Bill Gates: Rich nations should shift entirely to synthetic beef

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok so I started my research and only about ten minutes in, I have to stop.

Indeed I remembered her after reading.  She's concerned about the rhetoric and alarmism, and as an accredited scientist she is to be believed.

But I got confused because my challenge was specifically:

"Name a single climate scientist who has published a credible counter argument in the last 30 years. Not a YouTube, or a blog post... Not an oil expert, weather man, or geologist...""

Her Wiki summary says:

"In the 2010 profile, she accused the IPCC of "corruption" and said she no longer had confidence in the process. She agreed that the Earth is warming, largely due to human-generated greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic. She said that the IPCC was distorting the science and scientists were not dealing adequately with uncertainties.["

She's not censored, but also she doesn't seem to meet the criteria I mentioned.  If you support her, then you're supporting a scientist who believes in human-caused climate change.

So I don't want to go any further until you clarify whether you're fully aligned with her or not. I will continue with the other Post. 

 

Please note I am proceeding respectfully and ask you to do the same. Given the amount of work this is going to take me, I'm not interested in deep dives that take a long time only to have you call me a dunderhead at the end of it all...

You expect a certain person to not start name-calling and making broad assumptions when you do not align with him word for word? Not sure why you have such high expectations

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

You expect a certain person to not start name-calling and making broad assumptions when you do not align with him word for word? Not sure why you have such high expectations

I'm open to cutting off the engagement with people who want to impose their way of doing things on me.  So far, I have asked for real examples so what kind of poster would I be to walk away from an interesting discussion.

Perspektiv accused me of taking the board too seriously, but why come here otherwise?

[Goddess]

32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Bias and deception happens, but you also have to take into account that there's oversight in most processes in an open society. Including academia, scientific research, etc.

There's also a LOT of money involved, which oftentimes overrides oversight in the areas of academia and scientific research.  You would be naive to believe otherwise.

I'm more educated on medical research and I can spot bias, deception and faulty research or conclusions in medical studies like a champ.  Less educated on climate issues, but I have no doubt that the same types of issues are involved in all the sciences, including climate science.

[Hodad]

On 5/7/2024 at 10:48 AM, Nationalist said:

You are what you are...you lyin' little sh1t.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1112950/

In your own words...

Have a warm and fuzzy day...

 

On 5/7/2024 at 9:43 AM, Nationalist said:

Oh my! The government has been warping the actual scientific findings. Quelle suprise.

The article goes on to say,

This is what it looks like. PURE EVIL!

You wanna play little word games and try to justify this...disgusting idea and imposition...bring it on sonny!

I have had it with this UN/govenmental and institutionalized fear porn. Its destroying the entire global economy and has zero real justification.!

The fundamental problem here isn't that you're wrong, it's the way you go about being wrong, and looking for information that confirms your biases--without regard to quality or relevance or even reasonableness.

You are shouting from the rooftops (for whatever reason) that climate change is an evil hoax. You do some googling to "prove" that and come back with... any old thing. 

In this case, your smoking gun is a handful of meteorologists criticizing of the language of a report FROM 30 YEARS AGO. 30 years. Let that sink in. You can't find anything current because the scientific community is nearly unanimous that, yes, the planet is warming and yes, humans are major drivers of that change. Every field, every country, every industry (including the petroleum industry!), every major scientific body. 

Because for more than 30 years the evidence has piled up, paper after paper, report after report, all pointing to the exact same conclusion, to the point that even those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo have had to acknowledge that climate change is fact. Scientists across the spectrum long ago shifted from "if" to "when, how fast, how much and what will it mean for their scope of their study?" 

And, BTW, meteorologists (short term) are NOT climatologists (long term). And they typically don't require as much education. But if you find their thoughts on the topic compelling, perhaps you should ask where the field stands today. 

 

American Meteorological Society (They have a LOT to say about it, including educational resources.)

"Humans are causing climate to change and it poses numerous serious risks. The more carbon we emit, the higher the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will be and the larger the changes in climate we'll face."

 

Do you know why meteorologists--especially broadcast meteorologists--are so convinced that climate change is real, caused by humans, and a serious problem? It's because they stand up day after day, year after year in front of an audience and have to tell them over and over and over again about aberrant weather, record temperatures set with record frequency, and natural disasters at unnatural frequencies and with unnatural ferocity. Because they are public and accountable day after day to deliver the one directional trend that the climate is changing and our world is warming. 

 

[Goddess]

5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I'm more educated on medical research and I can spot bias, deception and faulty research or conclusions in medical studies like a champ.

Just to add to this - one of the things happening in medical studies right now, in part due to the political climate, is that when scientists post their research - NO MATTER what the data says, they have to extol the virtues of the covid vaccine in the preambles and conclusion parts of their studies and sprinkle the study with comments they and the data actually do not agree with, just to get published at all.

I saw this recently when someone posted a new study with a cohort of 99 million vaccinees (which is a great cohort) to "prove" the shots were doing very little damage, but the study itself had several flaws, the actual data & stats contained in it did NOT show very little damage being done and I could see the usual complimentary phrases sprinkled throughout.

Researchers have said they hope that other researchers and scientists will read the actual data in the study. But for laypeople, they generally just read the Abstract or Conclusion and do not understand the data.

I believe the same thing is happening with climate studies.  Their conclusions are politically and financially driven, you have to read them carefully and have a degree of education to interpret.

Like you probably, I have found a group of experts that I trust their interpretations of the studies.  There is no bias or money involved, they are not funded by Pharma and have no horse in the race.  They have risked their careers to tell the truth.  Motive - THAT impresses me.

[Michael Hardner]

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

From WIKI:

• American and New Zealand climate scientist Kevin Trenberth has published widely on climate change science and fought back against climate change misinformation for decades.^[222] He describes in his memoirs his "close encounters with deniers and skeptics" [note that wiki goes along with the claim that they're mere 'deniers', and not "concerned climatologists with important opinions"] —with fellow meteorologists or climate change scientists.
• These included Richard Lindzen ("he is quite beguiling but is criticized as “intellectually dishonest” by his peers"; Lindzen was a professor of meteorology at MIT and has been called a contrarian in relation to climate change and other issues.^[223]), Roy Spencer (who has "repeatedly made errors that always resulted in lower temperature trends than were really present"), John Christy ("his decisions on climate work and statements appear to be heavily colored by his religion"), Roger Pielke Jr, Christopher Landsea, Pat Michaels ("long associated with the Cato Institute, he changed his bombastic tune gradually over time as climate change became more evident").^[222]: 95
• Sherwood B. Idso is a natural scientist and is the president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. In 1982 he published his book Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe?, which said increases in CO₂ would not warm the planet, but would fertilize crops and were "something to be encouraged and not suppressed".
• William M. Gray was a climate scientist (emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University) who supported climate change denial: he agreed that global warming was taking place, but argued that humans were responsible for only a tiny portion of it and it was largely part of the Earth's natural cycle.^{[224][115][225]}
• In 1998, Frederick Seitz, an American physicist and former National Academy of Sciences president, wrote the Oregon Petition, a controversial document in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. The petition and accompanying "Research Review of Global Warming Evidence" claimed that "We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. [...] This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution".^[160] In their book Merchants of Doubt, the authors write that Seitz and a group of other scientists fought the scientific evidence and spread confusion on many of the most important issues of our time, like the harmfulness of tobacco smoke, acid rains, CFCs, pesticides, and global warming.^{[124]: 25–29}

 

 

 

This list includes people who haven't published in over 20 years, one of whom died.  The reason that's important is that the evidence has grown since then.  Idso for example, is quoted from a 42 yr old book above.  Several others believe in human-caused warming.  Even Richard Lindzen, who I think I have written about here on MLW, believes that.  But he's the strongest skeptic listed.  His "iris" theory says additional cloud creation will mitigate temperature change but it hasn't happened yet since he published his ideas.  Also some aren't climate scientists, and haven't published.

Remember I'm talking about the pure claims of human caused warming.  So my question to you is the same as with Dr Curry.

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

From WIKI:

• American and New Zealand climate scientist Kevin Trenberth has published widely on climate change science and fought back against climate change misinformation for decades.^[222] He describes in his memoirs his "close encounters with deniers and skeptics" [note that wiki goes along with the claim that they're mere 'deniers', and not "concerned climatologists with important opinions"] —with fellow meteorologists or climate change scientists.
• These included Richard Lindzen ("he is quite beguiling but is criticized as “intellectually dishonest” by his peers"; Lindzen was a professor of meteorology at MIT and has been called a contrarian in relation to climate change and other issues.^[223]), Roy Spencer (who has "repeatedly made errors that always resulted in lower temperature trends than were really present"), John Christy ("his decisions on climate work and statements appear to be heavily colored by his religion"), Roger Pielke Jr, Christopher Landsea, Pat Michaels ("long associated with the Cato Institute, he changed his bombastic tune gradually over time as climate change became more evident").^[222]: 95
• Sherwood B. Idso is a natural scientist and is the president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. In 1982 he published his book Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe?, which said increases in CO₂ would not warm the planet, but would fertilize crops and were "something to be encouraged and not suppressed".
• William M. Gray was a climate scientist (emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University) who supported climate change denial: he agreed that global warming was taking place, but argued that humans were responsible for only a tiny portion of it and it was largely part of the Earth's natural cycle.^{[224][115][225]}
• In 1998, Frederick Seitz, an American physicist and former National Academy of Sciences president, wrote the Oregon Petition, a controversial document in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. The petition and accompanying "Research Review of Global Warming Evidence" claimed that "We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. [...] This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution".^[160] In their book Merchants of Doubt, the authors write that Seitz and a group of other scientists fought the scientific evidence and spread confusion on many of the most important issues of our time, like the harmfulness of tobacco smoke, acid rains, CFCs, pesticides, and global warming.^{[124]: 25–29}

 

 

 

This list includes people who haven't published in over 20 years, one of whom died.  The reason that's important is that the evidence has grown since then.  Idso for example, is quoted from a 42 yr old book above.  Several others believe in human-caused warming.  Even Richard Lindzen, who I think I have written about here on MLW, believes that.  But he's the strongest skeptic listed.  His "iris" theory says additional cloud creation will mitigate temperature change but it hasn't happened yet since he published his ideas.  Also some aren't climate scientists, and haven't published.

Remember I'm talking about the pure claims of human caused warming.  So my question to you is the same as with Dr Curry.

[herbie]

17 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

These guys like to pretend not to know why they're being treated like trolls. 

Why they're being treated like trolls... that's a laugh. From the mouth of a Trump prasing Climate Change denier.

rolling about the floor of the asylum yelling that the doctors are all crazy, not him

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

This guy:  Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia

This guy:  Nir Shaviv - Wikipedia

This guy:  William Happer - Wikipedia

This guy:  Steven E. Koonin - Wikipedia

This guy:  Dr. Matthew M. WielickiDr. Matthew M. Wielicki's home page (matthewwielicki.com)

This guy:  Patrick Moore (consultant) - Wikipedia

This guy:  Ross McKitrick - Ross McKitrick Research Archive

This guy:  Willie Soon - Wikipedia

This guy:  Roy Spencer, PhD (drroyspencer.com)

This guy:  Henrik Svensmark - Wikipedia

This guy:  Who Is Tony Heller? | Real Climate Science

This guy (who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2022):  John Clauser - Wikipedia

 

 

Svensmark and Shaviv both satisfy the criteria.  I had followed them back when this topic hit BIG on this board 15 years ago.  I'm surprised that they're still pursuing this idea - that cosmic rays are behind warming - but indeed they are.

 But if you wanted me to look for skeptical scientists, I found them.  Two people.  This is what we mean when we talk about consensus.

 

So... if there's consensus... IF... How do we proceed?

For people to make a decision on whether to try to do something about Climate Change, they can either do it out of fear or do a rational risk assessment.

Given our public sphere, and the lack of trust... it's understandable that some try to raise panic levels rather than rational discussion.

Generally, for us on here I would say: If you prefer the latter, then I expect you would want to engage in a positive and honest way on here also.

Edited May 8 by Michael Hardner

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok so I started my research and only about ten minutes in, I have to stop.

Indeed I remembered her after reading.  She's concerned about the rhetoric and alarmism, and as an accredited scientist she is to be believed.

But I got confused because my challenge was specifically:

"Name a single climate scientist who has published a credible counter argument in the last 30 years. Not a YouTube, or a blog post... Not an oil expert, weather man, or geologist...""

Her Wiki summary says:

"In the 2010 profile, she accused the IPCC of "corruption" and said she no longer had confidence in the process. She agreed that the Earth is warming, largely due to human-generated greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic. She said that the IPCC was distorting the science and scientists were not dealing adequately with uncertainties.["

She's not censored, but also she doesn't seem to meet the criteria I mentioned.  If you support her, then you're supporting a scientist who believes in human-caused climate change.

So I don't want to go any further until you clarify whether you're fully aligned with her or not. I will continue with the other Post. 

 

Please note I am proceeding respectfully and ask you to do the same. Given the amount of work this is going to take me, I'm not interested in deep dives that take a long time only to have you call me a dunderhead at the end of it all...

Stop.

Just stop.

How hard did you really look MH?

You just did a "confirmation bias scan" and regurgitated what you found ffs.

All you did there is take the big tech opinion that you want from an arbitrary point in time 14 years ago and foist it on her and the rest of us.

Here's her own blog from 4 days ago. Literally 04 May 2024:

https://judithcurry.com/2024/05/04/annual-gwpf-lecture-climate-uncertainty-and-risk/#more-31190

• So how did we come to be between a rock and a hard place on the climate issue, where we are allegedly facing an existential threat. And the proposed solutions are both unpopular and infeasible? Well in a few words, we’ve put the policy cart before the scientific horse.

  In the 1980’s, the UN Environmental Program was looking for a cause to push forward its agenda of eliminating fossil fuels and anti-Capitalism.  With the help of a small number of well-positioned activist climate scientists, a 1988 UN conference in Toronto recommended that the world “reduce CO₂ emissions by approximately 20% by the year 2005 as an initial global goal.”  The implicit assumption was that the small amount of warming observed over the previous decade was caused by emissions, and that warming was dangerous.

• Further down: "Mixing politics and science is inevitable on issues of high societal relevance, such as climate change.  However, there are some really bad ways to do this, and we’re seeing all of these with the climate change issue. Policy makers misuse science by demanding scientific arguments for desired policies, funding a narrow range of projects that support preferred policies, and using science as a vehicle to avoid ‘hot potato’ policy issues. Scientists misuse policy-relevant science by playing power politics with their expertise, conflating expert judgment with evidence, entangling disputed facts with values, and intimidating scientists whose research interferes with their political agendas."

• Here's more of her own commentary: "

  Wait a minute.  Don’t 97% of climate scientists agree on all this?  Doesn’t climate science demand that we urgently eliminate fossil fuel emissions? Here is what all scientists actually agree on:

• Surface temperatures have increased since 1880
• Humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere
• Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet.
• How much of the recent warming has been caused by humans
• How much the planet will warm in the 21st century
• Whether warming is ‘dangerous’
• And whether urgently eliminating the use of fossil fuels will improve human well being

• Nevertheless, we are endlessly fed the trope that 97% of climate scientists agree that warming is dangerous and that science demands urgent reductions in CO2 emissions.

 

 

Go fish MH. Just go fish ffs. Your blind belief in big tech and their scripted search results, plus the MSM and all of their distorted narratives, is well-established here. It's sad. 

You consider yourself well-informed and you're a classic serial-victim of propaganda. 

[Goddess]

21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

they can either do it out of fear or do a rational risk assessment.

Having worked in risk management and not being a person prone to panic, I prefer the rational risk assessment method 🤣

My understanding is that climate science is mostly founded on "models".

In medical, hired modelers generally are asked to model a "worst case" scenario.  Rational risk assessment will then determine how likely that "worst case" scenario is.

Unfortunately, basing all decisions made in any situation on a "worst case" scenario model, generally leads to.......very bad decisions and very often "the cure being worse than the disease."  As we saw with covid.

I see the same hair-on-fire panic, alarmism, worst case scenario modeling, rushing to implement measures with NO thinking about long-term impacts.....that I saw during covid.

I see the same thing happening in a lot of situations because, for some strange reason, we have put an inordinate amount of bureaucratic chicken littles in charge of everything.

Immigration is another example - hair-on-fire, panic OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!! Canada's population is aging so bring in masses numbers of people.  Zero thought given to housing.  Zero though given to hospital overload, ZERO thought given to feeding people, ZERO thought given to jobs or the economy.  Zero thought given to societal impacts.

I hope at some point very soon, we stop giving in to the chicken littles - they're destroying us on every level.

 

Edited May 8 by Goddess
Also, "synthetic beef". So I'm still on topic.

[WestCanMan]

39 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

This list includes people who haven't published in over 20 years, one of whom died.  The reason that's important is that the evidence has grown since then.  Idso for example, is quoted from a 42 yr old book above.  Several others believe in human-caused warming.  Even Richard Lindzen, who I think I have written about here on MLW, believes that.  But he's the strongest skeptic listed.  His "iris" theory says additional cloud creation will mitigate temperature change but it hasn't happened yet since he published his ideas.  Also some aren't climate scientists, and haven't published.

Remember I'm talking about the pure claims of human caused warming.  So my question to you is the same as with Dr Curry.

This list includes people who haven't published in over 20 years, one of whom died.  The reason that's important is that the evidence has grown since then.  Idso for example, is quoted from a 42 yr old book above.  Several others believe in human-caused warming.  Even Richard Lindzen, who I think I have written about here on MLW, believes that.  But he's the strongest skeptic listed.  His "iris" theory says additional cloud creation will mitigate temperature change but it hasn't happened yet since he published his ideas.  Also some aren't climate scientists, and haven't published.

Remember I'm talking about the pure claims of human caused warming.  So my question to you is the same as with Dr Curry.

Why don't you look into it MH.

See how hard it is to find any results related to your search, when that search is unpopular with CNN's narratives.... 

If you search for anything from an actual scientist or Dr who's got an unpopular opinion all you get is BS debunking articles. 

Did you do a search for "a BS fact check of someone's opinions" or a search for something they said? Doesn't matter... all you'll get on the top ten pages are BS fact checks and other articles supporting CNN's narratives. 

Google is basically short for "communist confirmation bias".

31 minutes ago, herbie said:

Why they're being treated like trolls... that's a laugh. From the mouth of a Trump prasing Climate Change denier.

rolling about the floor of the asylum yelling that the doctors are all crazy, not him

Shut up you you low-IQ, lying piece of shit. I don't give a f what you think. 

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

•  

 

Go fish MH. Just go fish ffs. Your blind belief in big tech and their scripted search results, plus the MSM and all of their distorted narratives, is well-established here. It's sad. 

You consider yourself well-informed and you're a classic serial-victim of propaganda. 

How does big Tech figure into it? 

 

And to repeat.. I asked you for a specific thing, and you haven't returned that. You're arguing instead that there's climate panic, but I didn't try to dispute that at all.

Are you just looking to argue about something in this general topic?...because I can assure you we agree on a lot.

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

 

See how hard it is to find any results related to your search, when that search is unpopular with CNN's 

I can find all the legitimate skeptics I mentioned above. If Google doesn't return any others, it just might be that there aren't a lot of them. 

Can you try to to put your comments into one post together? It makes it easier to reply.

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Having worked in risk management and not being a person prone to panic, I prefer the rational risk assessment method 🤣

My understanding is that climate science is mostly founded on "models".

In medical, hired modelers generally are asked to model a "worst case" scenario.  Rational risk assessment will then determine how likely that "worst case" scenario is.

Unfortunately, basing all decisions made in any situation on a "worst case" scenario model, generally leads to.......very bad decisions and very often "the cure being worse than the disease."  As we saw with covid.

I see the same hair-on-fire panic, alarmism, worst case scenario modeling, rushing to implement measures with NO thinking about long-term impacts.....that I saw during covid.

I see the same thing happening in a lot of situations because, for some strange reason, we have put an inordinate amount of bureaucratic chicken littles in charge of everything.

Immigration is another example - hair-on-fire, panic OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!! Canada's population is aging so bring in masses numbers of people.  Zero thought given to housing.  Zero though given to hospital overload, ZERO thought given to feeding people, ZERO thought given to jobs or the economy.  Zero thought given to societal impacts.

I hope at some point very soon, we stop giving in to the chicken littles - they're destroying us on every level.

 

Yes, we can't do much more than models in any case. Case. Just like we can't live, test a double-blind tobacco study. It will never be proven that cigarettes cause cancer, as a result of that. 

But again... You're arguing about something I didn't dispute. Like West can.

[Goddess]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You're arguing about something I didn't dispute.

I'm just trying to have a rational convo about it.

You brought up rational risk assessment, so I was basically asking where you are on the rational scale.  Worst case scenario or "Let's think this through before we go mucking about."

[Michael Hardner]

49 minutes ago, Goddess said:

1. I'm just trying to have a rational convo about it.

2. You brought up rational risk assessment, so I was basically asking where you are on the rational scale.  Worst case scenario or "Let's think this through before we go mucking about."

1. Sure. Well here's my part. I agree that the pro Climate side has exaggerated sometimes, that the media loves to fear monger, that we don't know what the impact of any of this is. 

Is any of that surprising, or does it change whether or not we should act? Maybe not. 

I really take exception with people who know nothing, damaging the reputation of individuals and institutions because they are paranoid.... And these people get very upset. If you ask them also. Then they come back at you and they associate you with all kinds of things that you didn't say. Because they're tribal. They also associate you with people you don't agree with like Trudeau. After all, if you don't agree with them, then you must agree with their blood enemies, right?

2. I don't think worst case scenario is in the cards. I think it's going to get a lot hotter. I also think that population reduction and lot of other changes are going to make these questions moot in 100 years.  The people who argue the hardest about this don't care about the issues, as much as the tribal part.  

Edited May 8 by Michael Hardner

[WestCanMan]

56 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

How does big Tech figure into it? 

Big tech is part of TNI, and TNI is a global disinformation conglomeration. 

They were the ones who kiboshed the BSL4 lab story in Wuhan, both by kicking people off of social media for talking about it and ignoring the story in MSM, and they also told the world that the laptop story was "Russian disinformation" when the FBI had that laptop in their possession for 11 months, and they knew it was all legit. 

Google is part of TNI, so is YouTube, and Google's search results are shewed to what TNI wants you to see. 

Quote

And to repeat.. I asked you for a specific thing, and you haven't returned that. You're arguing instead that there's climate panic, but I didn't try to dispute that at all.

Yeah, I did. I found you climate experts who weren't on board with the global warming narrative.

Then you trotted out a BS wiki story about Dr Curry that was only relevant 14 years ago. Then, believe it or not, you accused me of having info that wasn't current lol.

Dr Curry even talked directly about the fake "97% consensus stat" which climate alarmists continually cite, saying that it's BS. 

Quote

I can find all the legitimate skeptics I mentioned above. If Google doesn't return any others, it just might be that there aren't a lot of them. 

Can you try to to put your comments into one post together? It makes it easier to reply.

  Sure. When you know their names and google them they come up. 

Try to do a google search that generates the names of climate skeptics. 

 

c

[Goddess]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Is any of that surprising,  

A bit, coming from you.

Quote

or does it change whether or not we should act? Maybe not.

I think we should always look for better ways of doing things, that protect the earth.

Do I think bankrupting Canada, impoverishing the world and giving all the money to oligarchs will do anything to affect the climate?  Likely not.  But that seems to be the answer climate people are going for.

 

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I think we should always look for better ways of doing things, that protect the earth.

Do I think bankrupting Canada, impoverishing the world and giving all the money to oligarchs will do anything to affect the climate?  Likely not.  But that seems to be the answer climate people are going for.

this brings human nature into the equation. 
 

Ask yourself this, Do folks like perceived certainty of result and far ranging involvement? Or do they prefer gradual change which could or could generate a tangible result. The reason that societies bring government into the equation is that they think it will speed things up and that there will be some measurable result. This could be more perception than reality but that is the general mindset behind stuff like this. 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

1. I found you climate experts who weren't on board with the global warming narrative.

2. Then you trotted out a BS wiki story about Dr Curry that was only relevant 14 years ago.  

3. Dr Curry even talked directly about the fake "97% consensus stat" which climate alarmists continually cite, saying that it's BS. 

4. Sure. When you know their names and google them they come up. 

5. Try to do a google search that generates the names of climate skeptics. 

1. Not what I asked for.  And the 'not on board' part... they're on board with the parts you specifically disagree with.
2. So if you're saying she thinks amthropogenic warming is not real, I didn't see that quote.  Try me again.  
3. I didn't ask about that.  Why do you keep providing things I didn't ask for ?
4. Are those the names you gave me already ? 
5. I gave you the assignment.  You (well, you and Goddess) came up with a few names.  I did know them but I didn't know they were still publishing their theories.  Fair enough.  I would say you won the challenge (you and Goddess).

The rest of the stuff... I didn't dispute.  I don't think 97% is off, though.  If Curry disputes it, she would have to provide evidence... If that was in your post, I missed it.

I feel like we did a good discussion here.  I would stay I stand corrected with Svensmark and Shaviv.  Are we done then ?

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

1. I think we should always look for better ways of doing things, that protect the earth.

2. Do I think bankrupting Canada, impoverishing the world and giving all the money to oligarchs will do anything to affect the climate?  Likely not.  But that seems to be the answer climate people are going for.

 

1. Agreed.
2. Sigh.  Bankrupting Canada... that's hysterical exaggeration.  I can say that without saying whether or not it's worth it to mitigate, or do a carbon tax.  If you are one of those people calling for 100% honesty from media and want lower levels of hysteria... just saying maybe your tendency to use extreme terms is something they do too ?  Maybe it's a human thing ?

And people who are worried about bankruptcy... some of them think we should be charging companies for this (some conservatives on this board).  Maybe Poilievre will do that, who knows...

[Nationalist]

7 hours ago, taxme said:

Just think that when the WEF Marxist globalists like Gates and the Swabster finally get their way one day, we will all be eating bugs, own nothing and be happy, and be vaccinated forever. We will be forced to live and be stuck in 15 minute cities and not be allowed to travel anywhere because we will not be allowed to as we will have no money to do so. 2030 is getting closer. 

In the meantime, the WEF globalists will be eating steaks every night, own the whole bloody world, and it is for sure that they will never be vaccinated and will not be living in 15 minute cities. Ilk like Gates to hell is buying up all the land that he can get his globalist stinking hands on so as not to be able to grow any decent food to eat on those lands anymore. Those lands will probably be starting up new bug farms so that you and me can enjoy eating a cockroach sandwich with a bowl of slimy worm soup one day. Hey, we never know, eh? 😁

The conspiracy to enslave humanity by these Marxist WEF globalist scum bags is for real, but yet, there will be many buffoons here who will say that this is all just conspiracy nonsense. We must now all wait and see what those scumbag globalists have in store for us one day. Can't wait. 🤢

 

Ya well...they're not gonna like me much then. I managed to collect 3 kids, 4 houses (1 in europe with a chicken coup and rabbit house).

My family will all have their own houses and I'll be golfing in Europe.

Oh...and I do love rabbit.

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Not what I asked for.  And the 'not on board' part... they're on board with the parts you specifically disagree with.
2. So if you're saying she thinks amthropogenic warming is not real, I didn't see that quote.  Try me again.  
3. I didn't ask about that.  Why do you keep providing things I didn't ask for ?
4. Are those the names you gave me already ? 
5. I gave you the assignment.  You (well, you and Goddess) came up with a few names.  I did know them but I didn't know they were still publishing their theories.  Fair enough.  I would say you won the challenge (you and Goddess).

The rest of the stuff... I didn't dispute.  I don't think 97% is off, though.  If Curry disputes it, she would have to provide evidence... If that was in your post, I missed it.

I feel like we did a good discussion here.  I would stay I stand corrected with Svensmark and Shaviv.  Are we done then ?

I already proved to you that current climatologists don't all agree on global warming. Dr Curry aready explained, just 4 days ago, that the 97% consensus BS that climatards puff about is BS. Dr Curry acknowledged that there may be some anthropological climate change but she never said that it was driving the bus all by itself, nor did she even say that it's a given that man-made climate change is an existential threat.

Stop spouting BS MH. 

You wanted to act like all climatologists agreed and that is 100% false. My point is well proven. 

[Nationalist]

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

 

The fundamental problem here isn't that you're wrong, it's the way you go about being wrong, and looking for information that confirms your biases--without regard to quality or relevance or even reasonableness.

You are shouting from the rooftops (for whatever reason) that climate change is an evil hoax. You do some googling to "prove" that and come back with... any old thing. 

In this case, your smoking gun is a handful of meteorologists criticizing of the language of a report FROM 30 YEARS AGO. 30 years. Let that sink in. You can't find anything current because the scientific community is nearly unanimous that, yes, the planet is warming and yes, humans are major drivers of that change. Every field, every country, every industry (including the petroleum industry!), every major scientific body. 

Because for more than 30 years the evidence has piled up, paper after paper, report after report, all pointing to the exact same conclusion, to the point that even those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo have had to acknowledge that climate change is fact. Scientists across the spectrum long ago shifted from "if" to "when, how fast, how much and what will it mean for their scope of their study?" 

And, BTW, meteorologists (short term) are NOT climatologists (long term). And they typically don't require as much education. But if you find their thoughts on the topic compelling, perhaps you should ask where the field stands today. 

 

American Meteorological Society (They have a LOT to say about it, including educational resources.)

"Humans are causing climate to change and it poses numerous serious risks. The more carbon we emit, the higher the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will be and the larger the changes in climate we'll face."

 

Do you know why meteorologists--especially broadcast meteorologists--are so convinced that climate change is real, caused by humans, and a serious problem? It's because they stand up day after day, year after year in front of an audience and have to tell them over and over and over again about aberrant weather, record temperatures set with record frequency, and natural disasters at unnatural frequencies and with unnatural ferocity. Because they are public and accountable day after day to deliver the one directional trend that the climate is changing and our world is warming. 

 

Your climate hoax is over. There is no crisis and your chickensh1t it causing wide spread suffering.

Take you scared little bones and go scare a baby...I'm sure that will give you a nice sense of power, accomplishment and a momentary sense of importance.

But I will oppose you destructive freaks with reality and common sense.

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

 I already proved to you that current climatologists don't all agree on global warming. Dr Curry aready explained, just 4 days ago, that the 97% consensus BS that climatards puff about is BS. Dr Curry acknowledged that there may be some anthropological climate change but she never said that it was driving the bus all by itself, nor did she even say that it's a given that man-made climate change is an existential threat.

Stop spouting BS MH. 

You wanted to act like all climatologists agreed and that is 100% false. My point is well proven. 

No I never said 100%. And let me get actual papers Curry has put out since you're vague on it.

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No I never said 100%. And let me get actual papers Curry has put out since you're vague on it.

"vague"

Here's her own blog from 4 days ago. Literally 04 May 2024:

https://judithcurry.com/2024/05/04/annual-gwpf-lecture-climate-uncertainty-and-risk/#more-31190

• So how did we come to be between a rock and a hard place on the climate issue, where we are allegedly facing an existential threat. And the proposed solutions are both unpopular and infeasible? Well in a few words, we’ve put the policy cart before the scientific horse.

  In the 1980’s, the UN Environmental Program was looking for a cause to push forward its agenda of eliminating fossil fuels and anti-Capitalism.  With the help of a small number of well-positioned activist climate scientists, a 1988 UN conference in Toronto recommended that the world “reduce CO₂ emissions by approximately 20% by the year 2005 as an initial global goal.”  The implicit assumption was that the small amount of warming observed over the previous decade was caused by emissions, and that warming was dangerous.

• Further down: "Mixing politics and science is inevitable on issues of high societal relevance, such as climate change.  However, there are some really bad ways to do this, and we’re seeing all of these with the climate change issue. Policy makers misuse science by demanding scientific arguments for desired policies, funding a narrow range of projects that support preferred policies, and using science as a vehicle to avoid ‘hot potato’ policy issues. Scientists misuse policy-relevant science by playing power politics with their expertise, conflating expert judgment with evidence, entangling disputed facts with values, and intimidating scientists whose research interferes with their political agendas."

• Here's more of her own commentary: "

  Wait a minute.  Don’t 97% of climate scientists agree on all this?  Doesn’t climate science demand that we urgently eliminate fossil fuel emissions? Here is what all scientists actually agree on:

• Surface temperatures have increased since 1880
• Humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere
• Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet.

However, there’s disagreement and uncertainty about the most consequential issues:

• How much of the recent warming has been caused by humans
• How much the planet will warm in the 21st century
• Whether warming is ‘dangerous’
• And whether urgently eliminating the use of fossil fuels will improve human well being

• Nevertheless, we are endlessly fed the trope that 97% of climate scientists agree that warming is dangerous and that science demands urgent reductions in CO2 emissions.

 

That's not vague, it's a scathing indictment of political faux-science and some direct comments stating that "there’s disagreement and uncertainty about the most consequential issues".

According to Dr. Curry, climate alarmists have all overplayed their hand, and they're doing it at the whim of politicians. She's saying that politicians are behind the drive to come up with this so-called "science". 

Do you understand that? It was from 4 days ago. It's not old. It's not vague. She's not a layman. Her opinions carry weight.