Science/Environment climate hustle documentary

[Long Live HFC]

The greenhouse gas effect on the atmosphere has long been established.

really? because i think you'll find many around these parts that completely deny the relationship.

But in the 1970s there was more concern about the depletion of the ozone layer which could cause cooling.

there was "more concern" in the sense that there was an immediate and irrefutable proof that CFCs were destroying the ozone layer, not that this would necessarily ensure a period of global cooling. and what happened? governments decided to phase out most CFCs and the layer began its slow process of repair. however, there was never, as ^^ dickhead attempted to imply, a universal belief or substantive research that suggested the depletion of the ozone layer would lead to global cooling or an ice age.

From NASA.

To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"

Broecker's term was a break with tradition. Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it "inadvertent climate modification." This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate?​

The term 'global warming' became mainstream when the topic became political.

But global warming became the dominant popular term in June 1988, when NASA scientist James E. Hansen had testified to Congress about climate, specifically referring to global warming. He said: "global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming.​

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

right, so you agree then that the scientific literature mostly used the term 'climate change', and there wasn't a nefarious effort from "them" to change the language from AGW to climate change because there wasn't enough warming, as suggested by the ^^ dickhead?

The IPCC is a political body overseeing a scientific program. It's reason for existence is to prove anthropogenic global warming.

this is nonsense. the IPCC is a political body whose role is to paraphrase and dumb down all the scientific research so that policymakers may understand it and its implications so they can formulate government policy. sadly they can't dumb it down enough for people like ^^ dickhead to grasp, though.

The term 'climate change' has been used to muddy the waters when IPCC projections of global warming did not eventuate.

i've already proven this is nonsense in the post you just quoted. you've swallowed frank luntz's bollocks and then projected it elsewhere. 'climate change' was the term most-often used in the literature, 'global warming' sold newspapers and it was conservative idiots who pushed to change the language in order to promote denial of the basic scientific consensus.

Then we get the nonsense about 'climate change deniers'. Skeptics of the IPCC position do not deny that the climate changes.

lol. "skeptics" deny the relationship between atmospheric GHGs and their interaction with solar radiation or argue the interaction is too small to be influential. they're called deniers because they deny accepted scientific principles, not because they irrelevantly state "oh the climate's always changed i'm not denying the weather"

The real issue is the extent of the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases, and how much of the CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere comes from humans and how much derives from natural phenomenon.

yeah, if only the ^^ dickheads could move on from their ignorant, partisan biases and allow the researchers to get on with getting s**t done. but no, we'll hack emails or post lies about science or scientists and spew nonsense on footy forums because we're too stupid to pick up the occasional journal.

 

[Frank Bunn]

lol. "skeptics" deny the relationship between atmospheric GHGs and their interaction with solar radiation or argue the interaction is too small to be influential. they're called deniers because they deny accepted scientific principles, not because they irrelevantly state "oh the climate's always changed i'm not denying the weather"

Bullshit.

 

[Baby Duck]

i take it you want to move on after your global warming vs climate change history lesson?

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Mofra]

And the oceans keep on refusing to rise.

https://theconversation.com/sea-lev...n-the-pacific-first-scientific-evidence-58511

Recently at least five reef islands in the remote Solomon Islands have been lost completely to sea-level rise and coastal erosion, and a further six islands have been severely eroded.

These islands lost to the sea range in size from one to five hectares. They supported dense tropical vegetation that was at least 300 years old. Nuatambu Island, home to 25 families, has lost more than half of its habitable area, with 11 houses washed into the sea since 2011.

This is the first scientific evidence, published in Environmental Research Letters, that confirms the numerous anecdotal accounts from across the Pacific of the dramatic impacts of climate change on coastlines and people.

 

[HairyO]

https://theconversation.com/sea-lev...n-the-pacific-first-scientific-evidence-58511

Islands lost due to "wave energy". Hmmm. Sounds like it could be caused by any number of things. Earthquakes, monsoons, seas rising by 1.5mm to 3mm due to "climate change" where an unknown amount can be attributed directly to us, etc.

Plus, the islands were possibly only a few hundred years old. In the grand scheme of the planet, sea levels are at a historically low level. Its entirely possible those islands have appeared and disappeared many times since the last ice age and the one before.

So I decided to go looking and it didnt take me long. I didnt have to go through any nutjob conspiracy websites either.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ed-climate-link-to-sinking-of-pacific-islands

Pretty sure the Guardian is one of the many alarmist newspapers that harps on about DOOM!!!(tm). So it would take a fair bit for them to accept they made a mistake.

 

[Mofra]

Islands lost due to "wave energy". Hmmm. Sounds like it could be caused by any number of things. Earthquakes, monsoons, seas rising by 1.5mm to 3mm due to "climate change" where an unknown amount can be attributed directly to us, etc.

Plus, the islands were possibly only a few hundred years old. In the grand scheme of the planet, sea levels are at a historically low level. Its entirely possible those islands have appeared and disappeared many times since the last ice age and the one before.

So I decided to go looking and it didnt take me long. I didnt have to go through any nutjob conspiracy websites either.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ed-climate-link-to-sinking-of-pacific-islands

Pretty sure the Guardian is one of the many alarmist newspapers that harps on about DOOM!!!(tm). So it would take a fair bit for them to accept they made a mistake.

Yet in the very article you quote:

This has been driven partly by global warming and partly by climatic cycles - in particular the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

“These trade winds have basically pushed water up into western Pacific and have driven these exceptionally high rates of [sea-level rise] in the Solomons,” said Albert. “The trade winds are partly a natural cycle but also the recent intensification is related to atmospheric warming.”

And from the study author himself:

Albert told the Guardian: “I understand why these more dramatic titles are used and it does help bring attention to the issue that I firmly believe will become a major issue for the islands in the second half if this century from climate change.”

Which again makes this statement:

And the oceans keep on refusing to rise.

Incorrect.

 

[HairyO]

Yet in the very article you quote:



And from the study author himself:



Which again makes this statement:

Incorrect.

He was guessing when he said "firmly believe". That's not science.

His science said that there were many potential factors but he didn't look in to man made rising sea levels.

 

[Mofra]

He was guessing when he said "firmly believe". That's not science.

His science said that there were many potential factors but he didn't look in to man made rising sea levels.

But you said sea levels aren't rising.
Now they are but you're not sure it's man made?

This is the issue I have with conservatives arguing against climate change. There is no consistent position.

It is almost identical to the "smoking doesn't case cancer" conservative cause of the 60s which gave rise to one of the greatest acts of hypocrisy of the 20th century (thanks Ayn Rand!)

 

[HairyO]

But you said sea levels aren't rising.
Now they are but you're not sure it's man made?

This is the issue I have with conservatives arguing against climate change. There is no consistent position.

It is almost identical to the "smoking doesn't case cancer" conservative cause of the 60s which gave rise to one of the greatest acts of hypocrisy of the 20th century (thanks Ayn Rand!)

Those sea level rises being talked about in the article are due to weather events. The scientist specifically said he didnt look at man made influences, yet various news groups around the world made it all about man. As for my comments, they are on our impact on changes which are seeing. I dont think too many people would argue that climate isnt changing over time.

Afterall, the Great Barrier Reef is only a few thousand years old.

And Id rather positions change than steadfastly ignore the mounting evidence when the reality simply doesnt match the hype.

 

[bfff]

Those sea level rises being talked about in the article are due to weather events. The scientist specifically said he didnt look at man made influences, yet various news groups around the world made it all about man. As for my comments, they are on our impact on changes which are seeing. I dont think too many people would argue that climate isnt changing over time.

Afterall, the Great Barrier Reef is only a few thousand years old.

And Id rather positions change than steadfastly ignore the mounting evidence when the reality simply doesnt match the hype.

I think you are misunderstanding how scientific publication works. The author(s) of the paper regarding sea level rise provide evidence for its impact on the islands. They do not then go on to find why the sea level rise happened. That is too wide a scope for a single journal article and it has already been established in the literature.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Bullshit.

are you really going to make me waste my time dredging up stupid quotes from deniers? i know you know they exist.

 

[HairyO]

I think you are misunderstanding how scientific publication works. The author(s) of the paper regarding sea level rise provide evidence for its impact on the islands. They do not then go on to find why the sea level rise happened. That is too wide a scope for a single journal article and it has already been established in the literature.

Pretty sure it was all the media talking about climate change sinking islands who had the issue understanding.

 

[Frank Bunn]

are you really going to make me waste my time dredging up stupid quotes from deniers? i know you know they exist.

I'm not going to make you do anything. But if you find some stupid quotes I'm sure I could go toe to toe and find stupid quotes from climate alarmists.

Then again we could have a sensible discussion where you acknowledge that not every reputable climate scientist agrees with the politically motivated conclusions and positions of the IPCC. The term 'denier' has no place in a scientific debate. It's just a cheap attempt to discredit people without regard to evidence.

There's genuine disagreement and doubt about the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases, and how much of the CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere comes from humans and how much derives from natural phenomenon. Even the most alarmist scientists do not know for sure what is the sensitivity and what the human contributions are.

 

[bfff]

I'm not going to make you do anything. But if you find some stupid quotes I'm sure I could go toe to toe and find stupid quotes from climate alarmists.

Then again we could have a sensible discussion where you acknowledge that not every reputable climate scientist agrees with the politically motivated conclusions and positions of the IPCC. The term 'denier' has no place in a scientific debate. It's just a cheap attempt to discredit people without regard to evidence.

There's genuine disagreement and doubt about the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases, and how much of the CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere comes from humans and how much derives from natural phenomenon. Even the most alarmist scientists do not know for sure what is the sensitivity and what the human contributions are.

Who are the climate scientists who don't agree with the IPCC? What are the points of disagreement?

If the term 'denier' is to be dropped then the term 'alarmist' needs to go with it.

 

[Baby Duck]

https://www.state.gov/t/isn/4783.htm

My favourite part:

"Understanding Relating to Article II
It is the understanding of the Committee that the following examples are illustrative of phenomena that could be caused by the use of environmental modification techniques as defined in Article II of the Convention: earthquakes, tsunamis; an upset in the ecological balance of a region; changes in weather patterns (clouds, precipitation, cyclones of various types and tornadic storms); changes in climate patterns; changes in ocean currents; changes in the state of the ozone layer; and changes in the state of the ionosphere."

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

https://www.state.gov/t/isn/4783.htm

My favourite part:

"Understanding Relating to Article II
It is the understanding of the Committee that the following examples are illustrative of phenomena that could be caused by the use of environmental modification techniques as defined in Article II of the Convention: earthquakes, tsunamis; an upset in the ecological balance of a region; changes in weather patterns (clouds, precipitation, cyclones of various types and tornadic storms); changes in climate patterns; changes in ocean currents; changes in the state of the ozone layer; and changes in the state of the ionosphere."

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

Im confused.

Are you saying climate change is natural, or that a bunch of cosmopolitan jews are controlling the climate to entrench a one world government?

 

[Baby Duck]

Im confused.

Are you saying climate change is natural, or that a bunch of cosmopolitan jews are controlling the climate to entrench a one world government?

The second part, without the Jewish folks. I dont blame entire races of people for things.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Frank Bunn]

Who are the climate scientists who don't agree with the IPCC? What are the points of disagreement?

When you say 'don't agree with the IPCC' you're talking about the Summary for Policymaker statements. They don't necessarily reflect the views of the scientists who make up the working groups.

Steve McIntyre, one of the guys who debunked the 'Hockey Stick' temperature graph, wrote: 'the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary'.

Australian climate data analyst John McLean reported that IPCC peer-review process is 'an illusion.' He found that very few scientists are actively involved in the peer-review process. Commenting on the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years' he said, 'the IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.'

As for the actual science, it's a complex subject but there's general agreement that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased, that the Earth has been warming and that man has played some part. After that it gets more messy. There are a range of expert views about many different areas such as

- whether the Medieval Warm Period was global or not. If it was shown that it was a global phenomenon, then it would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented.

- what significance should be given to the fact that the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were almost identical.

- whether there has been any statistically-significant global warming from 1995 to the present.

- whether natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998

- what is the sensitivity of the climate to increasing CO2 levels.​

Then there are some people who believe that the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity, but the policies of trying to change the climate are nonsensical.

A new peer reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit.

The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.​

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

The second part, without the Jewish folks. I dont blame entire races of people for things.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

How do they control the climate?

 

[Baby Duck]

How do they control the climate?

I dont know the science behind it, but it must be within their capabilities otherwise there would be no need for a UN treaty about it.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I dont know the science behind it, but it must be within their capabilities otherwise there would be no need for a UN treaty about it.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

Well, no.

It was written in the 1970s with the acknowledgement that the technology had not been developed. It was written then with a belief that it might one day be built. Kind of like at that time we assumed large populations would be living in space and moon cities and all that.

See, it's written in the first sentences of the treaty you quoted.

"Use of environmental modification techniques for hostile purposes does not play a major role in military planning at the present time. Such techniques might be developed in the future, however, and would pose a threat of serious damage unless action was taken to prohibit their use. In July 1972 the U.S. Government renounced the use of climate modification techniques for hostile purposes, even if their development were proved to be feasible in the future."

 

[Baby Duck]

Well, no.

It was written in the 1970s with the acknowledgement that the technology had not been developed. It was written then with a belief that it might one day be built. Kind of like at that time we assumed large populations would be living in space and moon cities and all that.

See, it's written in the first sentences of the treaty you quoted.

"Use of environmental modification techniques for hostile purposes does not play a major role in military planning at the present time. Such techniques might be developed in the future, however, and would pose a threat of serious damage unless action was taken to prohibit their use. In July 1972 the U.S. Government renounced the use of climate modification techniques for hostile purposes, even if their development were proved to be feasible in the future."

And it has been continued to be developed since then. Google search: "Weather as a force multiplier; Owning the weather in 2025". What is publicly available is im sure not even the half of it as mostly all classified.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

And it has been continued to be developed since then. Google search: "Weather as a force multiplier; Owning the weather in 2025". What is publicly available is im sure not even the half of it as mostly all classified.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

Do you mean the collection of fictional scenarios by a few military personnel? The one that was completely uclassified, and discussed sci fi situations where the US might create clouds or a thunderstorm to launch an attack?

You know this is a) bull s**t b) weather, not climate?

You know this has nothing to do with climate change?

 

[bombersfan4000]

But you said sea levels aren't rising.
Now they are but you're not sure it's man made?

This is the issue I have with conservatives arguing against climate change. There is no consistent position.

How do you argue a point where the climate change believers keep changing the goal posts to suit their arguments due to nearly all of their claims and predictions turn out false

 

[bfff]

When you say 'don't agree with the IPCC' you're talking about the Summary for Policymaker statements. They don't necessarily reflect the views of the scientists who make up the working groups.

Steve McIntyre

Not a climate scientist. Worked in the mining industry which is a remarkably (or maybe not) common link between the climate skeptic scientists. But he was a statistician so I guess he has some authority to comment on data. The thing is his one finding of error in climate data has been shown to be statistically insignificant. He doesn’t seem to acknowledge that and now spends his time harassing people without doing any of his own work in climate science.

John McLean

Backed by oil companies and his published research is garbage. His claims about IPCC have shown that he either fundamentally misunderstands how it works or that he is deliberately misrepresenting the process.

The science

Medieval Warm Period
The idea that if there was a warm period in the past not caused by humans then humans could not have caused the current warming is a complete logic fail. Never mind the fact that averaged globally the MWP was cooler.

what significance should be given to the fact that the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were almost identical.
No significance in terms of a larger overall trend. This is either deliberate obfuscation of the difference between short and long term trends or genuine ignorance. Oh and 1970-2001 warming was greater than the two earlier periods.

whether there has been any statistically-significant global warming from 1995 to the present.
This claim has been debunked. It was initially based on satellite data on atmospheric temperature. Obviously the atmosphere is only a small part of the climate system. Most global heat goes to heating the oceans and sea temperatures have risen consistently. Even the original claim about atmospheric temperature not changing was found to be incorrect.

whether natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998
If you are talking about the effect of volcano activity it has not significantly effected global temperatures. If anything it has had a slight cooling effect.

what is the sensitivity of the climate to increasing CO2 levels
There is a long-term correlation between CO2 and increased global temperatures .
​

Then there are some people who believe that the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity, but the policies of trying to change the climate are nonsensical.

Dr. Bjorn Lomborg

Has no scientific credibility.

His paper basically says the Paris agreement won’t substantively reduce global temperatures. This was obvious the day it was concluded. Completely inadequate measures that were the result of governments refusing to consider any bold solutions. It has nothing to do with the science. It is a result of weak governments beholden to fossil fuel interests with no balls to stand up for something that really matters. Just to maintain their personal short term positions of comfort.