I just watched a show that sold me that it’s gonna get worse...they predict if nothing is done California could be gone with fire, Florida, Louisiana will be covered with water...they say in the last 40 years the sun has gotten cooler but the earth has got hotter.
Climate Change
- Thread starter Fun For All
- Start date
Phil's grandfather tells us that the weather hasn't changed. Who are you going to believe?
I’m gonna go with the really smart people on this one...
Climate change is nothing new. Climate has changed since the earth exist.
At one point the dinosaurs were having a feast here on earth eating each other. But they are all gone.
We human will be gone at some point. Just like the dinosaurs.
The only question that remains is when do we want that to happen?
If like the dinosaurs we only think about eating each other and winning at all cost it will happen sooner than later.
At one point the dinosaurs were having a feast here on earth eating each other. But they are all gone.
We human will be gone at some point. Just like the dinosaurs.
The only question that remains is when do we want that to happen?
If like the dinosaurs we only think about eating each other and winning at all cost it will happen sooner than later.
Climate change is a polarizing subject which as a rule generates more heat than light. Ad hominem attacks and retreats behind claims of scientific consensus, by shutting down civil debate, do nothing to further public awareness and the search for truth.
This will not do. Larry Bell has stepped up and written an accessible book on the subject. Unfortunately the subtitle, which refers to a “global warming hoax,” is not going to broaden his reading audience because the pejorative nature of the word “hoax” is unlikely to cause the other side to approach the book with a sympathetic disposition.
So just who is Larry Bell? In his own words, “First, I am not a climate scientist and… have never been associated with Big Oil.” He mentions the latter in response to the constantly repeated ad hominem charge that the only people who write for this position are in the pay of the oil companies.
So Larry Bell is not a climate scientist. He is, rather, by his own description, a “space guy,” involved in space architecture and also extreme environments (such as polar facilities) on Earth.
His “background and interests emphasize a holistic perspective regarding basic principles that govern how natural and technical systems work, how they are connected, and how they can be managed to support the most complex system of all – us humans.” All this is to show that although he is not a climate scientist, he is not entirely unqualified to speak to the issues at hand.
The reason he wrote the book, he says, is that “like many of you, I am a parent who cares about the future of my children and the generations who will follow. I want them to inherit a clean, healthy planet, along with the means to obtain energy sufficiency essential to comfortable lifestyles and economic opportunities. Conservation must be a big part of all solutions.”
Therefore he would regard himself as a true environmentalist, for “environmentalism is not so much defined by what we are against as by what we are for, and neither fear not guilt are prerequisites.” What would be a prerequisite is that it involve a commitment to what is true, to following the evidence where it leads, not selectively seeking evidence for a conclusion determined beforehand.
Such an approach, however, is being stifled by the constant appeal to authority, where we are told over and over again that the debate is over, that 97% of scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change, that this is the consensus of the scientific community.
Bell argues that not only is this not true – there are many scientists who are not convinced of that thesis, but more important, it is irrelevant, because science does not progress by counting noses, but by an open examination of the evidence. And Bell gives lots of instances where there has been not an open examination, but actual suppression, of contrary evidence to what the orthodox position would like to see.
Bell makes several strong claims, and it is these which should be getting more attention in the media, rather than the conversation-stopping ad hominem attacks and appeals to consensus. Some of these are:
1. The IPCC has repeatedly given evidence of political intrusions into science, appointing researchers and publishing evidence that support a predetermined conclusion while suppressing or ignoring researchers and evidence that would give a different story. An egregious example is the political, not scientific, insertion into the 1995 IPCC report of the phrase “discernible human influence,” effectively reversing the entire report, and purportedly ending all debate on this matter and providing an official foundation for the UN-sponsored Kyoto Protocol to follow in 1997.
2. There is no scientific evidence that any climate crisis exists other than the hardships periodically imposed upon affected regions as a result of naturally occurring changes.
3. Over the past several glacial and interglacial climate fluctuations, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have generally increased after, not before, temperatures have risen. This would suggest that there is not a simple cause-and-effect relationship between rising CO2 levels and global warming, and at the very least, it is not the whole story. Therefore, drastic (and extremely expensive) reductions in CO2 emissions are likely to have only minimal effects on climate.
4. Climate models cannot predict climate change events or consequences, although the scary warnings we constantly hear are based upon them. They can be only as accurate as the knowledge behind them, and that knowledge is far from complete. One serious limitation is that climate models fail to incorporate solar influences, which are known to significantly affect climate.
Now are these true simply because Bell says so? Of course not. But these are questions that deserve open debate rather than dismissal.
The bottom line is that Bell does not accept the label which is sneeringly attached to his position, that being a “climate denier.” He agrees that climate has not stayed the same over the course of the earth’s history, but has often changed, sometimes more rapidly than today.
In response to the alarmist predictions that are being made, warning us that we are headed for temperature increases that will be not only exclusively detrimental but actually catastrophic, he argues that life has thrived at times when the earth was much warmer than it is today. Not only that, but rather than violent weather increasing with global warming, he argues that the evidence suggests that it will actually decrease.
So yes, climate changes and is changing. But so what? It always has. That human activity has some effect on it is not really the issue: the issue is whether, as the IPCC maintains, human activity is the primary driver of climate change. And here Bell insists that there simply is no evidence to support that claim.
We might be tempted to use prudential reasoning and say, well, just in case the alarmists are right, aren’t the potential consequences so dire that we should act anyways, despite the paucity of supporting evidence?
No, says Bell, and he gives two reasons. First, he points to a project begun in 2004 called the Copenhagen Consensus, which involved three different groups of people, one being top level economists, the second being college students from all over the world, and the third a wide range of UN ambassadors. All three groups were asked to indicate where best to put resources to solve the world’s most urgent challenges.
Communicable diseases, clean drinking water, and malnutrition ranked highest. But in all three groups, climate change opportunities, including the Kyoto Protocol, ranked near the bottom. In other words, Kyoto, which one estimate put at $5 trillion for full implementation, would end up doing very little good for the world relative to costs. All three groups that participated in the Copenhagen Consensus judged that this would be a poor use of the world’s finite resources in comparison to other urgent needs.
The other reason Bell gives for not following a “just-in-case” approach and prematurely making drastic cuts in fossil fuel use is that at the moment we have no alternative. He in fact says that “Arguably the most serious public deception perpetrated by the war against climate change is the notion that cleaner, sustainable energy options are available in sufficient abundance to replace dependence upon dwindling fossils that currently provide about 85 percent of all US energy.”
Clean and safe Generation 4 nuclear power may be the only alternative to replace fossils, but it is probably a few decades away. If we rashly and prematurely try to push fossils out of the picture we will find ourselves in a real crisis – not a climate one but an energy one.
Despite everything that Bell argues, and I think he does so quite well, there is going to be suspicion from the other side. I think it might help to hear from someone who used to be on the other side but has changed his mind because of the evidence.
Bell cites Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who said, “We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years. The alarmism has driven us though scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people.”
When Moore was asked who was responsible for promoting unwarranted fear and what their motives would be, what he says is very consistent with what Bell has been arguing. He said, “A powerful convergence of interests – scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines… environmental groups and politicians wanting to make it look like they’re saving future generations – all these people have converged on this issue.”
Climate change is real. But to understand just what that phrase means and what is behind it, we need to expose and get rid of political intrusions into science. On both sides of the debate, people who care about leaving a clean and sustainable world for future generations, but want to do so on the basis of the truth, deserve to be called environmentalists and to be heard.
- Randy A. Stadt.
This will not do. Larry Bell has stepped up and written an accessible book on the subject. Unfortunately the subtitle, which refers to a “global warming hoax,” is not going to broaden his reading audience because the pejorative nature of the word “hoax” is unlikely to cause the other side to approach the book with a sympathetic disposition.
So just who is Larry Bell? In his own words, “First, I am not a climate scientist and… have never been associated with Big Oil.” He mentions the latter in response to the constantly repeated ad hominem charge that the only people who write for this position are in the pay of the oil companies.
So Larry Bell is not a climate scientist. He is, rather, by his own description, a “space guy,” involved in space architecture and also extreme environments (such as polar facilities) on Earth.
His “background and interests emphasize a holistic perspective regarding basic principles that govern how natural and technical systems work, how they are connected, and how they can be managed to support the most complex system of all – us humans.” All this is to show that although he is not a climate scientist, he is not entirely unqualified to speak to the issues at hand.
The reason he wrote the book, he says, is that “like many of you, I am a parent who cares about the future of my children and the generations who will follow. I want them to inherit a clean, healthy planet, along with the means to obtain energy sufficiency essential to comfortable lifestyles and economic opportunities. Conservation must be a big part of all solutions.”
Therefore he would regard himself as a true environmentalist, for “environmentalism is not so much defined by what we are against as by what we are for, and neither fear not guilt are prerequisites.” What would be a prerequisite is that it involve a commitment to what is true, to following the evidence where it leads, not selectively seeking evidence for a conclusion determined beforehand.
Such an approach, however, is being stifled by the constant appeal to authority, where we are told over and over again that the debate is over, that 97% of scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change, that this is the consensus of the scientific community.
Bell argues that not only is this not true – there are many scientists who are not convinced of that thesis, but more important, it is irrelevant, because science does not progress by counting noses, but by an open examination of the evidence. And Bell gives lots of instances where there has been not an open examination, but actual suppression, of contrary evidence to what the orthodox position would like to see.
Bell makes several strong claims, and it is these which should be getting more attention in the media, rather than the conversation-stopping ad hominem attacks and appeals to consensus. Some of these are:
1. The IPCC has repeatedly given evidence of political intrusions into science, appointing researchers and publishing evidence that support a predetermined conclusion while suppressing or ignoring researchers and evidence that would give a different story. An egregious example is the political, not scientific, insertion into the 1995 IPCC report of the phrase “discernible human influence,” effectively reversing the entire report, and purportedly ending all debate on this matter and providing an official foundation for the UN-sponsored Kyoto Protocol to follow in 1997.
2. There is no scientific evidence that any climate crisis exists other than the hardships periodically imposed upon affected regions as a result of naturally occurring changes.
3. Over the past several glacial and interglacial climate fluctuations, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have generally increased after, not before, temperatures have risen. This would suggest that there is not a simple cause-and-effect relationship between rising CO2 levels and global warming, and at the very least, it is not the whole story. Therefore, drastic (and extremely expensive) reductions in CO2 emissions are likely to have only minimal effects on climate.
4. Climate models cannot predict climate change events or consequences, although the scary warnings we constantly hear are based upon them. They can be only as accurate as the knowledge behind them, and that knowledge is far from complete. One serious limitation is that climate models fail to incorporate solar influences, which are known to significantly affect climate.
Now are these true simply because Bell says so? Of course not. But these are questions that deserve open debate rather than dismissal.
The bottom line is that Bell does not accept the label which is sneeringly attached to his position, that being a “climate denier.” He agrees that climate has not stayed the same over the course of the earth’s history, but has often changed, sometimes more rapidly than today.
In response to the alarmist predictions that are being made, warning us that we are headed for temperature increases that will be not only exclusively detrimental but actually catastrophic, he argues that life has thrived at times when the earth was much warmer than it is today. Not only that, but rather than violent weather increasing with global warming, he argues that the evidence suggests that it will actually decrease.
So yes, climate changes and is changing. But so what? It always has. That human activity has some effect on it is not really the issue: the issue is whether, as the IPCC maintains, human activity is the primary driver of climate change. And here Bell insists that there simply is no evidence to support that claim.
We might be tempted to use prudential reasoning and say, well, just in case the alarmists are right, aren’t the potential consequences so dire that we should act anyways, despite the paucity of supporting evidence?
No, says Bell, and he gives two reasons. First, he points to a project begun in 2004 called the Copenhagen Consensus, which involved three different groups of people, one being top level economists, the second being college students from all over the world, and the third a wide range of UN ambassadors. All three groups were asked to indicate where best to put resources to solve the world’s most urgent challenges.
Communicable diseases, clean drinking water, and malnutrition ranked highest. But in all three groups, climate change opportunities, including the Kyoto Protocol, ranked near the bottom. In other words, Kyoto, which one estimate put at $5 trillion for full implementation, would end up doing very little good for the world relative to costs. All three groups that participated in the Copenhagen Consensus judged that this would be a poor use of the world’s finite resources in comparison to other urgent needs.
The other reason Bell gives for not following a “just-in-case” approach and prematurely making drastic cuts in fossil fuel use is that at the moment we have no alternative. He in fact says that “Arguably the most serious public deception perpetrated by the war against climate change is the notion that cleaner, sustainable energy options are available in sufficient abundance to replace dependence upon dwindling fossils that currently provide about 85 percent of all US energy.”
Clean and safe Generation 4 nuclear power may be the only alternative to replace fossils, but it is probably a few decades away. If we rashly and prematurely try to push fossils out of the picture we will find ourselves in a real crisis – not a climate one but an energy one.
Despite everything that Bell argues, and I think he does so quite well, there is going to be suspicion from the other side. I think it might help to hear from someone who used to be on the other side but has changed his mind because of the evidence.
Bell cites Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who said, “We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years. The alarmism has driven us though scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people.”
When Moore was asked who was responsible for promoting unwarranted fear and what their motives would be, what he says is very consistent with what Bell has been arguing. He said, “A powerful convergence of interests – scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines… environmental groups and politicians wanting to make it look like they’re saving future generations – all these people have converged on this issue.”
Climate change is real. But to understand just what that phrase means and what is behind it, we need to expose and get rid of political intrusions into science. On both sides of the debate, people who care about leaving a clean and sustainable world for future generations, but want to do so on the basis of the truth, deserve to be called environmentalists and to be heard.
- Randy A. Stadt.
The Earth is always in a cycle - yes we are the worst virus on the planet. We are helping move the speed at which the Earths cycle happens.
Mother Nature will eventually shake us off like a flea
.
Our problem is that we as a species think we are smarter than we are.
How many thousands of years have forests been around - grow / over growth / fire / new growth. Some actually need the heat to re-germinate once the forest is all “old growth”.
Look at Yellowstone National park - Wolves actually affected the eco system so much that when HUMANS had killed them off - there was movement of water courses / erosion / loss of forests. When re-introduced - balance came back and rivers actually changed courses / more vegetation growth etc.
Y’all - we can’t screw with Mother Nature.
Re:cycle - I’ve been in my same house over 20 years - I can tell you where the Sun sets now in the height of summer is quite a bit more Westward than it was 20 years ago - my 60 foot plus trees have not moved but the suns set point sure has
Mother Nature will eventually shake us off like a flea
. Our problem is that we as a species think we are smarter than we are.
How many thousands of years have forests been around - grow / over growth / fire / new growth. Some actually need the heat to re-germinate once the forest is all “old growth”.
Look at Yellowstone National park - Wolves actually affected the eco system so much that when HUMANS had killed them off - there was movement of water courses / erosion / loss of forests. When re-introduced - balance came back and rivers actually changed courses / more vegetation growth etc.
Y’all - we can’t screw with Mother Nature.
Re:cycle - I’ve been in my same house over 20 years - I can tell you where the Sun sets now in the height of summer is quite a bit more Westward than it was 20 years ago - my 60 foot plus trees have not moved but the suns set point sure has
I think we are thinking the same. I have always said the human race is a parasitic species. We also think we can change nature. The more we try the more we are going to be shown the door.
The earth is in motion, has and will be continioulsy changing long before and long after we are gone.
No, not parasitic, but we do have the means due to our brain size to adopt and change our environment. Eventually, we will reach the point when the adaptation is no longer possible, but that will not happen because of the climate change. Our ancestors survived the ice ages, after all, and they did it with the stone tools, without the medical knowledge or knowledge of any kind, beyond the most basic survival.
We must expedite depletion of remaining resources of
oil, gas and coal to ensure the survival of our grandchildren.
With no fossil fuel left in the ground they will inherit a better
world from us free from worrying about carbon emission.
oil, gas and coal to ensure the survival of our grandchildren.
With no fossil fuel left in the ground they will inherit a better
world from us free from worrying about carbon emission.
The point is that the environmental degradation is causing changes that would have taken millennia and will now take years. Oh, years away, lets ignore it...
Exactly.
The poor countries are polluting like hell because they are poor.
The rich countries are polluting like hell because they are selfish. Owning the biggest car and biggest home is an at all cost pursuit for happiness.. Completely silly.
Climate changes every year several rimes: just a few month ago I was wearing shorts and in a few more month I will have to wear a coat
. Since the "global warming" ides did not stand out to facts, now it is cal;led "climate change". My issue with most apocalypses scenarios is that they project current life to new environment. People will adapt to any changes by new technologies, new lifestyle, and migration. Ans as it is hard to predict how the exact adaptations, I am not sure if the live in the new "climate" will be worse than now. It reminds me an economic theory that was very popular more than 100 years ago: the Earth cannot our growing population and in early 20th century most people will starve because there will be no more land available for agriculture. Yet, the population is growing and the land is not a problem: science more than enough compensate for the limited land.I mostly agree with you except for 2 things.Climate changes every year several rimes: just a few month ago I was wearing shorts and in a few more month I will have to wear a coat
Science can be dangerous and many people do not believe in science. They prefer to keep it old polluted way in the name of the economy.
Migrations... If you listen a little bit news channel these days you will find that the population is becoming a bit reluctant to let strangers into their territory. Imagine millions having to relocate because their area has become too hot or flooded. These people might be of other color, religious belief and or simply different.
Cheers,
Well, there is always good and bad use for scientific innovations, but, on average, more good than bad
. As for migration: we are not talking about evacuation of countries. It is a slow process where people (mostly young people) will move to a better place mostly within the country (where new infrastructure will be built) and not so good areas will die slowly. Simple reproduction decision will play important role too. Finally, borders now are much more open than 50 years ago, and will be even more open in the future. It is not like in "Tomorrow" movie, it is a slow process that will take centuries to make some places unlivable, and, while it happens, some other places will become much nicer. If it is a global warming: Northern territories, Siberia, and Alaska can accommodate lots of people and will be a nice place 300 years from now when infrastructure will be developed, if it is global cooling - lots empty space in Africa and South America. If it will be accompanies by flooding: it will not flood overnight, and as flooding in some area become more often, people will gradually (over several generations) will move away from it. Or just "dump up" their places or change the entire city infrastructure (hell, we have Venice as an example of living on the water). All this apocalypses talk is just a way to divert attention from real economic problems and/or a way for outsiders to enter into political arena.
