Like I said, Herb, you need to stop reading the headlines of MSM - and, what you posted is an unbalanced opinion piece lacking in any real data. Do you believe what the NY Times had to say about Ivermectin? Or what the WSJ had to say for that matter - other than one article posted last July, the WSJ has also been guilty in their false …
Like I said, Herb, you need to stop reading the headlines of MSM - and, what you posted is an unbalanced opinion piece lacking in any real data. Do you believe what the NY Times had to say about Ivermectin? Or what the WSJ had to say for that matter - other than one article posted last July, the WSJ has also been guilty in their false reporting on IVM. Here is another site that provides actual data, something the NY Times does not provide. Read the entire series. https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/series-what-the-media-wont-tell-you. Seriously, read the info I posted.
It also strikes me as wildly inconsistent that you ask me to read Rogers post - and I do subscribe to it - questioning how significant European drought is - and perhaps he is correct on that issue I don’t know - yet you completely ignore the fact that Roger wholeheartedly accepts the reality of climate change. Which you don’t. Why would you believe anything that Roger writes - since his basic orientation accepting the reality of climate change is contrary to yours?
He accepts that climate change exists, but does not adhere to the catastrophic narrative. Climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years and human influence on it is miniscule. As Richard Lindzen says, to believe that climate is controlled by co2 is like believing in magic.
Roger does not accept that the human influence on climate change is minuscule. So I ask you again do you accept that climate change is real, that it has been caused by human activity that it will get worse over time which is what Roger and virtually every other climate scientist in the world accepts. I assume your answer is no in which case there is no point in discussing this with you anymore
You might want to examine Pielke's work more closely. While he believes we have some influence on climate - as does virtually everything else on this planet does - he does not propagate the notion that we are headed towards some climate catastrophe. And there you go again - "virtually every climate scientist in the world agrees" nonsense - http://www.petitionproject.org/
Please explain why all 195 countries signed on to every word in the IPCC summary for policymakers. But I’m somehow supposed to believe you instead of representative governments from virtually every country in the world? The same is true of the Paris agreement to limit temperature increases to well under 2° it was agreed to by every country in the world. But you and a handful of climate scientists who are funded by the fossil fuel industry are supposed to be believed instead of every nation in the world no matter what their politics what their economic situation is what the racial makeup is - they all agreed to something they didn’t have to agree to.
There’s nothing in the links you provided that negates anything I said. If anything the fact that governments have to approve the summary documents is an indication that the real outlook for climate is much worse than what is described in the reports. There is no incentive for any government to have a report that exaggerates how bad things will be as that government will have to pay a high political price in attempting to undertake measures to slow down temperature increases. There have been any number of articles that have described how countries such as Saudi Arabia - see https://www.climatechangenews.com/2022/04/04/saudi-arabia-dilutes-fossil-fuel-phase-out-language-with-techno-fixes-in-ipcc-report/ and other oil producing countries have insisted on language that minimizes the climate threat and minimizes the risk that they may have to stop pumping oil. Every analysis looking at the IPCC reports has concluded that they have underestimated the magnitude and impact of the climate devastation the world is experiencing. So yes the IPCC like every institution everywhere has its flaws and its faults but to then conclude that climate is not a major growing threat to us all is totally unwarranted and unsupported
I don't see anything substantive that shows you've actually read the links I've posted. Here is a gem from your last link: "“States may water down the text but they cannot mask this clear scientific reality: only a rapid and equitable phaseout of fossil fuels, and the transformation of our energy system, can avoid overshooting 1.5C and the irreparable damage that would follow,” said Nikki Reisch, climate and energy programme director at CIEL.
That quote reveals an appalling lack of knowledge about the recent 4000 year history of temperature records - yet you buy into it 100%. So, what irreparable damage occurred during the Minoan, Roman, or Medieval warming periods where the temperature was higher than the 1.5 degree increase projected by these fools? Show me evidence that you have actually read any of what I have posted. All they have is projections based on false assumptions not supported by data. As and aside, Just for kicks, read these links, and provide some commentary that shows you actually read them, to get an idea of the absurdity of "getting to net zero". https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/27/bright-green-impossibilities/ and on a smaller scale, just for California: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/17/bright-green-californian-impossibilities/
Here is a paper that Roger and colleagues published this very year that concluded that a plausible scenario for climate change is an increase in temperatures from 2 to 3°C by the end of the century. Which would be catastrophic given that we’re only at 1.1 C now. Do you agree with Roger? if you disagree with him here why do you cite him as an expert on drought? Is he perpetrating a hoax on the amount of climate change we can expect but is being honest about drought?
You might want to read the paper thru to the end. Per the paper "It is also notable that the vast majority of scenarios that project futures to 2100 failed our simple criteria of plausibility by 2020, even though they were developed in recent years and decades. This raises questions about the appropriate use of long-term scenarios as projections of plausible futures, rather than as exploratory tools (Bankes 1993), and suggests a need for policy-relevant scenarios that are updated much more regularly with new observational information, similarly to the IEA's near-term scenarios (Burgess et al 2021, O'Neill et al 2020, Pielke and Ritchie 2021a)". Simple interpretation
- we really don't know what the future will bring. Also, note that the entire premise of the paper is based on Co2 being the single factor that controls climate - all climate models are based around that assumption which is completely absurd. Note also that the paper does not discuss consequences at all - it simply examines plausibility of the various scenarios.
As to agreeing with Roger on one hand and disagreeing on the other, what about you? And, more importantly, I don't see in the article that you link anything to suggest that Roger thinks we are headed to climate catastrophe. Moreover, his articles show how biased the media is and it is you who parrots the doomsday narrative which is not supported by the data at all.
A few more things for you to consider. Look at the historical data that shows temperatures were higher during the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warming periods than what is being predicted 80 years from now - as if anyone has any real clue about anything that far into the future. The warmer times in the past were times of prosperity compared to cooler times like the little ice age which were marked by crop failures, plagues and famines. Plus, there is a difference between looking at actual observed data and making predictions using flawed computer models making all kinds of assumptions largely based on the premise that co2 all by itself controls climate - a completely absurd assumption, which is all that paper is doing. Plus, you can also look at how successful the alarmists have been in their predictions - zero for all time: https://extinctionclock.org/
I can’t engage with someone who asserts that the article I linked to it has no real data. I counted at least 10 links to studies done that were peer reviewed by authoritative institutions all over the world. You may choose to deny or ignore those studies since it obviously doesn’t fit your narrative that fossil fuels are wonderful with no downsides. I’m wondering what you would say to the evidence that Exxon mobil themselves in their analysis in the 1970s correctly projected and predicted the catastrophic impact of climate change that will occur and is occurring right now. You would probably call it a hoax as well as you call anything that doesn’t support your prior belief the climate change is not real.
I am certainly willing to acknowledge that at times journalists and activists and even climate scientists may incorrectly attribute certain physical phenomena to climate change but that doesn’t in anyway shape or form negate the overwhelming evidence the climate change is real, it’s caused by human activities it’s getting worse and it presents a real likelihood of catastrophic consequences.
There is also overwhelming evidence that much of the climate denialist rhetoric and studies have been financed and supported not surprisingly by fossil fuel interests who have hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue to lose.
Yet somehow you accept their claims and reject the claims of disinterested scientists from all over the world whose only goal and training is to search for the truth however imperfectly that occurs
You can't engage because the info you posted is all fabricated. I have provided far more data than you can absorb. As for the ExxonMobile nonsense - another complete fabrication that has lost in court several times. "Disinterested scientists" are funded by governments but only get funding if they support the approved narrative. As to fossil fuels having no downsides, I never said that - but the downsides pale in comparison to the benefits, something people like you refuse to acknowledge. The use of fossil fuels has raised the standard of living immeasurably and life spans have increased dramatically in countries where they are used widely - yet you cite a preposterous article showing how millions are killed by their use. You are drunk on the kool-aid as are so many screaming for the end of fossil fuels to combat a non-existent problem using expensive "solutions" that don't work. Putin and Xi are ROFL at the stupidity of western "woke" leaders and their useful idiots that support them. Do some reading outside of a corrupt MSM and you may actually learn something.
Like I said, Herb, you need to stop reading the headlines of MSM - and, what you posted is an unbalanced opinion piece lacking in any real data. Do you believe what the NY Times had to say about Ivermectin? Or what the WSJ had to say for that matter - other than one article posted last July, the WSJ has also been guilty in their false reporting on IVM. Here is another site that provides actual data, something the NY Times does not provide. Read the entire series. https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/series-what-the-media-wont-tell-you. Seriously, read the info I posted.
It also strikes me as wildly inconsistent that you ask me to read Rogers post - and I do subscribe to it - questioning how significant European drought is - and perhaps he is correct on that issue I don’t know - yet you completely ignore the fact that Roger wholeheartedly accepts the reality of climate change. Which you don’t. Why would you believe anything that Roger writes - since his basic orientation accepting the reality of climate change is contrary to yours?
He accepts that climate change exists, but does not adhere to the catastrophic narrative. Climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years and human influence on it is miniscule. As Richard Lindzen says, to believe that climate is controlled by co2 is like believing in magic.
Roger does not accept that the human influence on climate change is minuscule. So I ask you again do you accept that climate change is real, that it has been caused by human activity that it will get worse over time which is what Roger and virtually every other climate scientist in the world accepts. I assume your answer is no in which case there is no point in discussing this with you anymore
You might want to examine Pielke's work more closely. While he believes we have some influence on climate - as does virtually everything else on this planet does - he does not propagate the notion that we are headed towards some climate catastrophe. And there you go again - "virtually every climate scientist in the world agrees" nonsense - http://www.petitionproject.org/
Please explain why all 195 countries signed on to every word in the IPCC summary for policymakers. But I’m somehow supposed to believe you instead of representative governments from virtually every country in the world? The same is true of the Paris agreement to limit temperature increases to well under 2° it was agreed to by every country in the world. But you and a handful of climate scientists who are funded by the fossil fuel industry are supposed to be believed instead of every nation in the world no matter what their politics what their economic situation is what the racial makeup is - they all agreed to something they didn’t have to agree to.
Summary for policy makers? Seriously? You are a seriously misinformed individual. Read the following thoroughly, and click on all the links in the post. This is from a real investigative journalist who dug deeply into how the IPCC works. https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/09/01/3-things-scientists-need-to-know-about-the-ipcc/ and https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/10/02/10-pages-of-ipcc-science-mistakes/ Get back to me when you have actually read anything I have posted. So far, I see no evidence that you read any of my links, yet I have read yours and provided substantive commentary.
There’s nothing in the links you provided that negates anything I said. If anything the fact that governments have to approve the summary documents is an indication that the real outlook for climate is much worse than what is described in the reports. There is no incentive for any government to have a report that exaggerates how bad things will be as that government will have to pay a high political price in attempting to undertake measures to slow down temperature increases. There have been any number of articles that have described how countries such as Saudi Arabia - see https://www.climatechangenews.com/2022/04/04/saudi-arabia-dilutes-fossil-fuel-phase-out-language-with-techno-fixes-in-ipcc-report/ and other oil producing countries have insisted on language that minimizes the climate threat and minimizes the risk that they may have to stop pumping oil. Every analysis looking at the IPCC reports has concluded that they have underestimated the magnitude and impact of the climate devastation the world is experiencing. So yes the IPCC like every institution everywhere has its flaws and its faults but to then conclude that climate is not a major growing threat to us all is totally unwarranted and unsupported
I don't see anything substantive that shows you've actually read the links I've posted. Here is a gem from your last link: "“States may water down the text but they cannot mask this clear scientific reality: only a rapid and equitable phaseout of fossil fuels, and the transformation of our energy system, can avoid overshooting 1.5C and the irreparable damage that would follow,” said Nikki Reisch, climate and energy programme director at CIEL.
That quote reveals an appalling lack of knowledge about the recent 4000 year history of temperature records - yet you buy into it 100%. So, what irreparable damage occurred during the Minoan, Roman, or Medieval warming periods where the temperature was higher than the 1.5 degree increase projected by these fools? Show me evidence that you have actually read any of what I have posted. All they have is projections based on false assumptions not supported by data. As and aside, Just for kicks, read these links, and provide some commentary that shows you actually read them, to get an idea of the absurdity of "getting to net zero". https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/27/bright-green-impossibilities/ and on a smaller scale, just for California: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/17/bright-green-californian-impossibilities/
Here is a paper that Roger and colleagues published this very year that concluded that a plausible scenario for climate change is an increase in temperatures from 2 to 3°C by the end of the century. Which would be catastrophic given that we’re only at 1.1 C now. Do you agree with Roger? if you disagree with him here why do you cite him as an expert on drought? Is he perpetrating a hoax on the amount of climate change we can expect but is being honest about drought?
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4ebf/meta
You might want to read the paper thru to the end. Per the paper "It is also notable that the vast majority of scenarios that project futures to 2100 failed our simple criteria of plausibility by 2020, even though they were developed in recent years and decades. This raises questions about the appropriate use of long-term scenarios as projections of plausible futures, rather than as exploratory tools (Bankes 1993), and suggests a need for policy-relevant scenarios that are updated much more regularly with new observational information, similarly to the IEA's near-term scenarios (Burgess et al 2021, O'Neill et al 2020, Pielke and Ritchie 2021a)". Simple interpretation
- we really don't know what the future will bring. Also, note that the entire premise of the paper is based on Co2 being the single factor that controls climate - all climate models are based around that assumption which is completely absurd. Note also that the paper does not discuss consequences at all - it simply examines plausibility of the various scenarios.
As to agreeing with Roger on one hand and disagreeing on the other, what about you? And, more importantly, I don't see in the article that you link anything to suggest that Roger thinks we are headed to climate catastrophe. Moreover, his articles show how biased the media is and it is you who parrots the doomsday narrative which is not supported by the data at all.
A few more things for you to consider. Look at the historical data that shows temperatures were higher during the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warming periods than what is being predicted 80 years from now - as if anyone has any real clue about anything that far into the future. The warmer times in the past were times of prosperity compared to cooler times like the little ice age which were marked by crop failures, plagues and famines. Plus, there is a difference between looking at actual observed data and making predictions using flawed computer models making all kinds of assumptions largely based on the premise that co2 all by itself controls climate - a completely absurd assumption, which is all that paper is doing. Plus, you can also look at how successful the alarmists have been in their predictions - zero for all time: https://extinctionclock.org/
I can’t engage with someone who asserts that the article I linked to it has no real data. I counted at least 10 links to studies done that were peer reviewed by authoritative institutions all over the world. You may choose to deny or ignore those studies since it obviously doesn’t fit your narrative that fossil fuels are wonderful with no downsides. I’m wondering what you would say to the evidence that Exxon mobil themselves in their analysis in the 1970s correctly projected and predicted the catastrophic impact of climate change that will occur and is occurring right now. You would probably call it a hoax as well as you call anything that doesn’t support your prior belief the climate change is not real.
I am certainly willing to acknowledge that at times journalists and activists and even climate scientists may incorrectly attribute certain physical phenomena to climate change but that doesn’t in anyway shape or form negate the overwhelming evidence the climate change is real, it’s caused by human activities it’s getting worse and it presents a real likelihood of catastrophic consequences.
There is also overwhelming evidence that much of the climate denialist rhetoric and studies have been financed and supported not surprisingly by fossil fuel interests who have hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue to lose.
Yet somehow you accept their claims and reject the claims of disinterested scientists from all over the world whose only goal and training is to search for the truth however imperfectly that occurs
You can't engage because the info you posted is all fabricated. I have provided far more data than you can absorb. As for the ExxonMobile nonsense - another complete fabrication that has lost in court several times. "Disinterested scientists" are funded by governments but only get funding if they support the approved narrative. As to fossil fuels having no downsides, I never said that - but the downsides pale in comparison to the benefits, something people like you refuse to acknowledge. The use of fossil fuels has raised the standard of living immeasurably and life spans have increased dramatically in countries where they are used widely - yet you cite a preposterous article showing how millions are killed by their use. You are drunk on the kool-aid as are so many screaming for the end of fossil fuels to combat a non-existent problem using expensive "solutions" that don't work. Putin and Xi are ROFL at the stupidity of western "woke" leaders and their useful idiots that support them. Do some reading outside of a corrupt MSM and you may actually learn something.