What a relief

[sfs]

The point I was making is relevant to the topic.

Your point is that because some people are wrong about one thing, a different set of people must be wrong about some other completely different thing?

 

[Postvieww]

Your point is that because some people are wrong about one thing, a different set of people must be wrong about some other completely different thing?

No I likened the two situations to the same type of lack of real facts for support. Less than honorable motives likely drive both.

 

[sfs]

No I likened the two situations to the same type of lack of real facts for support

It's an analogy that contributes nothing at all to the discussion. Especially since it's a terrible analogy. There are no real facts supporting predictions of Christ's imminent return while there are abundant facts supporting the reality of climate change, the role of humans in causing it, and the harm it is causing and will cause.

 

[Postvieww]

It's an analogy that contributes nothing at all to the discussion. Especially since it's a terrible analogy. There are no real facts supporting predictions of Christ's imminent return while there are abundant facts supporting the reality of climate change, the role of humans in causing it, and the harm it is causing and will cause.

Some claimed they had real facts when twenty years ago they claimed we would be under water now. It’s a moving target with either fake facts or misinterpreted data. Why is it so hard to see the power and money behind this fear fest? I am not saying there is no change at all in our climate but I am claiming it is miss-characterized for various nefarious reasons. The climate on earth is ever changing, but not because I eat rice and meat or drive my car! That is junk science.

 

[sfs]

Some claimed they had real facts when twenty years ago they claimed we would be under water now.

Who claimed that? Please be specific. What scientific studies are you referring to?

Why is it so hard to see the power and money behind this fear fest?

Are you really not aware of all of the money that fossil fuel companies pump into climate change denialism?

 

[Frank Robert]

What a relief, there are some sane, independent and honest scientists who are not told or pressured into what to say.

I did a bit of research on Judith Curry​

​

According to her Wikipedia page, Judith Curry's position on climate change has been described as "neo-skepticism", in that her current position includes certain features of denialism; on the one hand, she accepts that the planet is slightly warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide cause warming, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic, but on the other hand she also proposes that the rate of warming is slower than climate models have projected, emphasizes her evaluation of the uncertainty in the climate projection models, and questions whether climate change mitigation is affordable¹.​

​

Curry has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change and has stated she is troubled by the “tribal nature” of parts of the climate-science community².​

It appears the Dr Curry, while claiming certain features of denialism, is NOT a climate denier but does have some criticisms of the "worst-case" scenario. My understanding of science and scientists is that differences are not only common but desirable. I think if you do a bit more investigation you would find other scientists have good reason to disagree with Dr. Curry which is not say that Dr. Curry agrees with MTG beliefs on climate change.

Here is what one such scientist, Michael Tobis, PhD in physical climatology, science writer, 35 years working with NOAA Climate monitoring agencies says.

I don’t think Curry has actually made any sort of criticism of climate models that is in enough detail to require a formal response from scientists.​

Her arguments are not addressed to the scientific community, but rather to other communities for whom the “disgruntled scientist” is a useful character to have on the stage.​

That said, I think most of us would agree to what has been written here: Judith Curry confuses laypeople about climate models.​

 

[dlamberth]

Some claimed they had real facts when twenty years ago they claimed we would be under water now.

20 years ago scientist were warning about wild climate change, forest fires, floods and the crazy weather stuff we are experiencing now. They were not saying that we would be under water at this point.

 

[Hans Blaster]

20 years ago scientist were warning about wild climate change, forest fires, floods and the crazy weather stuff we are experiencing now. They were not saying that we would be under water at this point.

And I add...

The big sea level increases (the dangerous ones) are tied to ice sheets destabilizing and falling into the ocean. That's really hard to predict because it depends on how much lubrication there is at the bottom of the ice sheet (meltwater and soil between the ground and the ice sheet) which depends on the terrain details and how much of the surface melt goes down cracks to the bottom.

 

[Postvieww]

Apocalypse Delayed | National Review

Al Gore’s Doomsday Clock expired and after ten years the world still hasn’t been destroyed by climate change.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[Postvieww]

Al Gore has history of climate predictions, statements proven false

Former Vice President Al Gore, who warned this week that climate change was leading to "atomic bombs exploding every day," has made extreme predictions in the past.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Postvieww]

Believe the climate doomsday message or you are a “climate change denier “ take the unproven vaccine or you are a “vaccine denier “ don’t question the 2020 election or you are an “election denier “ are we starting to see a pattern here? Mention facts about race and you are a “racist”, speak against abortion and you are against “women’s rights”, try get porn out of school libraries and you are “book burner”, try to protect young children from being sexually indoctrinated in school and you are a “homophob” or “LGBT hater “. Try to stand up for gun rights and you want children murdered. Are we starting to see a pattern here?

 

[Shemjaza]

Believe the climate doomsday message or you are a “climate change denier “ take the unproven vaccine or you are a “vaccine denier “ don’t question the 2020 election or you are an “election denier “ are we starting to see a pattern here? Mention facts about race and you are a “racist”, speak against abortion and you are against “women’s rights”, try get inappropriate content out of school libraries and you are “book burner”, try to protect young children from being sexually indoctrinated in school and you are a “homophob” or “LGBT hater “. Try to stand up for gun rights and you want children murdered. Are we starting to see s pattern here?

Yes.

And it isn't a flattering one.

 

[sjastro]

Believe the climate doomsday message or you are a “climate change denier “ take the unproven vaccine or you are a “vaccine denier “ don’t question the 2020 election or you are an “election denier “ are we starting to see a pattern here? Mention facts about race and you are a “racist”, speak against abortion and you are against “women’s rights”, try get inappropriate content out of school libraries and you are “book burner”, try to protect young children from being sexually indoctrinated in school and you are a “homophob” or “LGBT hater “. Try to stand up for gun rights and you want children murdered. Are we starting to see s pattern here.

A benefit of education is the development of critical thinking skills.

 

[Frank Robert]

Al Gore has history of climate predictions, statements proven false

Former Vice President Al Gore, who warned this week that climate change was leading to "atomic bombs exploding every day," has made extreme predictions in the past.

www.foxnews.com

I wasn't aware that Al Gore was a climatologist.

 

[Bradskii]

Are we starting to see s pattern here?

No doubt about it. People rejecting reality and that fact being pointed out.

 

[Frank Robert]

Believe the climate doomsday message or you are a “climate change denier “ take the unproven vaccine or you are a “vaccine denier “ don’t question the 2020 election or you are an “election denier “ are we starting to see a pattern here? Mention facts about race and you are a “racist”, speak against abortion and you are against “women’s rights”, try get inappropriate content out of school libraries and you are “book burner”, try to protect young children from being sexually indoctrinated in school and you are a “homophob” or “LGBT hater “. Try to stand up for gun rights and you want children murdered. Are we starting to see s pattern here?

That is not how climate change denial works. Here is an example of climate denial.

A climate change denier denies the reality that Weather-related disasters increase over past 50 years such as

​

A disaster related to a weather, climate or water hazard occurred every day on average over the past 50 years – killing 115 people and causing US$ 202 million in losses daily, according to a comprehensive new report from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).​

​

The number of disasters has increased by a factor of five over the 50-year period, driven by climate change, more extreme weather and improved reporting. But, thanks to improved early warnings and disaster management, the number of deaths decreased almost three-fold.​

​

According to the WMO Atlas of Mortality and Economic Losses from Weather, Climate and Water Extremes (1970 – 2019), there were more than 11 000 reported disasters attributed to these hazards globally, with just over 2 million deaths and US$ 3.64 trillion in losses.​

Climate deniers present a grossly exaggerated version of climate change to camouflage their denial.

BTW, nice summary of far right politics.

 

[Postvieww]

I wasn't aware that Al Gore was a climatologist.

He is not BUT he sure has enriched himself spewing misinformation for the cause.

 

[Postvieww]

A benefit of education is the development of critical thinking skills.

The Myth That Hurricanes Are Getting Worse (Because of Climate Change)

Despite what you may have heard, climate change is not actually causing more hurricanes—activity has actually been decreasing slightly since 1900, data from the American Meteorological Society show. That is only half of the story, however.

fee.org

 

[Postvieww]

BTW, nice summary of far right politics.

It was actually a summary of tactics used by many on the left to shut down debate and avoid actual discussion on issues.

 

[Frank Robert]

He is not BUT he sure has enriched himself spewing misinformation for the cause.

If you want to appear knowledgeable your need to check your facts before you post.

IS Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?​

What The Science Says:
Al Gore's film was "broadly accurate" according to an expert witness called when an attempt was made through the courts to prevent the film being shown in schools.​

Climate Myth: Al Gore got it wrong
“Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, was […] criticised by a high court judge who highlighted what he said were "nine scientific errors" in the film.​

Mr Justice Barton yesterday said that while the film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of climate change, he identified nine significant errors in the film, some of which, he said, had arisen in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration" to support the former US vice-president's views on climate change.” (The Guardian)

​

Al Gore, certainly the most vilified proponent of climate change anywhere in the world, earned most of this enmity through the success of a film he presented called An Inconvenient Truth (AIT). The film was a staid presentation of climate science to date, a round-up of research, science and projections, with many cinematic sequences employed to harness the power of the medium.​

​

The majority of the film, covering issues like Himalayan Glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica losing ice, the severity of hurricanes and other weather phenomena, was accurate and represented the science as it stood. Since the release of the film, considerably more evidence has been found in support of the science and projections in the film.​

​

One claim was in error, as was one attribution of a graph. The error was in the claim that climate change had caused the shrinking of Mount Kilimanjaro, although the evidence that the shrinkage was most likely caused by deforestation did not appear until after the film was made. The error of attribution was in reference to a graph of temperature and attributes it mistakenly to a Dr. Thompson, when it was actually a combination of Mann’s hockey stick and CRU surface temperature data.​

​

The Legal Case​

The film is also subject to attack on the grounds that Al Gore was prosecuted in the UK and a judge found many errors in the film. This is untrue.​

​

The case, heard in the civil court, was brought by a school governor against the Secretary of State for Education, in an attempt to prevent the film being distributed to schools. Mr. Justice Burton, in his judgement, ordered that teaching notes accompanying the film should be modified to clarify the speculative (and occasionally hyperbolic) presentation of some issues.​

​

Mr. Justice Burton found no errors at all in the science. In his written judgement, the word error appears in quotes each time it is used – nine points formed the entirety of his judgement - indicating that he did not support the assertion the points were erroneous. About the film in general, he said this:​

​

17. I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:​

​

i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.​

​

22. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:
"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate." ​

​

The judge did identify statements that had political implications he felt needed qualification in the guidance notes for teachers, and ordered that both qualifications on the science and the political implications should be included in the notes. Al Gore was not involved in the case, was not prosecuted, and because the trial was not a criminal case, there was no jury, and no guilty verdict was handed down.​

​

Note: the vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract - like science - the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics - being a rich politician, for example - it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame.​