Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[allvol123]

Drivel? What exactly was drivel?

Your rambling towards the eventual no.

 

[Orange_Crush]

All I have to go on is my own experience. While it looked like your pictures for a couple of years it recovered quickly and is more suitable for wildlife. If you like I would be happy to climb the ridge and post pictures if you like.

Please do. If you completely cut down a mature hardwood forest 2-5 years ago, you do not have a hardwood forest now. Sorry. It's just impossible. You have either a thicket, or a softwood stand.

And there is no way that it is more suitable to wildlife. The wildlife that was there was firmly settled into the niche that that forest provided. The fact that you saw more deer and/or turkey is most likely the result of you drastically interrupting the food web of the niche. (Prey populations will boom in a disturbance due to the fact that they reproduce faster than predators. You probably destroyed groups of predators and the deer/turkey/etc are out-breeding the weakened predators.)

As to savanna, Catoosa wildlife management area has spent thousands of dollars to return part of it's holdings back to it was a hundred or more years ago.

I'll check into that. What is it now, by the way? Is it subdivisions or forest? if it's forest, why do you think it's forest now? Perhaps because the temperate areas of the united states naturally progress to forest?

I never claimed Tennessee wanted to revert back to Savanah but it goes to what the forestry agent said that there is more trees today than a hundred years ago.

Again... "More trees" does not equal "As much healthy forest".

I realize you obviously don't like clear cutting but many biologist and forestry people do. Just because you don't doesn't make you right. It means you have a different opinion. How bout we just agree to disagree.

I never equated this to a moral or ethical issue. As a matter of fact, in my original response to you I literally said I wasn't. I actually said feel free to go ahead and clear-cut any land you own, and that I have done the same to portions of my property.

I actually just took issue with the fallacious logic that clear-cutting helps a forest. It, by definition, doesn't do any sort. It kills a forest. It wipes it off the planet. It destroys that forest and the ecosystem it supported.

It also destroys the soil, the soil's food-web and soil life, and it washes valuable topsoil into our rivers and oceans. So we lose the valuable resource of topsoil, as well as the generations-old forest.

You can reuse the land. You can plant another ecosystem and wait for it to mature, but you killed that forest. For a forestry agent to tell you any different is ridiculous. He/she is either on drugs, got his/her degree from a Cracker Jack box, or is in the pocket of the logging industry.

Also, I wasn't calling you out, I was genuinely interested in your background.

I didn't take offense. I suspect you took offense by mistakenly thinking I called you out. Reread my original response. I have no issue with you doing whatever you want with your own property. I just took issue with what you were told, as it was blatantly false, and to continue that falsehood would be detrimental to our environment in my humble opinion.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Summer is hot... Global warming

My pool is 88 degrees today!!




Damn you global warming! Damn you Trump for pulling out of a nonbinding treaty!!!

<shakes fists in air while smoking cigars and drinking scotch>

 

[AirVol]

Summer is hot... Global warming

Haven't seen a butterfly all day.

Thanks Trump.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Please do. If you completely cut down a mature hardwood forest 2-5 years ago, you do not have a hardwood forest now. Sorry. It's just impossible. You have either a thicket, or a softwood stand.

And there is no way that it is more suitable to wildlife. The wildlife that was there was firmly settled into the niche that that forest provided. The fact that you saw more deer and/or turkey is most likely the result of you drastically interrupting the food web of the niche. (Prey populations will boom in a disturbance due to the fact that they reproduce faster than predators. You probably destroyed groups of predators and the deer/turkey/etc are out-breeding the weakened predators.)



I'll check into that. What is it now, by the way? Is it subdivisions or forest? if it's forest, why do you think it's forest now? Perhaps because the temperate areas of the united states naturally progress to forest?



Again... "More trees" does not equal "As much healthy forest".



I never equated this to a moral or ethical issue. As a matter of fact, in my original response to you I literally said I wasn't. I actually said feel free to go ahead and clear-cut any land you own, and that I have done the same to portions of my property.

I actually just took issue with the fallacious logic that clear-cutting helps a forest. It, by definition, doesn't do any sort. It kills a forest. It wipes it off the planet. It destroys that forest and the ecosystem it supported.

It also destroys the soil, the soil's food-web and soil life, and it washes valuable topsoil into our rivers and oceans. So we lose the valuable resource of topsoil, as well as the generations-old forest.

You can reuse the land. You can plant another ecosystem and wait for it to mature, but you killed that forest. For a forestry agent to tell you any different is ridiculous. He/she is either on drugs, got his/her degree from a Cracker Jack box, or is in the pocket of the logging industry.



I didn't take offense. I suspect you took offense by mistakenly thinking I called you out. Reread my original response. I have no issue with you doing whatever you want with your own property. I just took issue with what you were told, as it was blatantly false, and to continue that falsehood would be detrimental to our environment in my humble opinion.

It's been close to ten years now but I'll see if I can hike up there. You are dead wrong imo about wildlife and clear cuts, specifically deer and turkey. Just as you mentioned a clear cut initially creates a thicket. A ticket provides cover and food for both deer and turkey. As an avid hunter for 40 years, I would never hunt open timber for deer or turkey. I always hunt around thickets because that's their house. Clear cutting is absolutely beneficial to wildlife within a year or two. It offers a smorgasbord of food that wouldn't be available otherwise. Ask any game biologist and he'll tell you the same.

Our clearcut was different than most we cut a narrow swath of trees about 100 feet wide along a Ridge top. Probably close to 1/2 mile long. The filled in rather rapidly. The canopy from surrounding trees as well as a few small trees that remained filled in as well. As I said before it achieved 100% of my goals and expectations. I would do it again without reservation.

We might see a deer run by once in a blue moon. Within 2 years they were grazing in our yard. Turkeys were even more an anomaly and while not as prevalent we usually have one or two that nest behind our house every spring to hatch there young. In the fall I see flocks of 30 or more.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

This tells me it's not about the science.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3496376/trump-negotiate-paris-climate-european-countries-no/



No such thing as treaty provisions that cannot be renegotiated.

I knew this was a bad deal, but the way these countries and personalities are belly aching about it only indicates that this mut have been some next level con job.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It's been close to ten years now but I'll see if I can hike up there. You are dead wrong imo about wildlife and clear cuts, specifically deer and turkey. Just as you mentioned a clear cut initially creates a thicket. A ticket provides cover and food for both deer and turkey. As an avid hunter for 40 years, I would never hunt open timber for deer or turkey. I always hunt around thickets because that's their house. Clear cutting is absolutely beneficial to wildlife within a year or two. It offers a smorgasbord of food that wouldn't be available otherwise. Ask any game biologist and he'll tell you the same.

Our clearcut was different than most we cut a narrow swath of trees about 100 feet wide along a Ridge top. Probably close to 1/2 mile long. The filled in rather rapidly. The canopy from surrounding trees as well as a few small trees that remained filled in as well. As I said before it achieved 100% of my goals and expectations. I would do it again without reservation.

We might see a deer run by once in a blue moon. Within 2 years they were grazing in our yard. Turkeys were even more an anomaly and while not as prevalent we usually have one or two that nest behind our house every spring to hatch there young. In the fall I see flocks of 30 or more.

I won't continue the debate. This will be my last post on the subject, but I'll use it to say that I am not wrong about "helping" the wildlife via clear-cutting. You can not, by definition, "help" the wildlife ecosystem by destroying that ecosystem. You can't. It's impossible.

The fact that you think you "helped" the wildlife ecosystem b/c you see more deer and/or turkey is just proof that you misunderstand what the wildlife ecosystem is.

The fact that you see more of them is proof that you changed the balance. You value deer and turkey? So you think you helped it? If you were somehow able to ask any number of other wildlife species that paid the price for the destruction their niche? Would their opinion differ?


What isn't arguable is that you destroyed an ecosystem. That doesn't "improve the wildlife" of that ecosystem.

ETA: Nature "naturally" progresses to healthy balance in wildlife and ecosystems. Man always thinks it helps when we come in and effectively destroy that balance. We never do, even if we (most often temporarily) see what we could consider a benefit for ourselves.

:hi:

 

[InVOLuntary]

As to the OK Savanna restoration project, I Googled but didn't find much. UT was involved. There is some literature out there. What it looks like now is a bunch of open area with Oaks, primarily white Oaks, here and there. There is some native grasses but mostly briar patches. The continue to burn it ever so often I think to keep it as much as grass as possible.

 

[Orange_Crush]

As to the OK Savanna restoration project, I Googled but didn't find much. UT was involved. There is some literature out there. What it looks like now is a bunch of open area with Oaks, primarily white Oaks, here and there. There is some native grasses but mostly briar patches. The continue to burn it ever so often I think to keep it as much as grass as possible.

Thanks. They burn it as a disturbance to impede its natural progression to forest, which is what the first Europeans to ever see that land would have most likely seen.

:hi:

 

[InVOLuntary]

I won't continue arguing with you. This will be my last post on the subject, but I'll use it to say that I am not wrong about "helping" the wildlife via clear-cutting. You can not, by definition, "help" the wildlife ecosystem by destroying that ecosystem. You can't. It's impossible.

The fact that you think you "helped" the wildlife ecosystem b/c you see more deer and/or turkey is just proof that you misunderstand what the wildlife ecosystem is.

The fact that you see more of them is proof that you changed the balance. You value deer and turkey? So you think you helped it? If you were somehow able to ask any number of other wildlife species that paid the price for the destruction their niche? Would their opinion differ?


What isn't arguable is that you destroyed an ecosystem. That doesn't "improve the wildlife" of that ecosystem.

:hi:

All I did was what nature does over a longer period of time. It absolutely helped the wildlife. Did it hurt some species. I'm sure it did, although I don't know which ones. We have squirrels, rabbits, deer, turkey, snakes, foxes, coyotes, pileated Wood peckers, small red headed Wood peckers (both of which do a number on my cedar siding), pesky ground hogs, and I usually go to sleep each night with the sounds of a bard owl right outside my bedroom window. Sure, I may have changed the dynamics of that echo system. But, was it significant? In my opinion no.:hi:

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Show me an example of it done once. Accurate prediction with evidence man's behavior caused the result.

Aral Sea. It's gone. Mankind did it. Changed the whole region's climate and wrecked ecosystems, livelyhoods (especially fishing which it killed) and lives.

The dust storms over the dry seabed pick up remains of toxic fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides and spread it over towns that used to be seaside. A mother's milk could kill her own baby inside two weeks.

research Aral Sea Disaster

 

[Persian Vol]

Your rambling towards the eventual no.

If you think that is rambling, learn how to read.

 

[BartW]

So what part of the art of the deal involves trading all the leverage in the world for absolutely nothing?

Let’s clear up a few things. The Donald’s decision is not about climate change, coal miners, or the American economy. It’s not about renegotiating a “better deal” for America. I see a few of you whining that Italy, Germany, and France don’t want to ‘renegotiate’. That’s a delay tactic; we’ve been negotiating for decades. What is there to renegotiate? All of the commitments are voluntary. The only thing the Paris Climate Agreement asks is that each country have an emissions reductions goal, submit its plan detailing how it will reach said emissions reduction goal, and that countries get together to review their progress every five years. The $3 billion commitment to the Green Climate Fund, of which we only paid out $1 billion, is not going to wreck our economy. China, who already spends much more money investing in clean energy than the US, had already committed $3.1 billion (that’s right, they’re paying in, not cashing out). China and Europe have already stated they will step up to fill the void left by the US. Considering we managed to negotiate “Loss and Damage” out of the PCA in exchange for the GCF, that really was already a great deal for the world’s historically largest CO2 emitter.

And remember, the commitments were VOLUNTARY. If Trump wanted to “renegotiate” the deal, he could have simply resubmitted a far less ambitious plan (like Russia) and not sent any money to the GCF, while maintaining a seat at the table. This was not about an imaginary burden on the US economy. As this insightful piece puts it

No, Trump’s abrupt withdrawal from this carefully crafted multilateral compromise was a diplomatic and political slap: It was about extending a middle finger to the world, while reminding his base that he shares its resentments of fancy-pants elites and smarty-pants scientists and tree-hugging squishes who look down on real Americans who drill for oil and dig for coal. He was thrusting the United States into the role of global renegade, rejecting not only the scientific consensus about climate but the international consensus for action, joining only Syria and Nicaragua (which wanted an even greener deal) in refusing to help the community of nations address a planetary problem. Congress doesn’t seem willing to pay for Trump’s border wall—and Mexico certainly isn’t—so rejecting the Paris deal was an easier way to express his Fortress America themes without having to pass legislation.

Trump was keeping a campaign promise, and his Rose Garden announcement was essentially a campaign speech; it was not by accident that he name-dropped the cities of Youngstown, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, factory towns in the three Rust Belt states that carried him to victory. Trump’s move won’t have much impact on emissions in the short term, and probably not even in the long term. His claims that the Paris agreement would force businesses to lay off workers and consumers to pay higher energy prices were transparently bogus, because a nonbinding agreement wouldn’t force anything. But Trump’s move to abandon it will have a huge impact on the global community’s view of America, and of a president who would rather troll the free world than lead it.

Trumpites think we’re putting the coal miners back to work. Trump loves "clean, clean, coal", right? Wrong. He proposed cutting 85% of DoE’s budget for carbon capture technology, the only thing that could possibly make coal viable in the long term (and that’s still decades away if it ever materializes). But ditching climate change efforts will totally bring back coal jobs right?

Top US coal boss Robert Murray: Trump 'can't bring mining jobs back'

Coal has been on a downward spiral for decades and is dying out now due to competition from cheap natural gas and alternatives, not because of Obama, not because of Paris. And even if Trump managed to slow coal’s death spiral, it wouldn’t help the coal miners. For years’ coal’s business model has been to extract more coal with fewer people. Mechanization. And if it’s about jobs, why are we trying to revive an industry that employs fewer people than Arby’s. Heck, solar alone already employs twice as many people as coal. One sector is growing rapidly and the other… not so much.

So what have we accomplished? We’ve alienated our allies in the international community. We’ve lost whatever respect and influence we still had. We lost our ability to hold other countries accountable under the PCA. We are surrendering our position as a leader in the future energy economy. We are no longer the leaders of the free world. For what? Donald Trump gave up all that political capital for what? Art of the deal LOL


On the bright side, this will finally thrust the climate change issue into the spotlight in the US. Apparently the Donald has indicated that they will do the 4 year withdrawal from the PCA but not the UNFCCC. That means the earliest the US could withdraw is Nov. 4, 2020 – the day after the next presidential election.

 

[GAVol]

I knew this was a bad deal, but the way these countries and personalities are belly aching about it only indicates that this mut have been some next level con job.

Agreed. This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with economics.

 

[AM64]

I knew this was a bad deal, but the way these countries and personalities are belly aching about it only indicates that this mut have been some next level con job.

Yep, and their bad luck that we just got rid of the stupid sap who fell for it - that's giving Obama the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't an out and out traitor. We've defended Europe, given China and a few others our industry, and the old regime was still planning on giving away any remaining assets. We don't need foreign enemies; we've got our own government and globalists.

 

[InVOLuntary]

So what part of the art of the deal involves trading all the leverage in the world for absolutely nothing?

Let’s clear up a few things. The Donald’s decision is not about climate change, coal miners, or the American economy. It’s not about renegotiating a “better deal” for America. I see a few of you whining that Italy, Germany, and France don’t want to ‘renegotiate’. That’s a delay tactic; we’ve been negotiating for decades. What is there to renegotiate? All of the commitments are voluntary. The only thing the Paris Climate Agreement asks is that each country have an emissions reductions goal, submit its plan detailing how it will reach said emissions reduction goal, and that countries get together to review their progress every five years. The $3 billion commitment to the Green Climate Fund, of which we only paid out $1 billion, is not going to wreck our economy. China, who already spends much more money investing in clean energy than the US, had already committed $3.1 billion (that’s right, they’re paying in, not cashing out). China and Europe have already stated they will step up to fill the void left by the US. Considering we managed to negotiate “Loss and Damage” out of the PCA in exchange for the GCF, that really was already a great deal for the world’s historically largest CO2 emitter.

And remember, the commitments were VOLUNTARY. If Trump wanted to “renegotiate” the deal, he could have simply resubmitted a far less ambitious plan (like Russia) and not sent any money to the GCF, while maintaining a seat at the table. This was not about an imaginary burden on the US economy. As this insightful piece puts it



Trumpites think we’re putting the coal miners back to work. Trump loves "clean, clean, coal", right? Wrong. He proposed cutting 85% of DoE’s budget for carbon capture technology, the only thing that could possibly make coal viable in the long term (and that’s still decades away if it ever materializes). But ditching climate change efforts will totally bring back coal jobs right?

Top US coal boss Robert Murray: Trump 'can't bring mining jobs back'

Coal has been on a downward spiral for decades and is dying out now due to competition from cheap natural gas and alternatives, not because of Obama, not because of Paris. And even if Trump managed to slow coal’s death spiral, it wouldn’t help the coal miners. For years’ coal’s business model has been to extract more coal with fewer people. Mechanization. And if it’s about jobs, why are we trying to revive an industry that employs fewer people than Arby’s. Heck, solar alone already employs twice as many people as coal. One sector is growing rapidly and the other… not so much.

So what have we accomplished? We’ve alienated our allies in the international community. We’ve lost whatever respect and influence we still had. We lost our ability to hold other countries accountable under the PCA. We are surrendering our position as a leader in the future energy economy. We are no longer the leaders of the free world. For what? Donald Trump gave up all that political capital for what? Art of the deal LOL


On the bright side, this will finally thrust the climate change issue into the spotlight in the US. Apparently the Donald has indicated that they will do the 4 year withdrawal from the PCA but not the UNFCCC. That means the earliest the US could withdraw is Nov. 4, 2020 – the day after the next presidential election.

Three questions:

Why do we need to pay $1 into this organization?
Why can't we set our own guidelines for reduced emissions?
If China is all that gall darn excited about doing there part, why are they exempt until 2030?

 

[BartW]

I see the usual suspects have taken this opportunity to parade their ignorance. I need to just start a catalog of PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times) with links to this thread. Someday when I have the time and patience for this again…

If you grew up in the 80's you heard all about global warming and the hole in the ozone layer. Hell, some movies even tapped in to the fear campaign. Highlander 2 was all about the ozone layer disappearing and the earth being f'ed. I think they said by 2000 it was supposed to be gone. Riding the coattails of enviro fear campaigns to make a buck. Climate fear mongers have been pulling these shenanigans for decades.

In the 60's, 70. and early 80's the next ice age was going to happen by 2020.
By 2000 billions were to have starved to death because of worldwide famine caused by green house gases.

Citation please? Or are you setting up strawmen?

The ozone problem was averted because of a very successful international treaty, the Montreal Protocol. We managed to work together to cut pollution and it didn’t even *destroy the economy* like the chicken littles on the right argued would happen. The whole ‘70s global cooling talking point is utterly asinine. Some scientists had considered the potential effects of continued increases in sulfate emissions, which instead decreased due to, among other factors, the Clean Air Act. Sulfates do have a cooling influence. This research does not mean the scientific community anticipated a coming ice age. Sorry if you were fooled by Time magazine or whatever.

The 80's saw global warming become a thing and it went into the 90's yet there was never any real evidence to support those theories.

Actually, global warming “became a thing” in the 1800s. John Tyndall discovered the radiative properties of greenhouse gases in 1859, the year Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species. Nobel prize winning chemist Svante Arrhenius first calculated the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 in 1896. It’s not a new environmental science invented to ride on the coattails of the ozone crisis as you suggest. There was a scientific consensus on climate change by the time of the 1979 National Academy of Sciences report. That was 38 years ago. It has only grown stronger since.

In the 90's the US was supposed to suffer catastrophic drought and crop failure resulting in widespread "food riots" according to some nutters.

In the early 2000's climate nuts were claiming in 20 years there wouldn't be anymore snow..the polar ice caps are supposed to already have melted and decimated coastal regions.

NYC is supposed to be under water.

Disney World is not supposed to exist anymore.

Hurricanes were supposed to go crazy (Florida hadn't had one in almost 11 years until last October).

Widespread drought (lowest levels in decades) in the US..

Citations or gtfo

Honestly I can't think of one thing climate nutters have claimed that ever has been proven correct beyond a shadow of a doubt. 50 years of fear mongering and no end in site even as prediction after prediction comes up empty. I wonder if they use some sort of Aztec end of the world climate calendar?

Oh, and the climate nutters who predicated the above? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)..the UN group who wants to control the worlds climate decisions. They or their members made every statement I mentioned above at some point in time.

Please, I would love to see you cite the IPCC. How exactly did the IPCC make every statement you mentioned above, when the IPCC did not even exist until the 1990s. You’re FOS.

And to the point, there have been numerous accurate predictions by climate scientists. They accurately predicted a cooling stratosphere as a result of the greenhouse effect (something BOT apparently still hasn’t digested). They accurately predicted that temperatures in the arctic would increase at 2-3x the rate of the global average. They correctly predicted that the tropopause, the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, would rise. I could go on.

As for the IPCC, their projections have largely proven conservative. Observed sea level rise is faster than IPCC projections. Arctic sea ice loss is faster than IPCC projections. Observed surface temperature rise is right in line with IPCC projections (as well as Hansen’s congressional testimony, and, not that far off from Arrhenius pen and paper calculations in the 1800s).

Everything I stated is from the ICCP and people who helped form it. Some of them went to Princeton so..take it with a grain of salt. This is a message board, not a thesis paper. The intent is for others interested in learning the crazy of climate science that has been going on for a long, long time, they can do the leg work. Unlike what many have been taught, you aren't going to have someone holding your hand to get you through everything forever..

Lol such a copout. Please, cite the ‘ICCP’.

 

[AM64]

Aral Sea. It's gone. Mankind did it. Changed the whole region's climate and wrecked ecosystems, livelyhoods (especially fishing which it killed) and lives.

The dust storms over the dry seabed pick up remains of toxic fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides and spread it over towns that used to be seaside. A mother's milk could kill her own baby inside two weeks.

research Aral Sea Disaster

Research how the USSR treated non Russian land within their sphere of influence vs how we treat our land - not saying Monsanto, Conagra, ADM, et al haven't done their bit.

 

[BartW]

Indeed and strengthens his point.

Weather, a short time period, can be reasonably predicted. But even in a short prediction...say 7 days, you begin to see less and less accuracy the more days they go out.

Climate, weather over a long period, would be exponentially more difficult to predict.

Difference between weather and Climate, is time. Go play with your buddies at NASA if you have a problem with that.

.

We’ve covered the weather vs. climate topic several times so forgive my laziness. I’ll just leave a couple of links with some good analogies:

Initial value vs. boundary value problems

Chaos and Climate

Imagine a pot of boiling water. A weather forecast is like the attempt to predict where the next bubble is going to rise (physically this is an initial value problem). A climate statement would be that the average temperature of the boiling water is 100ºC at normal pressure, while it is only 90ºC at 2,500 meters altitude in the mountains, due to the lower pressure (that is a boundary value problem)

The difference between weather and climate

A good analogy of the difference between weather and climate is to consider a swimming pool. Imagine that the pool is being slowly filled. If someone dives in there will be waves. The waves are weather, and the average water level is the climate. A diver jumping into the pool the next day will create more waves, but the water level (aka the climate) will be higher as more water flows into the pool.

In the atmosphere the water hose is increasing greenhouse gases. They will cause the climate to warm but we will still have changing weather (waves). Climate scientists use models to forecast the average water level in the pool, not the waves.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBdxDFpDp_k[/youtube]

 

[Orange_Crush]

Three questions:

Why do we need to pay $1 into this organization?
Why can't we set our own guidelines for reduced emissions?
If China is all that gall darn excited about doing there part, why are they exempt until 2030?

The left wants to redistribute wealth. This agreement was not about the environment, it was about redistributing whatever wealth America can print. Other than that, it's useless to have partisan debates with said left on the matter.

I rarely ever say this, but here goes... Good job President Trump.

 

[Biopsyman]

The left wants to redistribute wealth. This agreement was not about the environment, it was about redistributing whatever wealth America can print. Other than that, it's useless to have partisan debates with said left on the matter.

I rarely ever say this, but here goes... Good job President Trump.

And they love central love central planning in every aspect of someone's life from the womb to the tomb...Govt is good and individuals choice and freedom is bad

 

[FLVOL_79]

I see the usual suspects have taken this opportunity to parade their ignorance. I need to just start a catalog of PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times) with links to this thread. Someday when I have the time and patience for this again…

Citation please? Or are you setting up strawmen?

The ozone problem was averted because of a very successful international treaty, the Montreal Protocol. We managed to work together to cut pollution and it didn’t even *destroy the economy* like the chicken littles on the right argued would happen. The whole ‘70s global cooling talking point is utterly asinine. Some scientists had considered the potential effects of continued increases in sulfate emissions, which instead decreased due to, among other factors, the Clean Air Act. Sulfates do have a cooling influence. This research does not mean the scientific community anticipated a coming ice age. Sorry if you were fooled by Time magazine or whatever.

Actually, global warming “became a thing” in the 1800s. John Tyndall discovered the radiative properties of greenhouse gases in 1859, the year Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species. Nobel prize winning chemist Svante Arrhenius first calculated the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 in 1896. It’s not a new environmental science invented to ride on the coattails of the ozone crisis as you suggest. There was a scientific consensus on climate change by the time of the 1979 National Academy of Sciences report. That was 38 years ago. It has only grown stronger since.

Citations or gtfo

Please, I would love to see you cite the IPCC. How exactly did the IPCC make every statement you mentioned above, when the IPCC did not even exist until the 1990s. You’re FOS.

And to the point, there have been numerous accurate predictions by climate scientists. They accurately predicted a cooling stratosphere as a result of the greenhouse effect (something BOT apparently still hasn’t digested). They accurately predicted that temperatures in the arctic would increase at 2-3x the rate of the global average. They correctly predicted that the tropopause, the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, would rise. I could go on.

As for the IPCC, their projections have largely proven conservative. Observed sea level rise is faster than IPCC projections. Arctic sea ice loss is faster than IPCC projections. Observed surface temperature rise is right in line with IPCC projections (as well as Hansen’s congressional testimony, and, not that far off from Arrhenius pen and paper calculations in the 1800s).

Lol such a copout. Please, cite the ‘ICCP’.

IPCC was created in 1988. If you read what I said they either said those things were going to happen or people in their organization said, aka before ICCP was created.

Now use google or get the f### out of here.

Oh..here you go https://www.ipcc.ch/

And go on with your examples because they literally prove NOTHING. Show me a natural disaster that took massive amounts of human life directly related to climate change. Don't work too hard I already know the answer..you can't.

 

[FLVOL_79]

.

"Weather is chaotic"

"We can't observe climate directly".

"All we see is weather"..

"Average weather over a course of years reveals a pattern = climate"

Yep..

 

[golfballs]

Not settled.

Solid theories =/= settled.

The methodology of science is to continue to try to falsify their theories. It never confirms theories. Shout-out to Popper.

Bingo

And not that I'm a scientist or anything, but merely understanding the principles of the scientific process leads me to be extremely skeptical of those who call it "settled science". Doubling down when skeptics get name-called: "deniers" or "anti-science"

 

[FLVOL_79]

Bingo

And not that I'm a scientist or anything, but merely understanding the principles of the scientific process leads me to be extremely skeptical of those who call it "settled science". Doubling down when skeptics get name-called: "deniers" or "anti-science"

People who say settled science = love purple nikes and cyanide koolaid.