15 year old girl talks to UN on climate issues

[Blackie]

Maybe the future looks bright.

You Are Stealing Our Future: Greta Thunberg, 15, Condemns the World’s Inaction on Climate Change - YouTube (https://youtu.be/HzeekxtyFOY)

[Topspinmo]

I’m sure the 15 years old don’t do without there electronics, designer clothes , and mommy’s MB SUV gas guzzlers. All contributors also

[manaboutown]

It is very sad she has been mislead.

Climate Change Videos - Nobel Laureate in Physics; "Global Warming is Pseudoscience" | Heartland Institute (https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/videos-climate-change/nobel-laureate-in-physics-global-warming-is-pseudoscience)

[Bogie Shooter]

It is very sad she has been mislead.

Climate Change Videos - Nobel Laureate in Physics; "Global Warming is Pseudoscience" | Heartland Institute (https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/videos-climate-change/nobel-laureate-in-physics-global-warming-is-pseudoscience)

Went to this site, wow!
Their endorsements explains it all:

Endorsements
The Heartland Institute is endorsed by some of the top scholars, thinkers, and politicians in the world – including many members of congress and state elected officials and the leaders of other conservative and libertarian think tanks such as Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist, The Leadership Institute’s Morton Blackwell, The Heritage Foundation’s Jim DeMint, and many more.

[Boomer]

Went to this site, wow!
Their endorsements explains it all:

Endorsements
The Heartland Institute is endorsed by some of the top scholars, thinkers, and politicians in the world – including many members of congress and state elected officials and the leaders of other conservative and libertarian think tanks such as Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist, The Leadership Institute’s Morton Blackwell, The Heritage Foundation’s Jim DeMint, and many more.


Thank you, Bogie,

You have illustrated here how it is not only important to cite sources but to recognize the need to back source cited sources.

In other words -- who said what, when, and why did they say it?

As a nation we are awash in disinformation and propaganda.

I actually change the channel sometimes, just to see what is being said. But too many people are not willing to look at anything other than what taps into whatever it is they need to think, for whatever reason.

[graciegirl]

Thank you, Bogie,

You have illustrated here how it is not only important to cite sources but to recognize the need to back source cited sources.

In other words -- who said what, when, and why did they say it?

As a nation we are awash in disinformation and propaganda.

I actually change the channel sometimes, just to see what is being said. But too many people are not willing to look at anything other than what taps into whatever it is they need to think, for whatever reason.

Few people I know doubt the reason and the fact of climate change but certainly debate how to stop it or slow it down or whether much can be done at all. I don't see people giving up their engines or their livelihood that depends on them and it would require that and the diligent reuse of possessions and the discontinued use of plastics. People think they understand the situation but most are far too simplistic and far to accusatory.

And many are just plain unrealistic. Define the problem, gather facts, come to trial conclusion, check trial conclusion come to final conclusion. Mine is that no one can make all people in the world do what needs to be done to stop greenhouse gases. I think the answer will lie in a scientific discovery not yet made. Humans will continue to act like humans.

[eweissenbach]

Went to this site, wow!
Their endorsements explains it all:

Endorsements
The Heartland Institute is endorsed by some of the top scholars, thinkers, and politicians in the world – including many members of congress and state elected officials and the leaders of other conservative and libertarian think tanks such as Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist, The Leadership Institute’s Morton Blackwell, The Heritage Foundation’s Jim DeMint, and many more.

I find it amazing and perplexing how many people who, because of the initial following their name, follow the line without thought. If you own a petroleum or coal company, or a pipeline, or anything else that supports fossil fuels, I understand your position. I can think of no rational reason, other than that, which would cause you to think that cleaning the environment was anything other than vital. I'm sure this post and probably this thread, won't last long unfortunately.

[eweissenbach]

Few people I know doubt the reason and the fact of climate change but certainly debate how to stop it or slow it down or whether much can be done at all. I don't see people giving up their engines or their livelihood that depends on them and it would require that and the diligent reuse of possessions and the discontinued use of plastics. People think they understand the situation but most are far too simplistic and far to accusatory.

It is difficult and complicated to reverse the situation, but many don't even care to begin the process, and try to use disinformation to back their arguments. Our grandchildren and their children and grandchildren will one day be asking "what were they thinking?"

[Taltarzac725]

Thank you, Bogie,

You have illustrated here how it is not only important to cite sources but to recognize the need to back source cited sources.

In other words -- who said what, when, and why did they say it?

As a nation we are awash in disinformation and propaganda.

I actually change the channel sometimes, just to see what is being said. But too many people are not willing to look at anything other than what taps into whatever it is they need to think, for whatever reason.

My parents have a certain station on often so I do not have a choice with my hearing other viewpoints even if to me that station sounds like disinformation and propaganda of the worst kind. Journalists are supposed to me to be critical explorers into the facts no matter what those facts turn out to really be. Diggers for the truth in other words and not disseminators of BS.

[tuccillo]

A bit disingenuous as the magnitude of the problem is far from known. As I have stated previously, this is an area of ongoing research and is hardly settled science. The homogenization of certain observational datasets and the lack of fidelity in the treatments of certain physical processes in numerical models makes any conclusions suspect. Well respected scientists such as Lennart Bengtsson have expressed the opinion that we simply don't know the magnitude of anthropogenic warming nor the time scale. 40 years ago the concern was about global cooling. Full disclosure: undergraduate and graduate degrees in atmospheric science, researcher and numerical model developer for NASA and the National Weather Service.

Maybe the future looks bright.

You Are Stealing Our Future: Greta Thunberg, 15, Condemns the World’s Inaction on Climate Change - YouTube (https://youtu.be/HzeekxtyFOY)

[graciegirl]

I find it amazing and perplexing how many people who, because of the initial following their name, follow the line without thought. If you own a petroleum or coal company, or a pipeline, or anything else that supports fossil fuels, I understand your position. I can think of no rational reason, other than that, which would cause you to think that cleaning the environment was anything other than vital. I'm sure this post and probably this thread, won't last long unfortunately.

Ed. Forest Fires and Volcano's and animals and humans belch contamination too. As I say. It isn't as political as some assume. World hunger has been cut in half since 1990 because of industrialization. Please check that fact. It isn't simple. Nothing ever is and sometimes there are no answers for difficult issues. .

[PersonalChoice]

What happened to global cooling, acid rain, depletion of the ozone layer, global warming . . . ? Now we have global climate change blamed on CO2, which is a necessary gas for life on this planet, along with oxygen. Follow the money trail? Who would gain from selling carbon credits? How do we control solar flares, sun activity, which I am sure has a major effect on our weather? The computer models do not include the sun's effect on our planet. Hmmm.

[manaboutown]

I love Ben Stein and his sensible analysis of many situations. Ben Stein: What if manmade climate change is a fraud? | On Air Videos | Fox News (https://video.foxnews.com/v/4661236875001/?#sp=show-clips)

[tuccillo]

Disinformation springs from both sides. The worst, in my opinion, comes from those who are convinced they completely understand a problem that is still being researched.

It is difficult and complicated to reverse the situation, but many don't even care to begin the process, and try to use disinformation to back their arguments. Our grandchildren and their children and grandchildren will one day be asking "what were they thinking?"

[Taltarzac725]

A bit disingenuous as the magnitude of the problem is far from known. As I have stated previously, this is an area of ongoing research and is hardly settled science. The homogenization of certain observational datasets and the lack of fidelity in the treatments of certain physical processes in numerical models makes any conclusions suspect. Well respected scientists such as Lennart Bengtsson have expressed the opinion that we simply don't know the magnitude of anthropogenic warming nor the time scale. 40 years ago the concern was about global cooling. Full disclosure: undergraduate and graduate degrees in atmospheric science, researcher and numerical model developer for NASA and the National Weather Service.

Most real science has a lot of unknowns especially something as complicated as the weather and long term patterns in it. But what is very obvious is that something needs to be done no matter the extent of scientist's knowledge of what the "cycles" or whatever are really like.

If your house is getting too uncomfortable for you then you turn down the thermostat or turn it up or open some windows or actually do something to fix it. Or try to change the conditions.

An interesting link-- Climate Change (https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/climatechange/index.html)

[eweissenbach]

Ed. Forest Fires and Volcano's and animals and humans belch contamination too. As I say. It isn't as political as some assume. World hunger has been cut in half since 1990 because of industrialization. Please check that fact. It isn't simple. Nothing ever is and sometimes there are no answers for difficult issues. .

I think I understand the real, and the political issues better than most. What are the ramifications for continuing to push the status quo, and who benefits? If you answer the question of who benefits, and you follow the money, you will know who also buys the politicians and the "oppo-research.

[manaboutown]

The climate of the earth has been changing since the very beginnings of the earth. It was obviously different during the times of the dinosaurs and during ice ages. Climate change did not start with humankind's evolution into fossil fuel burning industrial societies.

What can human beings do about climate change which is actually driven by volcanic eruptions and other natural events, sun spot and other solar activity and changes, our moon's orbit's ever increasing radius, earth's own orbital variations, axial precession and other natural occurrences?

IMHO pollution in general, especially by countries such as China, India and Russia, all the plastic thrown into the sea, overpopulation and such need to be addressed but as to whether or not our activities initiate climate change to even a measurable degree is not remotely understood much lessen proven.

What is clear is that proponents of humankind being responsible for and having the ability to reduce climate change are in one way or another profiting by selling the concept to the public. Both avarice and power over others are their driving forces.

To actually believe humankind can control the earth's climate is simultaneously both incredibly naive and ludicrously arrogant.

[tuccillo]

Your analogy is not a good one. When we don’t know the extent of the problem, or even if there is a problem, it is impossible to know what to do.

Most real science has a lot of unknowns especially something as complicated as the weather and long term patterns in it. But what is very obvious is that something needs to be done no matter the extent of scientist's knowledge of what the "cycles" or whatever are really like.

If your house is getting too uncomfortable for you then you turn down the thermostat or turn it up or open some windows or actually do something to fix it. Or try to change the conditions.

An interesting link-- Climate Change (https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/climatechange/index.html)

[eweissenbach]

Your analogy is not a good one. When we don’t know the extent of the problem, or even if there is a problem, it is impossible to know what to do.

It is true we don't know the extent of the problem. It seems like every credible report that comes out shows it to be worse than earlier thought. This reminds me of the cigarette companies arguing many years ago that smoking and cancer were not linked. They also bought a few politicians and "scientists" to support their argument but didn't have the money that the petroleum and coal industry and companies like Koch Industries to buy enough to really influence many people or buy enough politicians.

[manaboutown]

The solar panel industry, Tesla, wind farm companies and the like have plenty of politicians in their pockets.

[rjm1cc]

With or without climate change (is this good or bad since the earth originated?) you should not build a home in a flood plane and expect that it will not be damaged by a flood. So to start lets use local zoning to help reduce the problems we currently have.

[tuccillo]

This is another poor analogy. If you don't believe there are funded investigators who toe "the anthropogenic global warming" line then you are naive. There have been various dire prognostications that were put forth that haven't panned out. Without domain expertise, it is impossible to judge the actual credibility of various reports. It is like me trying to judge the credibility of a clinical trial for a new drug. I simply don't have the expertise to understand the issues of a drug trial.

It is true we don't know the extent of the problem. It seems like every credible report that comes out shows it to be worse than earlier thought. This reminds me of the cigarette companies arguing many years ago that smoking and cancer were not linked. They also bought a few politicians and "scientists" to support their argument but didn't have the money that the petroleum and coal industry and companies like Koch Industries to buy enough to really influence many people or buy enough politicians.

[eweissenbach]

How Big Money in Politics Blocked U.S. Action on Climate Change - Yale E360 (https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-big-money-in-politics-blocked-u-s-action-on-climate-change)

[eweissenbach]

How Money Changes Climate Debate - Scientific American (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-money-changes-climate-debate/)

[graciegirl]

Ed, neither of these articles is a compelling reason to spend money on "climate change". We can believe that climate is changing and that indeed it is because of greenhouse gases, but how do you get the world to change and stop industrialization? Especially since industrialization can bring the end to hunger and poverty?

It is way too general to blame the monied big businesses for the ills of the world. Anyone who WASTES money is in a real sense wasting resources.

Both sides have got to stop chewing and swallowing doctrines whole.

[Rapscallion St Croix]

Well, these guys are doing their part.

New Zealand scientists are breeding sheep to fart and burp less - ABC Rural - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2018-06-07/new-zealand-scientists-breed-sheep-that-fart-and-burp-less/9841546)

[Boomer]

Ed, neither of these articles is a compelling reason to spend money on "climate change". We can believe that climate is changing and that indeed it is because of greenhouse gases, but how do you get the world to change and stop industrialization? Especially since industrialization can bring the end to hunger and poverty?

It is way too general to blame the monied big businesses for the ills of the world. Anyone who WASTES money is in a real sense wasting resources.

Both sides have got to stop chewing and swallowing doctrines whole.


If we do not work toward the middle, we are doomed.

If we do not stop dehumanizing those who are not like us, we are doomed.

If we do not stop the unrestrained greed, we are doomed. (No. I am not what some of you want to call me. I just happen to think that unrestrained greed is bad economics. We have seen it before and we might be headed there again.)

If we do not stop falling for the old "Divide and Conquer" routine, we are doomed.

If we who have everything we need stop seeing the pain of others, we are doomed.

If we do not learn to see through manipulation, we are doomed.

If we never question anything, we are doomed.

If we do not stop excusing the inexcusable, we are doomed.

If we continue to abdicate our ability to think for ourselves and continue to let the screens in our homes tell us what to think, feel, and do, we are doomed.

If we do not notice that there is so much anger and it is being fanned constantly, we are doomed.

If we cannot see hypocrisy, we are doomed.

If we do not stop and look in the mirror and ask ourselves who we really are, we are doomed.

etc.

- - - - - -

Uh-oh. I think I just managed to close this thread.

[Rapscallion St Croix]

If we do not work toward the middle, we are doomed.

If we do not stop dehumanizing those who are not like us, we are doomed.

If we do not stop the unrestrained greed, we are doomed. (No. I am not what some of you want to call me. I just happen to think that unrestrained greed is bad economics. We have seen it before and we might be headed there again.)

If we do not stop falling for the old "Divide and Conquer" routine, we are doomed.

If we who have everything we need stop seeing the pain of others, we are doomed.

If we do not learn to see through manipulation, we are doomed.

If we never question anything, we are doomed.

If we do not stop excusing the inexcusable, we are doomed.

If we continue to abdicate our ability to think for ourselves and continue to let the screens in our homes tell us what to think, feel, and do, we are doomed.

If we do not notice that there is so much anger and it is being fanned constantly, we are doomed.

If we cannot see hypocrisy, we are doomed.

If we do not stop and look in the mirror and ask ourselves who we really are, we are doomed.

etc.

- - - - - -

Uh-oh. I think I just managed to close this thread.

Hopefully, salvation rests in the ability to recognize unbridled hyperbole.

[Boomer]

Hopefully, salvation rests in the ability to recognize unbridled hyperbole.

Aw, c'mon, Rap, I would happily match you any day. Say high noon. LSL. (Of course, I am up north right now.)

Being a moderate and all that entails, I must see you as an individual and acknowledge that even though you can sometimes behave in a cantankerous manner and aim your slings and arrows at me, I really do admire your wicked wit.

[Rapscallion St Croix]

Aw, c'mon, Rap, I would happily match you any day. Say high noon. LSL. (Of course, I am up north right now.)

Being a moderate and all that entails, I must see you as an individual and acknowledge that even though you can sometimes behave in a cantankerous manner and aim your slings and arrows at me, I really do admire your wicked wit.

I am headed North tomorrow but I never rise before noon, so I must decline. By definition, we are from different generations. Some genius has declared that I was born ten months too early to be a boomer, so I was forced to become one of the youngest curmudgeons.

[Taltarzac725]

Earth’s Changing Climate | The Great Courses (https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/earth-s-changing-climate.html)

This could be a useful link.

There are many areas we could at least be doing something for future generations.

[Boomer]

I am headed North tomorrow but I never rise before noon, so I must decline. By definition, we are from different generations. Some genius has declared that I was born ten months too early to be a boomer, so I was forced to become one of the youngest curmudgeons.


Aw, Rap, we are closer than you think. I am an elder-Boomer.

You really have raised curmudgeon-ing to an art form. Find a niche and fill it so they say. it works. :)

[ColdNoMore]

Thank you, Bogie,

You have illustrated here how it is not only important to cite sources but to recognize the need to back source cited sources.

In other words -- who said what, when, and why did they say it?

As a nation we are awash in disinformation and propaganda.

I actually change the channel sometimes, just to see what is being said. But too many people are not willing to look at anything other than what taps into whatever it is they need to think, for whatever reason.

Yep. :thumbup:

[ColdNoMore]

It is difficult and complicated to reverse the situation, but many don't even care to begin the process, and try to use disinformation to back their arguments. Our grandchildren and their children and grandchildren will one day be asking "what were they thinking?"

Yep. :ohdear:

[ColdNoMore]

What happened to global cooling, acid rain, depletion of the ozone layer, global warming . . . ? Now we have global climate change blamed on CO2, which is a necessary gas for life on this planet, along with oxygen. Follow the money trail? Who would gain from selling carbon credits? How do we control solar flares, sun activity, which I am sure has a major effect on our weather? The computer models do not include the sun's effect on our planet. Hmmm.

"Follow the money trail"...is an excellent idea.

One has to also ask, who benefits the most by ignoring the recognition of any problems of spewing greenhouse gasses and continuing the course of...'business as usual?'

[ColdNoMore]

I think I understand the real, and the political issues better than most. What are the ramifications for continuing to push the status quo, and who benefits? If you answer the question of who benefits, and you follow the money, you will know who also buys the politicians and the "oppo-research.

Yep.

[ColdNoMore]

If we do not work toward the middle, we are doomed.

If we do not stop dehumanizing those who are not like us, we are doomed.

If we do not stop the unrestrained greed, we are doomed. (No. I am not what some of you want to call me. I just happen to think that unrestrained greed is bad economics. We have seen it before and we might be headed there again.)

If we do not stop falling for the old "Divide and Conquer" routine, we are doomed.

If we who have everything we need stop seeing the pain of others, we are doomed.

If we do not learn to see through manipulation, we are doomed.

If we never question anything, we are doomed.

If we do not stop excusing the inexcusable, we are doomed.

If we continue to abdicate our ability to think for ourselves and continue to let the screens in our homes tell us what to think, feel, and do, we are doomed.

If we do not notice that there is so much anger and it is being fanned constantly, we are doomed.

If we cannot see hypocrisy, we are doomed.

If we do not stop and look in the mirror and ask ourselves who we really are, we are doomed.

etc.

A huge...YEP!

- - - - - -

Uh-oh. I think I just managed to close this thread.

Nope, it won't be due to just you.

[graciegirl]

Hopefully, salvation rests in the ability to recognize unbridled hyperbole.

I concur. And with every year we live, most of us anyway,gain a little more insight and knowledge.

Plus I recall your impressive history and background and achievements. I know that you, Mr. Scallion, have knowledge of many things.

You can recognize hyperbole and over sentimentality from at least 20 paces.

[graciegirl]

A bit disingenuous as the magnitude of the problem is far from known. As I have stated previously, this is an area of ongoing research and is hardly settled science. The homogenization of certain observational datasets and the lack of fidelity in the treatments of certain physical processes in numerical models makes any conclusions suspect. Well respected scientists such as Lennart Bengtsson have expressed the opinion that we simply don't know the magnitude of anthropogenic warming nor the time scale. 40 years ago the concern was about global cooling. Full disclosure: undergraduate and graduate degrees in atmospheric science, researcher and numerical model developer for NASA and the National Weather Service.

Those are very valid qualifications to me and to most people. Tucillo. I thank you for the information that you have shared in the past. You are indeed a scientist.

[eweissenbach]

I concur. And with every year we live, most of us anyway, we gain a little more insight and knowledge.

So to me that means that just being a little bit older grants us the ability to recognize bull excrement better. I think that is what you meant by hyperbole.

Plus I recall your impressive history and background. I know that you, Mr. Scallion, have knowledge of many things.

I presume that the "most of us" who "gain a little more insight and knowledge" pertains only to those who agree with you and Mr. Scallion. Oh well, neither of us will likely change anything or any minds, but at least I'm comfortable that my great-grandchildren will know what side of the issue I was on.

[ColdNoMore]

I presume that the "most of us" who "gain a little more insight and knowledge" pertains only to those who agree with you and Mr. Scallion.

Oh well, neither of us will likely change anything or any minds, but at least I'm comfortable that my great-grandchildren will know what side of the issue I was on.

Exactly! :agree:

[graciegirl]

I presume that the "most of us" who "gain a little more insight and knowledge" pertains only to those who agree with you and Mr. Scallion. Oh well, neither of us will likely change anything or any minds, but at least I'm comfortable that my great-grandchildren will know what side of the issue I was on.

I believe that both sides are aware and concerned about global warming, but how to deal with it is the problem. I don't think being the major funder in the Paris meeting is doing something. I don't think that passing laws about drilling or pipe lines is doing something. As long as you gas your car, you prove that argument invalid. Industrialization is a major cause of greenhouse gases. Texas has windmills just like Germany and so does Massachusetts. So far scientists are incapable of changing the world to alternate power. Moving your arms and legs and worrying about plastic straws all day and night are not going to stop global warming or save the oceans. The trouble is that not one valid solution has been offered in any of these posts to stop global warming. Talk is cheap.

[Taltarzac725]

Bibliography: Discovery of Global Warming (https://history.aip.org/climate/bib.htm)

Lots of information on global warming is out there. I hope that our younger generations take it upon themselves to really get out there and do something about these problems vexing us like global warming.

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History (https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm#contents)

Basic information and links (https://history.aip.org/climate/links.htm)

[manaboutown]

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses | NASA (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses)

[CFrance]

I find it amazing and perplexing how many people who, because of the initial following their name, follow the line without thought. If you own a petroleum or coal company, or a pipeline, or anything else that supports fossil fuels, I understand your position. I can think of no rational reason, other than that, which would cause you to think that cleaning the environment was anything other than vital. I'm sure this post and probably this thread, won't last long unfortunately.
But till it does, I support you. And I decry those who kick the can down the road, for whatever reason.

[manaboutown]

Now this is a step in the right direction. California regulates cow farts (https://nypost.com/2016/09/21/it-will-soon-be-illegal-for-cows-to-fart-in-california/?fbclid=IwAR29SkdWnkvVqc7C91uKiRj7cbfYn5NHfC1FEwM-OuGPWTpzPD2V-WgPvoc)

[jebartle]

Most real science has a lot of unknowns especially something as complicated as the weather and long term patterns in it. But what is very obvious is that something needs to be done no matter the extent of scientist's knowledge of what the "cycles" or whatever are really like.

If your house is getting too uncomfortable for you then you turn down the thermostat or turn it up or open some windows or actually do something to fix it. Or try to change the conditions.

An interesting link-- Climate Change (https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/climatechange/index.html)

I agree, sitting on our hands is not a solution. Everyone needs to do our part, no matter how small and insignificant, this is our planet that our children will inherit, at the very least, recycle!

[ColdNoMore]

But till it does, I support you. And I decry those who kick the can down the road, for whatever reason.

I agree, sitting on our hands is not a solution. Everyone needs to do our part, no matter how small and insignificant, this is our planet that our children will inherit, at the very least, recycle!

Yep.

What amazes me, is the ignorance of some with the attitude of... "until some kind of single magic bullet comes along, why bother?"

Refusing to recognize that the answer lies in taking and embracing...lots of small, constant, interim steps.

Which is how most major changes take place, whether it be civil rights/air & water pollution/....?

Speaking of which, the incredible increase in air/water quality experienced due to laws that has occurred in the last number of decades in our cities...is the perfect example. I can't help but wonder, if some folks think this all happened because of magic...or voluntary industry actions taken? :oops:

All this improvement in spite of the same voices screeching back then, about how meeting those laws would..."cost too much, destroy industries and it's too late anyway."

And yet of late, ignoring the success of those laws, we've been relaxing a lot of them...simply so corporations/industries can increase their profits in the short term. :ohdear:

[Bay Kid]

If they want to change the climate maybe they should stop all the burning in Florida.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Here's the best thing that I'v ever seen on climate change.
Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree? - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSrjAXK5pGw&t=119s)

[Taltarzac725]

Here's the best thing that I'v ever seen on climate change.
Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree? - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSrjAXK5pGw&t=119s)

Fossil Fuels: The Greenest Energy | PragerU (https://www.prageru.com/videos/fossil-fuels-greenest-energy)

They look like gunfighters, so to speak, for the fossil fuel industry.

It is good that people are looking at things critically though.

Scientists rarely agree on much of anything that is not already very settled as being pretty much scientific facts. And that can change if there is a paradigm shift in scientific thinking.

There is a lot of money invested in keeping the thinking uncritical on both sides.

Scientific Advances & Paradigm Shifts in Scientific Theories | Study.com (https://study.com/academy/lesson/scientific-advances-paradigm-shifts-in-scientific-theories.html)

[tuccillo]

First off, the climate has always changed. The biggest question is how much of the change is anthropogenic. This is very difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. From radiative transfer theory, we know that increasing the levels of CO2 will result in some warming. However, this effect is not large enough to be of concern. There needs to be other effects from the slight warming caused by CO2 increases. One thought is that some warming will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and since water vapor has a much stronger greenhouse impact than CO2 the net result will be greater warming. Of course, this will lead to more clouds which will reflect more incoming solar radiation and lead to cooling. However, the clouds also act to trap long wave radiation which can lead to warming. Needless to say, it is complicated, non-linear, hard to quantify, and difficult to numerically model with fidelity. This was the area I primarily worked in.

There is no actual proof that the increase in CO2 from man's activities is increasing the global temperature. There are short term temperature records but there has been some homogenization of the data. There are longer term data from ice cores. Interestingly, some of the data suggests the CO2 increases follow temperature increases. The "evidence" that man's activities will catastrophically increase global temperatures comes from numerical modeling. This is an area of ongoing research and I don't believe the results are usable, yet, for developing public policy. It is difficult to numerically model important processes such as clouds. There continues to be a lot of money (relatively) spent on numerical modeling worldwide for investigating anthropogenic warming. Again, we don't know the quantitive impact or the time scale. As a scientist, I cringe every time I hear somebody say the "science is settled".

I believe that both sides are aware and concerned about global warming, but how to deal with it is the problem. I don't think being the major funder in the Paris meeting is doing something. I don't think that passing laws about drilling or pipe lines is doing something. As long as you gas your car, you prove that argument invalid. Industrialization is a major cause of greenhouse gases. Texas has windmills just like Germany and so does Massachusetts. So far scientists are incapable of changing the world to alternate power. Moving your arms and legs and worrying about plastic straws all day and night are not going to stop global warming or save the oceans. The trouble is that not one valid solution has been offered in any of these posts to stop global warming. Talk is cheap.

[manaboutown]

Bibliography: Discovery of Global Warming (https://history.aip.org/climate/bib.htm)

Lots of information on global warming is out there. I hope that our younger generations take it upon themselves to really get out there and do something about these problems vexing us like global warming.

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History (https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm#contents)

Basic information and links (https://history.aip.org/climate/links.htm)

For starters we could stop running our household air conditioning systems as the power to run them is mostly generated by burning fossil fuels.

Do you want to be the first to volunteer?

[ColdNoMore]

Here's the best thing that I'v ever seen on climate change.

Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree? - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSrjAXK5pGw&t=119s)

Put out by 'PrageU.'

What is a 'PragerU'...you might ask?



PragerU (click here) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PragerU)

What it's not...

Despite having "University" in its name, PragerU is not an academic institution, does not hold classes, and does not grant certifications or diplomas.


What it is...
PragerU was founded in 2009 by conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager and radio producer and screenwriter Allen Estrin,[4] in order to present his conservative views and to offset what he regards as the undermining of college education by the left.

In August 2018, when asked to comment, PragerU criticized YouTube for adding fact-checks to YouTube videos which cover climate change.



Any questions? :ho:

[Bucco]

Put out by 'PrageU.'

What is a 'PragerU'...you might ask?



PragerU (click here) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PragerU)

What it's not...



What it is...




Any questions? :ho:

The videos you show for what they are simply are manifestations of the CRAP that is spread, as mentioned by Boomer in post 5.

TWO different worlds.....ONE sees the world as it really is.....the SECOND was they are instructed to see the world.

Hard to be informed in this environment......

[Kenswing]

The videos you show for what they are simply are manifestations of the CRAP that is spread, as mentioned by Boomer in post 5.

TWO different worlds.....ONE sees the world as it really is.....the SECOND was they are instructed to see the world.

Hard to be informed in this environment......

And each group believes they see the world as it really is.. lol

[ColdNoMore]

The videos you show for what they are simply are manifestations of the CRAP that is spread, as mentioned by Boomer in post 5.

TWO different worlds.....ONE sees the world as it really is.....the SECOND was they are instructed to see the world.

Hard to be informed in this environment......


Yep. :ohdear:

[graciegirl]

And each knew how the other saw things. And there would be little change in their views.

[Bucco]

And each knew how the other saw things. And there would be little change in their views.

Could you please explain the meaning of your post ?

Thanks.

Seems to me that any American should know who tells the truth, honor them for that and dispute liars.

Difference of opinion is different....that is people with the same facts, and disagreeing on how to proceed.

Facts and truth, in most cases, is easy to find. Lies as well. Suddenly we are besieged with lies and non facts, and no American should tolerate that.

But, again, not sure what your post means. I am speaking of the truth...you are are also, I think. The point made earlier and I maintain is we are not dealing with facts very much, thus it is NOT related to how we see things. If someone lies to you and I, we should see it as a lie, and that's it.

An untruth CANNOT be seen differently by different people....it is a lie.

[eweissenbach]

"There is none so blind as those who will not see".

[Boomer]

And each knew how the other saw things. And there would be little change in their views.



Could you please explain the meaning of your post ?

Thanks.

Seems to me that any American should know who tells the truth, honor them for that and dispute liars.

Difference of opinion is different....that is people with the same facts, and disagreeing on how to proceed.

Facts and truth, in most cases, is easy to find. Lies as well. Suddenly we are besieged with lies and non facts, and no American should tolerate that.

But, again, not sure what your post means. I am speaking of the truth...you are are also, I think. The point made earlier and I maintain is we are not dealing with facts very much, thus it is NOT related to how we see things. If someone lies to you and I, we should see it as a lie, and that's it.

An untruth CANNOT be seen differently by different people....it is a lie.


Bucco, my friend,

I have tried and tried to figure out this behavior, too. These would be interesting times if they were not so terrifyingly Orwellian. (Remember, "The Ministry of Truth" was the name of the propaganda machine in Orwell's 1984.)

A few months ago, I asked a relative what he thought of children being taken from their parents at the border. I really did want to know what he thought. I was looking for discussion.

His answer to me was, "I have not heard anything about it."

"Change the channel," said I.

That was when I learned that he believed he was getting the real news because he had given up on F and found a new channel that "told the truth." Turned out, he was watching a channel that I had to look up because I had never heard of it. :eek:

I asked him if he would watch PBS news, just for that evening. His reaction had a touch of the irate. You would have thought I had asked him to drink poison.

I had not tried to get him to watch CNN. I just wanted him to have a look at PBS. But he is so completely immersed in his new "news" channel that I know I have to give up. He lives across the country from us so, now, I guess weddings and funerals will be it.

Another part of believing, or wanting to believe, lies has a lot to do with personality types.

Then there are those who, whether consciously or subconsciously, subscribe to the philosophy that if they do not acknowledge a reality, they do not have to deal with it.

I really think this thread is going to be closed soon. Probably should be. If not, I am going to try to stop beating my head against this wall. Wall? (chortle, snort)

Sincerely,
Disengaging Boomer, maybe

PS: Forgot to say that a young person I know said now that his 401(k) is tanking he could see what his friends are talking about. Goes to show that motivations vary.

[Bucco]

Bucco, my friend,

I have tried and tried to figure out this behavior, too. These would be interesting times if they were not so terrifyingly Orwellian. (Remember, "The Ministry of Truth" was the name of the propaganda machine in Orwell's 1984.)

A few months ago, I asked a relative what he thought of children being taken from their parents at the border. His answer to me was, "I have not heard anything about it."

"Change the channel," said I.

That was when I learned that he believed he was getting the real news because he had given up on F and found a new channel that told the truth. Turned out, he was watching a channel that I had to look up because I had never heard of it. :eek:

I asked him if he would watch PBS news, just for that evening. His reaction had a touch of the irate. You would have thought I had asked him to drink poison.

I had not tried to get him to watch CNN. I just wanted him to have a look at PBS. But nope. He is so far gone that I have to give up. Fortunately he lives across the country from us. Weddings and funerals will be it I think.

Another part of believing, or wanting to believe, lies has a lot to do with personality types.

Then there are those who, whether consciously or subconsciously, subscribe to the philosophy that if they do not acknowledge a reality, they do not have to deal with it.

I really think this thread is going to be closed soon. Probably should be. If not, I am going to try to at least try to stop beating my head against this wall. Wall? (chortle, snort)

Sincerely,
Disengaging Boomer, maybe

PS: Forgot to say that a young person I know said now that his 401(k) is tanking he could see what his friends were talking about. Motivations vary.

Crazy for sure.

Some seem to shrug off substantiated, easily proven facts, and embrace false, never proven (actually totally disproven and proven false statements, most of them laced with false and incredibly mean accusations) statements.

I suppose I could care less except for the serious damage done, and being done, to my country.

I grew up told that truth and honesty mattered. I was told to never trust a proven liar and crook. I was told to never trust thieves.

Now it appears we are told to ignore truth and honesty and embrace "shaking and jivin" as if there were no consequences for these action.

These action do and WILL have serious consequences.

To this specific topic, now that Syria finally agreed, the United States of America is the single only country in the world to not sign, and my bet is that most have never even read the accord, only judges based on grossly inaccurate statements made by our leaders.

PS..your young person, had he listened was warned well in advance the cut was for the rich and companies who have used it to one pockets of their own ilk. Reading what is happening you deficit, and how quickly it is happening, and hearing that our leaders don't care because they are rich and will not be in any office when this collapses makes me sad.

[ColdNoMore]

Boomer & Bucco.....



:bigbow:...:bigbow:...:bigbow:

[TexaninVA]

Let us know when she stops using fossil fuel cars, gives up central air, and washes her clothes in a local river.

[TexaninVA]

"There is none so blind as those who will not see".

"There are none so dumb as those who preach utopian solutions"

[eweissenbach]

Let us know when she stops using fossil fuel cars, gives up central air, and washes her clothes in a local river.

"There are none so dumb as those who preach utopian solutions"

Thank you for those well researched, informative, and helpful responses. I'm sure your grammar school teachers are very proud.

[rjm1cc]

My assumption is that the individual does not have the expertise to analysis the problem and this is more a stunt put on at the UN. What we need is options to switch too and not talk and taxes.

[Taltarzac725]

What Is Global Warming? (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-overview/)

Always liked and respected National Geographic and their stories on issues that matter.

[graciegirl]

My assumption is that the individual does not have the expertise to analyze the problem and this is more a stunt put on at the UN. What we need is options to switch to and not talk and taxes.

Well said. I remember giving the graduation speech in High School. It was lofty, it was full of sentiment firmly felt by 16 year old me. It made my family get all teary and earned me much applause. It was about the Statue of Liberty and immigration. I still believe most of what I wrote and presented but a good part has been somewhat altered by my observations of the world as I got older.

I am glad I was me then, and I am glad I am me now.

[tophcfa]

One need not look any further than the "yellow vest" protests going on in France, over a big jump in fuel taxes, to observe the practical difficulties (economic impact) of making significant change.

[graciegirl]

One need not look any further than the "yellow vest" protests going on in France, over a big jump in fuel taxes, to observe the practical difficulties (economic impact) of making significant change.

That indeed is a very good example of no solution but taxing the problem.

[blueash]

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses | NASA (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses)

If you wish to use NASA to support a view that ice is increasing in the Antarctic, you may want to rethink that reference. There will be more data in the spring of 2019, but the latest report is here (https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/ramp-up-in-antarctic-ice-loss-speeds-sea-level-rise)
Ramp-Up in Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Sea Level Rise | NASA (https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/ramp-up-in-antarctic-ice-loss-speeds-sea-level-rise)

Unlike the 2015 report, which NASA itself said was not consistent with the findings of other investigators, this 2018 report agrees that ice loss is greatly exceeding new ice formation and contributing to the observed rise in yearly ocean levels.


Ice losses from Antarctica have tripled since 2012, increasing global sea levels by 0.12 inch (3 millimeters) in that timeframe alone, according to a major new international climate assessment funded by NASA and ESA (European Space Agency).

This of course is in addition to the massive loss of sea ice in the Arctic and the loss of land ice from Greenland.

[blueash]

Science is never "settled" and any argument using the lack of finality as a justification for inaction should be seen for what it is, denialism. Faith is settled. Science is always open to revision and exploration, testing, and retesting. That goes on in biology, in medicine, and in physics, and of course in climate science. Scientists reach a consensus when the evidence strongly points in one direction. Tobacco causes cancer, DDT is not good for the environment, clean air and clean water are better than dirty water, wash your hands and get some exercise, and the activities of humans are a significant factor in the rise of temperatures over the last 50 years. There never was a consensus or even serious consideration about global cooling. The potential impact of solar variation, and of volcanoes have been included in climate models and are not significant drivers of the rise which has been observed.

Claims that predictions have failed to be met by reality are the result of cherry-picking the most dire models. Even Dr. Hansen, one of the most vigorous and outspoken scientists in the climate science field would be proud of the accuracy of the predictions he made in 1981.

[tuccillo]

Your two statements highlighted in RED are not true. There have been published papers regarding the impact of the missing solar forcing (part of which is the impact on cloud nucleation from solar effects) as a cause of the over sensitivity of climate models. Essentially, the impact of the missing solar forcing can be up to a watt per square meter - more than enough to explain the over predictions. Climate models have consistently over predicted temperature trends by a factor of two when used in a hindcasting format. This is directly from the IPCC reports when compared with actual measured temperatures. This has been well documented by Christy and Spencer. This should not really be a surprise as it is very difficult to get the clouds correct in the model and if you don't get that right then you have no chance. Also, when you are missing important forcing then you also have no chance. In addition, when the only thing you are looking at is anthropogenic causes then that is what you will find because your funding will dictate that as the result. I have seen this. As I previously stated, in my opinion, climate models are not ready as a tool for setting public policy as they are still in the R&D stage. Climate dynamics are not well understood. The inability to diagnose how much of the recent warming is due to climate cycles and how much is anthropogenically driven is evidence of this. Numerical models make a large number of assumptions due to lack of understanding of physical processes, omission of important physical processes, lack of computer power, and the individual biases, as to what is important, of the developers. I know this because I have been there. In addition, there are a number of parameters that can be tuned in a model to achieve the desired results. The reason for these parameter is a lack of understanding of physical processes and as a way to compensate for errors you cannot explain (often because of incorrect assumptions). Also, your analogs have no applicability to climate science and your graph is hopelessly out of date.

Science is never "settled" and any argument using the lack of finality as a justification for inaction should be seen for what it is, denialism. Faith is settled. Science is always open to revision and exploration, testing, and retesting. That goes on in biology, in medicine, and in physics, and of course in climate science. Scientists reach a consensus when the evidence strongly points in one direction. Tobacco causes cancer, DDT is not good for the environment, clean air and clean water are better than dirty water, wash your hands and get some exercise, and the activities of humans are a significant factor in the rise of temperatures over the last 50 years. There never was a consensus or even serious consideration about global cooling. The potential impact of solar variation, and of volcanoes have been included in climate models and are not significant drivers of the rise which has been observed.

Claims that predictions have failed to be met by reality are the result of cherry-picking the most dire models. Even Dr. Hansen, one of the most vigorous and outspoken scientists in the climate science field would be proud of the accuracy of the predictions he made in 1981.

[fw102807]

In addition, when the only thing you are looking at is anthropogenic causes then that is what you will find because your funding will dictate that as the result.

Bingo. That is the reason that lots of "studies" for many issues are not totally "fact" and need to be looked at with a little skepticism.

[Taltarzac725]

Bingo. That is the reason that lots of "studies" for many issues are not totally "fact" and need to be looked at with a little skepticism.

Little Ice Age? No. Big Warming Age? Yes. - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (https://thebulletin.org/2018/12/little-ice-age-no-big-warming-age-yes/)

It should extent to all sides especially anything put out by a certain "news" channel which whenever I see it is mostly talking heads giving their opinions and expounding with extremely faulty logic.

[Abby10]

Bingo. That is the reason that lots of "studies" for many issues are not totally "fact" and need to be looked at with a little skepticism.

Agreed. I find this same thing in my industry. You have to get beyond the ideology and/or marketing of these issues/products if you really want to get to the facts.

Your two statements highlighted in RED are not true. There have been published papers regarding the impact of the missing solar forcing (part of which is the impact on cloud nucleation from solar effects) as a cause of the over sensitivity of climate models. Essentially, the impact of the missing solar forcing can be up to a watt per square meter - more than enough to explain the over predictions. Climate models have consistently over predicted temperature trends by a factor of two when used in a hindcasting format. This is directly from the IPCC reports when compared with actual measured temperatures. This has been well documented by Christy and Spencer. This should not really be a surprise as it is very difficult to get the clouds correct in the model and if you don't get that right then you have no chance. Also, when you are missing important forcing then you also have no chance. In addition, when the only thing you are looking at is anthropogenic causes then that is what you will find because your funding will dictate that as the result. I have seen this. As I previously stated, in my opinion, climate models are not ready as a tool for setting public policy as they are still in the R&D stage. Climate dynamics are not well understood. The inability to diagnose how much of the recent warming is due to climate cycles and how much is anthropogenically driven is evidence of this. Numerical models make a large number of assumptions due to lack of understanding of physical processes, omission of important physical processes, lack of computer power, and the individual biases, as to what is important, of the developers. I know this because I have been there. In addition, there are a number of parameters that can be tuned in a model to achieve the desired results. The reason for these parameter is a lack of understanding of physical processes and as a way to compensate for errors you cannot explain (often because of incorrect assumptions). Also, your analogs have no applicability to climate science and your graph is hopelessly out of date.

It is a privilege to have someone with your expertise on this forum. This is without a doubt an important issue that would benefit everyone if decisions and policy were based on factual data examined without bias. Just want to thank you for your informative posts on this thread and others in the past.

[blueash]

The specious argument that the huge majority of climate scientists who acknowledge the human contribution to global warming and the likely severe consequences of that warming, are somehow all part of conspiracy to produce false data and lie to the public because they are being paid off by someone to do it is completely laughable. The only certain source of money is the oil and gas industry which openly funds the Heartland Institute to produce reports denying the science of almost everyone else.

Of course first the deniers claimed there was no global warming, claimed the data showing the upward trend was bad data, or outright lies. Screams of fraud about the emails from the Climatic Research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy) Unit, proving that the scientists were making it all up.. but it was a big nothing and proved nothing.

So instead the deniers changed their attack. Instead of saying there was no global warming (https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/#3be51d253de0) [that attack failed], they switched to saying it wasn't due to any human causes. Or if it is due to human causes the contribution is so small, or if it is entirely human caused society will not ever change so there is nothing you can do and wouldn't it be great to grow bananas in Canada.

Here is the simple truth. The temperature of both the atmosphere and the oceans is rising. The rise is completely consistent with the models that use predictions of the effects of CO2 from human activity as the major source of the temperature change. No model using sun spots or earth wobbles or clouds or the lack of pirates provides an explanation of what has been clearly and undeniably seen over the last 50 years.

As to my graph being "hopelessly out of date" as it only goes to about 2012. Here are links to several more recent reports all of which extend the data and show exactly the same conclusion.. the mainstream climate scientists predictions have been accurate.


UNFCC (https://unfccc.int/index.php/news/climate-models-are-accurately-predicting-ocean-and-global-warming), ScienceNordic (http://sciencenordic.com/climate-models-have-not-“over-predicted”-warming), American Geophysical Union Harvard (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AGUFMED12A..07N), Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/25/30-years-later-deniers-are-still-lying-about-hansens-amazing-global-warming-prediction) , The US government (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/did-global-warming-stop-1998),


Worth noting once again in this Sept 2018 report produced by the Trump administration..

Those who deny the scientific evidence of human-caused global warming turned the slowdown into a slogan: “Global warming stopped in 1998.” In scientific journals and assessment reports, climate experts described the episode as a “pause” or “hiatus” in the previous decades’ rapid warming: they knew it wouldn’t last.
Not only was 1998-2012 the warmest 15-year period on record at the time, but greenhouse gases continued to climb to new record highs, and other climate indicators continued to show the impacts of long-term, global-scale warming: subsurface ocean heating, global sea level rise, the melting of glaciers and ice sheets, and record-low Arctic sea ice extent.


This report even includes, for the deniers, specific comments about sunspots, volcanoes, El Ninos, and lots of graphs and charts, again showing how accurate the climate models have been.

[ColdNoMore]

The specious argument that the huge majority of climate scientists who acknowledge the human contribution to global warming and the likely severe consequences of that warming, are somehow all part of conspiracy to produce false data and lie to the public because they are being paid off by someone to do it is completely laughable.

The only certain source of money is the oil and gas industry which openly funds the Heartland Institute to produce reports denying the science of almost everyone else...<Snip



Yep!

[tuccillo]

You are wrong about the fidelity of the models - they have repeated demonstrated that they are overly sensitive and over predict temperatures by about 2x. This has been demonstrated by Christy and Spencer and Curry and other independent sources. As I already stated, the contribution from anthropogenic sources and climatic trends to the recent temperature increases can not be determined. Catastrophic temperature increases require positive feedbacks from the slight amount of warming from additional CO2 and it has not been shown that this is fully understood or can be modeled with fidelity. I will state this again, increases in CO2 alone are incapable of increasing the temperatures significantly and the feedbacks are not fully understood. You can continue to believe what you want and seek out sources to support your theories but there is ample, independent evidence to support the fact that we don't know whether there is a problem or not. Part of the problem is the recent surface temperature record and homogenization. Fortunately we also have satellite temperatures. This is the position of numerous, independent, well regarded researchers. Those of us who have actually developed models, as opposed to those who get their information from biased sources, understand this. You can prattle on about deniers and tabloid topics all you want. I only care about the science. Ultimately we may find that numerically modeling the climate is an intractable problem just like usable, deterministic weather simulations past 15 days may also prove to be an intractable problem. I prefer to have discussions with people who actually worked in this discipline so don't feel the need to respond.

The specious argument that the huge majority of climate scientists who acknowledge the human contribution to global warming and the likely severe consequences of that warming, are somehow all part of conspiracy to produce false data and lie to the public because they are being paid off by someone to do it is completely laughable. The only certain source of money is the oil and gas industry which openly funds the Heartland Institute to produce reports denying the science of almost everyone else.

Of course first the deniers claimed there was no global warming, claimed the data showing the upward trend was bad data, or outright lies. Screams of fraud about the emails from the Climatic Research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy) Unit, proving that the scientists were making it all up.. but it was a big nothing and proved nothing.

So instead the deniers changed their attack. Instead of saying there was no global warming (https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/#3be51d253de0) [that attack failed], they switched to saying it wasn't due to any human causes. Or if it is due to human causes the contribution is so small, or if it is entirely human caused society will not ever change so there is nothing you can do and wouldn't it be great to grow bananas in Canada.

Here is the simple truth. The temperature of both the atmosphere and the oceans is rising. The rise is completely consistent with the models that use predictions of the effects of CO2 from human activity as the major source of the temperature change. No model using sun spots or earth wobbles or clouds or the lack of pirates provides an explanation of what has been clearly and undeniably seen over the last 50 years.

As to my graph being "hopelessly out of date" as it only goes to about 2012. Here are links to several more recent reports all of which extend the data and show exactly the same conclusion.. the mainstream climate scientists predictions have been accurate.


UNFCC (https://unfccc.int/index.php/news/climate-models-are-accurately-predicting-ocean-and-global-warming), ScienceNordic (http://sciencenordic.com/climate-models-have-not-“over-predicted”-warming), American Geophysical Union Harvard (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AGUFMED12A..07N), Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/25/30-years-later-deniers-are-still-lying-about-hansens-amazing-global-warming-prediction) , The US government (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/did-global-warming-stop-1998),


Worth noting once again in this Sept 2018 report produced by the Trump administration..




This report even includes, for the deniers, specific comments about sunspots, volcanoes, El Ninos, and lots of graphs and charts, again showing how accurate the climate models have been.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

The question is not whether climate change is real. It has been proven that there has been a very slight warming of the earth's average temperature.

The questions are has man caused it? It seems that man is partly responsible but to what degree is up in the air.

The second question is can man change it or mitigate it? Al Gore admitted that even if we did everything that he and his organization recommend it would not make a significant change. By the way, Al Gore has made hundreds of millions of dollars because of climate change.

The third and most important question is, to what degree will this affect the earth and those living on it? Is this change in temperature catastrophic or is it something that will barely affect us? The answer to that is still up for debate. As Johnny said, many of the computer models have been wrong. Polar ice is not melting to the degree that was predicted. There are more polar bears now than there were in the 1980s. According to many of the alarmists, we should all be dead by now.

One more question is that if the warming is not catastrophic, are we willing to stop using fossil fuels and whatever else is contributing to the warming. The world runs on fossil fuels. They are an efficient and inexpensive fuel that we all depend on for transportation, heating, production and food. Everything that we touch or eat has gotten to us by fossil fuels. Can the entire world make a change to solar power? What would that take? How long would it take? Would everyone in the world agree to it? And would the total changeover result in a reduction in temperature that would change anything? This goes back to how much of this is being caused by man and how much is caused by volcanoes and cow farts.

Is climate change settled science? Yes and no. Yes, 97% of all scientists agree that there has been a slight warming of the earth. But they do not agree on all of these other questions.

And I have to repeat, Al Gore admitted that no matter what we do, we will not stop global warming. If you think that riding a bicycle to work is going to have any effect on anything, you're kidding yourself. In order to have any effect on the earth's temperature the entire world would have to stop using fossil fuels and that's not going to happen.

We as humans just have to realize that number one, we don't know everything and number two, there are some things that we just cannot do anything about.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree? - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSrjAXK5pGw&t=127s)

[PersonalChoice]

Great documentary which aired on the BBC about ten years ago, "The Great Global Warming Swindle." The Great Global Warming Swindle - Full Documentary HD - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ)