Re: Catastrophic Global Warming and the Medieval Warm Period. Extro,
The last one I posted from the Canadian?
He was one of the leaders of Greenpeace from their start, and for 10 to 15 years led that ship they have that harasses Whaling ships. The "Rainbow Warrior."
He was the only scientist among the Greenpeace leaders - and they booted him when he didnt want to play along with their campaigns. He saw that they didnt understand the science, but that they knew campaigning and money-raising and organizing.
So he left, and went back to science and doing his own ecological stuff.
The science he has is clear, solid, and yet I feel that you've probably heard encouraging words like this before.
Re: Catastrophic Global Warming and the Medieval Warm Period. Sounds a bit like the guy who wrote ‘Rational Optimist’. I’m pretty sure Matt Ridley worked for Greenpiece too but I could be wrong.
I think Rational Optimist was right to say we need not despair. Doomsayers have been predicting ‘if things carry on like this, we are heading for catastrophe’ for many a generation and yet somehow when the future arrives it’s not a dystopia but rather a world with less absolute poverty, more choice, and better tech. A modern car is far less polluting compared to the jalopies of old, for example. Of course things don’t get uniformly better and one can always point out examples where things have gone badly, but things never turn as as bad as the doomsayers predict.
Having said that I would advise caution in denouncing those environmentalists as just plain wrong. Anyone who lived in London during the Great Stink or when smog was covering would tell you that things can go terribly wrong if problems are ignored for long enough. Those problems, along with others like acid rain and dustbowls, didn’t get resolved by a collective refusal to believe what the environmentalists were telling us. We didn’t say ‘smog is a leftist conspiracy!’ and then it magically disappeared once the scam was revealed. We did something about it. Things didn’t carry on as usual, we changed our habits and found technological solutions.
Re: Catastrophic Global Warming and the Medieval Warm Period. Pure propaganda from NBC. They gamed the temperature data and now claim that the falsified data shows warming. Typical July story from the MSM. The link from above showing how climate data has been ruined:
Climate Data -- Fake News
Re: Catastrophic Global Warming and the Medieval Warm Period. It's not a lie by not telling the truth, it's lying by exaggeration. I don't see how China and India and the rest of the world are not heating and yes, sooting things up. Are the commie-socialists using a problem as an excuse for dictatorship? For certain.
"Never let a good crisis go to waste." Rahm Emanuel
Re: Catastrophic Global Warming and the Medieval Warm Period. We have many among us with faith in our tech future - the CO2 Alarmists are not like the days of the problems of old London Town.
Verious deadlines pass with no problems, and the warming is so blah that they change the slogan to "climate change" to save the embarrassment of not enough warming.
Then we have some hot days in some places - and the News Sites say "We gotta call it Global Heating!"
Nah. Times are good and gettin' gooder. Recall our balmy days at KAI, with that old tech log curve that would take us gracefully to the sing....
And then take note of this reply RayK gave, that I just found on the site. A guy wrote a letter asking him to ramp up his worry on Global Warming.
"Hello and thanks for writing.
You make some good points. As I’ll explain in my upcoming book titled The Singularity Is Nearer, the world is moving in the right direction on all of the issues that affect human well-being.
But that doesn’t mean it’s perfect — or that bad things won’t happen. The same thing is happening with renewable energy. It’s doubling every 4 years and I’m confident it will meet 100% of our energy needs by 2030.
This is a good barometer of 'climate change'. The number of all time highs versus all time lows. If the Earth was systematically warming, the number of all-time lows would be vanishingly small, and after a time, disappear entirely.
Falken wrote: "Scientific consensus passes 99% . . . You still havent stated what % of climate scientists believe climate change is real. To believe that al gore and (a conspiracy of) others are inventing this to create somekind of gravy train os ridiculous."
Well, that argument is so full of holes that its an insult to the appeal to authority logical fallacy. As Doc pointed out this is the result of one study. When you look at the original study, the small number of "climate scientists" in the sample responded yes to the question: "These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.” "
We've seen a little over 100 ppm rise in atmospheric Co2 (from 280 ppm at the beginning of the Industrial Age--around 1760--to close to 400 ppm today). The temperature has risen during that time because the conventional end to the Little Ice age is given as 1870 (the following is a falsified graph from "Hockey Stick" Mann but does exhibit the Little Ice Age).
Has the human contribution of Co2 been a "significant factor" to the rise? I'd quibble about the word 'significant', but there is some limited impact on climate to increasing Co2 but the major vector is that the increase in Co2 causes rapid increases in plant yields. It is wholly beneficial.
The recent study showed—through simulations—that humans narrowly missed an ice age just before the Industrial Revolution and probably postponed the next one by at least 50,000 years. Researchers note that with the large quantities of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere in the last two centuries, the “probability of glacial inception during the next 100,000 years is notably reduced.” Have humans postponed the next ice age?
Note that the Medieval, Roman and especially the Minoan Warm Periods were all warmer than today (contrary to Hockey-Stick Mann), long before industrial emissions of Co2. Ice cores are the best proxy for ancient temperatures. 100% of climate scientists agree with that statement, so why is their collective hair on fire about a little addition of Co2? A frightening series of graphs:
Note 'CAGW' stands for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, which was a main theme of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". CAGW is not supported by most serious climate scientists, and that's why we don't see the term any more. It's why Al Gore and his crew are held in disrepute.
P.S. I don't see most on the Left as 'evil' but they are for the most part so uninformed that it's sad. As a result of constant propaganda from the academy and the Fake News, they inhabit a false reality.
If I see one characteristic common to people on the Left it is their reliance on 'authorities' as in Falken claiming that 99% of climate scientists believe in CAGW, and what do we deniers have to say about that!? Well, I say there is no such consensus, when you look at the evidence of the consensus it disappears, and that CAGW is not supported by the data. In fact, we need more Co2, for the plants and the greening of the World.