Climate Change

I posted it on here. I never claimed to be an authority on anything. You just claim that I don’t care about Science when that’s not remotely true and that’s what I’m responding to.

 

The "obvious contradictions" you're pointing out are those within your own dichotomous mindset. Your posts illustrate what is known in logic classes as the "either-or" fallacy, aka false dilemma. We either are on the verge of immediate extinction or there's no serious problem, nothin' to worry about, throw another log on . 21 Either-Or Fallacy Examples What the multitudinous articles and videos and videos posted here are saying is that if we don't soon take action to stop and reverse climate change by controlling fossil fuel there will be serious adverse consequences: floods, forest fires, hurricanes, crop failures, species extinctions, etc. And your reply seems to be: we're still here, we'll probably still be here tomorrow and maybe for the next couple of decades. So nothing to worry about. As I've said, it's a lot hotter and drier around here in the winter, summer and even the spring and fall than it used to be. There are more fire warnings. I had to evacuate my home because of a fire in the neighboring woods,, and some of my neighbors lost theirs. That worries me. The species might not go extinct but I might. I'd consider that a bed thing. Have you ever taken a logic course in college? I'd recommend one. It might also help you out with such confused thinking as you exhibit in Post # 1076, where you seem to think that participation in a scientific study means you "care about science" and therefore can dismiss scientific findings. You'd also learn in Logic 101 what a non sequitor is , and maybe avoid ones like ;"if you go far enough on the time scale, the Sun will burn out." According to most climate scientists, we're experiencing serious, life-extinguishing consequences from climate change now.
MSN
The Impact of Climate Change on Health and Life Expectancy
Effects of Climate Change on Health

 

I never said I can “ignore scientific findings with impunity” (whatever that’s supposed to mean?). I’m just not easily convinced. I can believe or not believe whatever I choose. Same goes for you.

Bill Gates has been a leader in the Climate Doom narrative for decades, releasing a book in 2021 called “How To Avoid a Climate Catastrophe”, and now his tone has suddenly significantly changed.

Could it have something to do with the fact that he’s now heavily invested in AI, which he may be realizing will require tons of burning of fossil fuels? If that’s the case, then did he also have financial incentive in Climate Alarmism as well, and it’s no longer suitable to literally say “time is running out”?

He now says “Humans will be able to thrive and live for the foreseeable future”. That’s a significant shift. It just is. Follow the money.

 

Oh, sorry. You're not ignoring them. You're just choosing to disbelieve them, and to go by your own whatever.

I think Meagain gave the defintive answer to that one! See Post #1045

 

Yeah that’s right. I think for myself. Go cry about it.

 

Considering the manifest limitations of your thinking apparatus, that's a handicap. I've wasted enough time on you. Maybe you can talk to yourself, too. Bye.

 

Here’s an interesting tidbit I found on Reddit:

“Cook's work was a repetition of an earlier work. He examined excerpts from published articles in specific scientific journals. For an article to be included, its excerpt had to be either "global climate change" or "global warming" included. They focused on the years between 1991 and 2011. Their results: We find that 66.4% of abstracts did not take a position on AGW, 32.6% supported AGW, 0.7% opposed AGW, and 0.3% were unsure about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts that took a position on AGW, 97.1% supported the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature In other words, it is 97% of 32% of papers published between 1991 and 2011, excerpts of which contained the phrase "global climate change" or "global warming." The study didn't take into account the fact that many of the papers were written by the same authors - remember, they count articles, not scientists. It also did not take into account the fact that "global climate change" and "global warming" are buzzwords used by proponents of the AGW theory, and that a scientist who does not support the AGW theory would use only one of these phrases if their work were a direct response to AGW alarmism. A completely objective paper by a completely objective author would not use any of these phrases and would therefore be excluded from the study. They also only examined excerpts from the works and not the entire work. The study was designed to pick out articles that were likely to support their position, and even then 2/3 did not. Cook failed miserably to create any kind of consensus.”

So when people are talking about 97% of Scientists, this is apparently what’s being referred to.

https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/1olwcuy/comment/nml2yoo/?context=3

 

Even a cursory examination of CO2 from a physical, chemical, historical, and atmospheric perspective is enough to persuade most rational people to be concerned about the real and potential climate impacts….those that grovel in the wallets of the fossil fuel industries excepted.

 

CO2 is essential to life on Earth.

 

Of course there’s more to the issue….it’s all about the relative amount and rapid change. O2 is also essential to life as it now exists….but a rapid doubling or tripling would raise all kinds of serious issues and problems. Times series analysis of atmospheric CO2 and temperature is a red flag….and it’s entirely consistent with physical and chemical properties. The factoids marshaled by climate deniers fail to pass even the most elementary protocols of time series analysis.

 

As of June 2007, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change stated:

“the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models.”

 

I want dates and exact scenarios by those dates. Been asking for this since 2023 but you’re all too chicken. It’s easier to just be extremely vague and virtue signal.

 

The AAPG, as the name indicates, has large numbers of members who work for the petroleum industry, and the leadership has been conspicuous in support of the industry climate denial positions. The petroleum industry has a network of lobbyists devoted to climate change denial. As the Council of American Quarterrary Association explained in 2006: "AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming." American Association of Petroleum Geologists - Wikipedia The July 7 AAPG statement that you quoted is noteworthy in moderating its previous positions in response to criticism within the organization and from other scientific associations by grudgingly acknowledging the internal division, while stating that the data do not "necessarily" support the "maxium case scenarios". A step forward.for AAPG ! The Association's 2022 statement acknowledges that :"The current world population of 7.8 billion people puts an enormous strain on the Earth’s resources that requires, in addition to hydrocarbon resources, the economic development of alternative and renewable energy sources." Announcing the AAPG Climate Statement

 

What would anyone expect from the industry that is attributed to being the cause of global warming with the presently perceived and the supposed additional , projected problems that may be caused?? Until the last dollar can be made from the use of extracting and burning oil (other than for lubrication) and not realizing ( oh, they know!) that wind, the sun, and hydrogen would more than likely spare us from projected problems.

 

Well, understand, too, that China and India don't do shit to help out. China fires up a new coal plant about every month to keep up with their electricity demand.... China's runaway coal mine fires belch out about as much as all our cars do. Then there's the CO2 just pouring out of the more exposed tundra. One wouldn't think that planting a few zillion trees worldwide would be such a big deal.

 

Got a book for you guys!

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0593...Mvd_FuxgfrQDe07sJulkrGg&qid=1762545158&sr=8-1