By Thomas Lifson, AMERICAN THINKER
Without the claimed “scientific consensus” on global warming or climate change, the Green New Deal becomes just another progressive con game, but with the highest stakes ever.
Writing in Forbes, James Taylor shows that the supposed 97% “scientific consensus” on global warming is false:
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.
According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”
The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.
The genesis of the 97% figure was always questionable, but now, with an actual peer-reviewed study, it is time for the junk heap.
Shhhh! Nobody tell Ocasio-Cortez:
Trump: When I’m on the debate stage with one of these maniacs, I mean, how do you get to Europe? We haven’t figured that one out, we don’t use airplanes anymore. You saw what I’m doing in California, right, they have a fast track, the fast train goes from San Francisco to Los Angeles.”
This is a test. My post before last disappeared without a trace. That may have been due to user error, or it may have something to do with my using the words Communist and Socialist. Let’s see if it makes it through this time socialist communist Socialist Communist…
My post just got gobbled up. I blame it all on global warming. I also blame gw and President Trump, for today’s weather:
Temperature 36 °F
Precipitation: 0%
Humidity: 74%
Wind: 9 mph
Such extremely normal weather can only be explained by climate change.
@ rongrand:
Good one, Ron. A quote:
“Bastardi exposes a variety of real evildoers as mega-social engineers not truly concerned about the environment. He cites, for example, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change until 2016, who openly stated in 2015 the UN’s goal was to overturn market capitalism: in her words, “to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years since the industrial revolution.””
That sums it up. If a reader wants to know more, they just need to read Joe’s book.
I wasn’t going to bother to post more on this subject, until I realized that “Climate Change” is the most sane SOUNDING plank in the 2020 Democratic election campaign; and as Joe Bastardi points out, it’s just socialism dressed up in scientific-sounding language: Call it what you may, it’s goal is the destruction of capitalism the socialist/ communist agenda.
The other planks of the Dems seem to be infanticide, antisemitism and overthrowing the elected US government. Their apparent leader is a 29-year-old female cross between Vladimir Lenin and Fidel Castro, who isn’t even old enough to serve in the US Senate.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump will be 74 years old when elected in 2020, the oldest elected president in US history; and his chief challengers will be Socialist/ Communist Bernie Sanders, Age 79, and Socialist/ Comedian Joe Biden, Age 78. Considering that America itself is aging, I suppose this should not be viewed as surprizing; but it certainly is unusual in already very unusual times.
Meanwhile, here is my local weather:
Temperature 36°F
Precipitation: 0%
Humidity: 74%
Wind: 9 mph
That is about as normal as weather has ever been on March 10, and I blame it all on global warming and Donald Trump 🙂
Joe Bastardi says it best.
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/a-weatherman-reveals-climate-truths
Felix Quigley Said:
I do not b elieve your conclusion, “it being global warming”. She is not stupid. Often when people reject global warming, they are referring to man-made global warming.
@ Edgar G.:
HI, Edgar.
The women light the candles, and do the kiddish in Ivrit. Then we do the b’racha, also in Ivrit. We give English translations after both, for the sake of visitors. The meals are potlucks, and people are asked to please bring no pork or shellfish. No fuss is made over fleisching/ milsching; but of course, nobody’s forced to eat anything. The Torah and Haftarah portions are according to the annual schedule; but we often don’t get to them, or only touch lightly on them. The family that hosts the service wants to keep the format “Messianic”; but of course, everyone there is a Christian. This isn’t an outreach to Jews. Some Christians, like me, just feel more comfortable with the Hebrew format — it’s closer to that used by the early church. I think the “Hebrew roots” movement, what I’ve seen of it, is primarily an extension of “Christian Primitivism” or “Restorationism”.
Mind you, not all my friends are Messianic, but most have a primitivist streak.
The Aaronic blessing. Yes, we bless the children at the Friday services, in Hebrew. We sing it, with four men holding the tsitsit of a talith that we hold over the children. The kids love it. I also blessed my daughter and son-in-law at their wedding, wearing talith and kippah. Everyone there thought it was wonderful — Catholics, Atheists, you name it. I don’t think there were many who had ever seen such a thing.
My wife and I used to do the b’rachah before meals; but we’ve reverted to simple prayers in English. I also tried eating kosher for several years, starting in the days when we were in the conversion program. Hardly any Jews here eat kosher; and it just became too much bother. It’s hard to eat with Christians here, without seeing pork at every meal. At home, we usually substitute turkey or chicken; and when we eat out, we usually eat fish. It’s just a preference — I don’t go out of my way to eat treif.
The “Jesus Movement” was VERY restorationist, especially the group I was associated with. The movement lost its way after a few years, as we began to mix with Christians in established churches. In the beginning, we were nearly all communal. That got phased out, over about 30 years. It’s water under the bridge.
I’ve never been to the Reconstructionist shul, but I believe it is the main congregation in town. There is a small Orthodox shul, which has had trouble over the years, keeping a rabbi. Rabbis don’t last long here, because they can’t find matches for their children — nor Jewish wives, for that matter. Spiritually, it’s really the “Wild West” out here.
@ Michael S:
“Also I am confused. I thought there was evidence that the Arctic temp is increasing with obvious results being observable. Yet is Michael saying the opposite?”
Hi, Felix. I have heard all sorts of things about Arctic/ Antarctic heating and cooling, but I don’t let any of it spoil my breakfast. You can see how many completely unqualified politicians have become passionate about “climate” issues, starting with Al Gore. This is a political issue, not a matter of science.
{I disagree here. This is a matter of science certainly in the sense of science being the method for the understanding of reality in general and our world in particular. I do not care about politicians such as Al Gore but it is also as well as being a scientific matter also a matter for politics, politics being how we relate to our living and real world.}
It would be wonderful, if scientific inquiry were carried out soberly on social media. Then, as many as could read them would peruse relevant papers on the matter and give relevant comments. That doesn’t happen. The only forum scientists have at the moment, are institutions of higher learning and their pecking orders of left-wing professors, most of them inclined towards a big-government Sorosian New World Order. This makes it very difficult for a retired, middle-grade scientist like me, and especially for a genuinely interested member of the public like you, to make an accurate appraisal of what’s happening based on the “latest studies”. It’s a wicked world, where the loudest voices generally are not interested in our welfare.
{I disagree with you again on this. The issue of Global Warming or Global Warming is a scam is an issue that is being carried out on all fronts, that is in papers produced by scientists and in actual scientific actions as in the Ice Cores in Arctic and Antarctic. We live in an era not of fascism but of discussion where we engage in discussion. What can be wrong here? I also am opposed to you attacking scientists without any supplied proof. In other words just your opinion.}
Just to repeat, I have seen studies both ways on these matters. What Edgar and I have both noted, however, is that the current political fury is concerned with a very limited set of data from extremely recent times; and that the LONG-RANGE evidence is of an earth and a biosphere that has managed itself marvellously well through challenges many, many, many times greater that the cow farts and contrails of today.
PS, I see that you have directed a further post to me. I probably won’t get to it for some time. Breakfast is waiting, then a day’s activities.
{You say you have seen studies both ways on the Arctic melting not melting. What are they? Please tell what they are?
You then go on to say this in the end does not matter because you and Edgar are taking a long term view.
But in taking a long term view we see that there is a very rapid change as a result of the effects of the Industrial Revolution. It runs in time.
The chart you provide in the JPG shows that by 2100 there may be an increase in temperature on the earth of 6 degrees.}
@ Ted Belman:
Ted I do remember what happened. Now and again I write offline and i did answer the above in a word doc, and unfortunately what happens fairly rarely my computer crashed as I was overloading, and I had not saved the doc. My fault entirely.
I have no feelings for Candice at all. This is now on teh Prager University handle and I dislike Prager very much as I see him as a Jew who is also the most bitter communist hater. I can discuss that on another time.
Candice made the statement “I do not believe in it” it being Global Warming.
Tghis is the whole line of the Trump movement, the Breitbart and Infowars.
Breitbart is more recent by Infowars has been engaging in a denial of science for a long time and Jones has had a colleague oen above all name of David Icke in this scepticism towards science.
Rogan therefore did us a service even though I do not ever trust him. So I support him on picking up this on this very influential person with many ties.
Nor did he let go. That is the point. This may have been the first time Candice was pulled up on this.
It was much much later in this interview that Candice said she would not die on the hill for this. I think this may be an American expression linked to the Civil War.
Whatever, this was a position she took after being argued with.
The argument is totally in order. If global warming is true then the discussion must be as open and clear as possible.
This interview is at least a year, maybe two, ago. Has Candice written a word on the subject since? No!
She has learned nothing, has investigated nothing, or we would have heard.
You think such a person will be good for the Jews? An emphatic no!
So Candice and this interview is a big issue. It mirrors the Trump movement (which I defend agaisnt Fascism)very closely!
@ Michael S:
Reconstructonists are not really Jews ….even less than Reform. They just mix a few rituals and prayers (those which they haven’t “composed” themselves) including Christian kind…..It makes them feel as if they really believe in something… although if you asked them ..what…? ,,they would find it hard to tell you.
@ Edgar G.:
Apropos of the above remark I’ve read records that state that all the leaders of the new sect were Jews…… until AFTER the Bar Cocheba War….
@ Michael S:
How remarkably interesting. A question…When you make Kiddush on Friday evenings do you say it in Hebrew…? Or did you ever use the Priestly Blessing to bless your children on Friday night. There are some Jews, Orthodox in everything who do this. As from a loving parent to a chlld.
@ Edgar G.:
Edgar,
You are no doubt knowledgeable about synagogue politics. The city I live in is called the “Berkeley of the North”, which ought to give you some insight into the matter. There aren’t many Jews here, and the majority are pretty radical. To his credit, my former rabbi was a supporter of Israel when I knew him, making him a minority even in his own congregation. He is not connected with the main shul in town, which is Reconstructionist. The latest event in THAT synagogue, is,
“Bassem Eid, Palestinian Human Rights Activist, will be speaking here at —. “Where Are We Now? Prospects for peace and the two-state solution.” Wednesday, March 13, at 6:30 pm.”
Heaven help us! There was also, the last I checked, a small Orthodox group in town, as well as Chabad.
@ Michael S:
Just to respond to your first comment . (intending to write a book, I collected much material but other things intervened and I never got down to compiling the book.. so I know about this…and more).They were only called Christians quite a while AFTER the Bar Cochba War. There was a shard found years ago on which is written to one of his lieutenants, to contact those in a certain area… and if they don’t join in with us put them in chains. This is commonly assumed to have referred to those who later became called Christians……….
It’s possible that the Conservative Rabbi ks stkll Conservatkve but could only get a “pulpit”in a Reform Synagogue. Jobs may have been hard come by then
@ Michael S:
Hi, Felix
I just looked at your last post to me. You said,
“The Arctic has been warmer over the last five years than at any time since records began in 1900,”
This only highlights what Edgar and I have been saying. These readings have only been taken for 119 years; and the period in question covers only 5 years. From this, politicians and scientists-for-hire are predicting processes that run in cycles of 100,000 years.
I don’t really care about this “global warming” scare, any more than I am concerned that President Trump has been accused of watching some Russian prostitutes urinate. It can all be lumped together as liberal BS. Still, JUST FOR FUN, look at this “evidence” of global warming:
https://static.skepticalscience.com/graphics/bau_future_warming_med.jpg
Notice that the long-term trend of temperatures is definitely downward, but the predictions of future temperatures are ludicrously upward!
Enjoy the rest of your day — a day which in my neighborhood is very pleasant — not too hot, and not too cold.
@ Felix Quigley:
I recall reading in several scientifically generated studies that the Arctic ice was definitely receding but at the same time the Antarctic ice was accumulating.
They are all over the place on this matter. BUT….just as Michael has written ….in the scheme of things.. these variations are recurrent and mean nothing of any importance except perhaps temporarily ..to cause certain sects to sell all their belongings and sit patiently on mounaintops…..
So it’s not necessary to go to a lot of trouble to search out Adam’s post. it would have been taken from perhaps the same documents that I and Michael and many others have also read. over many years past.
@ Felix Quigley:
“Also I am confused. I thought there was evidence that the Arctic temp is increasing with obvious results being observable. Yet is Michael saying the opposite?”
Hi, Felix. I have heard all sorts of things about Arctic/ Antarctic heating and cooling, but I don’t let any of it spoil my breakfast. You can see how many completely unqualified politicians have become passionate about “climate” issues, starting with Al Gore. This is a political issue, not a matter of science.
It would be wonderful, if scientific inquiry were carried out soberly on social media. Then, as many as could read them would peruse relevant papers on the matter and give relevant comments. That doesn’t happen. The only forum scientists have at the moment, are institutions of higher learning and their pecking orders of left-wing professors, most of them inclined towards a big-government Sorosian New World Order. This makes it very difficult for a retired, middle-grade scientist like me, and especially for a genuinely interested member of the public like you, to make an accurate appraisal of what’s happening based on the “latest studies”. It’s a wicked world, where the loudest voices generally are not interested in our welfare.
Just to repeat, I have seen studies both ways on these matters. What Edgar and I have both noted, however, is that the current political fury is concerned with a very limited set of data from extremely recent times; and that the LONG-RANGE evidence is of an earth and a biosphere that has managed itself marvellously well through challenges many, many, many times greater that the cow farts and contrails of today.
PS, I see that you have directed a further post to me. I probably won’t get to it for some time. Breakfast is waiting, then a day’s activities.
@ Edgar G.:
Hi, Edgar
I had to laugh at your “Michaelism” comments. If anyone starts a religion in my name, it will be long after I have departed and I will have nothing to do with it.
Did you know that followers of Jesus weren’t called “Christians” until several years after Jesus died? It’s recorded in the Book of Acts. Before then, they were simply known as followers of “that way”.
There are some things we (my wife and I) do, that are unquestionably “Jewish”, such as having a mezuza, displaying the hanukiah instead of Christmas trappings, ownig kippot and tsitsit, etc. Some of our friends are Messianic (Christians), and we celebrate Oneg Shabbat with them about once a month — with kiddish, Torah reading, etc., as well as the major holy days. I do those things as a matter of permission (Jesus did them, after all!), but also as a testimony to people we know, that we stand with the Jews and with Israel. It’s vital that we do that, in this dark place and time.
For a while, the local Conservative rabbi (now turned Reform, at last report) tried to get me to convert; but gave me up as a hopeless cause. I thought I had finally found a church “home” with the ex-Darbyist people, and still have some friends from their number; but their leaders unmasked themselves last year with a vicious anti-semitic display. Now, as in most of our adult Christian lives, we simply avoid churches, synagogues and all that. We connect with people who love Jesus in their homes, restaurants, etc. Christians have been doing this for two millennia now — not the vast majority, by any means; but what you might call a “remnamt” who simply want to follow our Elder Brother. We are “exiles”, living in the “wilderness”. Some day, some Jihadists, or a paranoid leader like Chairman Xi (or some bishop or elder!) may want to lop our heads off. C’est “La Vie”.
@ Felix Quigley:
Candice was clear that she wouldn’t stake her life on it and that that was her opinion.
What’s your problem with that.
Michael you write previously
“http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/greenlandtemperatures.jpg
Average temperatures on Greenland have been roughly the same for the past 10,000 years, varying by +/- 6 deg F — . This followed a warming event of some 40 deg F. The measurements that you and AOC are pulling their hair out over were taken during the past 200 years, and are statistically insignificant. I am saying this as a scientist, not as a bullshitter like you.”
I pose questions to a google search and evaluate carefully what comes.
Like this:
““We’re seeing this continued increase of warmth pervading across the entire Arctic system,” said Emily Osborne, an official with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who presented the agency’s annual assessment of the state of the region, the “Arctic Report Card.”
The Arctic has been warmer over the last five years than at any time since records began in 1900, the report found, and the region is warming at twice the rate as the rest of the planet.
Dr. Osborne, the lead editor of the report and manager of NOAA’s Arctic Research Program, said the Arctic was undergoing its “most unprecedented transition in human history.” ”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/11/climate/arctic-warming.html
Many other offerings in google to question “Is Arctic Warming?”
Michael you refer to AOC and this 12 years thing
“AOC has bested him by predicting Armageddon in twelve years and scaring school children.”
But what did she say with context? The context is important because this woman is never precise.
From my memory the context of the issue was that things have got to be done inside of these 12 years, or that these 12 years would be decisive.
Not Armageddon.
I consider this also important as inthe case of Candic v Rogan.
Michael and Edgar
There has already been on Israpundit an answer to this Antactic Ice Cores by Adam. If Adam does not come in on this I will try to find his answer and post it but it will take a bit of searching.
Also I am confused. I thought there was evidence that the Arctic temp is increasing with obvious results being observable. Yet is Michael saying the opposite?
@ Ted Belman:
I did Ted. I started by saying we have to be patient with each other on this issue. It is so complex.
That was my main point actually thinking back.
I also talked a bit about Candice. Rogan is not my favourite but he deserves credit because the woman (remember she is 29) made a definite statement “I do not believe in it”
It being Global Warming or AGW.
This is problematic. As Rogan tried to answer and challenge she could have said “I do not have enough knowledge but I have a suspicion that this is a conn”
That would have got by.
Nothing clear and that is fatal.
I would add now that Gil White did not defend Trump which also is fatal. As it has emerged the whole antisemitism is devouring the anti Trump movement.
So he has left himself vulnerable. He is an academic not an actor in events really.
@ Felix Quigley:
I watched the video and commented but you didn’t reply.
@ Michael S:
Michael first of all I asked that the video between Rogan and Candice be watched and even I think studied. many answers are there. But you do not comment ont hat video.
@ Michael S:
Yes of course there have been numerous Ice Ages, and as you point out, the human race has survived the most unimaginable crises. Of course they didn’t have fancy apartments to keep up -or sports cars to show off with,… and modern civilisation is certainly a lot more than a “step-up”. But the earth does seem to manage it’s equilibrium very well, veering a little now and then but always managing to come back to centre rung (so to speak) to carry on the “fight”.
By the way, from your mention of owning a mezuza, I’d say that you have your OWN distinct religion..so you don’t really need to call yourself just a Christian. You have taken a pinch of “this” and a modicum of that, a sprinkle of “the other”…and mixed in with a little garlic, pepper, and salt to make “Michaelism”.. You certainly are no ordinary Christian, and I recall your recounting of your religious seeking and travels..
It’s not uncommon for a founder to have his creed named after himself. (I’m doing the naming-not you). Protestants were originally and concurrently named Lutherans. The Plymouth Brethren were originally called Darbyites after John Darby. the Dublin curate who began the sect -in Dublin, not in Plymouth as s commonly believed..
And so on…
.
@ Edgar G.:
PS. We have had a mezuza for years. The door service I had to take care of, was changing out an old doorknob for an elderly friend.
@ Edgar G.:
Hi, Edgar
I haven’t mentioned the effects of oceans, volcanic emissions, etc. because I never looked them up. I did notice on these recent lookups of mine, that some graphs show a recent (past century) sharp rise in CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere; but I haven’t seen any corresponding rise in average temperature:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/28/breaking-hockey-sticks-antarctic-ice-core-edition/
That’s one for the climatologists to wrestle with; but it seems to argue AGAINST a human cause for climate change.
I agree with an earlier comment of yours, that the earth has marvelous ways of coping with climate disturbances, which we do not understand very well. A year or so ago, Stephen Hawking predicted that life on earth would end in 1000 years, and of course, AOC has bested him by predicting Armageddon in twelve years and scaring school children. Neither of these assertions seems to have taken into account the fact that humans and other living things have adapted to multiple ice ages (not “mini”), volcanism, continental drift and more for millions to billions of years, without the help of Paris accords and Kyoto protocols.
Call me a “deplorable, clinging to his guns (which I don’t own) and religion”; but I simply don’t have it in me to get all excited every time some Democrat tells me the sky is falling. I will most certainly leave this planet at the time and place of God’s choosing, no matter how many alarms I do or don’t respond to. When that time comes, I don’t want to deal with the additional burden of fainting from fear.
God bless and keep you, good friend. 🙂
@ Michael S:
Yes you already explained the typo. I was talking about the mini-ice ages within the 150 thousand year cycles and suggesting that your 7.500 year mention was one of them.
Why has nobody even mentioned the effect the oceans and volcanic emissions have on the climate, Also the earth’s “wobble” which has some scientific support as a partial cause. These have been raised as important causes.
The one that sticks in my mind about 40-50 years ago. I think was a general information pattern set in very readable form by Isaac Azimov who was a favourite of mine.
I suppose that the “door fixing” involves installing a mezuza….
@ Edgar G.:
Hi, Edgar
The typo was:
“In fact, over the past 10,07,500 years (since the end of the last ice age), the record has shown a slight but statistically significant DOWNWARD trend in temperatures”
I originally had posted 10,000 years, the time after the end of the Ice Age when temperatures began to level off; but tried to correct it to 7,500 years, corresponding to the most recent epoch, in which temperatures have actually been DECLINING. By contrast, the period of average temperature INCREASES, cited by the Al-Gore-rhythm section, spans back in time only 140 years, and it is a miniscule increase when comparied with the ups and downs over the past 7,500-10,000 years. I botched the correction, and the clock ran out before I could fix it.
I’m not on the side of the Angels. I don’t even follow baseball. (joke). Actually, theologically, the angels aka messengers were of two opinions: some stuck with God, while others rebelled.
I have to go — have to help a friend fix his door. Shalom shalom
@ Michael S:
That means that ” I am on the side of the angels”.. and that we are both in agreement on the subject. And although of no scientific ability myself, was able to glean all this by recalling what serious scientific evidence had produced over many years.
I was going to mention all the ice core samples and the permanent, continuing research at Antarctica… but figured I’d written enough. ..
The 7,500 year end of the last ice age must refer to one of the “mini ice ages” I mentioned above. Yes…??
@ Edgar G.:
Edgar, I thoroughly displayed and discussed temperatures back to the Ice Age and beyond, in my recent post — which is currently in moderation. Hopefully, it will not get eaten up there.
The most recent data, derived from proxy models, is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
which shows we are in an overall cooling trend. A longer-term trend can be seen here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg
Note the “10,07,500” was a typo. It should have been 7,500
I hope that a post will arrive with a complete run-down of all the Ice Ages, say beginning from the past million years, to the present day, complete with the varying temperatures.
Ii seems that with all the hot air blown around on thus subject right here.the only real information, backed up by serious science, has come from Michael.
It seems that there are regular cycles of about 100-150,000 years of “Mini” Ice Ages, which include several interspersed warmer periods of around 12-15,000 years.
So…as a subject for passionate discussion and argument it becomes a great way of passing the time…. but otherwise……Maybe Al Gore had “something”….a perfect example of obsessively pushing a position, that..(according to overwhelming scientific evidence and opinion) he was completely wrong on, based on his own fake science and “intuition”..about a world encompassing matter that he understood absolutely nothing about.
As a child growing up in Dublin, I recall occasional mentions of the “beginning or “thin ice” forming on parts of the Thames for a few days…which last was completely frozen feet thick a couple of hundred years before.
The only better way of wasting time would be to watch “Rosanne”…
NO one has yet included the massive “balancing” effects on climate that the oceans and volcanic emissions have..yet…although they are well discussed and documented.
The many conclusions I have read over the years demonstrate by the scientific evidence available, that the Earth itself in it’s many parts, is self-regulating in a far more powerful way than anything Man could ever oppose..
@ Michael S:
Felix,
I’m sorry for the coarse language — I was going tit-for-tat with what you said about me, which was foolish.
Concerning climate change, it is entirely a political issue (not scitentific), about which, as Ted has pointed out, the adherents are “passionate” — emotionally driven, not soundly thinking things out.
I already gave you a link for temperature changes over the past several thousand years in Greenland. Greenland is significant, because past climates can be inferred from ice core samples — as the following site about Antarctic core samples indicates:
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/
You can see from this website, that though “greenhouse gases” have recently risen, inferred atmospheric temperatures:
http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ice_Age_Temperature.png
have not followed apace. in fact, they have tracked pretty much with the Greenland temperatures I posted earlier:
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/greenlandtemperatures.jpg
that show temperatures staying roughly even, if not dropping slightly, over the past 10,000 years.
What these samples seem to say, is that
1. Climate variations, on average, are several times higher than the panicked predictions of the Al-Gore-ists and their Al-Gore-rhythms,
2. Drastic changes in climate have been going on for hundreds of thousands of years, roughly tracking current trends, and
3. There is not, apparently, a direct relationship between greenhouse gas levels and global temperature.
Models that I have seen, which profess to show global warming, such as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg
cover only the past 140 years, during which dependable direct measurements have been recorded. These show a 0.8 deg C (1.4 deg F) rise over about 140 years, or .01 deg F per year (with temperatures actually dropping the past few years). That means that even if this trend were to continue indefinitely, which it definitely will not, I would need to move to a place with average temperatures only 1 deg F cooler in 100 years, to be in a similar climate to the one I am in now. That means moving uphill a few hundred feet, or moving north a few miles — not a gargantuan task, seeing that I have 100 years to do it. That is why I made the “Baffin Land” comments.
Since the measurements that indicate warming all go back only to the start of the Industrial Revolution, climate fanatics have blamed the IR for the temperature change — VERY unscientific thinking, considering the longer record that shows far greater variations, both up and down. In fact, over the past 10,07,500 years (since the end of the last ice age), the record has shown a slight but statistically significant DOWNWARD trend in temperatures:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
I have not bothered to dig up this information until now, because I am definitely NOT passionate about these issues, as befits someone like me, with a MS in the physical sciences. I am, however, pretty passionate about telling the truth.
@ Felix Quigley:
As you may know, I side with the deniers or skeptics. So I post articles that make my point. In this instance my daughter, Aliza, who follows the debate closely because of her work, chimed in in total support of the alleged concensus. I subsequently had a heated debate with her on the subject, because she is very passionate about the subject. She calls me and people like me “nutcases”. She overwhelmed me with her knowledge.. Whenever she does this I redouble my efforts to learn more about the subject.
Shortly thereafter I had a conversation with a friend of mine who is also passionate about the issue. He started out believing Al Gore. After the movie he started doing research and was surprise to learn it led to him changing his mind and becoming like me a denier or skeptic. Francisco Gil-White who we both know of , debunks the position of the concenses too.
Now getting back to Rogan and Candice Owen., I felt that Rogan was pressing too much and barely let Candice reply. I was very impressed with how Candice handled herself. Keep in mind that she is only 28 and has been on a tear for the last two years to educate hereself on a myriad of subjects.. I think she has done an admirable job even on this subject which is incidental to her work. She did a great job of defending herself. Less so in defending her opinion. Nefvertheless she is entitled to her opinion.
Rogan argued that because she is so influential she should not express opionions that aren’t sound. I don’t share his opinion on this. She has every right to support Trump actions whether or not she has done her research.
@ Felix Quigley:
Check it out, wise guy:
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/greenlandtemperatures.jpg
Average temperatures on Greenland have been roughly the same for the past 10,000 years, varying by +/- 6 deg F — . This followed a warming event of some 40 deg F. The measurements that you and AOC are pulling their hair out over were taken during the past 200 years, and are statistically insignificant. I am saying this as a scientist, not as a bullshitter like you. If I wrote a paper that included data like the “proof” of Global Warming, I would have been laughed at — as you ought to be now.
As I said before, if you really believed in climate change, you would be putting your money where your mouth is. If you think it will be significantly warmer in the Arctic Circle anytime soon, you should be investing in beachfront property in Baffin Land. You are not doing anything of the sort, so far as I know, so I know you’re just BS.
@ Felix Quigley:
Ted can you find the time to answer me? I think that they agree on that the earth is warming up due to the addition of certain gases to the atmosphere that are creating a serious change to the atmospheric envelop that surrounds the earth. These gases do not come from nowhere. They come from man made industry. There is science here that is being developed and like all science is open to being opposed. But what cannot be done is to say that science is of no use. That lands you int he area of relativism, that this is all just an opinion, and one persons opinion is as good as another.
So it seems to me that the answer to my question to google and the Nasa article is very strong. You are reading it right? tell me what you think.
What we cannot do on Israpundit is allow the likes of Michael to biullshit us.
@ Michael S:
Michael you have watched the Candice…Joe Rogan video right?
Let us take this bit by bit.
You must have watched it so Rogan does a service by exploring what she means by “I do not believe in it”. Then begins on the part of Candice unending dissembling.
This is very serious stuff Michael. I do my research. Put it forward as best I can.
Tell me what you think.
@ Felix Quigley:
Felix, I don’t consider a Google search to be a legitimate scientific inquiry. Being a scientist myself, though, let me assure you that scientific theories change at a rate many times faster that even the widest variations in climate.
If you were seriously concerned about climate change, you would be investing in resort property in Nunavut.
@ Felix Quigley:
STRIPPED BARE…TRUMP TOO
By now anybody on Israpundit who is serious should have already studied the whole of the video in which Joe Rogan strips bare Candice Owens and exposes her ability to be able to talk about anything at all in this earth of ours or about anything on the same.
Deceit with a smile. The fast talker of gibberish is laid bare by Rogan, of whom in general I am defintitely not a fan.
This is a crucial video and I hope it stays on youtube forever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lD29jqH078
@ Ted Belman:
Ted Belman I was wondering about this statement by you above, especially the last part
“This brings up another question. Is there a consensus or does it only seem that there is. I think that the people who support it claim a 97% consensus. Try as I might, I have been unable to find what it is that they ostensibly agree upon. Can anyone state this precisely and how the 97% figure was arrived at?”
So I did a google search with these words
“what does science agree on about global warming”
Under an article named “Facts” there is like an encyclopedia of facts and links, massively about organizations of scientists, many national, I would presume pretty independent people, but it has not been proved they are not.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Does that answer your question what do they agree on? I think they agree that the earth our planet is heating up. Is that at least enough for you?
@ Ted Belman:
If the large majority of scientific opinions are that there is no “global warming”…. in other words no real climate change…this is exactly what those paid by the petroleum industry are also saying.
Nobody ever nowadays seems to point out that climate change definitely occurs… and in cycles…. that it has happened many times before, when there was no human influence, and that these changes have been verified and profusely written about.
There are smaller cycles within the larger swings also. I recall the early 1940s were being reported as just coming to the end of one of the minor freeze-ups. Records have been kept for hundreds of years –using barometric results as well as temperature gauges
There is climate change that is not in dispute. The question is it man or partially man made. What can man do to positively influence climate change if anything.
Renewal energy helps make the air we breath cleaner. Certain people want to dump all fossil fuels within a short time frame and that would entail economic disaster without convincing evidence that it would actually impact climate change.
Certainly while working towards more renewal energy on economic basis is a good idea. Using gas is a cleaner method of energy as opposed to coal. The USA by using more gas in lieu of coal has reduced emissions of CO2.
Even Coal plants can be set up next to Algae farms (which can produce clean fuel) do not emit CO2 that is not absorbed up by the Algae so it possible to use fossil fuels in a clean fashion.
Working towards a cleaner planet is a good idea while not bankrupting a country because of unproven theories.
@ Aliza Belman:
Speaking of bias, scientists who want to receive grants from governments or institutions that have embraced man made climate change, realize that a condition of getting the grants is whether the grantee agrees with the grantor. Studies have been done showing that the funds availalbe to affirmation of this proposition far out weigh the money available from the petroleum industry.
Aliza Belman Said:
I did not come to this conclusion. It seemed to me that the thrust was to accomodate their views.
Now the key question is, is the science settled as those clamouring for action, argue, or not. In reading the conclusions, it seems to me that the authors do not think so.
“Climate change could irreversibly affect future generations ” is how it begins.
“Most research has focused on the contestation of GHG governance and management while underestimating the still ongoing debate among experts over core assumptions. Although there seems to be consensus that anthropogenic climate change presents a profound global challenge, policy makers and companies have opposed the regulations of GHG emissions”.
This brings up another question. Is there a consensus or does it only seem that there is. I think that the people who support it claim a 97% consensus. Try as I might, I have been unable to find what it is that they ostensibly agree upon. Can anyone state this precisely and how the 97% figure was arrived at?
Hey, my very brief post just went into trash. What’s up, Ted?
Is it because I pointed out that all the scientists and engineers interviewed for the study work for the petroleum industry in Alberta, Canada? And as a result, are hardly representative of “scientists” in general? And have an obvious conflict of interest?”Geoscientists” and engineers” employed by the petroleum industry are experts at locating and extraction oil deposits–not on climate change. THey have an obvious bias in favor of fossil fuels.
If all the “scientists” interviewed work for the Petroleum industry in Alberta, Canada, they have an obvious conflict of interest. Obviously the it is in the interest of th petroleum industry to minimize the importance of climate change. And they certainly don’t represent the views of “scientists” in general.
@ Cathy:
Read the article in full. The scientists that they interviewed were all from the petroleum industry or people who work with the petroleum industry in Alberta. The purpose of the article was to explain how, given the fact that there is near consensus on the fact that man-made climate change is a thing, scientists working for the oil industry justify their positions. The reason the authors say that they did this study was to figure out how better to convince these figures that more action has to be taken to mitigate climate change. Read the actual study, and in particular the discussion and conclusions.
@ Michael S:
It wasn’t a Forbes study but just their report on “Organization Studies” where it had been “peer- reviewed” Tut-Tut..
I wouldn’t call a survey in Forbes a “peer-reviewed study”. I was hoping, instead, to see an article in Science or some other widely respected scientific journal. The survey is valid, nonetheless, as a representative of current scientific thinking; and the conclusion, that the “97%” figure is a fabrication cut from whole cloth, is correct.
Wait. The science is “settled”, according to the dems. Could they be wrong? OMG