Did the people who talk about “stopping climate change” actually make it through primary school science?
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- Robertvd on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Robertvd on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Bob G on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Bob G on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Gordon Vigurs on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Ed on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Walter on Ellen Flees To The UK
- conrad ziefle on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- conrad ziefle on Ellen Flees To The UK
Steve,
Sorry, But could you refer me to some scientists who say the climate has not changed in the last few thousand or million years?
Enjoying the early spring in New England?
“It didn’t change until man came along” is the mantra that establishment grant-seeking scientists want to capitalize upon, so that soft-headed politicians and non-thinkers will give them big bucks. No, they are not stupid enough to say explicitly that the climate doesn’t change. They are like the Godfather. A wink is as good as a nudge. Warm-earthers are the New Mafia, and utilize the skills of the extortion racket.
His Hawking enough of a “scientist” to qualify?
the European Commission: There is now broad scientific and political consensus that we have entered a period of unavoidable and unprecedented climate change
You might want to send them a correction, Tony
Maurizio,
I would love to correct them, unfortunately I read those articles and neither give the remotest implication that the climate has not changed in the past.
I am actually pretty sure that even the most adamant warmest believe that there were ice ages in the recent past, and as far as I know, in spite of Steve numerous posts to the contrary, none believe they were caused by emissions from soccer mom’s SUV’s.
Isn’t it interesting, that while some (not all many still claim the MWP was a local climate change) acknowledge the WPs and IA’s, they think the 0.7 degree change last century was caused by SUV’s, soccer mom’s and people in general.
I’ve never understood the logic…….. Yes, its happened before, yes humanity has survived and thrived in both extremes. But this time, this time isn’t “normal” and it will be catastrophic!
Tony – what is the difference between “the environment normally stays the same” and “human activities are causing unprecedented climate change”?
Of course if the current change is unprecedented, it means that whatever happened in the past, paled in comparison, i.e. past changes are indistinguishable from stasis, just like I am taller than my cat but more or less her same height when compared to a skyscraper.
Omnologos,
any one who says current climate changes are unprecedented is just flat out wrong. Everyone knows that. Now if there are caveats , like “unprecedented in the last 13,000 years, IF the temperature keeps increasing, then, it is arguable.
There is a difference between the “climate has varied within this range, ———, for the last xxx thousand years, and current trends, if continued will lead to a different range,” and the climate has stayed the same, and humans are now causing change, which has never happened before. Again, the only people I can imagine saying something like this are fanatic christians who believe in God controlling the garden of Eden and human sin causing all the climate change.
What really kills me, is these establishment scientists who are able to bend over backwards, so that their prey never is able to connect the dots. Here is an example of their belief structure:
1) We love Darwin.
2) Darwin said evolution is a response to ever-changing climate. No niche goes unexploited, resulting in diverse new species. It is the boom-bust climate that is the womb of all life.
3) However, climate did not change in recent hundreds of thousands of years, until man came along.
4) Therefore, every species will go extinct, rather than be able to evolve to the new niches that are proffered.
5) We have to prevent the climate from changing.
Put those 5 beliefs together, and you are a liberal, establishment scientist. You have also become irreversibly mad.
Somehow, the current changes are “not natural”, and species the world over can tell the difference between “natural” and “not natural”. They even make some kind of conscious decision to refuse to adapt to “not-natural” changes, and die off as a consequence (unless of course it’s bad species we’re talking about, beetles, jellyfish, malaria protozoa and the likes: mysteriously, those all thrive due to “not-natural” changes to the climate).
With 7 billion or so and counting, humans seems to be doing OK in these horrible unnatural conditions.
Of course that’s all going to end very badly, any minute now, in a planetary fever, unless we do as we are told.
Maurizio,
Of course the changes are natural. They are caused by man. Unless you are referring to some religious fanatics that insist climate change is caused by God to punish man for his evil ways.
As for species that go extinct and thrive in changing climactic conditions, depending on the rapidity and uniformity of the change, it is quite well established that particular species that are well adapted, in ecosystems that are not stable, do show explosive growth initially until a new equilibrium is reached. Species that are not well adapted to new conditions actually can become extinct. That is why the changing abiotic and biotic conditions on earth have led to the extinction of 99% of all life forms that have existed. It matters little if the change is “natural” or horribly unnatural evil human caused, plants and animals don;t really pay attention to those distinctions.
Tony – since you would bring a new outlook to my quest, would you mind helping find one or more peer-reviewed papers showing how human-induced climate change/global warming will benefit any cute/popular/innocuous species of animal or plant, and/or will help get rid of any ugly/unpopular/dangerous one?
Everything I have read so far mentions either a nice species heading for extinction, or an evil pest heading for explosive growth in number and distribution.
This is another indication IMNSHO that there’s too much of a cultist approach to the topic.
Man made CO2 is more powerful than God. It is responsible for earthquakes now and everything else that happens on Earth. It holds the mass extinction of every life form on Earth in its very hands. ;*)
Omnologos,
HEY. I think we agree in principle on this one. Certainly, this is a highly charged political issue, and proponents of curbing CO2 are not about to publicize how well rabbits will fare. Of course ask the Australians how much they love those charming furry little critters, and ones concept of pest and cute stuffed toy can be radically transformed.
and your distrust of warmists ignoring the positive aspects (which actually many climate scientists readily admit, as I read those acknowledgements often) mirrors my distrust of deniers insisting that ONLY good can come from large increases in CO2 in the atmosphere.
Bunnagyro,
Oh PLEASE give me some links to the establishment scientists who say these things (after step 2). I obviously have been oblivious in all my reading, since I have never seen anything like what you are describing except in blogs like this.
lol, Tony, ask and you shall receive. Here’s 3 pinheads
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/humanitys-influence-on-climate-began-8000yrs-ago-say-researchers_100518635.html
This goes to step 3.
Of course, I’m sure bubba knows he overstated when he said “all”, we know we’ll be left with the bad species such as the “brown recluse” as mentioned in another of Steve’s postings. But, here’s one that says we can lose over 1/4 of all species in only 39 years.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060411230548.htm
You don’t seriously want proof of #5 do you?
Sorry SUYTD,
your time frame is WAY too short in that link, and the hypothesis seems possible if a bit ambitious in the cause and effect realm.
Step three was “climate did not change in recent hundreds of thousands of years, until man came along.”.
and your other link to extinctions also seems credible compared to the historical record of past extinctions. large worldwide temp change and human effects of deforestation, pollution, development, overfishing, etc. As the article points out the vast majority of species diversity is in very limited areas, and intense disruption there could lead to major extinctions.
I am VERY glad you acknowledge that the “all” is an overstatement.
as for 5 I don’t know of any scientist who says we have to keep the climate exactly the same. Of Course Freeman Dyson probably has proposed some hi tech system for just that purpose. I have read here and other places scientists discussing ways to do things to prevent another ice age or extreme warming, but don;t remember any that say we need to keep the climate from changing at all.
Ah, Tony, now you’re quibbling with words. How long ago do you think “man” came along?
I usually put it at about the time civilization and societies started to form. ~8000 years ago.
As far as extinctions, we’ve visited the extinction pages a few times here, you realize that in order for the world to have 1/4 of species extinctions in the next 39 years, we’d have to increase the extinction rate a magnitude of several orders. Excluding bugs, we’re looking at a dozen in the last century, and none that I can find were caused by climate change. So, no, I don’t see how this would be plausible nor credible.
SUYTS,
I don’t think you read that article carefully. it did not say extinction would occur by 2050, it said that extinction would be assured by 2050. It can take several generations for a species to become extinct after there is no likely expectation of survival. No biologist will ever say that a species will be extinct on a certain date.
As for the quibbling. The Bubbagyro above said “hundreds of thousands of year until man came along”. You have to agree that no scientist has this opinion. the only people I know who think anything like this are young earthers.
lol, Tony, “No biologist will ever say that a species will be extinct on a certain date.”
But they will set a date by which extinction is certain?
Anyway, you know I was just having fun with you, just as even though Bubba was over generalizing, it holds, that alarmists blame humans for the current climate change while acknowledging prior climate change prior not caused by humans. As to extinctions, we’ve all seen the dire predictions, except for evil critters like the brown recluse, which oddly, apparently will thrive………. go figure. And, even though many acknowledge similar warming trends in the past, it seems this particular warming trends will be catastrophic.
Bubba was participating in what is called “derisive sarcasm”. While not always spot on in the specifics, it is based in truth, which is why the rest of us can chuckle at the words. And why Maurizio and Al Gored seamlessly fit into the conversation. We like to call it “poking fun”. 🙂
This is what they are leading toward:
The English edition of Der Spiegel has a recent interview with Prof Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. In this interview Schellnhuber announced that he would unveil his “Master Plan” for transforming society – one no doubt that suits his world view. In Schellhuber’s view, human society needs to be scaled back and managed by an elite group of “wise men” who know what is best for the rest.[h/t No Trick Zone]
Herr Schnellnhuber (I would respell his name Schnellhubris) has said what the ivory tower elitists are all thinking. The vast unwashed masses need a Waffengruppe Führung to improve our lot. Democracy sucks.
First step to doing is verbalizing.
The “wise men” ideal is still the goal of mainstream leftism, at least in Europe. Read the words of acclaimed political analyst, Slavoj Žižek.
Funny how, if one only digs deeper, it all goes back to proto-fascistic reactions to the Enlightenment (so much for being “progressive”, uh), and a desire to mix “Church” and “State”. Thank God for Thomas Jefferson.
The more things change, the more things stay the same.
And don’t forget to prepare the children…
Steven – OT or actually WTF! but… just found this, via a John Sullivan comment on Judith Curry’s blog. Rather amazing.
Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect
Joseph E. Postma
(M.Sc. Astrophysics, Honours B.Sc. Astronomy)
March, 2011
“Conclusion – We see that in every single instance of comparison, the Theory of the Greenhouse Effect appears to contradict what the Laws of Thermodynamics have to say about the exact same physical situation. This is very curious because as a scientific theory, it should be in agreement with the pre-established laws of physics. It may be possible that the Greenhouse Theory is correct, but, this would require that the Laws of Thermodynamics be not correct…
The conclusion of this article is very simple: there is no such thing as a radiative Theory of the Greenhouse Effect, not in real greenhouses, and certainly not in any planetary atmosphere known to man. The true role of the atmosphere, on Earth, is that it cools the ground, not warms it.”
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf
Stevie Mac needs to get a hold of this kid before they ruin him.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011103200369
The kid’s been told “You are here to do some science”.
He won’t be dealing with anything climate then.
We need Big Brother to save us stupid children from evil CO2, or else we are all going to die!!! Hansen says anyone who disagrees should be prosecuted for crimes agains humanity!
Natural Climate VARIES!
Only Ignorant Humans can Induce Climate CHANGE!
I read it from a member of the Chicken Little Brigade!
If you think Vary and Change mean the same thing you are not a Climatologist!
I never see anyone mention that maybe it’s supposed to work this way….
..temps go up, metabolisms go up, demand for CO2 goes up, CO2 increases
and CO2 follows temp or else we all die
Thanks suyts for preempting the need for me to state the obvious. Of course 5) is predicated on stopping the earth from warming through egregious cap-and-trade scenarios. And yes, my hundreds of thousands of years was a reductio ad absurdum shorthand to get the philosophical argument going without having to rehash the voluminous details of well-trodden ground. We don’t need to know the time frame, actually. After all, it is all based on proxies that have some, but not absolute temporal value.
I think we need to separate what scientists actually believe or state from what they think may be advantageous to enrich themselves. They will not publicly state absurd things, but hold onto them to achieve their ends. As I scientist myself, understand that I am reluctant to cast nefarious motivation upon these well-educated warm-earther pillars of our society. It pains me to suggest such a thing. I really wish they would behave like scientists.
But if it quacks like a duck…