by chemical bonds are called molecules.
4) Chemical bonds in molecules also have unique wavelengths and frequencies depending upon the compound formed. The number of chemical bonds in a given molecule changes the shape of the molecule. The bond in a CO2 molecule has different frequency than the bond in an oxygen gas (O2) molecule.
5) Sunlight which reaches the Earth is either reflected back to space (after hitting a cloud or a white surface like snow) or absorbed.
6) Absorbed sunlight changes it's frequency and wavelength. It transitions from light to infrared (heat)
7) Outgoing radiation heads back toward space. If there were no greenhouse gas molecules in the Earth's atmosphere, no heat would be retained and the Earth would be lifeless and frozen.
8) The Earth system (and every other planet) is extremely sensitive to atmospheric CO2 levels. At just 160 ppm or one part in 6,000, we have enough warmth for life. Humans have always live between 160 ppm and 280 ppm until a century ago. In the last century, we have exploded up to 525 ppm of CO2 equivalent (425 CO2 and 100 other).
9) Imagine being in bed at night under a thick blanket. At some point, you start to overheat so you pull the blanket off. CO2 is a blanket we can't pull off.
Anyone who studies climate science is familiar with Judith Curry. She's a slippery devil. She knows climate change is real and potentially catastrophic. But for a hefty fee, she was formerly available to tell the world that it wasn't certain. Some people will do anything for money. Since things have advanced so quickly in the last several years, she has basically retired from her role and taken herself out of public view.
Check her quotes in this interview.
Here's a much more recent interview where she says there is no climate crisis. She also refutes that she is in it for the money as she is getting far less than when she was part of the mainstream.
The FULL Judith Curry Interview:Climate Scientist Says World Won't End.
Climate scientist Judith Curry bravely says climate change isn't a “crisis.” She explains how the scientific community became corrupted by "fame and fortune."
So let me get this straight. You're saying that a guy who was paid $36M by Exxon in 2023 and is supervised by a board of directors responsible to the investors of a company with a $500B market cap is going off the reservation by acknowledging that climate change is real and the board is letting him do it ?
I appreciate your commitment to trolling. Either that or the quality of your psilocybin. One or the other .... it's A+.
They did it because their investors were outraged that they previously denied the company contributed to "climate change". There was an investor revolt against them.
If their investors start selling and their value goes down, maybe he loses his "$36MM/yr" job. Would that be a good enough reason for you to consider?
https://www.amazon.com/False-Alarm-Clima...
this is a good read for the anti-science climate extremists
https://www.amazon.com/False-Alarm-Clima...
this is a good r
In the few years since this was written the climate change has risen from +1.1C to +1.5C, so that's Mr Hey-Come-On-It's-Not-So-Serious ****ed.
Also
He has been characteristically energetic in persuading right-wing newspapers, particularly those owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, such as The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and The Australian, to advertise his book for free in their opinion columns.
But, like his previous contributions to this issue, Dr Lomborg’s arguments are based on fantastical numbers that have little or no credibility. Overall, the numbers presented by Dr Lomborg, who has a PhD in political science, understate the potential economic impacts of climate change and exaggerate the costs of cutting greenhouse gases. And he has promoted them apparently secure in the knowledge that they will not be fact-checked by book publishers or newspaper comment editors.
Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment
They can't be bothered with facts and such.
Facts why Exxon changed their tune regarding the climate (pre the article above):
"They appear to be more concerned with the company’s bottom line than the warming planet"
I'm not a climate change denier, nor am I a sunrise or sunset denier. I'm just a denier of propaganda.
They did it because their investors were outraged that they previously denied the company contributed to "climate change". There was an investor revolt against them.
[/url]
Are you trolling or do you believe that the majority sentiment of people who choose to invest their money in fossil fuel companies believe that the companies they invest in are doing something evil ?
The case of Judith Curry (and her followers) vs Consensus Climate Science
Consensus Climate Science
There are only three factors which materially impact the temperature on Earth
1) Earth's orbital relationship with the sun (Milankovitch Cycles) which impact the amount of solar radiation which reaches the Earth
2) The level of greenhouse gases such as CO2 in the atmosphere which has doubled since humans started burning fossil fuels.
3) Changes in levels of sunlight reflectivity as might be attributed to cloud cover or volcanic emissions such as from Mt. Pinatubo which is a natural variable.
Judith Curry and her brain dead followers
1) The division between human causes and natural variability is uncertain.
2) Q: Can you name ANY natural variable which might conceivably be causing the increase in temperatures ?
3) A: "I don't do interviews". I don't have to present a scenario that makes sense to the world. I am just like a parrot in a cage which keeps saying that the amount of natural variability is uncertain.
4) Q: So, you don't have any reasonable explanation for the increase in temperatures arising from natural variables ? You can't identify a single natural variable which might be potentially responsible for the changes we're observing ?
5) A: I don't do interviews. If you'll excuse me, I have some checks to cash.
Here's another good read on the climate hoax.
"Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming"
Air Con demonstrates, with hundreds of scientific references, that global warming was not, is not, and will not be a global crisis; that, even if per impossibile it might be, it is far more cost-effective to adapt as and if needed than to attempt to mitigate 'global warming' by cutting emissions of carbon dioxide; and that all attempts at mitigation would serve only to imprison the very poorest in their poverty, thereby perversely increasing world population and consequently the 'carbon footprint' of humankind, achieving an outcome precisely the opposite of that which was (however piously) intended.
Sounds like he's advocating a die-off that he feels will be mostly the poor. Somehow that makes us better.
The case of Judith Curry (and her followers) vs Consensus Climate Science
Consensus Climate Science
There are only three factors which materially impact the temperature on Earth
1) Earth's orbital relationship with the sun (Milankovitch Cycles) which impact the amount of solar radiation which reaches the Earth
2) The level of greenhouse gases such as CO2 in the atmosphere which has doubled since humans started burning fossil fuels.
3) Changes in levels of sunlight reflectivity as might be attribute
No interviews?
I just posted a recent interview she gave. Here's another one.
She wouldn't do an interview with me. Neither would you. Tuck the tail between your legs Brian James and go crawl back under the rock you emerged from.
You're linking to a rigged Q&A with pre-determined question and answers.
