What a relief

[Bradskii]

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

You can debate matters until the cows come home. If you want to dig up articles by someone who denies climate change (by feeding you info that is cherry picked to omit relevant info) and post them, you are free to do so. The rest of us are free to show you the faults in those articles. If you want to deny climate change while literally the whole world is gearing up to cope with it, then you will be classed as a climate change denier.

Let's face it. There is climate change. And you deny it. The term seems applicable to me.

 

[sjastro]

The link shows the number of hurricanes. Which is generally accepted to be steady. The intensity is a different matter. Here's a chart showing the intensity: Hurricanes and Climate Change

It's obvious that it has increased significantly in the last 25 years as compared to the previous 45 years.
1950 - 95 11 above normal (45 years)
1996 - 22 17 above normal (17 years)

View attachment 330518

In addition:

'Over the 39-year period from 1979-2017, the number of major hurricanes has increased while the number of smaller hurricanes has decreased. Based on modeling, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts an increase in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes, alongside increased hurricane wind speeds.'

And warmer sea temps result in 'wetter' storms. Sydney experienced it's wettest year on record last year, passing the previous record with 3 months of the year still to go.

Whereas El Nino reduces hurricane intensity, La Nina increases it.
Climate change has changed the frequencies at which El Nino and La Nina occur.
I've taken your hurricane intensity data and compared it with the El Nino and La Nina events over the same time frame.

It's difficult to get the time frames lined up but the increase in the frequency of high hurricane intensities in recent times corresponds with the current La Nina phase.

​

 

[dlamberth]

By all means knock yourself out. Accepted science many times has later been proven to be wrong.

I will.
Earth Science has a way better history on what's going on with the planet than does any religious beliefs.

 

[dlamberth]

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

As here we are debating Global Warming is proof what your saying is not true.

 

[sjastro]

Whereas El Nino reduces hurricane intensity, La Nina increases it.
Climate change has changed the frequencies at which El Nino and La Nina occur.
I've taken your hurricane intensity data and compared it with the El Nino and La Nina events over the same time frame.

View attachment 330523​

It's difficult to get the time frames lined up but the increase in the frequency of high hurricane intensities in recent times corresponds with the current La Nina phase.

​

La Nina ended in March 2023 and models are predicting a super El Nino developing.

Australia is particularly vulnerable to El Nino, the last major El Nino created conditions which led to the environmental catastrophe Black Summer a rare example of a gigafire which destroyed an area comparable in size to Oregon, killed 34 people, wiped out over a billion vertebrates and drove some endangered species to extinction.

While there have been larger fires in Australia, it was predicted in 2008 the direct effects of climate change on fires would become apparent by 2020.

Recent projections of fire weather (Lucas, et al., 2007)[8] suggest that fire seasons will start earlier, end slightly later, and generally be more intense. This effect increases over time, but should be directly observable by 2020.

 

[Postvieww]

Let's face it. There is climate change. And you deny it. The term seems applicable to me.

Well here we go again. I have repeatedly said on this thread I do not deny there is climate change. I just don't buy what you and others are selling about it. The climate has changed many times on this planet without the aid of man. What I refuse to accept is the fear mongering associated with this movement. Giving up meat, rice, combustion engines, electricity and the ability to travel are NOT going to make a noticeable difference in anything. The ignorant plan of selling carbon credits or offsets is evidence that there are other motives behind this movement. If the production of carbon is the serious danger claimed why would buying the right to produce more solve the problem. Climate change as promoted today is big business for many at the top of the food chain. This planet will never be destroyed by man and even. if that were happening greedy fear mongering elites could not save it. Actually without Co2 this would be a dead planet.

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/FC7C4946-11A3-4967-BF28-8D0386608D3E#:~:text=CO2%20is%20an%20essential%20nutrient,positive%20effect%20on%20plant%20life.

Let's discuss the above article instead of falling for the gloom and doom message. This is a fact based article ,but I will admit it does not fit the popular narrative. I am labeled a denier and I call many on the other side fear mongers but that does not address the facts.

 

[Frank Robert]

Well here we go again. I have repeatedly said on this thread I do not deny there is climate change. I just don't buy what you and others are selling about it. The climate has changed many times on this planet without the aid of man. What I refuse to accept is the fear mongering associated with this movement. Giving up meat, rice, combustion engines, electricity and the ability to travel are NOT going to make a noticeable difference in anything. The ignorant plan of selling carbon credits or offsets is evidence that there are other motives behind this movement. If the production of carbon is the serious danger claimed why would buying the right to produce more solve the problem. Climate change as promoted today is big business for many at the top of the food chain. This planet will never be destroyed by man and even. if that were happening greedy fear mongering elites could not save it. Actually without Co2 this would be a dead planet.

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/FC7C4946-11A3-4967-BF28-8D0386608D3E#:~:text=CO2%20is%20an%20essential%20nutrient,positive%20effect%20on%20plant%20life.

Let's discuss the above article instead of falling for the gloom and doom message. This is a fact based article ,but I will admit it does not fit the popular narrative. I am labeled a denier and I call many on the other side fear mongers but that does not address the facts.

What is your point? No one is claiming that CO2 is ALL bad or does not have ANY benefits.

The article is is simply a rehash of climate denial talking points using the tobacco industry playbook strategy or simply disinformation playbook resulting in weak argumentation against the evidence for climate change.

How Strong is the Link Between CO2 and Climate Change? | ChatGPT

The scientific evidence linking carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to climate change is very strong. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which represents the consensus of the world's leading climate scientists, has concluded that it is extremely likely (i.e., with a probability greater than 95%) that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, have been the dominant cause of the observed warming of the Earth's climate since the mid-20th century.​

​

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means that it absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation, trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere and leading to global warming. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution, primarily as a result of the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas.​

​

Multiple lines of evidence support the link between CO2 emissions and climate change, including:​

• Direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, which have increased from pre-industrial levels of around 280 parts per million (ppm) to over 400 ppm today.
• Historical temperature records, which show a clear warming trend over the past century and a half, with the last decade being the hottest on record.
• Observations of changes in the natural world, such as melting glaciers, rising sea levels, and changes in the timing of seasonal events like flowering and bird migration, all of which are consistent with a warming climate.
• Climate models, which simulate the behavior of the Earth's climate system and have successfully reproduced observed temperature trends when they include the effects of human CO2 emissions.

Overall, the scientific consensus is that CO2 emissions from human activities are causing significant and potentially catastrophic changes to the Earth's climate. It is essential that we take urgent action to reduce these emissions and transition to a low-carbon economy to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.​

 

[Postvieww]

No one is claiming that CO2 is ALL bad or does not have ANY benefits.

But Some are overstating the harm!

The article is is simply a rehash of climate denial talking points

Everyone has their talking point , even you!

Overall, the scientific consensus is that CO2 emissions from human activities are causing significant and potentially catastrophic changes to the Earth's climate.

That is opinion. There is consensus on both sides. Many scientist have financial or political pressures to fall in line with the narrative.

It is essential that we take urgent action to reduce these emissions and transition to a low-carbon economy to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

We are not on the verge of catastrophe, that has been the cry fore years. I am not a climate denier I am a propaganda denier. The climate does change but man WILL NOT destroy the earth.

 

[Frank Robert]

But Some are overstating the harm!

The future harm is not overstated. We would need drastic measures to prevent the worse of what climate change is bringing us. It is much easier to be complacent that denial allows us for now.

Everyone has their talking point , even you!

I agree. However, the difference is climate change talking points are based in reality with overwhelming evidence. Climate denier talking points are using the tobacco industry playbook strategy or simply disinformation playbook.

That is opinion. There is consensus on both sides. Many scientist have financial or political pressures to fall in line with the narrative.

The consensus of 97% of climate scientists is NOT opinion, it is based on current reality backed up by overwhelming evidence.

Cui bono?
There is much more financial incentive from the fossil fuel and energy industries to keep the climate denial alive. Oil and gas industry spent $124.4 million on federal lobbying amid record profits in 2022.

We are not on the verge of catastrophe, that has been the cry fore years. I am not a climate denier I am a propaganda denier.

There is already significant scientific evidence that we are approaching or have already passed several important climate tipping points. Once a tipping point is crossed, it can trigger a chain reaction that leads to further climate change impacts.

Some of the tipping points that scientists are particularly concerned:

1. Melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets: The loss of these ice sheets could raise sea levels by several meters, leading to significant flooding and displacement of coastal populations.
2. Disintegration of the Amazon rainforest: The Amazon rainforest is a vital carbon sink and a key part of the global ecosystem, but deforestation and climate change could trigger a shift to a drier savanna-like ecosystem.
3. Collapse of ocean circulation systems: The ocean plays a crucial role in regulating the Earth's climate, but changes in temperature and salinity could disrupt ocean currents, leading to significant changes in regional climates.
4. Release of methane from permafrost and ocean sediments: Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and there is concern that warming could cause large amounts of methane to be released from the Arctic permafrost or from ocean sediments, leading to further warming and climate change.

The climate does change but man WILL NOT destroy the earth.

Agreed man WILL NOT destroy earth. Do you think future generations will thank us, or curse us for our inaction?

Climate change is currently having a significant impact on our planet and is expected to have even greater effects in the future with

1. Rising sea levels: As temperatures rise and glaciers melt, sea levels are expected to rise, which could have significant impacts on coastal communities, including flooding and erosion.
2. More frequent and severe natural disasters: Climate change is expected to lead to more frequent and severe natural disasters, such as hurricanes, floods, and droughts, which could cause significant damage to infrastructure and property.
3. Changes in agricultural productivity: Changes in temperature and precipitation patterns could affect agricultural productivity, potentially leading to food shortages in some regions.
4. Health impacts: Climate change is expected to have significant impacts on public health, as rising temperatures could lead to more heat-related illnesses, while changes in precipitation patterns could lead to the spread of diseases.
5. Biodiversity loss: Climate change could lead to the loss of species and ecosystems, as animals and plants are unable to adapt to changing conditions.

Already visible

1. Rising temperatures: The global average temperature has already risen by around 1.1°C since pre-industrial times, and this has led to more frequent and intense heatwaves, as well as changes in precipitation patterns.
2. Melting glaciers and sea ice: Glaciers and sea ice are melting at an accelerating rate, leading to rising sea levels, which are already causing flooding and erosion in some parts of the world.
3. Extreme weather events: The frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires, have been increasing in recent years, causing significant damage to infrastructure and property.
4. Changes in ecosystems: Climate change is already affecting ecosystems around the world, with some species moving to new habitats or becoming extinct, and changes in the timing of seasonal events such as flowering and migration.

When does it become a priority to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the changes that are already happening?

My guess is when it is much too late.​

 

[sjastro]

Well here we go again. I have repeatedly said on this thread I do not deny there is climate change. I just don't buy what you and others are selling about it. The climate has changed many times on this planet without the aid of man. What I refuse to accept is the fear mongering associated with this movement. Giving up meat, rice, combustion engines, electricity and the ability to travel are NOT going to make a noticeable difference in anything. The ignorant plan of selling carbon credits or offsets is evidence that there are other motives behind this movement. If the production of carbon is the serious danger claimed why would buying the right to produce more solve the problem. Climate change as promoted today is big business for many at the top of the food chain. This planet will never be destroyed by man and even. if that were happening greedy fear mongering elites could not save it. Actually without Co2 this would be a dead planet.

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/FC7C4946-11A3-4967-BF28-8D0386608D3E#:~:text=CO2%20is%20an%20essential%20nutrient,positive%20effect%20on%20plant%20life.

Let's discuss the above article instead of falling for the gloom and doom message. This is a fact based article ,but I will admit it does not fit the popular narrative. I am labeled a denier and I call many on the other side fear mongers but that does not address the facts.

Why don’t you cut out the baloney and come straight out with your motivations in this thread.
Are you are one of those ignorant conservative Christians who see science as a threat to your faith and therefore undermines it at every opportunity such as climate change and COVID vaccinations?

Where do you come up with the idiotic nonsense that climate change mitigation involves giving up meat, rice, electricity and the right to travel?
Instead of giving up meat the CSIRO has developed feedstock which reduces cow fart methane emissions, electricity will come from renewable sources not fossil fuels and electric cars will eventually replace combustion engine cars.
This is the real world not your make believe world.

Your ignorance is even further compounded by claiming your article is fact based!!!
It is only fact based in your make believe world of confirmation bias.

I looked at the article and what struck me immediately was this graph which shows climate change models do not make accurate predictions.

This is at loggerheads with the actual science which shows climate change models do make accurate predictions.

​

So where did the graph in the article come from?
The clue is in the link;
Source: https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/ HHRG-113-SY18-WState-JChristy-20131211.pdf

When Republicans involve themselves in climate change one can assert with a high degree of probability nefarious activities are involved.
This is no exception as the graph was never peer reviewed and would have been shot down in flames.
The straight out fraudulent nature of this graph is revealed in this video.

It makes a complete joke of your fact based comment.

 

[dlamberth]

When does it become a priority to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the changes that are already happening?

My guess is when it is much too late.​

Sad...but true!

 

[AV1611VET]

Sad...but true!

In your opinion, should it be against the law to drink pop?

 

[Bradskii]

Let's discuss the above article instead of falling for the gloom and doom message. This is a fact based article ,but I will admit it does not fit the popular narrative. I am labeled a denier and I call many on the other side fear mongers but that does not address the facts.

You are kidding me...

From wiki: CO2 Coalition - Wikipedia

The CO2 Coalition is a successor to the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank focusing on defense and climate issues which closed in 2015. William O'Keefe, a chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute and former CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, continued as CEO of the CO2 Coalition. William Happer, an emeritus professor of physics known for disagreeing with the consensus on climate change, was another CO2 Coalition founder from the Marshall Institute.

In its first four years, the CO2 Coalition received over $1 million in contributions from foundations that support conservative cause and from energy industry officials.

In 2021 the CO2 Coalition submitted a public comment opposing climate change disclosure rules by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Coalition asserted "There is no 'climate crisis' and there is no evidence that there will be one,"


Note that last quote. The people you are citing actually contradict your position:

"I have repeatedly said on this thread I do not deny there is climate change."

Every country on the planet has signed the Paris Agreement except Libya, Yemen and Iran. Oh yeah, the US joined that select group for a short while. But we're now back to three. Ever get the feeling you are being ignored?

 

[Bradskii]

The climate does change but man WILL NOT destroy the earth.

Darn tootin'. The planet will keep spinning around the sun whatever we do or don't do. But I'm kinda concerned about the type of planet my grandkids will inherit. You aren't. Which would be a problem if you were a majority. Or even a significant minority. But you're not. Check those figures on the Paris Agreement again. You are being ignored. Exactly as I will be ignoring any further posts on climate, so don't waste too much time in a response.

The problem will be solved and we don't need your help.

 

[BeyondET]

But Some are overstating the harm!

Everyone has their talking point , even you!

That is opinion. There is consensus on both sides. Many scientist have financial or political pressures to fall in line with the narrative.

We are not on the verge of catastrophe, that has been the cry fore years. I am not a climate denier I am a propaganda denier. The climate does change but man WILL NOT destroy the earth.

Destroying the climate and destroying the earth is vastly different. One can bouch back the other can't.

Man can't destroy the earth or its the atmosphere but can effect the climate in the atmosphere on earth.

 

[sjastro]

You are kidding me...

From wiki: CO2 Coalition - Wikipedia

The CO2 Coalition is a successor to the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank focusing on defense and climate issues which closed in 2015. William O'Keefe, a chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute and former CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, continued as CEO of the CO2 Coalition. William Happer, an emeritus professor of physics known for disagreeing with the consensus on climate change, was another CO2 Coalition founder from the Marshall Institute.

In its first four years, the CO2 Coalition received over $1 million in contributions from foundations that support conservative cause and from energy industry officials.

In 2021 the CO2 Coalition submitted a public comment opposing climate change disclosure rules by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Coalition asserted "There is no 'climate crisis' and there is no evidence that there will be one,"


Note that last quote. The people you are citing actually contradict your position:

"I have repeatedly said on this thread I do not deny there is climate change."

Every country on the planet has signed the Paris Agreement except Libya, Yemen and Iran. Oh yeah, the US joined that select group for a short while. But we're now back to three. Ever get the feeling you are being ignored?

The CO2 coalition had the article published in the Washington Times There is no climate emergency which was reviewed by scientists and given a very low credibility rating.

I've noticed a change in the last couple of years where scientists have taken on the responsibility to publicly criticize pseudoscience instead of relying on a handful of science writers.
Another example is Eric Lerner of plasma cosmology fame claiming the JWST images have disproven the Big Bang theory.
Scientists have finally realized they have a responsibility in ensuing the general public is not hoodwinked by such nonsense.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The CO2 coalition had the article published in the Washington Times There is no climate emergency which was reviewed by scientists and given a very low credibility rating.

The oil company shills are publishing in a cult's newspaper (Moonie Times). Shocking. Well, not that shocking.

 

[Postvieww]

We are witnessing the "cult of climate". Inconvenient facts. Some of the prophets of doom in their own words.

 

[Postvieww]

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-climate-change-cult-10-warning-signs/

Signs to look for from climate cultists.

"The Verdict: It’s a cult

According to the established, scientific guidelines developed by cult experts, the Climate Change movement fits the bill for a potentially unsafe group. Rather than debating Climate Change activists, it may be time to start staging interventions. If someone you know is a member of the Climate Change Movement, and you are interested in intervention strategies, please visit Intervention."

 

[Frank Robert]

We are witnessing the "cult of climate". Inconvenient facts. Some of the prophets of doom in their own words.

The only climate cult is the climate denier cult known for its excessive admiration of fossil fuel industry.

Tucker is banking millions to feed the vulnerable and less educated right wingers hatred of anything they can stick on the left. I am sure Tucker is laughing all the way to the bank. It really is unfortunate for deniers like you.