SailNet Community banner

461 - 480 of 570 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,378 Posts
The thing (how's that for a scholarly way to start a post?) about the internet is that, no matter what you'd like to believe, you can, almost without exception, find "proof" of your beliefs.

"Global Warming" became "Climate Change" when the data didn't quite fit the predictions of global warming. Those two points are pretty much indisputable.



Barry
Barry That statement is quite simply untrue.

I guess you missed this:

Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?
Author(s): Wallace S. Broecker
Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 189, No. 4201 (Aug. 8, 1975 ), pp. 460-463
Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You can thank the GOP for politicizing "climate change"

Frank Luntz Memorandum to Bush White House, 2002
"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."
"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science."
" It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming
1. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge. "
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJC506 and Deina

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
jackdale,

Thanks for writing back. Not to overanalyze your prose, but the phrase "I guess you missed this" could be taken to imply that I overlooked something obvious. It's the internet; we could all read 24/7 for our entire lifetimes and still miss things. Of course I "missed it." I'm sure you probably missed the first article I linked to in my last post.. <grin>.

Now, I'll stipulate that I missed it. In about 20 seconds, I found an article that says the term "climate change" has been around longer, since 1956, "global warming" became commonly used in an article in 1975 by geochemist Wallace Broeckner. The article goes on to state:

"However, the Yale report said more recent research indicates conservative think tanks trying to downplay the threat now more commonly use the term global warming while liberal think tanks seeking to emphasize it more frequently use climate change.

Efforts by believers to distance themselves from the term global warming were illustrated by White House science adviser John Holdren’s recommendation in a 2010 speech that people instead use the term "global climate disruption." "


So... we're both kind of right, and both a little bit wrong. Gotta love the internet, right?

Here's another interesting take on things, taken from the Forbes website:

"I recently asked an environmentalist this question: "If we found out that the planet was warming for purely natural reasons, would you be in favor of climate engineering to stop it, because the current temperature and sea level are the right ones for humans?"

He seemed appalled. "No, of course not, man," he said.

"Thank you," I said. And I meant it, because this fellow had just made a concession that is fatal to the central argument in favor of reducing carbon emissions: the risk of catastrophic climate change.

Climate alarmists are alarmed about the human impact on the climate. Most of them are not, however, actually alarmed about climate change per se. That is why they have proposed virtually nothing that would protect anyone from natural climate change. In fact, if it turns out that temperatures and sea levels are rising for purely natural reasons, most environmentalists would probably be against doing anything to stop it, just like the fellow I asked.

Of course, not all climate alarmists agree. Some of them do think that rising temperatures and sea levels are alarming regardless of what's causing them to rise. Such voices are in a tiny minority, however, and the policy prescriptions that follow logically from their concerns have nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions. If we are worried about global warming regardless of its causes, then the right policy is adaptation (i.e., help people adjust to life at higher temperatures) and prevention (i.e. planetary climate engineering, by altering the atmosphere in ways that neutralize natural climate change).

Many climate alarmists, however, are like the fellow who unwittingly admitted that he's not actually alarmed about climate change in and of itself, just climate change caused by human activity. The most radical of these environmentalists flatly deny that temperatures and sea levels could be rising partly for natural reasons. In other words, they deny natural climate change. Call them "climate deniers" for short, since they are denying that the climate is doing now what it has always done, namely change for natural reasons.

Ironically enough, it turns out that these climate deniers are also science deniers. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarizes all of the climate science that climate alarmists use to justify their anti-carbon policies. It is the most authoritative source for environmentalists' claims about the scientific consensus on climate change. On the link between human activity and climate change, the IPCC has this to say: "It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together." (Emphasis added.)

The same IPCC report says that current warming is "unequivocal" i.e.; there is virtually no doubt that the planet is warming. But the IPCC is not nearly so unequivocal about the causes. It cites human activity as the major cause of warming, but not necessarily the only cause. Scientists aren’t sure what the climate trend would be in the absence of human activity; it’s possible that carbon emissions have an even bigger warming impact than they fear, and the impact is being mostly absorbed by an underlying cooling trend; they just don’t know. The IPCC’s carefully qualified attribution statement recognizes that scientists don’t understand the climate well enough to quantify precisely the relative contribution of the various human and natural factors in the current warming trend.

The bottom line is that scientists are much more confident that the planet is warming than they are confident that they understand why the planet is warming. This only stands to reason. It is obviously easier to measure temperature change than to draw "unequivocal" conclusions about causation from the incredibly rich, complex, and often impenetrable picture that the climate data present. Those who think that the scientific debate is over are the real science deniers.

Uncertainty is not necessarily fatal to precautionary policies such as the widespread calls for reducing carbon emissions. Policies designed to guard against risks have to take uncertainty into account. But uncertainty is not an excuse for throwing rational cost-benefit analysis out the window. Through policies like the Paris Agreement on climate change, alarmists are proposing hugely expensive reductions in carbon emissions that would hit the world’s poorest and most vulnerable populations hardest. But the only benefit they propose is a reduction in warming that today’s scientists would not be able to measure, much less conclusively attribute to the policy. Warming could stop completely without any reduction in carbon emissions, and it could continue despite the elimination of all carbon emissions. Scientists don’t know what the future holds because they don’t understand natural climate variability well enough to say what the underlying climate trend would be today in the absence of human impact.

It’s very telling that climate alarmists never mention natural climate change. And yet the danger of natural climate change is all too real. Most people don’t realize that the last 9,000 years have been uncharacteristically stable compared to the violent climate changes in the 9,000 years before that. 18,000 years ago, the state of Wisconsin was under nearly two miles of ice. Average temperatures were 40 degrees Farenheit lower than they are today, when they suddenly began to soar. The glaciers that covered most of the northern hemisphere started melting away, and never stopped melting. Ocean levels rose 300 feet between 15,000 and 8,000 years ago; that’s less time than between Sumerian civilization and the present day. It is very likely that we are towards the end of a short warm period between major glaciations of the Pleistocene Ice Age, which has lasted 2.6 million years. Carbon dioxide levels are the highest they’ve been in 800,000 years, as we’re often told, but the baseline is that of a ice age that has brought carbon dioxide levels to their lowest point in 245 million years.

Climate alarmists generally don’t know any of this because they’re not really afraid of climate change. What they’re afraid of is fossil fuels. Some of them have been advocating renewable fuel standards since the 1970s, when the scientific doomsday fad was imminent oil scarcity. Others are socialists like Naomi Klein, who thinks that corporations are the height of human evil. Still others are simple proponents of government regulation like you find in every sector of the economy, the agents of government's rapacious appetite for control. And still others are underdeveloped countries whose governments see the possibility of massive redistribution in a progressive scheme of decarbonization.

The one thing these people generally have in common is that they deny the present danger of natural climate change and they deny the many legitimate questions that remain about exactly what the climate science is telling us. They are the real climate deniers, the real science deniers, and that's why they risk going down as just another doomsday fad."



If you're still here, jackdale, I do this only to illustrate my original point; no matter what you believe, you can prove it on the internet, or at least find folks who agree with you.

I probably wouldn't have responded, but your statement "You can thank the GOP for politicizing "climate change"," coupled with the original "you must have missed this one," both smack of the tone I was hoping we could avoid. In my eyes, in the U.S., the supporters of the Democratic party, usually liberals, are much more to blame for the politicization. The party that supposedly stands for tolerance is incredibly intolerant of differing viewpoints. In their eyes, and apparently in yours, if I don't agree and would like to have measured discourse about the fact behind the issue, I'm politicizing the issue. I'm not.. I just don't agree. That's all.

I guess that's it. No aspersions. You're a passionate person on this issue, and I can appreciate that.

All my best,

Barry

Barry That statement is quite simply untrue.

I guess you missed this:

Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?
Author(s): Wallace S. Broecker
Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 189, No. 4201 (Aug. 8, 1975 ), pp. 460-463
Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You can thank the GOP for politicizing "climate change"

Frank Luntz Memorandum to Bush White House, 2002
"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."
"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science."
" It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming
1. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge. "
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,378 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
Jackdale,

The way you did that quote makes it appear as if you were quoting me, when in reality you were quoting the article I pasted; I did not say that. For the sake of legitimacy, please attribute your quotes correctly so others who may not be following closely know who said what.

I've said my piece. Again, best to you, whether you care to return it or not.

Take care,

Barry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,155 Posts
Barry I really like the tone of your posts and wholeheartedly agree the "neutrality " of the internet is a blessing and curse. Agee further with your maintaining a humane but libertarian point of view. Although this thread has become heated there are some abstractions which I think you could accept. Due to our biology and the way our infrastructure developed global warming and extreme weather isn't good for mankind. Our cities are predominantly coastal. Our food stocks don't grow except in very circumscribed conditions. Think you're right zealots on both sides are tree not forest people. Still the overwhelming majority of scientists looking at this issue clearly say through their societies as well as individually global warming is a concern as is global changes in precipitation and increasing extreme weather. Best information to date supports this is in part due to man made changes in the atmosphere and earths reflectivity. Hence. Dealing with and accepting the uncertainties present in any scientific discipline risk/benefit analysis suggests it's prudent to make policy accepting it as a working truth.
I tried to point out to Gary that when statins were introduced we didn't understand all the ways they worked but from multiple randomized double blind studies we know they work. Should we not accept the utility of using statins until something better comes along?
 

·
Living the dream
Joined
·
347 Posts
Barry I really like the tone of your posts and wholeheartedly agree the "neutrality " of the internet is a blessing and curse. Agee further with your maintaining a humane but libertarian point of view. Although this thread has become heated there are some abstractions which I think you could accept. Due to our biology and the way our infrastructure developed global warming and extreme weather isn't good for mankind. Our cities are predominantly coastal. Our food stocks don't grow except in very circumscribed conditions. Think you're right zealots on both sides are tree not forest people. Still the overwhelming majority of scientists looking at this issue clearly say through their societies as well as individually global warming is a concern as is global changes in precipitation and increasing extreme weather. Best information to date supports this is in part due to man made changes in the atmosphere and earths reflectivity. Hence. Dealing with and accepting the uncertainties present in any scientific discipline risk/benefit analysis suggests it's prudent to make policy accepting it as a working truth.
I tried to point out to Gary that when statins were introduced we didn't understand all the ways they worked but from multiple randomized double blind studies we know they work. Should we not accept the utility of using statins until something better comes along?
I'm still calling BS on this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,378 Posts
Jackdale,

The way you did that quote makes it appear as if you were quoting me, when in reality you were quoting the article I pasted; I did not say that. For the sake of legitimacy, please attribute your quotes correctly so others who may not be following closely know who said what.

I've said my piece. Again, best to you, whether you care to return it or not.

Take care,

Barry
You did not provide a link to the article. Since you posted it a assumed you adhered to it.

A couple of hints when discussing climate science:

1) Apply the CRAAP Test when evaluating websites https://www.csuchico.edu/lins/handouts/eval_websites.pdf

2) Use original sources as much as possible, especially peer reviewed science

3) Provide a link to the sources you quote.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,378 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
I went to Chico, briefly. Had to find a real school to learn something. UC did the trick. Associating CSUC with Craap Avoidance is ridiculous! It's a jock school for teaching credentials and party town USA. Lotta fun but not too heavy on the academics, kinda like most of this zealot nonsense.
Still waiting for the ice age they promised us back then!
 

·
Living the dream
Joined
·
347 Posts
Since when have insurance companies been climate experts?

I guess you also forgot about the effects, from an insurance companies perspective, of
  1. Population growth
  2. Population distribution
  3. Inflation
  4. Increased take up and growth of insurance products and services
  5. The trend for insurance companies to talk up natural disasters in order to justify increased premiums that proceed such events.
Besides, the best you've offered is one year of stats with the best "evidence" being a flood gate opening count since it was commissioned in the grand old days of 1982. As they say, "One swallow does not make a spring".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,378 Posts
I went to Chico, briefly. Had to find a real school to learn something. UC did the trick. Associating CSUC with Craap Avoidance is ridiculous! It's a jock school for teaching credentials and party town USA. Lotta fun but not too heavy on the academics, kinda like most of this zealot nonsense.
Still waiting for the ice age they promised us back then!
How about Cornell?

Evaluating Information - Research in Biological and Environmental Engineering: A Guide for Cornell Graduate Students - LibGuides at Cornell University

if they promised you an ice age you were miseducated. In the 1970's, science was 6:1 warming:cooling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,378 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
..if they promised you an ice age you were miseducated. In the 1970's, science was 6:1 warming:cooling.
You keep saying that, and you're quite wrong. How old were you then? Or are you buying the doctored nonsense all you folks buy these days....?

A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:
"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=1kGB5MMIAVA

Guess old Leonard didn't quite have the star factor of Algore and his carbon scam.

Maybe Walter had the news right, everyone thinks he always did!
https://youtu.be/hms8rggsMDQ
Little silly on the ending edits but hey...

Oh no, it's chicken little time....!!!!! Zealots on the march :eek

Loved these guys: https://youtu.be/nq4Bc2WCsdE
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,378 Posts
You keep saying that, and you're quite wrong. How old were you then? Or are you buying the doctored nonsense all you folks buy these days....?
In the 1970's I was teaching courses on global issues.

The literature for that period has been surveyed and published by The American Meteorological Society.

The survey identified only 7 articles indicating
cooling compared to 44 indicating warming.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

The mainstream media got it wrong, as Peter Gwynne of Newsweek points out. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/12/_1975_newsweek_article_on_global_cooling_how_climate_change_deniers_use.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,378 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
461 - 480 of 570 Posts
Top