Hottest Week on Record, Hottest June, Record hottest days, Record Low Antarctic sea ice

[Tinker Grey]

Opinions are not important. The facts are and they speak for themselves.

We are in deep trouble already and without drastic action it will get a lot worse.

I fear that it is too late

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Opinions are not important. The facts are and they speak for themselves.

We are in deep trouble already and without drastic action it will get a lot worse.

Regarding your first sentence. I completely agree. That's my point.

Regarding your second sentence, well, opinions vary.

 

[Halbhh]

Regarding your first sentence. I completely agree. That's my point.

Regarding your second sentence, well, opinions vary.

On the 2nd, a metaphor I think is fairly good is that if a person walks along the edge of a cliff, they won't necessarily fall, but they could, and it's not like there's no danger. This has to do with tipping points -- what happens when Earth warms enough for certain new factors to suddenly become activated.
For example:
"Arctic air is warming, causing scientists to worry that melting arctic ice and snow could also lead to a sudden permafrost thaw and release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) that forms a climate tipping point or feedback loop. And the trigger temperature may be coming much sooner than expected."
(a PBS video on this in more detail --
Weathered | Is Permafrost the Climate Tipping Point of No Return? | Season 3 | Episode 12 | PBS )

The CO2 (and methane) that permafrost could release is estimated to be about 2 and 1/2 times what humanity has already released through burning hydrocarbons.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

It'll usually have a .gov or .edu URL.

Propaganda is usually packaged that way.

I'm not dismissing Dr. Curry out of hand, but as an analogy, she's a maverick about global warming the way Alan Fedducia and John Ruben are mavericks about bird evolution. They all accept the consensus to a certain point, but not all the way.

Regarding your first sentence, that's why I don't take the MSM seriously. ( I dumped TV in 1997. When I am exposed to it I'm shocked at the simplicity and lack of accuracy.) But Heller has proved himself. For starters, he presents historical climate coverage by the media to make many of his points.

Regarding your second paragraph, well, no need to re-invent the wheel. Let me respond with this:

Mad Scientist: 6 Scientists Who Were Dismissed As Crazy, Only To Be Proven Right Years Later​

And then there is the former head of Greenpeace, that seems to have had his own "come to Jesus" moment regarding climate:

Former Greenpeace Founder Patrick Moore Says Climate Change Based on False Narratives​

Then there is John Clauser and all the other "deniers with strong credentials".

He won a Nobel Prize. Then he started denying climate change.​

 

[Whyayeman]

It'll usually have a .gov or .edu URL.

Regarding your first sentence, that's why I don't take the MSM seriously. ( I dumped TV in 1997. When I am exposed to it I'm shocked at the simplicity and lack of accuracy.) But Heller has proved himself. For starters, he presents historical climate coverage by the media to make many of his points.

Regarding your second paragraph, well, no need to re-invent the wheel. Let me respond with this:

Mad Scientist: 6 Scientists Who Were Dismissed As Crazy, Only To Be Proven Right Years Later​

And then there is the former head of Greenpeace, that seems to have had his own "come to Jesus" moment regarding climate:

Former Greenpeace Founder Patrick Moore Says Climate Change Based on False Narratives​

Then there is John Clauser and all the other "deniers with strong credentials".

He won a Nobel Prize. Then he started denying climate change.​

Your examples are ridiculous - or would be if the situation was not serious. These are all well out of date.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Your examples are ridiculous - or would be if the situation was not serious. These are all well out of date.

Actually, a LOT of information is out of date. It's actually one of the points Heller tries to make. But if "out of date" is the only problem, here is something nice and fresh (from a few hours ago):

But then, I already linked to the interview with Judith Curry, which is just two months old. So I am not sure I trust your sincerity regarding "out of date" information.

 

[Laodicean60]

Underwater Termal I don't hear often. It's a possibility for ice melt.

https://medium.com/@tomek.glowacki/underwater-thermal-activities-an-overlooked-factor-in-climate-change-85ed0cf3d797

 

[Whyayeman]

So I am not sure I trust your sincerity regarding "out of date" information.

I am totally sincere about the science. I think the article 'Mad Scientist: six scientists...' is totally irrelevant to the discussion. I understand the point you are making, but a list like that is misleading. The Patrick Moore article is an 11 year old opinion piece. The Washington Post is behind a wall, but it is a piece of journalism.

Actually, a LOT of information is out of date.

The articles you invited posters to read contain no scientific information at all.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I am totally sincere about the science. I think the article 'Mad Scientist: six scientists...' is totally irrelevant to the discussion. I understand the point you are making, but a list like that is misleading. The Patrick Moore article is an 11 year old opinion piece. The Washington Post is behind a wall, but it is a piece of journalism.


The articles you invited posters to read contain no scientific information at all.

Regarding your first paragraph, I used that article to point out that just because someone is not part of the "consensus" does not make them wrong. And, in my opinion, as time passes, the "consensus" is collapsing, at least outside of what the MSM would have people believe.

Regarding the last line, it depends on the article. A lot of the information IS scientific information, but a lot of it is about the "cancelling" of so called "deniers" simply because they are not toeing the line. And both types of information is all over the place in the Judith Curry interview I linked.

 

[Pommer]

Actually, a LOT of information is out of date. It's actually one of the points Heller tries to make. But if "out of date" is the only problem, here is something nice and fresh (from a few hours ago):

But then, I already linked to the interview with Judith Curry, which is just two months old. So I am not sure I trust your sincerity regarding "out of date" information.

Oh! A YouTube video, well thread over! Huh?

 

[Pommer]

Underwater Termal I don't hear often. It's a possibility for ice melt.

https://medium.com/@tomek.glowacki/underwater-thermal-activities-an-overlooked-factor-in-climate-change-85ed0cf3d797

And since we cannot “do” anything about these “underwater-thermals” we needn’t do anything at all?
Brilliant, in its way.

 

[Nithavela]

I fear that it is too late

Why fear? Mankind has worked really hard on pushing itself towards extinction. If the species has one redeeming quality, it is its unconcsious realisation that it needs to go. Now we can just lean back and enjoy the agony until the universe is finally cleansed of this blight.

 

[Laodicean60]

Brilliant, in its way.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Whyayeman]

Regarding your first paragraph, I used that article to point out that just because someone is not part of the "consensus" does not make them wrong.

They are all historic figures whose ideas were ahead of their time and some of whom met resistance from others in the field. (I am not sure why Mendel is in the list. His work when published was accepted.) They are all progessives.

These are in contrast to your reactionary scepticism of widely accepted science. I do not believe they are helpful for your case.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Oh! A YouTube video, well thread over! Huh?

Seriously?

 

[Reasonably Sane]

They are all historic figures whose ideas were ahead of their time and some of whom met resistance from others in the field. (I am not sure why Mendel is in the list. His work when published was accepted.) They are all progessives.

These are in contrast to your reactionary scepticism of widely accepted science. I do not believe they are helpful for your case.

It may not be as widely accepted as you suggest. That is my point. And if you watch the interview* with Judy Curry you will see the teeth behind what I just said. But as they say, you can lead a horse to water...

*that interview is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many, many articles about the treatment of those with credentials, that run afoul of the "consensus". But it hits all the critical points. I don't need to link to the entire internet.

 

[Whyayeman]

There are many, many articles about the treatment of those with credentials, that run afoul of the "consensus".

And many, many more that agree with it, hence calling it the consensus.

Consider this: if the consensus is wrong, then we will come to no harm by ignoring it. But what if it is right?

 

[Reasonably Sane]

And many, many more that agree with it, hence calling it the consensus.

Consider this: if the consensus is wrong, then we will come to no harm by ignoring it. But what if it is right?

What if it's wrong and we bankrupt and destroy civilization responding to it? This is not a zero sum thing. The warnings from the "deniers" are worth considering.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What if it's wrong and we bankrupt and destroy civilization responding to it?

None of the solutions require destroying civilization (unless your civilization is 'rolling coal').

 

[Reasonably Sane]

None of the solutions require destroying civilization (unless your civilization is 'rolling coal').

The push for EV's is a serious problem. I used to be a huge fan of EV's until I bothered actually researching beyond the surface.

IMO, our ability to exploit the benefits of oil is directly and singularly responsible for the existence of civilization as we know it and all its benefits. Yet there are those that think we can just phase it out with no consequences. Don't get me wrong, we may be able to someday. But it would be the result of new technology as yet undiscovered.

At the turn of the 20th century, NYC was panicking over what they were going to do with all the future horse poop in town. New tech eliminated the problem. And without government intervention or incentives.