It is a sign of our times, however, that the one topic of conversation once reliably safe and boring—the weather—is now more treacherous than an abandoned mine field.
Why I Deny Big Climate Alarmism
Opinion by Walter Donway
What leads an objective non-scientist, examining the arguments, to reject “global warming,” a.k.a., “Big Climate alarmism”?
A couple weeks ago, my wife and I had dinner with a long-time friend of hers and her boyfriend. My wife had been friends with this woman for years, but never introduced me. Now, it seems, the woman wanted to meet me and to bring along her boyfriend. My wife warned me that they were “very Left,” “big Sanders supporters, now Hillary supporters,” and “politically correct.” I hoped that the restaurant’s cuisine would be endlessly fascinating material for conversation, but, just in case, I boned up on Jane Austen’s novels.
It is a sign of our times, however, that the one topic of conversation once reliably safe and boring—the weather—is now more treacherous than an abandoned mine field. (Let’s not get into that.) The global warming/climate change Gestapo (just kidding, will explain) sought out the ugliest epithet of modern times—Holocaust denier—and tailored it to fit their intellectual adversaries. It reflects, I suppose, their scientific temperament of openness to challenge and maintaining an atmosphere of objective discourse. About as much as if I, observing their bully boy tactics toward all opponents, referred to them as the Gestapo of global warming. But I don’t.
I don’t recall how global warming infiltrated into our dinner conversation. But consider: Global warming/climate change activists now view the threat as of the same magnitude as the rise of National Socialist (Nazi) aggression in the late 1930s—the basis for an article recently emblazoned across the pages The New Republic by William McKibben, one of the leading global warming/climate change activists in the world. Therefore, they believe that its implications are overwhelming in science, politics, economics, the 2016 election, health, education, agriculture, urban planning, discussion of any extreme weather, travel, population migration…
I knew that Jane Austen would be a winner!
No such luck, we were onto global warming. “Oh, so you’re a denier?”
“Well, there are no deniers…”
With infinite weariness, a look of oh-God-it’s-one-of-them: “Which means?
“I agree that the Earth’s mean global surface temperature was slowly increasing from about 1880 to 1998. I agree that the climate is constantly changing and requires vigilance and preventive measures based upon real threats such as cold snaps, drought or flooding, hurricanes… I agree that carbon dioxide and certain trace gases in the atmosphere contribute to a greenhouse effect, trapping heat from the sun within our atmosphere. I agree that since the Industrial Revolution, around 1740, average mean Earth surface temperatures may have increased as much as .7 of a degree Celsius and this contributes to the greenhouse effect.
“Did you know that when they say 97 percent of scientists agree with global warming, they mean only that they responded ‘yes’ to those statements? So do I.”
How have the global warming/climate change alarmists convinced much of the public—and of course the mainstream media, but that’s a given—that this multi-decade, sometimes multi-century prediction of the Earth’s weather, down to a degree or two, is as irrefutable, as undeniable, as the most studied and described event of the 20th Century?
My wife, kicking me under the table: “Walter, give someone else a chance to speak.”
My wife’s friend, no dummy, just looking at me, waiting, thinking: What the HELL scam is this?
I say: “But I don’t see any cause for alarm. Science and its predictions are all about how much, how fast, compared withwhat? The scientific ‘consensus’ is not about that.”
The latest “weather predictions” have moved from telling us we should bring an umbrella, when we go out, to telling us we should moth-ball industrial civilization’s dominant sources of power—of all economic production, transportation, heating and cooling, and everything else—on the basis of a long-term weather prediction.
My wife’s friend says, eyes closed, “I don’t want to discuss it, anymore.”
Who would? Would you want to lend an ear to a guy who denied the Holocaust—an historical event proven in court (at Nuremberg), attested by thousands of victims, documented by literally thousands of historians, and with known and visited sites of its hideous crimes against humanity?
How have the global warming/climate change alarmists convinced much of the public—and of course the mainstream media, but that’s a given—that this multi-decade, sometimes multi-century prediction of the Earth’s weather, down to a degree or two, is as irrefutable, as undeniable, as the most studied and described event of the 20th Century? And in doing so, deliberately envenomed a debate over the predictions of climate science—the weather?
Read the entire thing here: http://www.thesavvystreet.com/why-i-deny-big-climate-alarmism/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mr. Deny asks;
“How have the global warming/climate change alarmists convinced much of the public—and of course the mainstream media, but that’s a given—that this multi-decade, sometimes multi-century prediction of the Earth’s weather, down to a degree or two, is as irrefutable, as undeniable, as the most studied and described event of the 20th Century?”
I believe they accomplished this because the “table was set” so to speak, in advance. And that this involved first virtually “enthroning” science in the minds of most children (myself included), through heavy duty indoctrination, over the course of many years. Suitable scientists were idolized/lionized and all technological/societal advances were framed as derivative of scientific progress, while all other contributory factors and people were downplayed and often tarnished/vilified in various ways.
The CAGW gang didn’t take the world by storm, I don’t believe, they just stepped into a role already outlined and prepared for them to act out, so as to justify using well publicized sciency stuff as a club to beat opponents of establishment/Government monopolization of power and authority over the head with. The world had already been taken by storm, by the time “Climate Change” was selected as a vehicle for completing the transition to a “controlled society” model, without the general population realizing the “rule by consent of the governed” model had been ditched, I believe.
The notions of “settled science” and “consensus science” were gradually normalized, and by the time the CAGW train got rolling in earnest, it was mundane to hear opposing views mocked and butchered, with TV talking head presenters rolling their eyes and chuckling when someone vastly better informed about a given matter tried to buck the established sacred “facts” of science . .
In short; the CAGW is a byproduct, I believe, of a gradually established cult of Big Siants, not the driving force it might appear to be now . .
[Big Siants? Big Science? or Big Saints? .mod]
mod; Siants . . it just sounds like science ; )
Groupthink is not concensus. These idiots don’t know the difference.
Odd how “global warming” is now so often coupled with the
philosophically rancid “climate change”. Notwithstanding that
it is doubly incorrect, at least “global warming” has some meaning,
whereas “climate change” is just noise.
why is that term climate change in use?
Its actually a coinage by the skeptic side…
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/04/28/fox_news_global_warming_versus_climate_change.html
..Hey Griff, maybe you should have read the ” CORRECTION” at the bottom of the page…
*Correction (Apr. 28 at 16:45 UTC): I originally wrote that Luntz coined the term “climate change”, but the term was apparently first used in a 1975 paper by geochemist Wallace Broecker. Luntz heavily promoted the term for the reasons given above. My thanks to Ceth Eslick on Twitter for the correction”
…D’oh !
..And from “SkepticalScience”…..
“The term ‘climate change’ has its origins further back in time. In 1956, the physicist Gilbert Plass published a seminal study called “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change”. In 1977 the journal Climatic Change made its first appearance. Within another decade, the term ‘climate change’ was in common use, and embedded in the name of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was formed in 1988.”
Double D’oh !!
You are right Its all pervasive
Southern Australia has just had a very cold wet winter
(Cold by Australian but not by US or Europe standards max temps some days around 10 c)
I emailed some friends in UK and US about
high rainfall 35 inches in 9 months cf 24 for all of 2015
Both responded “its climate change”
I pointed out that Australia was notorious for
Its cycle of droughts and floods as celebrated
in an 100 year old poem so not necessarily mmcc
I also mentioned some of our green tinged
advisers to state governments has opined
” our dams may never fill again” at the end of
a ten year drought.
one labor state government bought this line and heavily invested in very costly desalination
plant with a take or pay clause favouring the French contractor
Not hard to guess they rains started about the time the work finished and state taxpayers
are still paying the contractor but not taking as our dams are now full with floods across much of said state
Stony silence from afffronted climate change
believer in the UK against this assault on her
belief system by me by metely stating a few
“Inconvenient facts”to quote Al Gore
tome
So at this restaurant, did they fish? beef? lamb? vegetables?
Or did they order the “Soylent Green with frites?”
I see slandering Sou (aka Miriam O’brien of Hotwhopper) managed to get a comment in Walter’s page. Typical of the inane drivel you normally hear from her she went with the well worn Climate Skeptics are insane line in an almost ironic case of self projection.
“A couple weeks ago, my wife and I had dinner with a long-time friend of hers and her boyfriend…My wife warned me that they were “very Left,” “big Sanders supporters, now Hillary supporters,” and “politically correct.” I hoped that the restaurant’s cuisine would be endlessly fascinating material for conversation, but, just in case, I boned up on Jane Austen’s novels.”
Good plan!
Yes it is always nice if you can find something in common. I have been recently very pleasantly surprised that my very left-leaning dad, who I did not know very well and who lives on another planet in an alternate universe, had been following Brexit, and thought they had done the right thing.
Not only that, but he was very opposed to TTP, and I hope by extension, TTIP; and further, he opposed the burning of our trees in Drax, a converted coal plant in England. He also believed that the Fed was unconstitutional and fiat money was illegal. On all of these subjects he was not only informed but had signed petitions.
Well I’ll be Jane Austen.
By the way, not only is Donald J Trump aware of TTIP, a secret trade/green regulation agreement being drawn up with the European Union, but he has said that he would never sign TTIP or any other bad trade deals. And he is on record discussing very favorably the bill to audit the Fed. Who knows, if we can each admit our own pride and prejudice maybe we can keep out of some very bad treaties.
“By the way, not only is Donald J Trump aware of TTIP, a secret trade/green regulation agreement being drawn up with the European Union, but he has said that he would never sign TTIP or any other bad trade deals. And he is on record discussing very favorably the bill to audit the Fed. Who knows, if we can each admit our own pride and prejudice maybe we can keep out of some very bad treaties.”
Trump said he was studying the NAFTA treaty last week (he said: “I like looking at things like that”, with a little smile). He said he couldn’t believe how bad NAFTA was for the U.S. It was a one-way street for the U.S. with jobs and manufacturing leaving and nothing coming in. He said, “When is the last time you heard a news report of some factory relocating to the U.S. because of NAFTA?” I don’t recall any.
Anyway, Trump knows how to read treaties/business agreements, and I think you can bet he is going to be looking at all these things if he gets elected. This is why the elites in Washington DC, Democrats and Republicans alike, are so opposed to Trump. Trump is going to upset their little applecart. But in the process he is going to make things better for millions of people around the world.
I suppose I never really cared about the debate or lack thereof in the first place. My father was a scientist who both believed in global climate change and also believed that there’s no reason to do anything about it. Even if something bad happens, people can adapt.
The entirety of the climate debate in this comment section seems to be focused on complaining about people, which is a crying shame. As with all politics, mudslinging and political brown nosing are ever prevalent. My close friends who are die-hard Republicans that argue for liberal demands insist that Bill Clinton was garbage because of his sexual intentions, to which I’d respond well what does that have to do with politics? Only one president is confirmed (not 100% mind you) of not cheating to begin with. And your hero, Reagan introduced divorce, I’d imagine in a similar fashion to the innovative Henry the 8th.
Meanwhile my liberal friends argue that Clinton HAS to be the best presidency because of our economic surplus and I of course reply that the president doesn’t control the economy like you’re saying. Let’s be honest, the federal reserve does more. Now I’m not saying that the president doesn’t have any say, but government power over the economy is divided up with the presidency and Congress, and most of its policy changes experience a lag time. Furthermore when I introduced the idea that Trumps campaign has had several positive impacts upon our society, they turn their noses away in disgust before I can utter out words about how it has brought attention to American fear mongering and the influence of sensationalist media upon our decisions.
If you’ve gotten this far, continue to hear me out. I am not a pessimist in all senses, but rather I’d like us all to admit our flaws and narrow-mindedness. When we lump entire groups of people toget her we are making it impossible not to be fallacious in our arguments.
And yeah, it’s true that I like Republicans And Democrats. For example, while it should be clear I dislike Uncle Ted Cruz’s idea of carpet bombing the Middle East (I should mention now I’m not very pro war, especially if it has to do with PNAC), Rep. Lindsey Graham explained that neither carpet bombing nor Islamophobia is appropriate, but a war was necessary to depose the corrupt Muslims and allow true Islamic beliefs to reinstate peace over there. I find recent Republican and now Democrat policies on not allowing a bill to pass if you can’t have your way stupid, but I can commend several Democratic leaders on their initiative to institute various changes they believe are correct, some of which will be revisited in the main point.
This is my main point. I don’t care if the Earth significantly changes the way it looks in the future because I believe in human innovation and perserverance. What I do have an issue with, however, is that island nations such as Samoa or Vanuatu are experiencing loss of land from the immediate effects of whatever the hell is going on. I don’t care if the change is cyclical or if it will be permanent, I care that people on the Internet see fit to call one another hypocrites and argue semantics than figure out solutions for entire populations of people who are sufferring or dying out.
If California experiences a drought, the question isn’t whether or not we should concede to the drought or deny it. We should evaluate that due to present circumstances, significant changes must occur. I also do not see the downside of investing into renewable energies. If private corporations start that initiative, then go for it. If the government wants to fund projects and you have a complaint, exercise your right to vote more and write to your politicians.
And the last point is. I don’t understand why people surrender to the notions that the climate is unstoppable when it is obviously not understood to the point where we can manipulate it (arguing from the fact there are so many disagreements). Say that the 20 year (or however long cycle) exists, potentially one day we could have theasily understanding and capabilities to warm the planet when it cools and cool it when it warms. Or conversely, say that the planet is warming due to CO2. If we understand it better and implement valid solutions, then we could combat such a trend. But as of right now, our options are limited so for better or worse we will weather the storm. I didn’t say choose here, I said we will. But even though we can’t do anything about it now, it is counterproductive to assume that no benefit will arise from treating climate -whatever it may be- as a genuine issue that we may one day handle.
In the end we just argue semantics when, as one person has stated, there are always multiple causes and reactions to every phenomenon. As much as our opponents may cover their ears, perhaps we ourselves have to understand that there is so much more complexity to the issue, and that there will always be middle ground from which we can springboard onto mutual understanding and learning. A few centuries ago the earth was the center of the universe, and opponents believed that the sun was the center of the universe. While neither is correct, neither argument was technically wrong at the time either because of how limited knowledge and understanding was back then.
Perhaps right now we are at the cusp of understanding a new breakthrough. Perhaps we will find that every argument has been wrong. Perhaps it will happen after our deaths. But regardless of all of that, looking down on loosely defined groups of people from either side should not be promoted in any way. Let’s stop locking up discussion and try to find progress instead.
At least two First Ladies were divorced before Reagan: Rachel Jackson and Betty Ford. Jackson however died after Andy’s election but before she could serve as First Lady.
That the Clintons weren’t divorced just shows how meaningless their marriage is. It’s not a marriage but a criminal conspiracy. Chelsea’s biological dad is Webb Hubbell.
You miss the entire point that this is all about controlling people and their money. That’s right I said the people and THEIR money. The government has no money, it does not create money (let’s skip the printing press for now), it only takes other people’s money.
So in order to control the people you must control their money.
Dictatorship 101:
1. take their money
2. take their guns
3. take their freedom.
If all the do gooders worried about climate change really believed that it was such a major threat to humans they would gladly give up all their money to the cause. Fat chance on that happening.
Oliver writes:
As it turns out, contemporary observational data from our deep space telescopes show this theory was in fact correct; we live in an isotropic universe expanding in all directions from the observers point of reference. In fact, wherever you are is the center of the universe. Odd isn’t it? Surprised me too.
A young lad ( well okay mid thirties) and I got into the CC debate, I am a skeptic, he sure is a warmist. When I asked what he did for a living he enthusiastically explained he was an assistant manager for a grocery chain and working his way up the ladder of management eventually hoping to own his own store ( franchise).
So how do the grocery stores get supplied every day I asked,?
It is amazing , he answered, all night long we have the suppliers come with their truc……..
end of conversation.
( I didn’t get into the energy the stores uses for refrigeration, lighting, cash registers etc , wasn’t needed.
If he joined Walmart, or several of the big UK supermarket chains, he’d find they have installed efficient refrigeration and renewable energy like solar panels, plus maybe generate gas from waste food.
Because they acknowledge reducing CO2 is a valid thing to do (and it saves money installing renewables)
http://www.j-sainsbury.co.uk/media/latest-stories/2012/20120719-sainsburys-and-partners-roll-out-renewable-energy-to-supermarkets/
http://www.j-sainsbury.co.uk/media/latest-stories/2016/0505-sainsburys-stores-go-green-by-turning-food-waste-into-energy/
http://www.j-sainsbury.co.uk/responsibility/our-sustainability-plan/
Griff, you know what, you are right! Our local Walmart had a wind turbine.
HAD.
They took it down several years ago.
btw, does efficient refrigeration stop companies from delivering megatons of food and everything else to Walmarts by way of FF-powered vehicles?
UK companies have a number of strategies to reduce CO2 output from deliveries… don’t know about US.
all I can say is they do it as efficiently as possible and are improving.
Griff,
You’re so gullible! Has it never dawned on you that businesses do that stuff to sucker ingenuous people like you into shopping there?
…
Nuff said !
As a teen growing up in Northern Canada (Blind River) , my one and only dream was that when I grew up to be an adult, I would never again have to suffer through another winter of walking through six feet of snow just to get to school….My cousins children still live there..they share the same dream….Still !! ….Think about it…
Climatism is merely one manifestation of Leftist ideology based on the anti-human premise that individuals are incapable and/or unwilling to run their own lives and require large, powerful and expansive governments to control every aspect of their lives.
Leftist governments control what we: think (public schools/MSM), what we produce (rules, regulations, taxation), what we believe (moral relativism, infallibility of the ruling class), what we say (Political Correctness nonsense) and how we live our lives (welfare, taxation, rules and regulations), which Leftist government ultimately enforce by force with the barrel of a gun.
The beauty of CAGW (from a Leftist perspective) is that it allows government to control every aspect of human existence: our life, liberty and property. It views man as a parasite whose: innovations, productivity, rational thought, discoveries, logic, technologies, life, creativity, are existential threats to earth’s and man’s survival.
In reality, man’s astounding accomplishments have made large tyrannical governments obsolete, which is why man’s actions must be attacked and controlled so vehemently and so comprehensively. Apart from certain essential functions, such as border security, national defense, police, the implementation and adjudication of moral and ethical laws, and international diplomacy, governments serve few useful purposes. Leftists cannot allow this to happen…
Leftists zealots are forced to either submit to the existence of CAGW or risk the collapse of their fundamental premise of Leftist ideology.
Leftist ideology is a 100-year failed experiment that has cost the lives of 100 million citizens around the world. The failed Leftist ideologies around the world have accumulated $60 trillion in sovereign debt, of which US alone has amassed $20 trillion and increasing on a daily basis.
Hopefully the inevitable collapse of CAGW will expose the fundamental flaws of Leftist ideology and the blowback will create much needed reform for smaller and less obtrusive governments around the world.
Free people living in free-market economies based on merit (not mediocrity), and the moral imperative of the non-initiation of force, with limited governments constrained by performing just a few well defined constitutional tasks is the best way to secure freedom and human advancement.
We’ll hopefully reach that realization soon, or end up destroying ourselves.
..This U.S. election will decide whether we ..”hopefully reach that realization soon, or end up destroying ourselves.”
Save North America, vote TRUMP !
With ecoloons it is better to ask what they know about the basics first. If they don’t even understand the principle of feedbacks in the GCMs then there is no point in going any further.
I seem to have “lost” a few friends over this issue. They still say they love me, but will not respond to any facts I present. They just think I am stupid, or nuts, or too right wing???
They ask me questions that would require mountains of scientific evidence, which they won’t get through the first sentence…and never do. They will never look at a video(s) I post. On Face book, I rarely get a response for any article from WUWT or Jo Nova, etc.
I might get 1 or 2 likes…that’s it…
How do you get through this malaise? Just wondering. Some of my correspondents are PHD’s in computer science, physics, and mathematics. Still no movement. Just frustrating.
Perhaps you are wrong? (just sayin’!)
Certainly people will see the evidence you are apparently presenting as suspect…
Jo Nova, Steve Goddard, Paul Homewood do not present valid or unbiased or scientifically accurate information in the main…
Try reading some stuff on the other side of the debate for balance. (That’s why I’m here, getting this side of the argument)
Certainly Paul Homewood bases the vast majority of his blog -posts on the data. If you don’t like his interpretations, then take him to task on his blog. Jo Nova is more populist and political, but has won a series of blog awards for her work. A couple of her regulars are really clued-up. However, why are you criticising other blogs on this one? Trolling the thread? Have you nothing to say about WUWT apart from a snide opening sentence? Let’s see scientifically valid evidence in your favour, demonstrating your argument. I suspect all you’ve got is a quasi-religious belief in debunked climate alarmist theory which you dare not present on this blog.
I don’t like the spin on the data.
I particularly remember his spin on record Cumbrian rainfall last year
Also, there are some blogs where it does not feel safe to leave your details, if you are of a contrary view.
(I’d be delighted to be assured that wasn’t one of them)
Just a thought here…….. after reading and watching much, I’ve come to the conclusion the possibility of Griff being connected to the cleantech site he so often links too.
I used to read that site but opted for the ‘remove me from your list’ response quite a while ago. Ever notice how much Griff refers to that site?
Has there been a huge decline there at cleantech in the past couple of years? I think so.
Griff,
I used to visit RealClimate,Stott and other warmists sites,but gave them up after my civil comments were being deleted. They make clear that my opposing views are not welcome,despite that I was using the IPCC sources and the official data sites in my comments.
Please drop this crap as many here know all about it.
This is the funny situation: climate change “deniers” complain that the IPCC exaggerates the influence of CO2 however the environmentalists complain that the IPCC greatly underestimates the role of CO2.
Herd cattle is managed by threats. Doomsday scenario’s are the business model of Greenpeace and it’s succes has inspired many others including governments.
As a scientist living in Canada, I frequently end up having to justify my scepticism. You see, most eastern Canadians are True Believers. When pestered on the subject by harassing colleagues – they always gang up – I try to steer away from justifying my position by asking questions such as :
– have you read the the AR5 IPCC report ? What about the SRX2 report ?
– do you know HADCRUT, GISS, RSS or UAH datasets ? What do you think of the adjustments ?
– what do you think about the debate on CO2 sensitivity and the role of feedbacks ? About the limitations of modelling and proxies ?
– if we held climate science to same rigour we hold the science in our own field, most climate papers would never be published. Don’t you think this is more politics than Science ?
Often, the first question suffices because their answer is “no” and they know I could easily follow-up with : “how can scientists rely on journalists and blindly accept the Science without knowing any of it ” ?
Some appeal to authority. I tell them that that Climate Science is not Rocket Science and that it is easily accessible and that if I familiarized myself with it, so could they.
This approach gets them off my back. I then soften them up by saying in closing that unfortunately this CO2 question has taken us away from other more pressing environmental issues.
HADCRUT, GISS, RSS or UAH datasets are frequently the subject of posts on this very blog!
and if you are debating the science, surely you have to reference the science?
Griff,
ALL of the data sets damages the IPCC’s long held AGW mantra, since they are running below the MINIMUM per decade warming projections.
Here is this one an actual PREDICTION of BUSINESS AS USUAL emission scenario,from the 1990 report page 5:
“Based on current model results, we predict:
• under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a ikely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and VC before the end of the next century”
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf
Ha ha ha ha ha……,not even close.
Cheers.
Griff,
In many of your posts you reference “THE” science. What is “THE” science?
Is it the fr@udul*nt Cook 97% study where he reviewed almost 12,000 abstracts (not papers, abstracts) and cherry-picked 4,000 of them, then found a 97% consensus in the 4,000 (only 33% of the original total)? Is it all the failed predictions made by the IPCC and Climate scientists generally? Is it John Kerry and Obama and climate scientists in general trying to shut down debate by claiming the science is settled? Is it Stephen Schneider who said,
or
Is it the apocalyptic prediction from scientist and climate activist James Hansen that
due to climate change?
Climate scientists and activists have pretty much been wrong on all of their dire predictions. You would think that after a while, they might look at that as a positive development, but instead they double down.
So please tell me, what is “THE” science?
I like the “oceans are becoming more acidic ” debunk ,it’s easy to prove its crap and then I point out if they’re lying to you on this what else are you being lied to about .
“I like the “oceans are becoming more acidic ” debunk ,it’s easy to prove its crap and then I point out if they’re lying to you on this what else are you being lied to about.”
Does the “debunk” involve turning the following graph on it’s head?
http://abcmgr.tamu.edu/ontheocean/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/week-1_co2_time_series_12-17-2014.jpg
..So, when CO2 was 8,000 PPM, I guess the oceans were 100% acid ? How did all those poor sea creatures survive ? ..
You failed to realize that CO2 is currently leaving the water faster than it is entering.Not only that the ocean waters already have 99.99% of free CO2 of the system in it.
Where were those alleged seawater readings taken?
You are aware, are you not, that a pH of 8.05 is still alkaline, not acidic?
In case you’re not, some elementary chemistry. The pH scale ranges from 1.0 to 14, with 7.0 considered neutral. A pH less than 7.0 is said to be acidic, while solutions with a pH greater than 7.0 are basic or alkaline.
Thus seawater at 8.15 or 8.05 are both basic. Seawater won’t become acidic unless it gets to at least a pH 0f 6.9. Which it won’t.
Toneb is a hack who can’t name the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature of a volume of atmospheric air.
He thinks there’s a GHE on Venus.
He thinks there’s one on Earth.
Yet he can’t answer how the mathematics for solving the temperature of the Earth’s whole atmosphere, giving us the standard known internationally as
The Standard Atmosphere
don’t contain any green house anything, yet are the regulatory equations for everything on earth related to air temperature, or pressure.
Green Housers are the ones who thought infrared light warmed oceans, not cools them.
[How have the global warming/climate change alarmists convinced much of the public]
read here: http://www.davdata.nl/math/mentalclimate.html
My experience is that robbing a person of a long and firmly held belief is not done with a bulldozer but rather one brick at a time.
I think the interchange of the concept of weather and climate change is important. The fact that the AGW proponents have reduced the catastrophic warming required to avoid a global Armageddon from 2degrees to 1.5 degrees is the most bizarre aspect of this debate. In a modern world where ” weather” is able to be countered by the impact of a thermostat such that with the use of air conditioning and heaters and clothes and hats and fans and the temperature varies by anywhere from 5 to 10 degrees per days makes it difficult for any normal rational human being to regognise a two degree rise as catastrophic. Yet normal seamingly sane intelligent human beings become panicked into endorsing the expenditure of trillions of dollars to possibly prevent such a circumstance. The AGW scam has perpetuated one of the worlds most severe cases of group insanity .
Since the effect of every single demand made by advocates of “climate change” converge on socialism, that tells me everything I need to know about the true meaning of this topic.
I am a true believer!
I believe that Truth needs believing.
How is truth dissimulated?
By True scientific evaluation.
People are cleverer than think they are.
But most times, the reverse is true.
Slightly OT but:
I have been digging into turbine fire issues especially the unreported ones. I came across this regarding 80,000 hectares of a national park burned due to turbine (s) failure.
http://www.plasticstoday.com/injection-molding/are-thermoset-bearings-an…
Each year there are approximately 117 wind turbine fires, a major cause of wind farm failure, according to several reports from 2014. One of the major causes, outside of lightning, is overheated bearings and gearboxes. According to an article in Engineering Design Insider ( EDI), “wind turbines often catch fire and burn much more frequently than is reported.”
The publication cites a study from the UK and Sweden, and researchers at Imperial College London, Edinburgh University and SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden, who report that “while an average of 11.7 turbine fires are reported annually, more than 117 fires actually occur worldwide. At present, there are an estimated 200,000 turbines in operation around the world.”
The report notes that a wind turbine fire can be more significant than other types of energy fires such as gas or oil, and gives the example of an Australian wind farm containing 112 turbines. “When one of them caught fire during a heat wave, the entire farm was shut down, cutting power to 63,000 homes,” said the report. “In addition, burning debris from the turbine ignited ground fires that destroyed 80,000 hectares of a national park. The cause of the fire was found to be electrical failure in the nacelle. Lightning strikes are the most common cause of wind turbine fires.”
——-
This is what I suspect was the actual fire based on 80k hectares and location.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/05/weatern-australia-fire-quadruples-to-80000-hectares-as-abbott-offers-aid
I have no doubt that there have been others in the Western US , Canada and elsewhere where the cause was intentionally omitted for political and other reasons. This is the first time I have (finally) found information regarding a large scale fire caused by wind turbines.
Bingo:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&ved=0ahUKEwi7mePygZ7PAhVC54MKHdr5DWQ4ChAWCD0wBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aph.gov.au%2FDocumentStore.ashx%3Fid%3Db0083b33-b890-4382-abe1-dc89bc9af7c0%26subId%3D349843&usg=AFQjCNE0gvLYTuUtvYcwN4zSww9nZFs53g&bvm=bv.133178914,d.amc
See page 24-25
And this:
http://www.iafss.org/publications/fss/11/983/view/fss_11-983.pdf
..John, your first link failed…
“At present, there are an estimated 200,000 turbines in operation around the world.””
200,000 bird choppers! The Left has gone insane.
There is no law of personality types that says all high school and campus freshmen radical debaters grow up over time. But the key thing to remember is they relish the debate drama over the actual issues, facts, negative impacts, and outcomes. Thus, it’s personality characteristics in place of science process or error checking.
Colleges/universities have been issuing first aid kits for alarmists who are proven wrong.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/19/exclusive-university-officials-sign-off-on-literal-emotional-first-aid-kit/
..OMG…seriously ?? That is insane…ROTFLMAO ! Thanks for that…( Can we send one to Griff, he may need one after Trump and his “Deplorables” are elected ! )
How kind. do I get to pick the colour? (Not green: it would be such a cliché)
200,000 bird chopping fire hazards that firefighters can not / will not attempt to put out…
See page 24 of John’s 3rd link above….Simply too dangerous and Air Tankers are not allowed to be used because ” They will damage the the Turbines ” …N.U.T.S……!
From reading the comments, it was nice of Sou from Hot Whopper to show up as Sou from Bundanga. Hard for her to hide her comments.
Sou has long stopped thinking; she only reacts, much like this: