An Inconvenient Word?

CtC

Mar 2019
10,263
3,556
California
How do you account for the fact that it's mostly just the American ideological right that denies human caused climate change and that it is becoming severe?

And on what do you base the idea that we should be moving toward glaciation at this point?
Sometimes being right can be a burden. There is no such thing as man made Climate change. And one silly degree in 100 years is NOT a disaster. Just scare talk to keep people from caring about REAL issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bmanmcfly

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
33,031
6,564
You're trying to convince an indoctrinated drone to think for herself. Good luck.
Just watch the vid of Linzden and form your own opinion as to whether this MIT climate scientist is a fraud. He has no fear and has been in many debates. So there are many to choose from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trumpet

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
33,031
6,564
Those "partisans" are most other scientists and I'm not going to read him or listen to him. He's wrong. It's absurd that you keep trying to dismiss the consensus of most scientists as merely partisanship. Your problem is that facts have a liberal bias.
I don't dismiss anyone. Never. Debate is always welcomed. Alternate views are always welcomed. Mine IS a scientific approach.

Calling people deniers and refusing to even listen to credentialed experts is a sign of having drunk somebody's koolaid.

No good scientist would ever tell you to not listen to alternate views.

No good scientist would ever tell you just listen to the consensus opinion.

The guy who first postulated that tectonic plates in the earth were shifting and that continents moved was in the minority and he was right.

Furthermore, I have consistently separated scientists from advocates, so you can take your anti-science talking point and shove it.

That's not me.

https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html

Some truly revolutionary scientific theories may take years or decades to win general acceptance among scientists. This is certainly true of plate tectonics, one of the most important and far-ranging geological theories of all time; when first proposed, it was ridiculed, but steadily accumulating evidence finally prompted its acceptance, with immense consequences for geology, geophysics, oceanography, and paleontology. And the man who first proposed this theory was a brilliant interdisciplinary scientist, Alfred Wegener.
 
Last edited:

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
77,218
68,567
So. Md.
I don't dismiss anyone. Never. Debate is always welcomed. Alternate views are always welcomed. Mine IS a scientific approach.

Calling people deniers and refusing to even listen to credentialed experts is a sign of having drunk somebody's koolaid.

No good scientist would ever tell you to not listen to alternate views.

No good scientist would ever tell you just listen to the consensus opinion.

The guy who first postulated that tectonic plates in the earth were shifting and that continents moved was in the minority and he was right.

Furthermore, I have consistently separated scientists from advocates, so you can take your anti-science talking point and shove it.

That's not me.
You're advocating for a contrarian opinion simply for the sake of a contrarian opinion not based on the known science. The vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is human caused and agree that we're quickly approaching a tipping point. They disagree on some of the details involved in those facts and are open to different points of view on those details. But they are no longer debating the fact that climate change is human caused and the tipping point is coming quickly. That's not partisan kool-aid. Those are scientific facts. Do you also think the flat earthers should be taken seriously and scientists should engage them and debate them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kontrary

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
77,218
68,567
So. Md.
Sometimes being right can be a burden. There is no such thing as man made Climate change. And one silly degree in 100 years is NOT a disaster. Just scare talk to keep people from caring about REAL issues.
So you really do believe everyone else on the planet is wrong and only the American right wing knows the truth?! Bwahahahahaaa!!!!!!

 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
33,031
6,564
For the uninformed....
You're advocating for a contrarian opinion simply for the sake of a contrarian opinion not based on the known science.
I am advocating for the voices of qualified cynics to be heard and debated. That is consistent with every science ever discovered. You are the one claiming that cynics are invalid and should be ignored. Richard Lindzen's resume says he's qualified to have a scientific opinion. The FACT that you think he should be ignored makes you the outlier, not him.

The good doctor has your number.


http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/CV.pdf

HONORS: Phi Beta Kappa Sigma Xi NCAR Outstanding Publication Award, l967 AMS Meisinger Award, l968 AGU Macelwane Award, l969 Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship, l970-l976 Vikram Amblal Sarabhai Professor at Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India, 1985 AMS Charney Award, 1985 Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship, Dec. 1986-Jan. 1987 Member, National Academy of Sciences Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences Fellow, American Meteorological Society Fellow, American Geophysical Union Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science Sackler Visiting Professor, Tel Aviv University, January 1992 Landsdowne Lecturer, University of Victoria, March 1993 Member, Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters Bernhard Haurwitz Memorial Lecturer, American Meteorological Society, 1997 Leo Prize of the Wallin Foundation (first recipient), 2006 Distinguished Engineering Achievement Award of the Engineers’ Council, February 2009 Petr Beckmann Award of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, 2012 Member, European Academy of Sciences and Arts.
EDUCATION: Bronx High School of Science, 1956 Attended Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1956-58) A.B.(mcl) in Physics, l960, Harvard University. S.M. in Applied Mathematics, l96l, Harvard University. Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics, l964, Harvard University. Thesis title: Radiative and photochemical processes in strato- and mesospheric dynamics
 
Last edited:

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
77,218
68,567
So. Md.
For the uninformed....


I am advocating for the voices of qualified cynics to be heard and debated. That is consistent with every science ever discovered. You are the one claiming that cynics are invalid and should be ignored. Richard Linzden's resume says he's qualified to have a scientific opinion. The FACT that you think he should be ignored makes you the outlier, not him.


http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/CV.pdf
He was heard and debated for years and found to be wrong.

Make no mistake about it; Lindzen has made a career of being wrong about climate science. Unfortunately, while the Weekly Standard piece goes through Lindzen's many contrarian climate arguments, it misses the key point that they haven't withstood scientific scrutiny or the test of time:

• Changes in water vapor will dampen global warming (also known as Lindzen's "Iris hypothesis")? Refuted by four peer-reviewed studies within a year of the publication of Lindzen's hypothesis. Measurements show that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is increasing as mainstream climate scientists expect, and as a greenhouse gas, is amplifying global warming.

• Climate change over the past century has been "minimal"? In reality, the current rate of global warming is unprecedented over the past 11,000 years.

The 15-year 'pause' myth? Completely debunked – global surface warming over the past decade turns out to be more than double previous estimates, and the climate continues to accumulate heat at a rate equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second.

The accuracy of climate models during that timeframe? Much better than Lindzen claims.

In my extensive research into Richard Lindzen's climate papers and talks, I've never been able to find an instance where he predicted how global temperatures would change in the future, other than to say in 1989,


"I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small,"​

The natural variability of the Earth's climate rarely causes more than 0.2°C global surface warming over the span of a few decades to a century, yet we've already seen 0.8°C warming over the past century and 0.5°C over the past 3 decades, with much more to come over the next century. Based on his comments in that 1989 talk, I pieced together what Lindzen's global temperature prediction might have looked like, had he made one, and compared it to the prediction made by prominent NASA climate scientist James Hansen in a 1988 paper (like Lindzen, Hansen is now retired).

Comparison of the observed NASA temperature record (black) with temperature predictions from Dr. James Hansen's 1988 modeling study (red), and with my reconstructed temperature prediction by Dr. Richard Lindzen based on statements from his talk at MIT in 1989 (blue). Hansen's Scenario B projection has been adjusted to reflect the actual observed greenhouse gas concentrations since 1988.

Lindzen would have us believe that tens of thousands of climate scientists around the world are all tossing their ethics aside and falsifying data in order to keep the research money flowing, even though contrarian climate scientists like Lindzen have had no trouble obtaining government research grants. Is this more plausible than the alternative explanation that 97 percent of climate research is correct, and Lindzen, whose claims have consistently been disproved by observational data, is wrong?

In the end, the Weekly Standard piece revisits comparisons between Lindzen and Galileo. There's one major difference between the two: Galileo was right. His positions were based on and supported by scientific evidence, and they withstood scientific scrutiny and the test of time. Other scientists at the time also recognized that Galileo was right. On the contrary, Lindzen is an outlier whose arguments have been disproved time and time again, including about the link between smoking and lung cancer.
The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures | Dana Nuccitelli

Give it up, kmiller. Lindzen has consistently been wrong. Why should scientists continue to debate with him when he's been proven wrong repeatedly? It's a waste of their time. They did debate with him and they proved him wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kontrary

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
33,031
6,564
Give it up, kmiller. Lindzen has consistently been wrong. Why should scientists continue to debate with him when he's been proven wrong repeatedly? It's a waste of their time. They did debate with him and they proved him wrong.[/QUOTE]

I'm not giving it up in the face of "Dana Nuccitelli an environmental scientist and risk assessor and writes the column Climate consensus - the 97%"

Sounds like the very typical consensus argument, which is no argument at all.

Anyone who argues science based on telling people to conform is no scientist at all.

Just more cut and paste propaganda. Typical person for you to align with. Dana is in the money though....

Revealed: Guardian climate blogger works for EPA, wind, solar contractor without disclosure

Having come across some of Nuccitelli’s screeds and I was drawn to the Tetra Tech mention.

What is Tetra Tech?

It’s a consulting firm that just got a $50 million contract from the EPA and a $100 million contract from the Navy It also does work for the wind, solar, and “emerging renewable” energy industries. It also offers “climate services” — whatever they are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bmanmcfly
Feb 2011
4,409
839
Ever changing
(1) Who is asking Americans to revert to a 'pre-industrial' existence?!? Not I!

(2) If George Carlin said that, it was a rare moment of deep stupidity on his part. Humans are having a MASSIVE impact on Planet Earth. How could this NOT be the case, when the human population has surged from a mere ten million in ~10,000 BC, to more than 7.7 BILLION today, a number that is rising fast. Here is the scientific report that was released just a few months ago. Provided in the hope that you want to learn something today:

Redirect Notice

Nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history -- and the rate of species extinctions is accelerating, with grave impacts on people around the world now likely, warns a landmark new report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

Much more at the link.....
So, what you are saying is that mankind is the problem. Or at least the number of people. What number would be acceptable to you? How do we get there? There is a group that you may want to join. VHEMT: The voluntary human extinction movement. Join today!
 
  • Like
Reactions: kmiller1610 and CtC