Understanding The Weather (extracted from) Privilege and Critical Race Theory

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

1.  But is must be said because it seems to be factual.

2.  “While assumptions and stereotypes about white people do exist, this is considered racial prejudice–not racism.” A genius distinction, no? Can you believe this pseudo-intellectual clap-trap makes the grade according to academia and government?  What the Anglo-bashers are pushing here is simple in conception: Racism against white Canadians is an impossibility.

3. Never mind that there is no proof that greenhouse gas is driving climate change, no proof man is causing climate change, and no proof that man can do anything about it. 
 

1. It's clearly an opinion piece.  You need to know the difference.  It's from the "Canadian Action Party", which - whatever it is - presumedly would have no goal to try to be objective.

2. I agree that the distinction here is academic, which makes me wonder why they would drag the issue into general discussion.  Wait, no I don't wonder: it's to exaggerate, exacerbate and misrepresent views to inflame people and make them hysterical rather than discuss real issues.

3. Ok... pure lies and anti-science.  Your source is garbage and you are sucking it in and spreading it around worse.  Your hypocrisy is evident, in that you are decrying the government's theoretical ideas on race as not being generally true... and yet spreading 100% false information.


Get in the game... the more you isolate yourself with fringe ideas that will never be accepted by the general population, the less influence you have...

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. It's clearly an opinion piece.  You need to know the difference.  It's from the "Canadian Action Party", which - whatever it is - presumedly would have no goal to try to be objective.

2. I agree that the distinction here is academic, which makes me wonder why they would drag the issue into general discussion.  Wait, no I don't wonder: it's to exaggerate, exacerbate and misrepresent views to inflame people and make them hysterical rather than discuss real issues.

3. Ok... pure lies and anti-science.  Your source is garbage and you are sucking it in and spreading it around worse.  Your hypocrisy is evident, in that you are decrying the government's theoretical ideas on race as not being generally true... and yet spreading 100% false information.


Get in the game... the more you isolate yourself with fringe ideas that will never be accepted by the general population, the less influence you have...

Thank you for your back-handed approval of the comment.  I must be on the right track. 

"lies and anti-science"???   Science requires proof.   Do you have anything that proves man-made climate change is true;  i.e. something that is proven by the scientific method?  No, because it is just political bafflegab and has not been proven.  There never has been any proof because the size of the earth and the complexity of the environment prevents such a thing from being replicated or proven.

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. "lies and anti-science"???   Science requires proof.   Do you have anything that proves man-made climate change is true;  i.e. something that is proven by the scientific method? 

2. No, because it is just political bafflegab and has not been proven. 

3. There never has been any proof because the size of the earth and the complexity of the environment prevents such a thing from being replicated or proven.

1. & 2.  & 3. No, but only because the closest 'proof' we get in natural sciences comes from double-blind studies which aren't possible with Climate.  But do you think smoking causes cancer ?  Because we are at the same level of proof here:

1) CO2 causes the greenhouse effect (proven)
2) Greenhouse effect raises temperature (proven)
3) Humans are contributing record amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere (proven)
4) There's a positive correlation with temperature rise (proven)

The only thing opposing this is crackpot science and paid liars, as far as I have seen.

----

Governments can't wait for 'proof' for such things.  They certainly didn't with smoking, before taking policies to reduce the amount of smoking, taxing it, requiring warnings, making unavailable to children etc.

So that's where it is.  Pretty much every climate scientist not only believes that anthropogenic climate change is happening, but it will have a negative effect overall.  This is why every nation is working on a collective solution.

I sincerely hope that you have seen something new in what I have taken care to write here.  Cheers.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. & 2.  & 3. No, but only because the closest 'proof' we get in natural sciences comes from double-blind studies which aren't possible with Climate.  But do you think smoking causes cancer ?  Because we are at the same level of proof here:

1) CO2 causes the greenhouse effect (proven)
2) Greenhouse effect raises temperature (proven)
3) Humans are contributing record amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere (proven)
4) There's a positive correlation with temperature rise (proven)

The only thing opposing this is crackpot science and paid liars, as far as I have seen.

----

Governments can't wait for 'proof' for such things.  They certainly didn't with smoking, before taking policies to reduce the amount of smoking, taxing it, requiring warnings, making unavailable to children etc.

So that's where it is.  Pretty much every climate scientist not only believes that anthropogenic climate change is happening, but it will have a negative effect overall.  This is why every nation is working on a collective solution.

I sincerely hope that you have seen something new in what I have taken care to write here.  Cheers.

So you are unable to provide any proof that man-made climate change is real.  No surprise. What I expected.   CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere, but that doesn't prove man-made CO2 causes climate change because climate has always changed.  In fact the climate was just as warm or warmer 2000 years ago in the Roman Warming Period and then in the Middle Ages in that warming period that lasted for several hundred years.  The fact is water vapour (H2O) is a significant part of the atmosphere and also causes global warming but that is not mentioned because it doesn't fit the narrative of those who want to blame mankind for GW.  Graphs demonstrate the rising temperature has not occurred evenly with the increase of CO2.  The correlation is not really clear plus just because something happens at the same time as temperature increases does not prove that is what caused it.  The stock market went up also at times but it doesn't prove the stock market caused GW.

quote

The now-infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph (Figure 5) produced by Michael Mann (Penn State University) and co-authors was the lynchpin of the AGW movement. The IPCC used the graph in the Summary for Policy Makers in their Third Assessment Report (2001). It was very influential. The graph was exposed as fraudulent; it ‘erased’ the Medieval Warm Period from the temperature record, and worse.52 Mann even sued a critic, lost, and then refused to pay the court-ordered costs. Underlining how corrupt climate science has become, instead of being disgraced, Mann was awarded the 2019 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement!  Unquote

"Figure 5. The fraudulent ‘hockey stick’ graph where the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age have been erased, giving the false impression of a thousand years of stability prior to radical recent warming.53"   

A biblical and scientific approach to climate change - creation.com

Trying to equate smoking causes cancer with man-made climate change is a huge stretch because cancer from smoking was easily proven by statistics and damage to the lungs where lung cancer occurs.  There is no similarity with man-made climate change.  There have been many fraudulent claims on the subject of climate change which have later turned out to be false.  Examples would be disappearance of the artic ice caps, disappearance of polar bears, the UN warning in 1989 that life on earth would be catastrophic by the year 2000 with major flooding and loss of islands.  Never happened.  Yet the UN IPCC is believed as the last word on climate change.  Politicians like Trudeau and many others got on the bandwagon, without having a clue of science to do with it, because it is a political cash cow for them.  Much of the world has been deceived into believing all the lies and deception around the subject.

Trudeau left this morning on his jet to fly around Europe for six days, wining and dining, and hob knobbing with the liberal elites of Europe as they discuss how they are going to save us all and save the planet from the boggy man of man-made climate change.  I assume his right hand environmental climate change radical will be going to the climate conference too on the taxpayer dime.

Note the Roman Warming Period, 2000 years ago, and the MIddle Ages Warming Period were strangely left out of the famous hockey stick graph.  I wonder why.

Edited October 28, 2021 by blackbird

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. & 2.  & 3. No, but only because the closest 'proof' we get in natural sciences comes from double-blind studies which aren't possible with Climate.  But do you think smoking causes cancer ?  Because we are at the same level of proof here:

1) CO2 causes the greenhouse effect (proven)
2) Greenhouse effect raises temperature (proven)
3) Humans are contributing record amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere (proven)
4) There's a positive correlation with temperature rise (proven)

The only thing opposing this is crackpot science and paid liars, as far as I have seen.

----

Governments can't wait for 'proof' for such things.  They certainly didn't with smoking, before taking policies to reduce the amount of smoking, taxing it, requiring warnings, making unavailable to children etc.

So that's where it is.  Pretty much every climate scientist not only believes that anthropogenic climate change is happening, but it will have a negative effect overall.  This is why every nation is working on a collective solution.

I sincerely hope that you have seen something new in what I have taken care to write here.  Cheers.

No, not every scientist believes in the GW alarmism claims.  The fact is very few scientists are even in the field of climate science.

quote

Scientists who disagree with the claimed consensus

In 2016 alone, over 500 papers were published in peer-reviewed science journals that seriously questioned the supposed ‘consensus’ on climate change.33

Some high-profile scientists who dispute the alarmism include:34

Lennart O. Bengtsson, who was Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany.

John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Roy Spencer, University of Alabama in Huntsville, and NASA. He and Dr John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites.35

Judith A. Curry, who due to the “craziness” of the politicization of climate science, in 2017 took early retirement from her position as Professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, USA, a position she had held for 15 years.

Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, contributed to the IPCC’s 1995 and 2001 reports, but became skeptical of the alarmist climate model projections.

Nir J. Shaviv, Professor and Chair of the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

There are many others. In September 2019, a global network of 500 prominent climate scientists and professionals stated that there is no ‘climate emergency’. They invited the UN to organize with them a constructive high-level meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate early in 2020.36

When we consider the persecution that dissenters have experienced (e.g. Dr Judith Curry mentioned above), we see another parallel to the creation/evolution debate. In both cases, dissenters from both the Darwinian and climate-alarmism paradigms have been demoted and even fired.37,38   Unquote

  Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)  at creation.com website,  This article is a scientific and biblical approach to climate change by Don Batten

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. & 2.  & 3. No, but only because the closest 'proof' we get in natural sciences comes from double-blind studies which aren't possible with Climate.  But do you think smoking causes cancer ?  Because we are at the same level of proof here:

1) CO2 causes the greenhouse effect (proven)
2) Greenhouse effect raises temperature (proven)
3) Humans are contributing record amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere (proven)
4) There's a positive correlation with temperature rise (proven)

The only thing opposing this is crackpot science and paid liars, as far as I have seen.

----

Governments can't wait for 'proof' for such things.  They certainly didn't with smoking, before taking policies to reduce the amount of smoking, taxing it, requiring warnings, making unavailable to children etc.

So that's where it is.  Pretty much every climate scientist not only believes that anthropogenic climate change is happening, but it will have a negative effect overall.  This is why every nation is working on a collective solution.

I sincerely hope that you have seen something new in what I have taken care to write here.  Cheers.

This short 2 minutes video is a preview of a longer video on the subject which one can purchase on their website.

But it mentions the fact the major cause of global warming is water vapour, not CO2.  CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere and there is no proof that man-made CO2 (fossil fuels) is causing global warming and if it is, how much.  Watch this:

The Great Global Warming Debate, Featuring Mike Oard - YouTube

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

 

1. Trying to equate smoking causes cancer with man-made climate change is a huge stretch because cancer from smoking was easily proven by statistics and damage to the lungs where lung cancer occurs.  There is no similarity with man-made climate change.

2. disappearance of polar bears,  

3. Trudeau left this morning on his jet to fly around Europe for six days 

 

1. It's an analogy and yes the concept also applies to Climate Change: the math of the increased CO2, the lab proven effect of CO2 on temperature and the correlation.  

2. Bringing 'polar bears' in is an attempt to discredit some environmentalists who believes in Climate Change, not the science.

3. Irrelevant.

If you have a single climate scientist still publishing anything that disagrees with the consensus please post that.

[DogOnPorch]

There is NO such thing as an expert opinion in science.

[DogOnPorch]

There was consensus that the Universe was constant before we discovered it wasn't.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

There was consensus that the Universe was constant before we discovered it wasn't.

If the arguments that Climate Change isn't human-caused were new or worth considering then we could look at them.  But they aren't, or there aren't any scientists providing alternate theories.

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

If the arguments that Climate Change isn't human-caused were new or worth considering then we could look at them.  But they aren't, or there aren't any scientists providing alternate theories.

 

Science is the Scientific Method...not expert opinions. You rely on expert opinions where as NOBODY has figured out Earth's climate cycles over time. NOBODY. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Science is the Scientific Method...not expert opinions. You rely on expert opinions where as NOBODY has figured out Earth's climate cycles over time. NOBODY. 

 

Sorry - I'm still waiting for another scientist to publish a challenge to the prevailing theory.  Someone who knows climate scientist at a minimal level would be preferable as it's a specific task.  

Saying 'nobody has figured out the earth's climate cycles' is disingenuous because the leading causes are known very well.

And... again... there's no alternate theory published by anyone who is not a quack or shill.

[DogOnPorch]

55 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

And... again... there's no alternate theory published by anyone who is not a quack or shill.

 

Again you display lack of understanding of what science is. If that quack's experiment proves you wrong...Mr Established science guy with an opinion...that's how she goes. 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you have a single climate scientist still publishing anything that disagrees with the consensus please post that.

Hah!  A single climate scientist?  

quote

On the eve of the UN COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, CLINTEL, an organization of over 925 scientists and scholars has called out the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for false claims of a climate crisis in the policymakers summary (SPM). Friends of Science says this critique and the Allan Inquiry reports show the Tar Sands Campaign environmental groups are misleading the public on climate change and the Alberta oil sands.  Unquote

COP26 Eve - CLINTEL Calls out IPCC on False Claims of Climate Crisis says Friends of Science | Benzinga

It is easy to find scientists who disagree with the man-made climate change alarmists.

If you are counting the number of scientists who agree and the number who disagree, then you are not going by the scientific method or reason.   It then becomes pure politics.

Edited October 28, 2021 by blackbird

[DogOnPorch]

Do you know why it's called the Big Bang? That was actually an attempt by 'established science' to discredit the idea that all matter came from a singularity.

[Michael Hardner]

21 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. It is easy to find scientists who disagree with the man-made climate change alarmists.

2. If you are counting the number of scientists who agree and the number who disagree, then you are not going by the scientific method or reason.   

1. no - there aren't any.  I don't know what CLINTEL or bezinga.com are: just post a link to the paper

2. I would like to look at the science from a scientist who has published something - not a YouTube guy.   And you are bringing up numbers here... I am bringing up consensus and there's a difference.

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. no - there aren't any.  I don't know what CLINTEL or bezinga.com are: just post a link to the paper

2. I would like to look at the science from a scientist who has published something - not a YouTube guy.   And you are bringing up numbers here... I am bringing up consensus and there's a difference.

I gave gave you the link in my post above where Clintel is mentioned.  All you have to do is put Clintel on a search line and you will find it.  900 scientists and professionals have signed onto Clintel.  The Clintel website has different pages which describe who they are, etc.

Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) climate change and climate policy

You asked for actual scientists behind organizations like Clintel.  The following ambassadors of Clintel include many professors.

World Climate Declaration AMBASSADORS

NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR IVAR GIAEVER NORWAY/USA
PROFESSOR GUUS BERKHOUT / THE NETHERLANDS
KEES LEPAIR / THE NETHERLANDS
PROFESSOR REYNALD DU BERGER / FRENCH SPEAKING CANADA
TERRY DUNLEAVY / NEW ZEALAND
VIV FORBES / AUSTRALIA
PROFESSOR JEFFREY FOSS / ENGLISH SPEAKING CANADA
JENS MORTON HANSEN / DENMARK
MORTEN JØDAL † / NORWAY
SOTIRIS kAMENOPOULOS / GREECE
FERDINAND MEEUS / DUTCH SPEAKING BELGIUM
PROFESSOR RICHARD LINDZEN / USA
HENRI A. MASSON / FRENCH SPEAKING BELGIUM
PROFESSOR INGEMAR NORDIN / SWEDEN
JIM O’BRIEN / REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
PROFESSOR IAN PLIMER / AUSTRALIA
DOUGLAS POLLOCK / CHILE
DR. BLANCA PARGA LANDA / SPAIN
PROFESSOR ALBERTO PRESTININZI / ITALY
PROFESSOR BENOÎT RITTAUD / FRANCE
DR. THIAGO MAIA / BRAZIL
PROFESSOR FRITZ VAHRENHOLT / GERMANY
THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY / UNITED KINGDOM
DUŠAN BIŽIĆ / CROATIA, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, SERBIA AND MONTE NEGRO

The Clintel website has a link to a number of interviews with professionals who explain why they believe what they do.

INTERVIEWS - Clintel

Trudeau excels at gender balance and inclusivity supposedly, but how much does he really know about climate change and views other than the dogma from the U.N. IPCC?

Edited October 28, 2021 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 

The Clintel website has a link to a number of interviews with professionals who explain why they believe what they do.

INTERVIEWS - Clintel

 

No, I asked for a link to an actual published paper.. not a bunch of videos.

[blackbird]

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, I asked for a link to an actual published paper.. not a bunch of videos.

Well, I don't know if a published paper is printed on the internet.  But there are letters and video messages from groups of scientists refuting the climate alarmism of the U.N. IPCC.

You might find some "published papers" on the internet if you spend some time searching around.  But I'm not sure what the difference is between "published papers" and posted letters from groups of scientists.  You seem to be trying to find an escape from reality.  We live in the days of the internet now where the internet is used more than anything else to communicate ideas.  Universities often do not even allow scientists or professors to be hired unless they tow the U.N. IPCC line.  So if you want to see only a published paper that has been approved by the U.N. IPCC, that contradicts the UN narrative, why would there be such a thing?  In other words, large universities may only allow "consensus" papers to be approved for publication, that is, papers in agreement with the U.N. or the majority.  The word "consensus" means majority opinion.  So if all you are looking for is a consensus or majority opinion, you might as well drop the subject.  You would then not be open to other points of view.

"The video above is from Friends of Science, a Canada-based “non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals.” On the same day last week that Greta Thunberg made an impassioned speech to the United Nations about her fears of a climate emergency, a group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals, led by the CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout, sent this registered letter to the United Nations Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people. Here’s the press release, here’ the list of 500 signees, and here’s the opening of the letter:

A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors. The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose.

Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions of dollars on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy. We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation

Here are the specific points about climate change highlighted in the letter:

1 Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.

MP: What about that “consensus” and “settled science” about climate change we always hear about? How can there be a consensus when there’s a global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields who challenge the “settled science”?

Actually, challenging the consensus among the scientific community is nothing new, but those the voices of those challenging the consensus are always drowned out by the tsunami of climate hysteria from the climate alarmists. For example, in 2012 a group of more than 125 scientists sent an open letter to the United Nations warning that scientific evidence refuted UN Secretary-General’s Ban Ki-Moon repeated assertions on weather and climate. Those warnings of climate hysteria unsupported by the scientific evidence were ignored in 2012, just like the letter from the 500 prominent scientists and professionals will be ignored in 2019. In other words, it’s “deja vu all over again.”

500 experts say there is no emergency as the U.N. claims.

There is no climate emergency, say 500 experts in letter to the United Nations | American Enterprise Institute - AEI

 

Edited October 28, 2021 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. Well, I don't know if a published paper is printed on the internet. 

2. But there are letters and video messages from groups of scientists refuting the climate alarmism of the U.N. IPCC.

3. You might find some "published papers" on the internet if you spend some time searching around.  But I'm not sure what the difference is between "published papers" and posted letters from groups of scientists. 

4. You seem to be trying to find an escape from reality.  We live in the days of the internet now where the internet is used more than anything else to communicate ideas. 

5. Universities often do not even allow scientists or professors to be hired unless they tow the U.N. IPCC line.

1. Yes.

2. The science is done through papers and peer review, not open letters, videos, petitions, podcasts and blogs.

3. There were some in the 1990s, but I don't know of any recent ones.

4. Yes, you can find real science and published papers on the internet. You can also find a lot of scammers and hucksters making videos and conspiracy theories.

If I need reality to be clear to me, I can go outside in October in a T-shirt.

5. A conspiracy, right?  Do you know how much prestige and a claim an accredited scientist would have if they found a viable alternate theory to what's happening here?

 

If you don't have a single published paper to support an alternative theory, maybe that can tell you something?  You don't have to work for a university to publish a paper, you might even work for an oil company.

[blackbird]

25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes.

2. The science is done through papers and peer review, not open letters, videos, petitions, podcasts and blogs.

3. There were some in the 1990s, but I don't know of any recent ones.

4. Yes, you can find real science and published papers on the internet. You can also find a lot of scammers and hucksters making videos and conspiracy theories.

If I need reality to be clear to me, I can go outside in October in a T-shirt.

5. A conspiracy, right?  Do you know how much prestige and a claim an accredited scientist would have if they found a viable alternate theory to what's happening here?

 

If you don't have a single published paper to support an alternative theory, maybe that can tell you something?  You don't have to work for a university to publish a paper, you might even work for an oil company.

You are free to only accept "published papers" whatever that means.  It sounds more like an escape hatch so you don't have to face reality.  In this day and age, many scientists and experts simple publish their findings or views through established organizations which have websites.  If you don't want to accept that, that's your problem.  You are limiting yourself to one viewpoint.  Stick with Bernie Sanders.  I'll go with the many professionals and scientists who publicly express their opinion outside the controlled medium of the "consensus talking points".

Quote

The latest talking point of progressive politicians, pundits, and activists is that America cannot afford not to spend trillions of dollars to “solve the climate crisis” because global warming is an existential threat. As Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) put it, “You cannot go too far on the issue of climate change. The future of the planet is at stake, OK?”

Abysmal Benefit-Cost Ratio

That is sham wisdom even if climate change were the terror Sen. Sanders imagines it to be. The resources available to public and private decision makers are finite. Resources allocated to “climate action” are no longer available to make mortgage payments, pay college tuitions, grow food, fund medical innovation, or build battleships. Prudent policymakers therefore not only consider the costs of policy proposals but also compare the different benefit-cost ratios of competing expenditures. As it happens, the benefit-cost ratios of carbon suppression policies are abysmal.

For example, just the direct expenditures for the electric sector portion of the Green New Deal would, conservatively estimated, cost $490.5 billion per year, or $3,845 per year per household, according to American Enterprise Institute economist Benjamin Zycher. Yet even complete elimination of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would avert only 0.083°C to 0.173°C of global warming 70 years from now—a policy impact too small to discernibly affect weather patterns, crop yields, polar bear populations, or any other environmental condition people care about.

The climate “benefit” over the next 10 years would be even more miniscule. Yet during that period, Zycher estimates, the annual economic cost of the GND electric sector program would be about $9 trillion. It is unwise to spend so much to achieve so little.

Quote

No Planetary Emergency

The doomsday interpretation of climate change is a political doctrine. It is not a scientific finding, as Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg shows in a recent series of tweets and University of Alabama in Huntsville atmospheric scientist John Christy explains in a new paper titled “Falsifying Climate Alarm.”

In the aforementioned tweets, Lomborg rebuts an op-ed by Nobel economist Joseph Stigletz, who advocates spending trillions of dollars annually to combat climate change, which he calls “our World War III.” As evidence, Stigletz claims that in recent years weather-related damages cost the U.S. economy 2 percent of GDP—a figure for which he gives no reference.

Lomborg deftly sets the record straight. Aon Benfield reinsurers estimate that during 2000-2017, weather-related damages cost the United States about $88 billion annually, or 0.48 percent of GDP per year, not 2 percent. More importantly, extreme weather is a natural feature of the Earth’s climate system. The vast majority of those damages would have occurred with or without climate change. “Does Stiglitz believe there is no bad weather without climate change?” Lomborg asks.  Unquote

Bjorn Lomborg and John Christy Shred Climate Alarmism - Competitive Enterprise Institute (cei.org)

 

Edited October 28, 2021 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. You are free to only accept "published papers" whatever that means. 

2. It sounds more like an escape hatch so you don't have to face reality. 

3. In this day and age, many scientists and experts simple publish their findings or views through established organizations which have websites. 

4. If you don't want to accept that, that's your problem.  You are limiting yourself to one viewpoint. 

5. Stick with Bernie Sanders.  I'll go with the many professionals and scientists who publicly express their opinion outside the controlled medium of the "consensus talking points".

 

1. It means peer review, in other words you publish your ideas and other scientists criticize it and take it apart. The best science wins.

2. Well one of us is talking about the domain of established science, the other one is never heard of that and is talking about videos and blogs.. which one lives in reality?

3. Peer review and criticism is still the way that sciences is debated.  Hucksters and scammers publish videos, cry conspiracy, and take their sham science to the public.

4. No, many viewpoints are debated through the published papers.  You are only interested in viewpoints that agree with you already. And in order to explain why they're not adopted widely, the only answer is.. conspiracy.

5. Politics has nothing to do with science.  You are buying into a nutty form of vanity industry that flatters ignorance and blames everything on Democrats as though they're Communists.  I don't know how to talk to people like you, because you show up with your own set of fake facts...

[blackbird]

47 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes.

2. The science is done through papers and peer review, not open letters, videos, petitions, podcasts and blogs.

3. There were some in the 1990s, but I don't know of any recent ones.

4. Yes, you can find real science and published papers on the internet. You can also find a lot of scammers and hucksters making videos and conspiracy theories.

If I need reality to be clear to me, I can go outside in October in a T-shirt.

5. A conspiracy, right?  Do you know how much prestige and a claim an accredited scientist would have if they found a viable alternate theory to what's happening here?

 

If you don't have a single published paper to support an alternative theory, maybe that can tell you something?  You don't have to work for a university to publish a paper, you might even work for an oil company.

OK you want a published paper.

Here is what this author refers to is a paper he published which shows CO2 increase lags temperature increases.

Presentation of Evidence Suggesting Temperature Drives Atmospheric CO2 more than CO2 Drives Temperature – Watts Up With That?

This paper says in part the following.  I won't paste the whole thing. You could go to the website above.

quote

Presentation of Evidence Suggesting Temperature Drives Atmospheric CO2 more than CO2 Drives Temperature

6 years ago

 

Guest Blogger

Note: I present this for discussion, I have no opinion on its validity -Anthony Watts

Guest essay by Allan MacRae

Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with temperature, which reflects the fact that the water cycle and the CO2 cycle are both driven primarily by changes in global temperatures (actually energy flux – Veizer et al).

To my knowledge, I initiated in January 2008 the hypothesis that dCO2/dt varies with temperature (T) and therefore CO2 lags temperature by about 9 months in the modern data record, and so CO2 could not primarily drive temperature. Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/

In my Figure 1 and 2, global dCO2/dt is closely correlated with global Lower Tropospheric Temperature (LT) and Surface Temperature (ST). The temperature and CO2 datasets are collected completely independently, and yet this close correlation exists.

I also demonstrated the same close correlation with different datasets, using Mauna Loa CO2 data and Hadcrut3 ST back to 1958. I subsequently examined the close correlation of LT measurements taken by satellite and those taken by radiosonde.

Earlier papers by Kuo (1990) and Keeling (1995) discussed the delay of CO2 after temperature, although neither appeared to notice the even closer correlation of dCO2/dt with temperature. This correlation is noted in my Figures 3 and 4.

My hypothesis received a hostile reaction from both sides of the fractious global warming debate. All the “global warming alarmists” and most “climate skeptics” rejected it.

First I was just deemed wrong – the dCO2/dt vs T relationship was allegedly a “spurious correlation”.

Later it was agreed that I was correct, but the resulting ~9 month CO2-after-T lag was dismissed as a “feedback effect”. This remains the counter-argument of the global warming alarmists – apparently a faith-based rationalization to be consistent with their axiom “WE KNOW that CO2 drives temperature”.

This subject has generated spirited discussion among scientists. Few now doubt the close correlation dCO2/dt vs T. Some say that humankind is not the primary cause of the current increase in atmospheric CO2 – that it is largely natural. Others rely on the “mass balance argument” to refute this claim.  Unquote   For the rest, click on the link above.

Edited October 28, 2021 by blackbird

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you don't have a single published paper to support an alternative theory, maybe that can tell you something?  You don't have to work for a university to publish a paper, you might even work for an oil company.

The conclusion of Allan M.R. MacRae's paper is:

CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING:

THE FUTURE CAN NOT CAUSE THE PAST

He says in one place:

"

CO₂ emissions due to human activity rose gradually from the onset of the Industrial Revolution, reaching ~1 billion tonnes per year (expressed as carbon) by 1945, and then accelerated to ~9 billion tonnes per year by 2007. Since ~1945 when CO₂ emissions accelerated, Earth experienced ~22 years of warming, and ~40 years of either cooling or absence of warming.

The IPCC’s position that increased CO₂ is the primary cause of global warming is not supported by the temperature data."

Edited October 28, 2021 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

29 minutes ago, blackbird said:

OK you want a published paper.

Here is what this author refers to is a paper he published which shows CO2 increase lags temperature increases.

Presentation of Evidence Suggesting Temperature Drives Atmospheric CO2 more than CO2 Drives Temperature – Watts Up With That?

 

That looks like a blog. Is there peer review there? This guy is well known as a populist blogger.  It's not real science, and has been criticised (in the press ) as inaccurate.