Green new deal equals magical thinking

[billvon 2,394]

I use the term 'climate change denial' to delineate a very specific position taken in this debate.  It refers to people who have no consistent scientific position on climate change; the only thing consistent in their approach is denial of any negative aspect of climate change, a political position created in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change, which the right wing sees as supporting democrats.

This is very different than the position of some scientists studying the phenomenon.  Several have taken issue with the claim that climate change will intensify most storms, for example, and are working to demonstrate that.  I have respect for such scientists because they are trying to further our understanding of climate change, relying on science to do so.  I have a lot less respect for people who deny things to support their political agendas.

One of the characteristics of climate change denial is a rapid and careless changing of scientific positions to support their agenda.  The classic progression is "there's no such thing as climate change!" "Of course there's climate change but we didn't do it!  Climate changes all the time!"  "Look, maybe we did it, but the changes will all be good!"

We see that classic progression here in this thread.  First we see the "it's not warming" argument:

"Warmer climate?"

"a below average Jan-March."

" . .  the 13th coldest April on record  . . Record and near-record cold temperatures  . . "

"As I have already shown, global temperatures are dropping as well."

Next, with no justification or explanation, that position is discarded and a new one presented:

"I would not expect alarmists to believe me . . ."

"I hope we can all agree that global warming and a loss of Arctic sea ice is, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing."

"The facts stand for themselves: record food production . . ."

From "there's no warming" to "everyone can agree that we are seeing warming/melting ice, and it is good" in a few posts.

That's one of the primary reasons that climate change deniers aren't taken seriously; they don't care much about the science, and they don't even really have a fixed scientific position to begin with.  It changes by the day.

[brenthutch 383]

4 hours ago, kallend said:

 

And just like that, the goalposts are moved again.

I just wanted to make things less confusing, that is why I omitted the falling global temperatures.  

[yobnoc 142]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

I use the term 'climate change denial' to delineate a very specific position taken in this debate.  It refers to people who have no consistent scientific position on climate change; the only thing consistent in their approach is denial of any negative aspect of climate change, a political position created in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change, which the right wing sees as supporting democrats.

This is very different than the position of some scientists studying the phenomenon.  Several have taken issue with the claim that climate change will intensify most storms, for example, and are working to demonstrate that.  I have respect for such scientists because they are trying to further our understanding of climate change, relying on science to do so.  I have a lot less respect for people who deny things to support their political agendas.

One of the characteristics of climate change denial is a rapid and careless changing of scientific positions to support their agenda.  The classic progression is "there's no such thing as climate change!" "Of course there's climate change but we didn't do it!  Climate changes all the time!"  "Look, maybe we did it, but the changes will all be good!"

We see that classic progression here in this thread.  First we see the "it's not warming" argument:

"Warmer climate?"

"a below average Jan-March."

" . .  the 13th coldest April on record  . . Record and near-record cold temperatures  . . "

"As I have already shown, global temperatures are dropping as well."

Next, with no justification or explanation, that position is discarded and a new one presented:

"I would not expect alarmists to believe me . . ."

"I hope we can all agree that global warming and a loss of Arctic sea ice is, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing."

"The facts stand for themselves: record food production . . ."

From "there's no warming" to "everyone can agree the warming is good" in a few posts.

That's one of the primary reasons that climate change deniers aren't taken seriously; they don't care much about the science, and they don't even really have a fixed scientific position to begin with.  It changes by the day.

^THIS

[brenthutch 383]

Nothing I have put forward is my opinion, it is all well documented.  For the last three decades we have been promised eminent disaster unless drastic measures were taken, yet no measures were taken and CO2 has risen even faster than the most dire predictions.  Results? A big nothing burger.  I will simplify yet again:

No increase in the number, intensity or duration of floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes or wildfires.

Try to wrap your brains around that little inconvenient truth.

[wmw999 2,120]

The selections of which opinion to evaluate, or to include in a dataset, is an opinion. 

Wendy P. 

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Have there been any solid scientific predictions of "eminient disaster"?  Or hype by politicians and media?

 

And the number and severity of wildfires throughout the world has increased and is increasing. There is more than one reason for this, but AGW is one of the more significant ones.

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Have there been any solid scientific predictions of "eminient disaster"?  Or hype by politicians and media?

 

And the number and severity of wildfires throughout the world has increased and is increasing. There is more than one reason for this, but AGW is one of the more significant ones.

Source?

As far as scientists predicting eminent disaster?  How about James Hanson, Paul Ehrlich and Michael Mann?

Edited May 13, 2019 by brenthutch

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Source?

As far as scientists predicting eminent disaster?  How about James Hanson, Paul Ehrlich and Michael Mann?

Google it. It's all over. I'll start including footnotes when you do.

https://www.google.com/search?ei=C6fYXM-APYiWsgXgwJDIAg&q=wildfires+increasing&oq=wildfires+increasing&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i71l8.16809.18580..18777...0.0..0.0.0.......0....1..gws-wiz.A8MoZB7yxEE

And do you know the difference between 'Eminent' and 'Imminent"?

[billvon 2,394]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

 For the last three decades we have been promised eminent disaster unless drastic measures were taken, yet no measures were taken and CO2 has risen even faster than the most dire predictions.  

I assume you mean "imminent."

And while someone may have promised _you_ imminent disaster, the IPCC has been predicting CO2 level increases, temperature increases, sea level changes and ocean acidification.  And they have been largely right - no matter how much you try to deny it.

[gowlerk 1,904]

9 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I just wanted to make things less confusing, that is why I omitted the falling global temperatures.  

I can't speak for everyone here, but try as you might you have not and will not confuse me.

[brenthutch 383]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

I assume you mean "imminent."

And while someone may have promised _you_ imminent disaster, the IPCC has been predicting CO2 level increases, temperature increases, sea level changes and ocean acidification.  And they have been largely right - no matter how much you try to deny it.

Yes I meant to say imminent 

 

1990 IPCC FAR: “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases … this will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025.” See here, page xi.

Reality check: From 1990 to 2017 (first 8 months) the increase in temperatures has been 0.31 to 0.49°C depending on the database used. CO2emissions have tracked the Business as Usual scenario.

1981 James Hansen, NASA scientist, predicted a global warming of “almost unprecedented magnitude” in the next century that might even be sufficient to melt and dislodge the ice cover of West Antarctica, eventually leading to a worldwide rise of 15 to 20 feet in the sea level. 

Reality check: Since 1993 (24 years) we have totaled 72 mm (3 inches) of sea level rise instead of the 4 feet that corresponds to one-fourth of a century. The alarming prediction is more than 94% wrong, so far.

As far as ocean acidification is concerned, there is no mention of it in the IPCC's first assessment.  That boogie man was concocted when the other predictions started to fail.

 

 

 

Edited May 13, 2019 by brenthutch

[lippy 771]

John Oliver talked about the GND last night, I thought it worth 20 minutes...If you're the least bit a fan of Bill Nye, the last minute is worth it!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDcro7dPqpA

[DJL 232]

On 5/10/2019 at 6:53 PM, brenthutch said:

I would not expect alarmists to believe me, that is why I sited NOAA

So to be clear (for the 10th time asking this question), do you think that NOAA is a reputable source for issues regarding climate change?

[turtlespeed 212]

6 minutes ago, DJL said:

So to be clear (for the 10th time asking this question), do you think that NOAA is a reputable source for issues regarding climate change?

Aren't those the weather guys?

[brenthutch 383]

35 minutes ago, DJL said:

So to be clear (for the 10th time asking this question), do you think that NOAA is a reputable source for issues regarding climate change?

If I use any other source such as UHA, you guys have problems.  On a side note NOAA did claim a record high temperature in an area in Africa where no actual measurement was taken.  So I do have a problem with their use of models to fill in the blank spots

[billvon 2,394]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Yes I meant to say imminent 

 

1990 IPCC FAR: “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases … this will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025.” See here, page xi.

Reality check: From 1990 to 2017 (first 8 months) the increase in temperatures has been 0.31 to 0.49°C depending on the database used. CO2emissions have tracked the Business as Usual scenario.

 

Here's the actual text:

An average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2—0.5°C per decade) assuming the IPCC Scenario A (Business-as-Usual) emissions of greenhouse gases; this is a more rapid increase than seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in the global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 . . .

Reality - In the past 5 decades we have seen rates accelerate from .1 degree C per decade to the current value of .265 degrees C per decade.  So they are close to dead on in terms of rate.

Likewise, in 2016 the temperature was .94C above the 1950-1981 baseline.  If we see another .06C of warming in the next 6 years they will be, again, dead on.

And that's just the first assessment, started in 1985 and completed in 1990.  Predictions have gotten ever more accurate since then.

Quote

 

1981 James Hansen, NASA scientist, predicted a global warming of “almost unprecedented magnitude” in the next century that might even be sufficient to melt and dislodge the ice cover of West Antarctica, eventually leading to a worldwide rise of 15 to 20 feet in the sea level. 

Reality check: Since 1993 (24 years) we have totaled 72 mm (3 inches) of sea level rise instead of the 4 feet that corresponds to one-fourth of a century. The alarming prediction is more than 94% wrong, so far.

 

We were talking about the IPCC, not James Hansen.  The IPCC is predicting about half a meter rise (500mm) by 2100, not "15-20 feet."

Quote

As far as ocean acidification is concerned, there is no mention of it in the IPCC's first assessment.  

Right, nor did I claim there was.  The IPCC did not start working on ocean acidification until ~2011.

 

 

 

[brenthutch 383]

18 minutes ago, billvon said:

The IPCC did not start working on ocean acidification until ~2011.

 

 

 

As I said, when their predictions of floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires failed to materialize.

[billvon 2,394]

Just now, brenthutch said:

As I said, when their predictions of floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires failed to materialize.

Since I lived through the Cedar fire in 2003, I will just smile and nod and let you have your "beliefs."

[brenthutch 383]

23 minutes ago, billvon said:

Since I lived through the Cedar fire in 2003, I will just smile and nod and let you have your "beliefs."

an·ec·do·tal

/ˌanəkˈdōdl/

adjective

1. (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

[normiss 622]

2 hours ago, DJL said:

So to be clear (for the 10th time asking this question), do you think that NOAA is a reputable source for issues regarding climate change?

Working an air show demo during a gooberment shutdown, while NOAA was closed.

So we received our weather briefings from Noah, with the NWS.

[normiss 622]

49 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

an·ec·do·tal

/ˌanəkˈdōdl/

adjective

1. (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

It appears to me the /s was silently inclusive in his post.

 

[wmw999 2,120]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

an·ec·do·tal

/ˌanəkˈdōdl/

adjective

1. (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

That’s kind of cute. 

If it agrees with your position, it’s data. If it doesn’t, it’s an anecdote. 

Wendy P. 

[kallend 1,623]

Meanwhile, atmospheric CO2 reaches a new high:

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/443389-carbon-dioxide-levels-hit-new-landmark-at-415-ppm-highest-in-human

[brenthutch 383]

30 minutes ago, kallend said:

Meanwhile, atmospheric CO2 reaches a new high:

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/443389-carbon-dioxide-levels-hit-new-landmark-at-415-ppm-highest-in-human

Resulting in shrinking deserts and growing food production.

[DJL 232]

11 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Resulting in shrinking deserts and growing food production.

Would you mind reposting your source for that?