Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong

[gamewell45]

Not to be difficult but " to make money " is the entire concept of a business. Preferred amount as you said " lots of it. All you can." In that manner one can justify the risk , the capital outlay, the cost of capital
Loss of use of capital ( money that could have bee used in other areas that is now tied up in this.endeavor. oh..if u started your business.ran it and have not used or obtained the use
Of other peoples money. Go ahead , run it like a woodchipper and feed mit money..thats one thing.
But . if you have shareholder, creditors.you may also have a legal.oblugation.to put forth your " all you can" effort

And I agree with you 100% on the concept and on the legal obligation to put forth your "all you can" effort. That's their job and in most cases do it very well.

[atheist4thecause]

Hopefully, the media will catch up.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael.../#2cf015ce12d6




That's really the point -- journalists don't want to report the facts because they might be called "deniers" or be left behind career-wise.

So much biased media these days. It really shouldn't be that way.

There is definitely some of this, but I think you are underestimating just how much of the field and journalists believe climate change is happening, it's due to humans, and we are at a rate to create catastrophe that is basically inevitable at this point. They don't have to lie to fit in when most actually believe what they are saying.

You probably didn't know this but there is more to the media then just television and newspapers. You've got radio, the internet, in addition to the newspapers (many are now online media services) and television (most of which are making money contrary to what you say).

My uncle works for a newspaper company that is the biggest newspaper in the area but it's a relatively small area. They have online reporting as well, but they just laid off over 3,000 workers. It's not a 1-for-1 trade in terms of jobs, so in order for these reporters and journalists to keep their jobs they need to publish click bait.

We cannot stop from sea levels becoming higher which is followed by low sea levels. This is the cycle of this planet long before we were around. The climate change alarmist are doing this to steal money out of our pocket so they can use it against us later. They only way to reserve our resources and save energy is by drastically reducing the world's populations. No political figure would dare make that statement.

The cycles are happening faster than before, though. What used to happen in tens of thousands of years is now happening in thousands or maybe even hundreds of years. The real question is about the rate. We know we are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. We can see that CO2 is a GHG, not just because of climate change, but look at other planets and chemistry in general. So we can deduce that if we put enough CO2 into the atmosphere, at some point that will become a problem. That's why the question is about the rate, because where is that point and how fast are we getting there?

I personally don't buy into the Doomer arguments. I remember "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore. People now want to say that was just for Hollywood, but that makes me even more skeptical. I am old enough to remember that the movie at the time was considered to be a documentary with major scientific backing, and was representing mainstream climate change thought in the scientific community at the time. Basically all of the predictions have failed, because we are getting to a point where we can see the predictions. Basically, the poles are supposed to be melted, the coasts flooded, etc. None of it came true.

Modeling is the one thing climate change Doomers push. They say it's accurate. But what they really do is they look at old data, they make tons of models within a certain range, and the ones that weren't accurate into the future get thrown out while the ones that were close are kept and called predictive. The problem is this doesn't mean they actually were predictive, because some of the models were bound to be correct, and the further we get from the original data typically the less accurate these models are. So then guess what? They just make new models. They are constantly cycling out old models with new ones. It would be far more impressive if they made one model and it was somewhat close, but when so many models are created it's less impressive.

I also question the whole concept. I think climate change advocates have us thinking past the sale a bit. Is it even possible to put the Earth's atmospheric and surface temperature into a single figure and then judge from that what will happen? This concept has never been explained or demonstrated to me on why we even think this is a reliable thing to do, even if we had perfect measurement capability. I mean, maybe the surface/atmospheric temperature doesn't correlate with climate change the way climate scientists seem to assume it does.

I also love how every time there's a new hurricane or a new heat record it's because of climate change, but then when we have a cold day or even cold months and we are reminded weather is different from climate (even though cold months is climate). Climate scientists try to sell to me that warmer weather will actually mean colder temperatures. That one has never really been explained to me, either. I'm sure there are some explanations for this, but there just seems to be so much the public and even climate scientists assume to be true that don't have explanations regularly talked about in public.

So do I think climate change is happening due to humans? Yes. Do I think it's a problem? Yes. Do I think it's at this catastrophic rate where basically we can't do anything to save ourselves but we should put everything towards it to try anyways? No. In fact, I think we have quite a lot of time and will solve the problem relatively easily.

Oh, and one more thing about the whole catastrophe concept, if all of the icebergs melted in the world, we'd still have plenty of land to live on. If all the ice melted, here's what the USA coastlines would look like:

Attachment 27556

You can also match that up with this elevation finder: https://www.freemaptools.com/elevation-finder.htm But best yet, we're not even close to all of the ice melting. In fact, that's never going to realistically happen. (https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/e...ll-under-water)

If all the ice covering Antarctica , Greenland, and in mountain glaciers around the world were to melt, sea level would rise about 70 meters (230 feet). The ocean would cover all the coastal cities. And land area would shrink significantly. But many cities, such as Denver, would survive.However, all the ice is not going to melt. The Antarctic ice cap, where most of the ice exists, has survived much warmer times.The concern is that portions of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice caps may disappear. We do not know how much or how quickly this could happen, because we do not know exactly how it will happen.

That's because the ice doesn't just melt. Ice actually flows down valleys like rivers of water . The problem is that we do not completely understand the factors that control how rapidly the ice flows and thus enters the ocean.One way to approach the problem of not understanding the process is to study how sea level changed in the past. Earth is nearly as warm now as it was during the last interglacial period, about 125,000 years ago. At that time, sea level was 4 to 6 meters (13-20 feet) higher. It seems that this higher sea level was due to the melting Greenland and West Antarctic ice caps.

There is just so much fear-mongering going on that it is sadly literally traumatizing our children.

[skepticalmike]

There is definitely some of this, but I think you are underestimating just how much of the field and journalists believe climate change is happening, it's due to humans, and we are at a rate to create catastrophe that is basically inevitable at this point. They don't have to lie to fit in when most actually believe what they are saying.

My uncle works for a newspaper company that is the biggest newspaper in the area but it's a relatively small area. They have online reporting as well, but they just laid off over 3,000 workers. It's not a 1-for-1 trade in terms of jobs, so in order for these reporters and journalists to keep their jobs they need to publish click bait.

The cycles are happening faster than before, though. What used to happen in tens of thousands of years is now happening in thousands or maybe even hundreds of years. The real question is about the rate. We know we are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. We can see that CO2 is a GHG, not just because of climate change, but look at other planets and chemistry in general. So we can deduce that if we put enough CO2 into the atmosphere, at some point that will become a problem. That's why the question is about the rate, because where is that point and how fast are we getting there?

I personally don't buy into the Doomer arguments. I remember "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore. People now want to say that was just for Hollywood, but that makes me even more skeptical. I am old enough to remember that the movie at the time was considered to be a documentary with major scientific backing, and was representing mainstream climate change thought in the scientific community at the time. Basically all of the predictions have failed, because we are getting to a point where we can see the predictions. Basically, the poles are supposed to be melted, the coasts flooded, etc. None of it came true.

Modeling is the one thing climate change Doomers push. They say it's accurate. But what they really do is they look at old data, they make tons of models within a certain range, and the ones that weren't accurate into the future get thrown out while the ones that were close are kept and called predictive. The problem is this doesn't mean they actually were predictive, because some of the models were bound to be correct, and the further we get from the original data typically the less accurate these models are. So then guess what? They just make new models. They are constantly cycling out old models with new ones. It would be far more impressive if they made one model and it was somewhat close, but when so many models are created it's less impressive.

I also question the whole concept. I think climate change advocates have us thinking past the sale a bit. Is it even possible to put the Earth's atmospheric and surface temperature into a single figure and then judge from that what will happen? This concept has never been explained or demonstrated to me on why we even think this is a reliable thing to do, even if we had perfect measurement capability. I mean, maybe the surface/atmospheric temperature doesn't correlate with climate change the way climate scientists seem to assume it does.

I also love how every time there's a new hurricane or a new heat record it's because of climate change, but then when we have a cold day or even cold months and we are reminded weather is different from climate (even though cold months is climate). Climate scientists try to sell to me that warmer weather will actually mean colder temperatures. That one has never really been explained to me, either. I'm sure there are some explanations for this, but there just seems to be so much the public and even climate scientists assume to be true that don't have explanations regularly talked about in public.

So do I think climate change is happening due to humans? Yes. Do I think it's a problem? Yes. Do I think it's at this catastrophic rate where basically we can't do anything to save ourselves but we should put everything towards it to try anyways? No. In fact, I think we have quite a lot of time and will solve the problem relatively easily.

Oh, and one more thing about the whole catastrophe concept, if all of the icebergs melted in the world, we'd still have plenty of land to live on. If all the ice melted, here's what the USA coastlines would look like:

Attachment 27556

You can also match that up with this elevation finder: https://www.freemaptools.com/elevation-finder.htm But best yet, we're not even close to all of the ice melting. In fact, that's never going to realistically happen. (https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/e...ll-under-water)

There is just so much fear-mongering going on that it is sadly literally traumatizing our children.

I don't think that you are correct about "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore. I didn't watch the film but I have read about it and there were not many predictions made and the prediction about the loss of all Arctic sea ice came later. That prediction was not supported by the IPCC or by the scientific community. The IPCC has maintained for a very long time that the loss of all Arctic sea ice will likely occur around 2050. Neither Al Gore nor any climate scientist has predicted that Antarctica would melt down or the coasts would be flooded.

This is from Wikipedia, "An Inconvenient Truth".
The Associated Press contacted more than 100 climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. All 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or had read the homonymous book said that Gore accurately conveyed the science, with few errors.^[37]
William H. Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University said "[Gore] got all the important material and got it right." Robert Corell, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment was also impressed. "I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate. After the presentation I said, 'Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.'...I could find no error."^[37] Michael Shermer, scientific author and founder of The Skeptics Society, wrote in Scientific American that Gore's slide show "shocked me out of my doubting stance."^[38] Eric Steig, a climate scientist writing on RealClimate, lauded the film's science as "remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research."^[39] Ted Scambos, lead scientist from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, said the film "does an excellent job of outlining the science behind global warming and the challenges society faces in the coming century because of it."^[40]
One concern among scientists in the film was the connection between hurricanes and global warming, which remains contentious in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view.^[37] "I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, professor of meteorology and oceanography at the University of Miami.^[37] Gavin Schmidt, climate modeler for NASA, thought Gore appropriately addressed the issue.^[41] "Gore talked about 2005 and 2004 being very strong seasons, and if you weren't paying attention, you could be left with the impression that there was a direct cause and effect, but he was very careful to not say there's a direct correlation," Schmidt said.^[41] "There is a difference between saying 'we are confident that they will increase' and 'we are confident that they have increased due to this effect,'" added Steig. "Never in the movie does he say: 'This particular event is caused by global warming.'"^[41


Climate models have been modified over time to become more realistic and consistent with observations. Resolution (smaller grids) has also been improving. The older models were fairly successful in projecting climate change and were much simpler than today's models. Global warming can be projected without the use of computer models by using the known climate forcings and an estimated climate sensitivity.

The concept of a mean global surface temperature is useful because it allows us to plot a graph over time and get an idea of how the earth's climate is changing . There is no obvious better way of taking into account all surface temperature data and including it into a single number. Humans live on the surface so we are primarily concerned with the land surface but sometimes both the oceans and land are included together. If you throw out this number it would not change the science.

Climate scientists have not projected that every new hurricane or heat wave is the result of climate change. Usually, meteorologists or someone with a relevant science background, will make a connection with the severity of a hurricane and how that relates to climate change .

If all the icebergs melt there would be no significant change in sea levels but if all the land ice melts sea levels would rise around 200 feet.

Read this article at the Guardian for evidence that even a 0.5 degree increase in global mean surface temperature can be catastrophic for humanity.


https://amp.theguardian.com/environm...mark-un-report

Scientists who reviewed the 6,000 works referenced in the report, said the change caused by just half a degree came as a revelation. “We can see there is a difference and it’s substantial,” Roberts said.
At 1.5C the proportion of the global population exposed to water stress could be 50% lower than at 2C, it notes. Food scarcity would be less of a problem and hundreds of millions fewer people, particularly in poor countries, would be at risk of climate-related poverty.

At 2C extremely hot days, such as those experienced in the northern hemisphere this summer, would become more severe and common, increasing heat-related deaths and causing more forest fires.
But the greatest difference would be to nature. Insects, which are vital for pollination of crops, and plants are almost twice as likely to lose half their habitat at 2C compared with 1.5C. Corals would be 99% lost at the higher of the two temperatures, but more than 10% have a chance of surviving if the lower target is reached.

[Rooster]

We cannot stop from sea levels becoming higher which is followed by low sea levels. This is the cycle of this planet long before we were around. The climate change alarmist are doing this to steal money out of our pocket so they can use it against us later. They only way to reserve our resources and save energy is by drastically reducing the world's populations. No political figure would dare make that statement.

I stated that population control can, and might, be achieved by using low fall out nuclear weapons. I don't doubt for a minute that when population becomes threatening to survival there would be contrived wars to cull population.
There has to be a point where it is better to lose some people rather than all people...say when the food supply can no longer keep up with population.
Malthus may have been proven wrong, but maybe we just did not allow enough time for his theory to work.