Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Before the climate summit in Paris this month, let us review what actual scientists are saying.

Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, derided what he termed climate “catastrophism.”

“Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial,” Lindzen said.

“We are speaking of small changes 0.25 Celcius would be about 51% of the recent warming and that strongly suggests a low and inconsequential climate sensitivity – meaning no problem at all,” Lindzen explained.

“I urge you when looking at a graph, check the scales! The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree,” he noted.

“When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period. And they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree,” Lindzen said.

Lindzen also featured 2006 quotes from Scientist Dr. Miike Hulme, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, admitting that claims of a climate catastrophe were not the “language of science.”

{ “The discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device,” Hulme wrote to the BBC in 2006. “The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science,” Hulme wrote.

“Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe?” Hulme continued. }

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who has authored over 200 peer-reviewed papers, called policies to reduce CO2 “based on nonsense.”

“To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?” he asked.

“Coal, formed from ancient CO2, is a benefit to the world. Coal is CO2 from ancient atmospheres. We are simply returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it came when you burn coal. And it’s a good thing since it is at very low levels in the atmosphere. We are in a CO2 famine. It is very, very low,” Happer explained.

Happer continued: “CO2 will be beneficial and crop yields will increase.” “More CO2 will be a very significant benefit to agriculture,” he added.

Happer then showed a picture of polluted air in China with the caption: “Real pollution in Shanghai.”

Ecologist and Greenpeace founding member Dr. Patrick Moore discussed the benefits of rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

“We know for absolute certain that carbon dioxide is the stuff of life, the foundation for life on earth,” Moore said.

“We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science,” he continued.

“The deserts are greening from rising CO2,” he added.

This is all shit that seems overly obvious to me, so I'd like to read some responses/discussion from the non-natural sciences crowd.

So, correct me if i'm wrong, climate change is real, but not to the apocolyiptic levels that the left are constantly saying

Politicians push "anthropogenic global warming" which is 100% humans are responsible for the changing climate and the Earth would be a total constant if humans weren't here.

Actual science shows the Earth has always gone through climate cycles and we're actually coming out of a recent ice age, so comparatively temperatures are low and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is low overall but are beginning to rise again.

I like to use this graph:

Might wanna open it in its own tab.

Only about 20-12,000 years ago did temperatures start to rise from some of the lowest this planet has seen, which is due to the period of ice ages and mini-ice ages in the Pleistocene. Those red dots at the end are the IPCC apocalypse estimates.

What the IPCC models did is look at the last ~200 years of rising temperatures and said "the temperature is rising at this constant rate so we're going to see NINE WHOLE DEGREES OF CHANGE in the next ~100 years". That would be catastrophic indeed, but as we collect more actual observational data we see that the temperature is not rising at a constant rate.

200 years is a very short amount of time for the Earth. Now for the last 20 years we've seen the rise suddenly level out and seemingly "stop". It's not stopping, we're just looking at a EXTREMELY small section of that ^ overall temperature graph.

Their models are like looking at the temperature from January to August and predicting that it will be 300 degrees by December. That's the best way to explain it.

So by with holding info, certain people are trying to make everyone fight nature itself, cause that sounds like an impossible fight

and one more thing

"certain people are trying to make everyone fight nature itself"

Yes. That is the most important and critical fact to take away here.
& they're getting in the way of legitimate sustainability and conservation development in doing so.

Climate change has been occurring since the formation of the Earth over 4 billion years ago. While e humans do have a hand in being able to increase the C content of the atmosphere, we are actually importing more C-12 and removing C-14, which is just a radioactive isotope of the normal C-12. The only thing disastrous we as humans have done was decide to use chlorofluorocarbons in refrigeration and just let all that chlorine rise into the atmosphere, pocketing our ozone layer.

I'm interested in the "Deserts are greening from rising CO2" comment Moore said. Can you provide an article that focuses on this phenomenon? It's very hard to be picky on Google Scholar.

Yeah, when my boss goes to her lunch meeting I'll hop on my laptop. NatGeo has an article from 2009 covering observations in the Sahara.

"not the language of science.”

Meanwhile nearly every quote before the first image is somebody's interpretation of data that is not even presented. Hypocritical statement either on your part or the presenter.

"Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who has authored over 200 peer-reviewed papers, called policies to reduce CO2 “based on nonsense.”

Appeal to inappropriate authority. There is no need to include that he's authored 200 peer-reviewed papers. He's a physicist that studies physics of spin-polarized atoms and nuclei

"Coal, formed from ancient CO2, is a benefit to the world. Coal is CO2 from ancient atmospheres"

No its not, this is wrong. Coal is formed from organic matter through several and long physical/chemical transformations link
Is this person trying to say that all carbon prior to life existed only as CO2. Highly doubt it.

"We are simply returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it came when you burn coal."

The earliest organisms were heterotrophs that produced CO2 not photosynthetic. So not only did organic matter (carbon containing molecules) exist alongside or even before the presence of CO2 accumulation, but this concept of returning CO2 "back" is misguided because it assumes the street is two way. Combustion reactions are essential irreversible and the millions of years it took to change the CO2 levels through respiration is not an equilibrium reaction with returning it back. The consequences will be long term.

"Happer then showed a picture of polluted air in China with the caption: “Real pollution in Shanghai.”

The slide right below is a strawman argument. Pollutants are pollutants and there are different kinds. Some pollutants like aerosols can affect the ozone and cool the planet, some can cause immediate harm to our health, and some contribute to climate change. Trying to downplay the danger of CO2 by lessening it compared to visible pollution is a cheap trick and a misrepresentation too. Take the partial combustion of CS2 + 3O2 → Co2 + 2So2 for every 2 photoactivated sulfur compounds you can see you get 1 CO2 along with it.

"“We know for absolute certain that carbon dioxide is the stuff of life, the foundation for life on earth,” Moore said."

lel. "stuff of life" some more of that scientific language they were talking about. Reduced carbon compounds have energy that can be extracted by oxidation and oxygen molecules are final ETC acceptors. CO2 is more like the garbage of life that all heterotrophs (yes even plants) try to get rid of before it accumulates.

So you're like a bio major? I guess all of these passed fine by you.

I wonder why it wasn't on the news.

I imagine it wasn't on the news because it is one of the worst arguments from a scientist I've ever heard.

Can I see some financial records? I'd like to see where this man gets his funding and why he suddenly decided he was qualified to talk on Biology and atmospheric science considering he isn't a god damn environmental scientist, he is a physicist.

{ No its not, this is wrong. Coal is formed from organic matter through several and long physical/chemical transformations }

bruh are you cherry picking sentences and interpreting them without their context just so you could go on this little rant? This is not a difficult concept nor is it even scientifically disputed.

The ancient forests which fell and became the hundreds of meters deep layer of organic matter which decayed into peat which becomes coal were able to grow so densely and giant in the first place because…. of the abundance of CO2 in the early atmosphere.

barren planet → abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere → plant life evolves → vegetation explosion as plant life thrives off the abundance of CO2 → amount of CO2 in the atmosphere decreases → great forests made from abundant CO2 fall → become coal → which we burn thus releasing the ancient abundance of CO2 → CO2 in the atmosphere rises → deserts begin to green → another vegetation explosion in response to the abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere and the whole cycle begins again

You took a wrong turn at the start and ended up on a completely different tangent.

CO2, literally deemed "the gas of life" by every scientist on this planet since we learned how integral it is to maintaining life on Earth, is garbage according to…. you?

Forgive me for not taking your word for it.

{ I’d like to see where this man gets his funding and why he suddenly decided he was qualified to talk on Biology and atmospheric science considering he isn’t a god damn environmental scientist, he is a physicist. }

There were three lecturers from different backgrounds, including an MIT climate scientist, all of whose full names and recent positions are in the OP for you to Google as you like.

Interesting how you glazed over the title and the OP to conclude that only one physicist was speaking.

Can we see the funding of all the scientists involved at the conference? Because there's probably bribing going on in all directions, both from green energy companies and big energy companies.

Regardless, I have to agree. Cars make up a very small percentage of carbin dioxide. Cows produce more CO2 emissions a year alone, not including the vast amout produced by humans and other agricultural aniamls. Yet they're the only things targeted when it comes to "climate change".

Rare Earth Metals being used in all these solar panels or cell phones are more damaging to the environment then any climate chsnge could be. But I guess I'd be hard for everyone to have a conference on that, with everyone in attendance rocking their cells, labtops, tablets, and fancy branded "eco-friendly" products.

{ Can we see the funding of all the scientists involved at the conference? }

Ya know who funds the IPCC, right…? Nobody ever seems particularly bothered by that part.

The summit was hosted by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a long-established think tank.

This panel specifically about CO2 and its speakers was only one group of many noted scientists from all sorts of backgrounds who spoke on various issues surrounding the climate.

Some other speakers:

Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, spoke
about the Earth's 1500-year climate cycles.

Dr. Caleb Rossiter, Adjunct Professor, School of International Service and Adjunct Professor, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, College of Arts and Sciences at American University, spoke about regulations that drive up the cost of energy and how it contributes to energy poverty across the globe.

Dr. George L. Stegemeier, Dr. Hal Doiron, Walter Cunningham, former NASA astronauts and scientists speak about separating climate fact from fiction.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism

He has also gotten funding from ExxonMobil.

He is a quack and an idiot. 3% of scientists agree with him. He has been disproven many many times. He is as scientifically sound as a Evolution denier or an Anti-Vaxxer.

Skeptical Science is created by John Cook, the guy behind the "97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming" study which caused outrage by the authors of the papers he studied for misrepresenting their work, and they blatantly stated that their research does not endorse anthropogenic global warming in any way.

You, out of your own ignorance, have linked to a known liar and disgrace in the scientific community. Twice.

ed: here's a WSJ piece that examined the phenomenon of this false stat and how it sticks around despite being utterly destroyed by legitimate scientists, and other studies which claim to replicate the results.

{ Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers--0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent--had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most (>50%) of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work. }

Please don't Google randomly and click the first link you see that you think helps your argument.

You do know that Climate Change Is Real =\= Climate Change Will Kill Us All

Id be interested to see how many scientists actually endorse the theory that humans effect on climate change is going to doom the planet to a mad max like future. And how many just believe a few points of degrees will rise and cause a slight shift in temperate climates. The three above fir example acknowledge thst climate change is real, just that it's not the end of the world.

And again, how many scientists get funding from oil companies vs how many get funding from companies with investment in the so called "green" market. Toyota for example, or Tesla, Or any of the solar or wind energy companies.

{ Id be interested to see how many scientists actually endorse the theory that humans effect on climate change is going to doom the planet to a mad max like future. }

You can actually use the John Cook study to do so. His numbers are sort of okay (the important numbers are okay), but he completely misrepresented the data to make 1.6% appear to be 97% to those who don't read carefully enough/care at all.

First, here are the categories he broke down the 11,944 abstracts into:

1,Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%
2,Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise
3,Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it
4,No Position
5,Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW
6,Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW but does not quantify
7,Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW as less than 50%

Except for 1, 4, and 7, ("the important numbers") these literally mean nothing.

He then goes on to admit in a very tiny note that the "97.1%" figure comes from combining categories 1, 2, and 3.

Here is how he himself broke the papers down:

Level 1 = 64
Level 2 = 922
Level 3 = 2910
Level 4 = 7970
Level 5 = 54
Level 6 = 15
Level 7 = 9

As before, especially the categories that include "implicit" mean nothing. It means the abstracts appeared to imply to John Cook that the author endorses AGW without seeming to imply that humans are less responsible than nature.

As you can see, most scientists don't endorse a specific position at all.

& here is the PopTech article that interviewed many of the scientists whose work was misrepresented by Cook. This is also why I said his categories mean nothing. The authors of the papers say their work endorses the complete opposite view to how he categorized them in some cases.

Some of my fav comments:

{ Q: Dr. Shaviv, your paper 'On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise". Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

A: "Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C). I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper."

Q: Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?

A: "Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct." }

{ Q: Dr. Morner, your paper 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW". Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

A: "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC." }

{ Q: Dr. Carlin, your paper 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize". Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

A: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. I did not explicitly or even implicitly endorse AGW and did quantify my skepticism concerning AGW. Both the paper and the abstract make this clear. The abstract includes the following statement:

"The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting."

In brief, I argue that human activity may increase temperatures over what they would otherwise have been without human activity, but the effect is so minor that it is not worth serious consideration. }

An update you'll have to get from UK media because the US media is not interested in reporting that NASA's recently released intensive study of the poles found from 2009 – 2015 the average temperature in the Arctic has been dropping and the overall amount of ice in Antarctica has increased.

{ NASA’s Operation IceBridge is an airborne survey of polar ice and has finalised two overlapping research campaigns at both the poles.

NASA agrees ice has been lost in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica.

But says the gains elsewhere, which total 200billion tonnes a year, outweigh all these losses of 65billion tonnes a year – leaving a net annual Antarctic ice gain of 135billion tonnes.

Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published in the Journal of Glaciology, said: “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.”

They also used information on snow accumulation for tens of thousands of years, derived by other scientists from ice cores, to conclude that East Antarctica has been thickening for a very long time.

A spokesman added: "Extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimetres) per year. }

What will the IPCC say in Paris? Will they distribute information that directly opposes these findings in order to push an alarmist agenda? Only time will tell. I, for one, am looking forward to this climate gathering.

>Happer continued: “CO2 will be beneficial and crop yields will increase.” “More CO2 will be a very significant benefit to agriculture,” he added.

Bullshit. Agricultural yields are expected to decline 10-20% by many estimates (and the IPCC predicts 30%, and that is the most authoritative summary of climate research), not to mention that while more extreme latitudes will, in some cases, grow more food, more tropical latitudes will experience an increase in agricultural instability. The punchline: the latter is where most growth is occurring and where food production is already too scarce.

Seriously, leave it to a meteorologist to fuck up basic climatology facts. He isn't a climate scientist. There is a reason why they're generally far more skeptical than the people who study climate: because everything they're taught teaches them to think short-term.

idk who to be more embarrassed for, those of you who Google with little/no understanding of the actual topic yet assume you're right anyway, or those who think anything posted in opposition to me must be 100% correct and upvote you for it.

First, the IPCC and all other alarmist predictions are based off the IPCC models which predict we'll see the global average temperature rise by nearly ten degrees in less than 100 years. Were that to happen, yeah, we'd probably see 30% decrease in agricultural yield because of the extreme range and rate of occurrence of the change, but as legitimate scientists point out, as we gather more real, observed data from the world those models are being exposed as complete failures which only consider one variable of hundreds.

One of the most recent peer-reviewed (how easily you all forget that government scientists are subjected to none of this) collaborative studies in the journal Nature by scientists at Boston University, the University of New Hampshire, the University of Michigan, the University of Minnesota, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and McGill University (which reflects similar results from studies across the globe), global food productivity will nearly double in the next 50 years. We increasingly see real time evidence for this positive outlook as we observe the greenification of deserts, mentioned earlier in this thread.

Were we to stop regulating the agricultural industry via government, who want to see the highest profits possible instead of the most efficient plan, and grow crops in environments they're naturally suited to (like growing the most thirsty vegetable in existence, asparagus, in rainy corridors instead of the middle of Peru) we would see even greater productivity than that.

Here is top physicist Freeman Dyson on climate models:

{ At America's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Dyson was looking at the climate system before it became a hot political issue, over 25 years ago. He provides a robust foreword to a report written by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cofounder Indur Goklany on CO2 – a report published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

An Obama supporter who describes himself as "100 per cent Democrat," Dyson says he is disappointed that the President "chose the wrong side." Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, and humanity doesn't face an existential crisis. Climate change, he tells us, "is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?" }

Q: Are climate models getting better? You wrote how they have the most awful fudges, and they only really impress people who don't know about them.

A: I would say the opposite. What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger. It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago. I can't say if they'll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable.

Q: It's now difficult for scientists to have frank and honest input into public debates. Prof Brian Cox, who is the public face of physics in the UK thanks to the BBC, has said he has no obligation to listen to "deniers," or to any other views other than the orthodoxy.

A: That's a problem, but still I find that I have things to say and people do listen to me, and people have no particular complaints. It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted people's views on climate change. I'm 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.

I have a degree in environmental studies. I'm not about to take the "google research" quip from you. Do you think that reading climatedepot makes you any more superior? Sincere skepticism works both ways, you know.

I have a degree in ecology and conservation.
& one in business w/focus in sustainability but that's a bit beside the point.

The people I'm quoting have even more advanced degrees and have been actively working in the field for decades, and those results came from a legitimate peer-reviewed journal that you have to pay to access.

You're quoting government agencies that have been blatantly lying, caught rigging data (currently global outrage over NOAA suddenly changing the way they calculate temperature averages which made the 20 year "pause" in warming magically disappear, even though they spent the last five years making up all kinds of excuses for why exactly it was happening), and are not subject to any kind of peer review or accountability at all, whose models have been completely proven wrong by actual observations.

I would have taken you more seriously if you hadn't come in spewing every typically incorrect "argument" that alarmists spread to the masses to push their agenda. I've presented actual science, you've come back with baseless assumptions about my education and sources.

Yes, they do have advanced degrees. Degrees in subjects that aren't climatology. The distinction is more important than you think. For every advanced degree-holder you can pull out, I could effortlessly show you 20 more, with more relevant degrees, who will contest them. Don't you see why it's just mildly suspicious when you pull out quotes from the Wall Street Journal or, fucks sake, Daily Express?

If you can point to any agencies that were caught manipulating data, I encourage you to post a source. Every investigation into the University of East Anglia found CRU free of wrong-doing. Here's a Google search for you: NOAA temperature manipulation. The top three sources are climatedepot (!), a FactCheck article explaining why its bullshit and The Daily Caller. It's such an incredibly easy claim to debunk.

The models are wrong? Tell that to the IPCC – the literal definition of peer review

Or this

Like, honestly, this thread reads like a Gish Gallop

You're the one without a relevant degree here, general environmental studies major. Climatology is a field, not a degree, it means "the study of the climate". Scientists with varied degrees participate to the ongoing research that constitute the field.

{ or every advanced degree-holder you can pull out, I could effortlessly show you 20 more, with more relevant degrees, who will contest them. }

You wont be able to do this, as we have also already gone over in this thread, because the vast majority of scientists who have published papers in the field refuse to endorse a specific view. The only thing I have presented thus far in the thread are facts derived from direct observations. You're still quoting data projected from models that we know are wrong.

Your first graph is from Skeptical Science, aka John Cook, aka the first link that comes up in Google, which we have already debunked in this thread, in the two posts literally right before your first. :| In addition, it's an irrelevant graph. It's not from the IPCC's "global warming" study about temperature increase and has nothing to do with those models, it's from much less contested model of sea-levels that doesn't even consider temperature change a prominent factor.

Your second graph literally shows what I've been saying this whole time. The CCSR is the IPCC's data distribution center. All of those colored lines are predictions based off various flawed models, with the red that shoots off the top of the screen being the IPCC's infamous apocalyptic prediction. The dark blue line all the way at the bottom is the average of actual observational data. It doesn't take into account the non-linear way the temperature has been rising, averaging it out to a consistent increase over X years for the purpose of the graph. Our actual observations continue to significantly differ from what the IPCC's awful CO2 models predicted.

Thanks for posting it for me, I was going to look through my photobucket for it eventually.

Upon further review of your FactCheck link, you've got the completely wrong incident.

{ Palmer, a Republican from Alabama, cited the so-called Climategate episode of five years ago, in which emails written by climate scientists purportedly showed evidence of data manipulation }

bruh I'm talking about the NOAA controversy from this year.
The study in question came out at the beginning of summer.

Here's commentary from Georgia Tech Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry (Ph.D. in geophysical sciences because there is no "climatology" degree like I said) on the controversy:

{ The greatest changes in the new NOAA surface temperature analysis is to the ocean temperatures since 1998. This seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements – ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend. Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998.

In my opinion, the gold standard dataset for global ocean surface temperatures is the UK dataset, HadSST3. A review of the uncertainties is given in this paper by John Kennedy http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/uncertainty.html. Note, the UK group has dealt with the same issues raised by the NOAA team. I personally see no reason to the use the NOAA ERSST dataset, I do not see any evidence that the NOAA group has done anywhere near as careful a job as the UK group in processing the ocean temperatures.

My bottom line assessment is this. I think that uncertainties in global surface temperature anomalies is substantially understated. The surface temperature data sets that I have confidence in are the UK group and also Berkeley Earth. This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set. The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on. }

Here is a WashTimes editorial published yesterday by a Representative currently involved in the legal battle over this very study, because that's how much of a fucking mess it's become. It's a HUGE problem when a government agency reconfigures their calculations and all the sudden they're the only agency in the world that shows these results, yet those are the results we're choosing to legislate based by. NOAA has responded by saying the legislators questioning their science are bullying and intimidating their scientists and proves they're just a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists.

I guess the current events of the science world aren't something environmental studies majors keep up with.

So we've seen from you a non-expert theoretical physicist saying that raising the CO2 levels is a good thing essentially calling climate change a hoax, and we've seen an expert climatologist saying nothing more than she doubts the accuracy of these water surface measurements.

And from your point of view these are supposed to be complementary points of view?

I have quoted far more than two scientists in this thread, first of all, and they are all professionals/experts in their field.

Nobody in this thread has called climate change a hoax. The debate comes down to how much climate change is a perfectly natural part of the Earth's 1500 year climate cycles (thus we should adapt to it because it's not going to stop no matter how much we regulate) and how much is anthropogenic, or purely due to human actions (thus we should regulate our actions via the government with the goal of reversing the warming).

The NOAA controversy has nothing to do with the climate change debate, it's an accountability issue. They went back over the last ~40 years of temperature records from land and ocean temperature data (choosing to ignore the satellite data sets which are considered the most accurate) and completely changed the way they calculate the average temperature based on those sets.

The most controversial change comes from their ocean data, which is collected via buoys that are constantly monitoring the temps at different locations and depths. Universities/climate research centers keep track of them. Not a single one of those groups has observed a warming trend in ocean surface temps (deemed a "warming pause" because temps have remained steady for the past 20 years). Neither did NOAA, they spent the last five years saying "oh it's not warming because the melting icebergs are cooling the surrounding water!" which is, of course, bullshit.

Then in June they present this study where they do tricksy math to make the "warming pause" completely disappear so it looks like the ocean has been constantly warming, and then they claim they're the only agency in the world who has it right and anyone who disagrees with them is just a conspiracy theorist trying to intimidate scientists.

NOAA and the government are trying to use those results to regulate companies in the USA and fine/tax their emissions even more heavily, which has a direct effect on our economy and how many big ass companies that provide hundreds of thousands of jobs are packing their shit up and moving to India where they don't give a flying fuck what the USA's government agency says about the climate.

The show has begun, everyone, I will now be posting relevant updates from the climate talks in Paris in addition to answering basic ecology questions.

{ Negotiators at key UN climate talks in Paris that open next week are being told by the French government they must iron out their main differences six days before the end of the talks, according to the foreign minister, Laurent Fabius.

The highly unusual demand by the French hosts is a sign of their confidence that they believe a deal is within sight and that the huge diplomatic push they have made to ensure the talks succeed has not been knocked off course by the terrorist attacks two weeks ago.

But Fabius’s request to have the final version of the negotiating text signed off by next Saturday will be met with scepticism among some observers of the talks. Frequently, previous incarnations of the UN talks have finished one or even two days after deadline. }

We have also been given our first solid example of media propaganda, which you know I will be calling out throughout this process.

{ Scientists estimate that if the world warms by more than 2C on average above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century, the effects of climate change will become catastrophic and irreversible. }

By "scientists", The Guardian here means "people hired by the government who are held to no level of accountability or peer review at all".

As for that stat, well, pictures are worth 1k words right?

Has anybody ever asked themselves why we're comparing everything to extremely recent history? We even call the brief period of time between the last little ice age and the industrial revolution the "Holocene optimum". Optimum for who? The history of the Earth and science today tells us life in general thrives in a warmer climate and biological diversity has always been greatest during warm periods. When we look at the big picture (the span of 500 million years) it looks like the planet's climate is, over millions of years, becoming less sporadic and coming to its own "optimum" that is in fact those few degrees warmer than their so called Holocene optimum.

Can I just put this in perspective for us?

The climate has always been like a bouncing ball coming to a stop, we happen to be here at this level of intelligence and ability just after the ball bounced, temps are going back up, and our great government minds genuinely believe the planet is meant to be at a constant standstill of this exact climate and if it's not completely unchanging it's due to dirty humans killing the environment.

That's the story you're supposed to buy.

{I have quoted far more than two scientists in this thread, first of all, and they are all professionals/experts in their field.}

That doesn't matter. I asked you a simple and specific question if you think the statements given by those two particular doctors are complementary; do their statements support each other? I think its pretty clear from the quotes by Happer in your original post:

"To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian" and
"We are in a CO2 famine. It is very, very low" and
"More CO2 will be a very significant benefit to agriculture,"

That he is clearly in opposition of the view that CO2 emission cause a green house effect resulting in climate change. There is no reason to assume that he wasn't talking about anthropogenic climate change because that is the hot topic of debate. And finally he specifically referred to the burning of coal so you're being deliberately ignorant if you're sidestepping my question by picking on my ambiguity of "climate change"

Finally, Dr. Happer is an expert in his field. That does not make him an authority on climate change His field of study is the interaction of nuclei and spin-polarized atoms. If you can present evidence where he ties in what earned him his PhD and climate change that would be a different story. If I am an NMR/X-ray crystallography technician and I fix the machines for medical researchers, I am in the field of medicine. That does not mean I can go around diagnosing people with cancer or telling them to not take vaccines.

{ That he is clearly in opposition of the view that CO2 emission cause a green house effect resulting in climate change. }

You're looking at three sentences from a lecture about how climate change is natural and not anthropogenic. Context matters, kids.

He is agreeing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas, nobody's regulating water vapor tho), he agrees that it results in climate change, he disagrees that this is catastrophic and detrimental to us. He says that burning coal is only restoring what was previously an abundance of CO2 to the air, which was very beneficial to the plant life explosion at the time.

Dr. William Harper has long been part of JASON, which is a government advisory group that produced some of the first research towards global warming and acid rain as early as the 60s, which he was an integral part of. His primary work is with the atomic makeup of atmosphere. :|

None of that is relevant to Dr. Judith Curry's skepticism of NOAA's new temperature algorithm, so the two statements do not support or contradict each other.

The dark blue line all the way at the bottom is the average of actual observational data

Incorrect. The blue line is a best-fit prediction of observations. The only actual observations are in the bottom-left. There is no statistical certainty that the models overpredict, just the possibility that they do if future observations match that linear prediction (for which there are well-less than 30 data points). Even in your best-care scenario that they do over-predict, they do so by a relatively minor amount. The difference between 1.2 and 1.8 degrees over 80 years is meaningless, both are enormous changes in such a short time period.

You wont be able to do this, as we have also already gone over in this thread, because the vast majority of scientists who have published papers in the field refuse to endorse a specific view.

It's irrelevant if a vast majority don't (which isn't even true, this has been surveyed before and while it's not popular in America, scientists from Japan, Germany, China etc. are generally much more willing to). The vast majority of those who do stake positions say that anthropogenic climate change is real.

It’s not from the IPCC’s “global warming” study about temperature increase and has nothing to do with those models, it’s from much less contested model of sea-levels that doesn’t even consider temperature change a prominent factor.

So the models are wrong, but only as long as they are on a very specific and convenient observation matter? Get real. Here, the graph for temperature change models.

I could be a bit less lazy and not use the Skeptical Science graphics but hey, better that than graphics from the evil lying government agencies that you will reject anyways, am I right?

You’re the one without a relevant degree here, general environmental studies major.
I'm not using that as a platform of authority to make scientific claims with original research. I just happen to actually know enough to see right through your flagrant errors.

{ The blue line is a best-fit prediction of observations. }

The blue line all the way at the bottom is actual observations (the dots, the first 20 years) and an average for the future calculated based on the temperature rising at a consistent rate, which we do not see happening at all, and that's where the models fail. The early models predicted a rise in temperature correlated directly to a rise in CO2, but while we have seen an exponential rise in CO2 (especially as nations like India and China develop) we have not seen the temperature follow.

{ The difference between 1.2 and 1.8 degrees over 80 years is meaningless, both are enormous changes in such a short time period. }

Neither is anywhere near happening. Actual scientists attribute an overall net gain of ~1C per century to natural change, as gone over previously in this thread. The IPCC doesn't consider that the temperature naturally rises and falls, they looked at a hundreth degree of change over 20 years and said IF THIS CONTINUES WE'LL BE FUCKED and made a bunch of models that showed how fucked we'd be if the temperature continued at that rate. Then the temperature stopped rising at that rate and the temp-CO2 graphs stopped correlating so nicely so NOAA had to redo the math and make the pause disappear. Like I said earlier in this thread, their alarmist models are like observing the temperature from January to June and predicting it will be 300 degrees by December.

That's a grab from an IPCC vid being distributed right now to the media to report on just before the climate talks formally begin tomorrow.

What are they using as their baseline? It's the 1960-1990 average again. Why are we using that as the standard? If we look at the temperature 1000 years ago, what is the annual rate of change as compared to now? You'd see it was a hell of a lot colder than it is now, and that's been changing since way before humans started burning coal.

{ The vast majority of those who do stake positions say that anthropogenic climate change is real. }

lol okay we will have literally the same exact conversation over again because you're too smart to read what's already been posted.

Go ahead and source your claim, you can forget about responding to the rest of this post if you want, go find your "97% of scientists globally" link so we can get this over with.

Do you know why nobody sources from John Cook? Because he has been caught over and over again misrepresenting information, fiddling with graphs and data, and causing ethical outrage throughout the global science community in general. We already went over him in this thread, but again, you're too smart to read what's been posted already.

In any case, you're posting this graph in a misleading way because you don't understand that method used to generate it. Ignore the red line and look at the "model predictions". These models are based on algorithms that say any CO2 added to the modern atmosphere is 100% anthropogenic. The "natural" model is generated by a computer that says "CO2 makes the temperature rise. Additional CO2 is not natural. Remove all effects of CO2 completely and calculate temperature. Temperature will not rise when no CO2 is present." except we know that's not the case, because the temperature has ceased rising despite an even greater amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The temperature is not rising in correlation with the rising amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but accepting that means the governments of the world lose their main excuse for green taxing because the lobbying industry has made global warming its champion cause, instead of the totally anthropogenic pollution which we can see is dramatically effecting the environment.

edit: I made you guys a picture to explain.

The red line is the actual, pretend it's exactly the same in each example.

In the top pic we see the IPCC's apocalypse CO2 prediction vs the actual temps. It's apocalyptic. If it were actually happening we would see a more exact/at the very least much closer correlation on the graphs and we would also be watching the planet turn into a fucking fireball literally before our eyes.

In the middle pic is what the IPCC thinks would happen if humans stopped existing. The temperature would be totally constant and nothing would change and the planet would be pristine and preserved in this exact state until the end of time because humans aren't around to expel CO2 and ruin everything, and we are ignoring the fact that the climate has never been stable once in this planet's history, that is very important to ignore to make this graph work.

The bottom graph is how scientists that are called "skeptics" predict the climate's change naturally vs CO2. The temperature is slowly rising of its own accord, and the actual temps are slightly higher because anthropogenic CO2 has some effect in increasing the rate of climate change, but it's so insignificant it really doesn't matter and isn't worth hundreds of billions of dollars to slow down the increase a hundredth of a degree over a century.

Now, I was going to post this tomorrow at work, but since you bumped it anyway…

Here is a report from early October covering a new study by one of the worlds most renown climate change experts and a former climate modeller for Australia.

{ Dr David Evans says global warming predictions have been vastly exaggerated in error.

The academic from Perth, Australia, who has passed six degrees in applied mathematics, has analysed complex mathematical assumptions widely used to predict climate change and is predicting world temperature will stagnate until 2017 before cooling, with a 'mini ice age' by 2030.

He says fundamental flaws in how future temperatures may rise have been included in the 'standard models' and this has led to inflated mathematical – and therefore temperature – predictions.

He claims to have found two reasons for it being wrongly applied, the first being a vastly over estimated impact on our temperature from CO2.

He said: "There is no empirical evidence that rising levels of carbon dioxide will raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface as fast as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts.

"Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is.

"CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20% of the global warming in the last few decades”.

He said the other problem was the predictions had no reflection on changes that have actually been recorded and never saw the current 18-year temperature stagnation we are now in. }

The models don't predict that the temperature will fluctuate naturally. They assume the temperature will continually rise at this constant-on-average rate when we see gaps and pauses and sudden increases that don't seem to correlate with anything, much less CO2 emissions.

This is an even more recent study by another extremely regarded group of European universities and scientists who have come to the same conclusion, that the planet will be entering a mini ice age due to the sun's cycles.

{ At the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales, Northumbria University professor Valentina Zharkova said fluctuations an 11-year cycle of solar activity the sun goes through would be responsible for a freeze, the like of which has not been experienced since the 1600s.

From 1645 to 1715 global temperatures dropped due to low solar activity so much that the planet experienced a 70-year ice age known as Maunder Minimum which saw the River Thames in London completely frozen.

Research colleagues Simon Shepherd of Bradford University, Helen Popova of Lomonosov Moscow State University and Sergei Zarkhov of the University of Hull used magnetic field observations from 1976 to 2008 at the Wilcox Solar Observatory at Stanford University.

The theory appears to support claims of researchers who argue Earth will soon experience major global cooling due to lower solar activity as the sun goes into a sustained period of hibernation.

Environmentalists meanwhile claim global temperatures will increase over the period unless we drastically reduce carbon emissions. }

Please tell me more about that global consensus of anthropogenic global warming though you cow.

The Maunder Minimum says global cooling!? How dare those bastard scientists show the effects of anthropogenic climate change by keeping all other variables the same. I thought having an agenda generally meant dishonesty in presenting data?

Solar activity is going to be at a minimum? Guess that disproves CO2's impact on climate change. Your reasoning in presenting data is hilarious its like you are just searching for keywords that involve global cooling or policies and pasting whatever you find.

Global consensus of athropogenic global warming you say? I don't have a global consensus, but I've got this nature article on the subject of the Maunder Minimum that says:

"There are also large changes over sea areas on the Canadian east coast and to the east of Greenland associated with the retreat of sea ice owing to anthropogenic climate change (Fig. 4a). "

Wait a minute? Wasn't this the article you used in an earlier thread as evidence against anthropogenic climate change? Damn.

bruh will you stop trying to argue with me and actually read what's posted.

Nobody is saying the Maunder Minimum is proof of "global cooling" (media clickbait term never used by any of the scientists quoted here), they're saying the fluctuations in the sun's natural cycles that caused the Maunder Minimum are likely to happen again.

What does solar activity being at a minimum have to do with CO2s impact on climate change? They're completely different factors. You're acting exactly like the IPCC, like there is only one factor contributing to the effects of climate change.

{ Wasn’t this the article you used in an earlier thread as evidence against anthropogenic climate change? }

Again you are showing off your lack of understanding.

Anthropogenic climate change is the theory that 100% of warming is due to human activity. Opposing anthropogenic global warming doesn't mean you think humans are contributing absolutely nothing to the climate change and 100% of warming is instead natural, it means you think less than 20% can be attributed to human action and what can be attributed to human action is so insignificant overall it's not worth taking action over.

You also quoted a paragraph presenting results from a model. All of those results are hypothetical, they haven't happened yet. Their models found changes in those areas that they couldn't attribute to their theory, so it assumes anthropogenic action. That could be true, that could not be true, it's just another prediction.

hahaha check out this subheadline: { Addressing the twin threats of global warming and extremist violence, the largest group of world leaders ever to stand together kicked off two weeks of high-stakes climate talks outside Paris on Monday, saying that by striking an ambitious deal to cut emissions they can show terrorists what countries can achieve when they are united. }

'cause ISIS totally gives a fuck lmfao.

Same press release: { Ban, Hollande and other leaders called for a binding agreement and emphasized the role of private industry and money in solving what Hollande called "the climate crisis." They said the world must keep future warming to no more than another degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) from now, and if possible half that to spare island nations threatened by rising seas. }

See, they genuinely believe if humans weren't here the climate would be a total constant. The seas are historically low, there used to be an ocean over the midwest ffs. The island nations are going to have to deal with the rising seas no matter how far emissions are cut, but nobody is thinking about that. Nobody is concerned with adapting to the change or plans to respond to it, we're humans god damn it and we will control the planet!!!

>posts two online newspaper articles that say the earth's temperature will either stagnate or cool

>makes snarky condescending comment towards rikame on what the global consensus is regarding anthropogenic climate change

> I post an article from a distinguished journal that the experts acknowledge anthropogenic climate change and the effects of global warming

I read exactly what was posted. Maybe you should read what I posted more carefully.

If I have a misunderstanding of what anthropogenic climate change means, then so does the government and the WMO

"Since the beginning of the 20th century, scientists have been observing a change in the climate that can not be attributed to any of the ‘natural’ influences of the past only. "

"The following sections look at the main causes of anthropogenic (human caused) climate change (for the ‘natural’ influences on climate change, refer to the above mentioned Understanding Climate section)."

The WMO does not imply that anthropogenic means all climate change is caused solely by humans. Where do you get your definitions from? Anthropgenic climate change means just that, climate change caused by humans; one part of the whole NOT humans cause all climate change.

{ If I have a misunderstanding of what anthropogenic climate change means, then so does the government and the WMO }

That's the whole goddamn point of this thread, helllloooooooooo?!?!?
Welcome to the conversation, glad you could show up eventually.

How many times do I have to scream CONNNTEEXXXTTT before you stop posting single sentences?

{ Since the beginning of the 20th century, scientists have been observing a change in the climate that can not be attributed to any of the ‘natural’ influences of the past only. This change in the climate, also known as global warming, has occurred faster than any other climate change recorded by humans and so is of great interest and importance to the human population. }

That's the part that's up for debate among legitimate scientists. When considering the 18 year pause we don't see any warming. When we consider the fluctuations in the temperature naturally, and consider the sun's role, the net temperature gain is at the high end of a range non-government scientists consider within natural change. While the WMO alarmingly states the rate is faster than any other change recorded by humans (barely 100 years worth of useable data) the actual rate is more like "marginally faster" than any other recorded climate change, and that's why scientists say it doesn't matter and we should be focusing on adapting to it rather than trying to halt it.

edit: It is the IPCC which explicitly states (in their fifth report): { 100 percent of the global warming over the past 60 years is human-caused. } and it reports such a thing "with 95% confidence", which is hilarious.

Is your edit supposed to be your defense on anthropogenic = 100% of climate change caused by humans? Or is your defense the part where you quoted me on how the government and the MTO are wrong with their definitions? Because you took a narrow turn in another direction very quickly by talking about whether global warming happens or not.

The part of the quote you put in bold doesn't support your argument that anthropogenic climate change: {is the theory that 100% of warming is due to human activity.} It simply says global warming is increasing like never before. Maybe its 100% due to humans, maybe 5% due to humans.

You wanted to know where I got the definition for anthropogenic global warming, I edited to clarify it was from the IPCC itself, which is the main agency of focus in this thread due to their ability to gather world leaders.

{ It simply says global warming is increasing like never before. }

Which we now know is not true. For the fifth or sixth time.

15-18 years ago we thought it was true based on the theory that the temperature is rising at a constant rate. The temperature is not rising at a constant rate. The net change in temperature for the century is only marginally above what non-government scientists consider a natural rate of increase (1C), while the IPCC still thinks we will see a full 3-4C of change within the next 30 years and nearly 10C of change by 2100. The average rate of change from 1900 – 2000, by the IPCCs own admission, is slightly less than .75C, so we did pretty well.

It's the more recent development of China and India that has caused the exponential release of CO2, which the government thinks is catastrophic. Scientists acknowledge this release, acknowledge its effect on the climate, but do not think it will result in catastrophe.

On the more political end, it's developed countries like the US and UK/Europe/etc, whose economies were built on the industrial revolution's coal, who are now using this faulty data to tell India and China that they can not develop their nations with energy from coal. Yesterday in Paris, India called out the practice as "carbon imperialism" by Obama/the West.

Here's a great example of intentionally misleading speech.

Bill Nye says the Paris terrorist attacks were caused by "disaffected youth" due to water shortages because of anthropogenic climate change.

{ President Obama made headlines Monday when he said during his remarks at COP21 that the climate change conference taking place in Paris is an "act of defiance" against terrorists who attacked the city earlier this month. Later on the same day, Bill Nye took that link a step further, explaining to HuffPost Live that the brutality in Paris was "a result of climate change."

"You can make a very reasonable argument that climate change is not that indirectly related to terrorism," said Nye, who discusses global warming at length in his new book Unstoppable. "This is just the start of things. The more we let [climate change] go on, the more trouble there's going to be."

"Young people have gone to big cities looking for work. There's not enough work for everybody, so the disaffected youths, as we say -- the young people who don't believe in the system, believe the system has failed, don't believe in the economy -- are more easily engaged and more easily recruited by terrorist organizations, and then they end up part way around the world in Paris shooting people," Nye said. }

So, how did we go from "global warming causes water shortages" to "there's not enough work for everyone which pisses people off and drives them toward terrorism"? Freshwater is not exactly the liquid Syria has historically exported and built its economy around, and this whole argument hinges on that economy, not the global warming he initially attempts to guide you toward.

Freshwater shortages and rising sea levels are two issues that genuinely effect us but we're completely ignoring ways to adapt and deal with them in favor of trying to legislate the planet into halting its billions of years old climate to a dead stop. Which obviously isn't going to happen, so we'll still need to adapt and deal with these changes anyway. Unfortunate that we'll decide to get on it only after a major tragedy, just like Europe's terrorism crackdown.

I already posted this interview with top physicist Freeman Dyson, but not this section:

{ Q: If you could give your own scientific recommendations for carbon dioxide policy at COP21 in Paris, what would they be?

A: Certainly land management would be one. Particularly building up topsoil, which you can do in lots of ways. Not just growing trees, there are many things you can do which are just as good. Inducing snowfall is something you can do which hasn't been discussed very much, to keep the oceans from rising. The rise of the oceans is a real problem and while they're not rising as fast as people say, they're still rising. That could be stopped if you could arrange that it snows a bit more in Antarctica. That's something that could be quite feasible, but it's not been looked at very much. }

I don't think (hopefully…) I need to remind anyone that snow melt is the primary source of the world's freshwater and which the plains/savannas depend on to recover from their seasonal drought. Three birds with one stone here (make up for what little climate change is anthropogenic, restore freshwater, maintain sea levels), but our world leaders have gathered to discuss whose economy should most suffer the consequences of "green regulation" instead.

Nearly 200 nations approve climate accord in Paris, in what is the most nonsensical document I've read recently, as leaders demand the world divests from fossil fuels.

{ Greenpeace, major green groups and climate change researchers gave a mixed report card on the many details in the planned accord.

But they emphasised that by striving to limit warming to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-Industrial Revolution temperatures, the draft accord would have an impact.

"That single number, and the new goal of net zero emissions by the second half of this century, will cause consternation in the boardrooms of coal companies and the palaces of oil-exporting states," Naidoo predicted.

"This marks the end of the era of fossil fuels. *There is no way to meet the targets laid out in this agreement without keeping coal, oil and gas in the ground," Boeve said.*

"World leaders need to build on the momentum created by the Paris moment and move even faster and further toward a decarbonised economy." }

It literally addresses nothing but emissions. 15 years after we're confidently able to conclude the effect of CO2 on warming is disgustingly overstated and not our most pressing concern, the world's leaders get together to ban it.

This does not address the rising sea levels (they chose to throw money at the problem, with each country considered "rich" donating $100 billion to countries that are considered poor to help them… build rafts out of dollar bills to deal with the sea level rising? I honestly don't know), it does not address our rapidly depleting freshwater, it does not address the species we rely on both ecologically and economically which are rapidly disappearing from the planet (saving pandas, tho, is a multibillion dollar industry), it does not even address alternative energy sources which we're supposed to be switching to. All it does is demonize CO2 and they expect that will magically fix everything, allowing them to now completely ignore all other genuine environmental concerns.

I'll bet fucking anything 15 years from now they'll meet again and look at the exact same temperature increase as they're panicking over now (.06C since 2000) and say WOW ONLY .06C OVER FIFTEEN YEARS OUR PLAN REALLY WORKED WE HUMANS SURE ARE GREAT!

Or, even better, the "halt" we've seen over the last 15 years will end and the rate will increase, despite their accord destroying the world's economies.

Now, to further illustrate the hypocrisy of these leaders who are blatantly lying when they say they care about the future of the world, a discussion of the beef industry.

Tackling a taboo: climate activists take tender approach on meat

{ Chances are that you believe in climate change, but would be furious if someone tried to take away your steak.

"This is one of the most delicate issues with climate protection, because we all have our habits and diet is something quite holy for some people, not to be meddled with," said Jo Leinen, an omnivorous German member of the European Parliament.

Negotiators from nearly 200 countries are focusing mainly on reducing carbon dioxide output from industry in order to limit global warming, rather than on diet.

But the livestock sector is responsible for about 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, through cows producing methane and production processes – comparable to all the direct emissions from cars, planes, ships and other transport.

The British think tank Chatham House says that merely applying existing recommendations from health bodies to limit meat consumption would generate a quarter of the emissions reductions needed to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, a key target of the Paris talks. }

"plz do not touch our enormous meat profits thx u."

The beef industry is a particularly large ecological offender among the meat industry. Freshwater supply is THE most pressing concern facing the planet right now.

Beef requires more than double the next most thirsty livestock, pork. Smaller animals like chickens and ducks and rabbits are even more sustainable in terms of freshwater (also how much land we need to deforest in order to raise/graze cattle vs chickens). How many people eat rabbit regularly vs how many people have steak at least one night a week?

Consider that 92% of our freshwater footprint as humans goes to agriculture, and a third of that goes to animal products. THIS is the issue we need to focus on, but anything that threatens their profits they say is too scary and hard for people to accept so they don't want to push it.

Globally changing our individual diets and daily habits are far better contributions to sustainability than simply ending CO2 emissions. If only that was the agenda we wanted to push.

Unfortunately convincing rich people to eat crickets is rather difficult.

Rabbits and quail are great alternatives to beef and chickens without getting caveman era. You can keep 3 quail in a 1×3 foot pen on a balcony which will each lay an egg a day, which are exact replacements for chicken eggs in recipes but slightly more nutritious and obvs you need a greater quantity. Rabbits are not much harder. You don't even have to slaughter them yourself as most processing centers will do that for a few bucks. & growing food is even easier than raising it.

50% of my goal in life is to show people that we don't have to cut off electricity and stop using modern products and become vegan to be sustainable.

You have a degree in conservation and you think that sea-level rise mitigation consists of "building life rafts"?

It's funny though, must of my goal is to show people that "sustainable development" is a greenwashing term for business as usual.

lmao where did I say sea-level rise mitigation amounts to "building life rafts"?

There are no sea-level rise mitigation measures taken in this accord, there's only money thrown at it. What're the little sinking island nations gonna do with their hundreds of billions of dollars? There's no actual plan in place to deal with anything, so I sarcastically suggested they could stitch up some dolla dolla bill rafts to rebuild on top of… which is one of many legitimate ideas discussed between researchers looking for potential solutions to problems instead of signing pieces of paper, minus the part about being made out of literal money.

Now you're just being ignorant on purpose.

{ Sustainable development (SD) is a process for meeting human development goals while maintaining the ability of natural systems to continue to provide the natural resources and ecosystem services upon which the economy and society depend. }

Sustainable agriculture, sustainable energy, ecological economics, and especially sustainable/eco architecture are all examples of sustainable development.

Eco-terrorists like Greenpeace consider anything that might potentially benefit humans, without also banishing the idea of pets and domestic agriculture and enforcing mandatory veganism, to be "business as usual" which accomplishes nothing. Let's not forget that around this time last year, Greenpeace DESTROYED a World Heritage Site, which is literally right out of ISIS' book. They are radicals, and they are extreme. Not the kind of people whose speech habits I'd be mimicking.

My degree is in wildlife conservation and ecology btw, which includes my area of focus: human ecology.

It's all politics, Lisa. Not science, nor is it genuine concern for the Earth. It's politics. Practical conservation, sustainable development, all those things are puffs of smoke to the bigger picture. Why is it that almost every solution proposed to curb global warming involve increasing the power of governments to legislate industrial output and industries all together, on a global level? India is right to say that this is carbon imperialism. Because it is.

They want to create carbon-credit marketplace so companies can be buy essentially an imaginary token that has no real value or backing behind it so they can exchange it with less polluting companies??

The demands that developing markets essentially stop increasing their economies, and making the lives of their citizens better, because we, here in the rich West, want to keep our lawns green?

Meanwhile, real environmental problems like garbage, water pollution, deforestation, etc, have gone to the wayside in the realm of environmental concern. Sustainable development, adaptive technologies, hell even new sciences and resources get little to no love.

Natural Gas is and can be a massive way to clean up the atmosphere, reduce a lot of pollution, is far more cheaper and available, and can provide a lot of homes the energy necessary. Yet it is still vilified by the environmentalists.

Ever looked up at how many academically left articles there are in treating Climate Change from the perspective of Marxism?

Preachin' to the choir bruh.

{ Ever looked up at how many academically left articles there are in treating Climate Change from the perspective of Marxism? }

Climate change action lobby group SumOfUs has called on UN organisers to revoke the conference credentials “of the most disingenuous ­climate deniers”

Once a fixture, climate skeptics say they are being stifled in Paris

{ The images of skeptics being hounded by green activists also feed conservative arguments that their critics are afraid of debate. The citizens' activist group Avaaz posted more than a thousand "Wanted" posters across the city featuring the images and names of climate skeptics opposed to a global accord, accusing them of responsibility "for destruction of our future”.

Heartland spokesman James Taylor said it showed intolerance.

"The environmental movement doesn't want to have a debate; they just want to put forward a single message that everyone must adhere to," he said.

"When you try to smother different points of view, you disrespect science, and basic human rights." }

It's legitimately fucking scary how brainwashed they have the whole world, that the planet's temperature is supposed to be a constant rate, that CO2 is behind 100% of it and cutting emissions is all we need to do to fix things. It's depressing. It's worrisome. It's so obvious, yet they've got people quoting John Cook studies/graphs that are KNOWN to be misleadingly altered/blatant lies. Because if you don't agree you're guilty of crimes against the future, you're just like those old racist Republicans, they're crazy, they don't know anything, you don't want to be like them, right? You want to be like us, and condemn CO2!

French meteorologist sacked for questioning "hype" over climate change

{ Philippe Verdier, a meteorologist for France 2, announced his sacking in an online video released Saturday, in which he opened his letter of dismissal before the camera.

In the clip, he says that his book, "Climat Investigation" (Climate Investigation) had earlier led to him being "banned from being on the air, and I received this letter today.

Verdier, who rejects the label "climate skeptic," was initially taken off the air last month following a publicity tour for the book.

The book claims that scientists, politicians and the environmental lobby had generated a "hype" around climate change that amounted to a "global scandal," and made the French unnecessarily fearful. }

Those that support AGW, and I know many of them mean well. But they better be concerned above all else with the reality of their cause. For if we, as a society, begin to allocate great amount of resources, and begin to curb our industrial output, and demand the industrial output of other developing nations be lowered, all for something that is either way over graduated or outright a lie, the environmental movement, the scientific community, even those with genuine good intentions, are going to receive a massive, MASSIVE blow.

Because the reality is, the kind of solutions proposed by those that most adherently push for AGW will fundamentally re-structure how humanity operates. How our economies operates. The extent that our governments can have in said economies, and our lives. If the collective sacrifice of our well being, our comforts, our way of life, and the progress that humanity has done, is for naught, we are going to see a massive blow back.

And legitimate environmental concerns, and legitimate scientific influence over our political and legislative parts of our society will be greatly GREATLY damaged in the process.

imo, if you're going to preach AGW, you better damn be right 100%, because this isn't one of those I"m 99% sure, kind of deals. You're asking for a MASSIVE sacrifice, it better be right.

Part of the push for globalism. They're already talking about "climate refugees". Africa is already demanding reparations.

The fact that this accord goes so far is causing quite a bit of resistance from Congress here, but the White House spokesperson already reminded us in a statement that the climate accord was designed to go around Congress~

But that it goes so far is also why I don't think India and China are going to actually follow it at all tbh. Both countries would entirely collapse if they tried to go to zero emissions within 50 years and that's the truth, which would obviously have devastating effects on the rest of us. Just cutting them as initially promised for the first five years would be crippling, and not just for them, China is the world's manufacturer.

It's sacrifice in the wrong direction too, instead of becoming more sustainable and integrating those practices into our daily lives, we're putting all the pressure on manufacturers and proceeding as normal. & they're admitting that the industry that produces the largest proportion of greenhouse gas emissions is the one they're going to spare because asking people to cut back the meat in their diets and replace what meat you do eat with more sustainable livestock is just too unrealistic. They can't even enforce their own fake goals right because of the politics involved, and people think they care about the planet?