The 2018 UN Climate Report

[babe]

"Which one do I believe in? Hegel, Marx, and Rousseau had incompatible principles, after all."

of course no one expects these to have perfect agreement, but they have provided a sort of intellectual smorgasbord that is pulled into whatever opinions anyone has today which are not.... say.... religious exactly. And even then..... to some extent.

Where is Siro when we need him?

 

[babe]

We have *much* better data today. That's why we had dozens of contradictory hypotheses in the 1970s, and a consensus today.

We have a lot more data..... needs appropriate analysis for accuracy and precision.... but we also have even more contradictory theories being put out there, if you are willing to stray from the "Straight and Narrow Way" prescribed by the political global tax pushers.

 

[babe]

We have a lot more data..... needs appropriate analysis for accuracy and precision.... but we also have even more contradictory theories being put out there, if you are willing to stray from the "Straight and Narrow Way" prescribed by the political global tax pushers.

So far we have not gone outta bounds statistically for our present interglacial warm. The spike that was referenced in the sixties/seventies for immediate precedent for ice age onset was about 3 C. So far..... this could be it. Warming oceans then outgassed CO2 and spiked the CO2, too. Well, some say.... that is....

Not a lot of really conclusive data, yet. But I'm watching for it.

 

[babe]

The really fossil energy cartelists are all on board with global warming... Al Gore the coal magnate.... BPP....Shell....the Rockefellers....

But they consider the industry spokesmen inconsequential and ignore them.... and let them run around doing stuff.....

Or is it the independents who call the tune there...…. ding ding.

Well, this about all the fun I can stand..... later, 'gator.

 

[fishonjazz]

 

[Red]

Some pages useful for understanding denialist arguments and responses to those arguments:

Climate myths:

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

https://grist.org/series/skeptics/

In the 70's, was there a consensus that the Earth was cooling?

No, there was no such "consensus" at all. It was a minority opinion.

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm



Are we heading for a New ice age?

https://skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm

 

[One Brow]

He's no saint, but a true believer in fashionable authority. He has persistence. That is one thing I do like about OB. I can't recall any substantial change in his opinions because of things posted on a sports site, though. Maybe.... I'm not expecting to see anything like that. He'd have to tell me about it if it happened.

Certainly, my opinions on gun control have changed significantly, in large part from discussion with other members of this board. There have been some refinements in most of my other positions over the years, though it's hard to recall how much change was from this site versus other sources.

 

[One Brow]

self-interested politicians, guv agency careerists, and folks with enough money on the table to sway lawmakers their way, have corrupted "science" today more than, perhaps, any other age of mankind since Galileo was forced to recant his belief in a solar centric planetary system by determined ideologues almost as hell-bent on managing mankind as today's ilk.

So in short, our data is what it is, and should be evaluated for value in objective truth, but it is not sufficient basis for changing our political system or abridging human rights.

Including freedom of belief, and speech.... and it's hardly a grand thing for anyone in a sports chat site to be so Obdurate as to try to just shut down differing opinions.

Anyone reading my contributions in here, in many threads, should be able to decipher that my concerns and arguments have more to with political exploitation of issues than differing versions of "fact".

The version of the Galileo story you are using is as much myth as reality. However, I agree that we need keep self-interested politicians, government agency careerists, and all the folks with money at the table from swaying scientific truth. The difference is who we see as the self-interested politicians (those who take corporate money and represent corporate interests instead of voter interests), government agency careerists (those with more interest in maintaining their budgets and not rocking the boat), and folks with money at the table (the coal and oil industries). Who does that leave us with? The actual scientists. We should trust their evaluations, because they are seeking the objective truth. Instead, you are falling for the political exploitation of the truth-deniers.

I don't recall anyone trying to shut down your opinions. Criticism is what keeps our opinions sharp.

 

[One Brow]

What is relevant to the general discussion of what climate change is being pushed for....is that it today, in many respects, is a sort of state-established religion..... a belief system.

Progressives of all kinds.... secular humanists in general.... atheists, agnostics, and every brand of socialism except Mormonism.... asserts denials of "God" as found in older religious thought of a few centuries ago..... but Statism is what they generally push for somehow.

Statism is what the rich and famous and powerful of the medieval times turned relgion into. Every tyrant claimed some kind of authority from "God".

today, the only thing that has changed is that the tyrants claim they need no "God", they are themselves uniquely qualified for the worshipful obedience of mankind, because they are the government.

That is what it looks like to me every time I find anyone trying to make the world a better place through government.....

And even the Mormons today, after joining the WCC and forming good relations with America's brahmin class, pretty much concede that the laws of man rule.

"Which one do I believe in? Hegel, Marx, and Rousseau had incompatible principles, after all."

of course no one expects these to have perfect agreement, but they have provided a sort of intellectual smorgasbord that is pulled into whatever opinions anyone has today which are not.... say.... religious exactly. And even then..... to some extent.

Where is Siro when we need him?

There has always been a state of some sort since before we separated from the monkeys. Sometimes we call it a tribe, sometimes a congregation, sometimes a king, sometimes a congress or parliament. However, that you think atheists/agnostics all push for greater governmental regulation only shows your lack of knowledge. Ayn Rand, chief prophet of the school of no state regulation, was an atheist. The ire between atheists who advocate for more social justice and those who say such concerns are unimportant is so great and conflict-laden it is sometimes called The Great Divide.

Religion in medieval times was the servitor of the state, and they spent most of that era trying to get out from under the thumbs of the various local rulers.

Government is a tool, and like any other tool, it can be useful or not in application to a particular problem. Railing against government is like railing against hammers.

I'm guessing that what you see in common in Hegel, Marx, and Rousseau is some notion of human societal progress. If so, I don't believe that is necessarily the case, and it certainly doesn't happen without fighting for it.

 

[One Brow]

We have a lot more data..... needs appropriate analysis for accuracy and precision.... but we also have even more contradictory theories being put out there, if you are willing to stray from the "Straight and Narrow Way" prescribed by the political global tax pushers.

So far we have not gone outta bounds statistically for our present interglacial warm. The spike that was referenced in the sixties/seventies for immediate precedent for ice age onset was about 3 C. So far..... this could be it. Warming oceans then outgassed CO2 and spiked the CO2, too. Well, some say.... that is....

Not a lot of really conclusive data, yet. But I'm watching for it.

The really fossil energy cartelists are all on board with global warming... Al Gore the coal magnate.... BPP....Shell....the Rockefellers....

But they consider the industry spokesmen inconsequential and ignore them.... and let them run around doing stuff.....

Or is it the independents who call the tune there...…. ding ding.

Well, this about all the fun I can stand..... later, 'gator.

We will always want more data, but that shouldn't stop us from acting on the data we do have and the 20+ years of accurate predictions we have made from it.

Al Gore (Sr.), the coal magnate, is dead. Al Gore (Jr.), the former vice-president and current climate activist, has made his money in media, technology, and green companies.

The real fossil energy cartel members are the ones currently working in the fossil fuel industry, not the children or great-grandchildren of those who used to, but are now dead.

 

[Red]

Greenland ice sheet melting at fastest rate in 350 years:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/sc...t-is-melting-at-its-fastest-rate-in-350-years

"The Greenland ice sheet is melting faster today than at any point in the last 350 years, according to a new study published in the journal Nature. The research is the first continuous, multi-century analysis of melting and runoff on the ice sheet, one of the largest drivers of sea level rise globally.

Lead by glaciologist and climate scientist Luke Trusel of Rowan University, a team of U.S. and European researchers analyzed more than three centuries of melt patterns in ice cores from western Greenland. They then linked this historical data to modern observations of melting and runoff across the entire ice sheet, creating a timeline dating back to 1650.

"From a historical perspective, today's melt rates are off the charts," Sarah Das, a glaciologist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and co-author of the new study, said in a statement

"We found a 50 percent increase in total ice sheet meltwater runoff versus the start of the industrial era, and a 30 percent increase since the 20th century alone"....

.......The Greenland ice sheet is the largest single contributor to global sea level rise today, adding 72 cubic miles of meltwater to the world's oceans every year. The ice sheet has the potential to raise global sea levels by 23 feet if it melts in its entirety."

 

[babe]

@OB: I know nothing of how or why the Gore's divested(?) the coal loot, but Al Gore is using the residual "carbon credits" allowed by the UN climate accords like a cash cow. Selling unused historical "emission" production as a shield for future polluters. That's the way the agreements are written. Does nothing substantial to actually end the burning.

human activity in burning fossil fuels is still gonna climb in places of "protected" use, like China and India and Brazil.... and is likely inconsequential anyway on the scale of "natural" burning ongoing..... like the way we are burning our grasslands and forests..... which is on the same scale as purposed energy consumption. But far exceeded by methane oxidation in the atmosphere from geologic and ocean/soil/animal emissions. I don't think 1 billion cows fart as much as 7 billion humans necessarily.... but nobody even calculates mosquito respiration, either. Have you ever found anyone estimating total oxygen demand and respiration, yet. Don't get me wrong. I hope nobody ever cares to take such a hard look at the way things are.... though I don't fear DDT as much as I abhor bureaucrats. I still don't think stopping the heavy breathing of globalists is a high ideal for mankind.

What is clear is that our "solution" to the climate change hoax is useless drivel that benefits the likes of Al Gore and many if not all of the pushers for the new laws, and the carbon tax is gonna supplant national influence in global governance with a whole new level of fascism.

So, in my opinion, you are insanely mistaken to support the "solution" whatever the problem really is....on political grounds.

and the last twenty years of climate prediction, while getting better, is not really impressive enough to be the basis of a new human belief system or government action. Not yet.