Implementing the Ministry of Truth: the "fake news" scare

[ktgrok]

Regarding does the article say that greenhouse effect is increasing? It does.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Oh brother? That isn't nice.

 

I linked valid and legitimate sources.

 

Well there is your mistake.  Note it for future reference.

 

[8circles]

This thread makes absolutely no sense.

 

The controversy over climate change has nothing to do with any Ministry of Truth, fictional or real.  Articles & studies for both sides are readily available to anyone who is interested.

 

There is a disturbing amount of actual fake news being spread around.  Something should be done about that because it's already proving to be dangerous to private citizens.  

 

Actual fake news = completely fabricated stories that have absolutely no basis in reality, created for the express purpose of creating confusion and distrust.

[RegGuheert]

I did actually link NASA

 

I posted a link the graph of the actual measured data which proves that exactly what I posted is true.  (But I had to explain the data to several here.. :tongue_smilie:)

[8circles]

Oh brother. Yeah, no. Nothing I say is going to convince you otherwise, but no.

 

If you have evidence that points to a different conclusion, it would be helpful to actually share that information.  Instead of "oh brother" and skipping around in delight.

[Guest]

Oh brother? That isn't nice.

 

I linked valid and legitimate sources.

I'll respond to this since I think there is a misunderstanding of what I meant - sloppy of me, but it's the Internet and only so much time can be spent on precise communication knowing how moot the effort is in general :D

 

From this discussion, I'd say you're missing that the issue is the premise, not the evidence. The narrative behind that alignment of the same facts is the dispute.

 

These are rhetorical - ask yourself and answer, I'm not challenging you to hit the points on the forum but more as a thought exercise on this topic generally (and it applies to anything where there are two differing perspectives - it's critical for debate prep).

 

Have you ever deeply and seriously examined the basic premise argument that human activity is responsible for some sort of impending worldwide destruction through temperature? Is that provable? What about the contrary? Can it be disproved? What would evidence look like for either argument?

 

That is where I am disagreeing and why it is unbridgeable. I hold a fundamentally different hypothesis, as does Reg, and neither side is going to concede because both can be defended from the current body of data. I would say that over the course of observable human history the hypothesis for climate varistion acruslly stands much more firmly on the side of it NOT being controlled, let alone largely impacted, by human behavior - we have evidence of multiple ice ages and reversals prior to any industrialization, and a paucity of evidence of longer trends being somehow accelerated OR subverted through human industrial activity. The data is insufficient and what bit of it we have doesn't contradict the argument that this is part of the same global cycles we have recorded in past centuries through human observation, commercial records, and the geological affects we see.

 

But neither is there enough data to prove the positive argument - that human behavior has caused and therefore can reverse or change a climate trend. This isn't one of those situations where the data is clear enough to establish fact and it is fallacious to say so on either side. Both can be discussed and supported or disproven through interpretation of the current body of evidence, but at this juncture there is nothing to prove. So we each pick with narrative makes the most cognitive and emotional sense to each of us (write our own movie script, in terms of influence and psychological behavior) and fit the facts to that narrative. Cue disagreements and squabbles. Cue policy arguments. This EPA pick lines up with the narrative I personally find most logical and compelling. He doesn't line up with the narrative/hypothesis adopted by you or other posters on the side of human mediated climate change.

 

Hence my 'oh brother' - it was me verbally throwing up my hands at the fundamental quandary in fewer words, not a personal slight.

[Slartibartfast]

Let me put this another way for those who still don't get it:  At nighttime, a 100% change in cloud cover provides a 100 W/m^2 change in the loss of heat from the ocean.  Since CO2 accounts for 0.5W/m^2, that means a change in global cloud cover is 200X as powerful, so a 0.5% decrease in cloud cover AT NIGHT will swamp out the entire effect of CO2.

 

During the daytime, the numbers are much more dramatic:  A 0.05% change in cloud cover is equivalent to the total effect of CO2.  (And the sunlight ACTUALLY heats the water.  So how much does global cloud cover change anyway?  Here you go (Wow!  3 percent!):

 

Where did you get that graph?

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/record-heat-despite-a-cold-sun/

[Bluegoat]

I posted a link the graph of the actual measured data which proves that exactly what I posted is true.  (But I had to explain the data to several here.. :tongue_smilie:)

 

I suspect many think your explanation is likly to be incorrect.

[Ravin]

No, had a baker refused to sell to someone based on color, it IS about who, not about for what purpose. 

 

It is completely valid, the same as "I don't sell to people who want a pornographic cake" is, for example.

Some people do not wish to discuss this on this thread, as has been mentioned a few times when the first person brought it up(which was not me).  I will be happy to discuss it in Current Events.  It will get political, no doubt. 

 

You are incorrect about Hobby Lobby.  There was no blanket refusal to pay for birth control for employees.  Hobby Lobby's owners  objected to paying for IUDs and morning-after pills as required under the ACA mandate.  It did NOT object to paying for all contraceptives, but merely those which can interfere with the creation of life once an egg is fertilized.  All methods were still available to all employees and all other methods were covered, courtesy of the ACA.   The Court found in favor of Hobby Lobby, rightly so. 

 

Except it is not valid to refuse to sell a non-pornographic cake to someone even if they came in wanting a pornographic cake. It IS valid to refuse to sell a pornographic cake.

 

You are correct about the distinction made by the defendant between types of birth control in Hobby Lobby, but incorrect about the actual science. The actual science was irrelevant because the decision was based on their strongly held beliefs which do not require actual science to back them up.

 

Which is part of where Hobby Lobby went off the rails. An employer can not believe in Christmas trees, and refuse to sell them, but they shouldn't be allowed to forbid their employees to buy them with their paychecks from the employer. Employer-funded health insurance is a benefit to the employee, not the employer. This goes back to what I previously said about needing to restrict how corporations should be allowed to exercise rights intended for individuals.

[Guest]

If you have evidence that points to a different conclusion, it would be helpful to actually share that information. Instead of "oh brother" and skipping around in delight.

It's more of a touchdown dance than skipping I suppose. Football spiking? Ideological sanguinity? I honestly expected a much worse set of cabinet picks from the President Elect and have been wonderfully and pleasantly surprised at almost all of them. I was really just hoping for 'anything better than her' and got a veritable Christmas wish list instead. I can't say more without going too political, but suffice to say not everyone in the country is unhappy with this pick in particular or many of them, from defense to education to commerce, too.

 

Relating to climate issues and the EPA I have issued a clarification to Slartibartfast since I wasn't trying to be personally rude in my brevity. That's as much as I'm bothering with though. Back to the happy place I go, complete with home educating non neglectfully without pretty much any compulsory state based oversight. Because I'm not a criminal :)

Edited December 8, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[Ravin]

Sadie, I understand this, but pretending that the Canon has always included people of color, women, etc. isn't the truth.  Please trust me when I say I am not advocating for only white male authors, but sometimes you can't change history or literature to reflect something that did not exist at the time to suit a political agenda.  There can be a fine line between expanding and rewriting.

 

It depends on how you define your Canon. If you make an effort, including a wider span of the globe can help.

[RegGuheert]

Regarding does the article say that greenhouse effect is increasing? It does.

 

Here is precisely what I wrote:

 

1) There has been no trend, up or down, in the measured global greenhouse effect in the past 25 years.

 

Here is what the article in Nature says:

 

However, this uprising trend pauses starting in circa 1992, when G_aa begins to slightly decrease at a rate of −0.01 W m^−2 yr^−1.

 

Simply put, the both say EXACTLY the same thing.

 

If you are still on about the fact that the global greenhouse effect went up BEFORE 1992, that is just further proof that CO2 does NOT control the global greenhouse effect.  (CO2 has gone up steadily the entire time, but SOMETHING ELSE caused the greenhouse effect to go up rapidly before 1992 and not at all thereafter.)

 

Bottom line: CO2 have virtually no influence over the global greenhouse effect so it therefore CANNOT cause the Earth to warm in any significant way.

[RegGuheert]

I suspect many think your explanation is likly to be incorrect.

 

But only those who cannot properly interpret the graph or its implications.

[Guest]

I just have to say how funny this is - there are like six subthreads in this one being taken up being two or three posters at a time. It's one of those "you know you're a member of the WTM forums when..." thing as much as body shaming crockpots in kilts is. Too funny.

 

Love you ladies!

[Slartibartfast]

I'll respond to this since I think there is a misunderstanding of what I meant - sloppy of me, but it's the Internet and only so much time can be spent on precise communication knowing how moot the effort is in general :D

 

From this discussion, I'd say you're missing that the issue is the premise, not the evidence. The narrative behind that alignment of the same facts is the dispute.

 

These are rhetorical - ask yourself and answer, I'm not challenging you to hit the points on the forum but more as a thought exercise on this topic generally (and it applies to anything where there are two differing perspectives - it's critical for debate prep).

 

Have you ever deeply and seriously examined the basic premise argument that human activity is responsible for some sort of impending worldwide destruction through temperature? Is that provable? What about the contrary? Can it be disproved? What would evidence look like for either argument?

 

That is where I am disagreeing and why it is unbridgeable. I hold a fundamentally different hypothesis, as does Reg, and neither side is going to concede because both can be defended from the current body of data. I would say that over the course of observable human history the hypothesis for climate varistion acruslly stands much more firmly on the side of it NOT being controlled, let alone largely impacted, by human behavior - we have evidence of multiple ice ages and reversals prior to any industrialization, and a paucity of evidence of longer trends being somehow accelerated OR subverted through human industrial activity. The data is insufficient and what bit of it we have doesn't contradict the argument that this is part of the same global cycles we have recorded in past centuries through human observation, commercial records, and the geological affects we see.

 

But neither is there enough data to prove the positive argument - that human behavior has caused and therefore can reverse or change a climate trend. This isn't one of those situations where the data is clear enough to establish fact and it is fallacious to say so on either side. Both can be discussed and supported or disproven through interpretation of the current body of evidence, but at this juncture there is nothing to prove. So we each pick with narrative makes the most cognitive and emotional sense to each of us (write our own movie script, in terms of influence and psychological behavior) and fit the facts to that narrative. Cue disagreements and squabbles. Cue policy arguments. This EPA pick lines up with the narrative I personally find most logical and compelling. He doesn't line up with the narrative/hypothesis adopted by you or other posters on the side of human mediated climate change.

 

Hence my 'oh brother' - it was me verbally throwing up my hands at the fundamental quandary in fewer words, not a personal slight.

There is evidence of ice ages and warmings. Those are also accompanied by wide spread planetary extinctions.

 

People aren't worried about the planet disintegrating into dust but whether or not humans can survive the increase speed of a changing climate when many species in other eras did not.

 

The planet will be fine, whether people are here or not.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[RegGuheert]

There is evidence of ice ages and warmings. Those are also accompanied by wide spread planetary extinctions.

 

I am aware of evidence for wide-spread extinctions during ice ages.  Do you have evidence of widespread extinctions during warmings? (Serious question.)

 

[Slartibartfast]

I am aware of evidence for wide-spread extinctions during ice ages.  Do you have evidence of widespread extinctions during warmings? (Serious question.)

There is extensive evidence of wide spread extinctions during periods of climate instability.

[idnib]

Truly no one cares what the global average sea level is.  The only thing that matters is what it is doing close to where you live.

 

 

Please speak only for yourself. I care a lot about the global average sea level and how it might affect other parts of the world not near me. I care about how it would affect all life, not only human life. It's called empathy.

Edited December 8, 2016 by idnib

[Slartibartfast]

I care a lot about the global average sea level and how it might affect other parts of the world not near me. I care about how it would affect all life, not just humans. It's called empathy.

I care quite a bit, almost 40% of the population of the US lives high density population centers on the coasts.

 

I live in the mountains so I will be fine but that doesn't mean I don't care. I do care.

[Guest]

There is evidence of ice ages and warmings. Those are also accompanied by wide spread planetary extinctions.

 

People aren't worried about the planet disintegrating into dust but whether or not humans can survive the increase speed of a changing climate when many species in other eras did not.

 

The planet will be fine, whether people are here or not.

Okay. I was giving the most basic and polarized hypothetical argument, not trying to characterize your specific flavor of it - same basic principle applies. Neither can be proven conclusively from the current data set, both sides have fundamental disagreements and the same body of evidence. I'm personally not worried in the slightest, given that every human who lives on this planet has a vested personal interest in staying alive and much human innovation is spent on that task in this and all other areas - we fundamentally disagree on the premise and therefore solutions. Both sides will push and pull at it and the results will show for better or worse.

 

Insert least insulting mental image of me calmly and peacably shrugging *here*. I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you - there really is nothing more for me to say :)

Edited December 8, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[Amira]

I care about changing sea levels because the majority of people who would be affected by even a small rise in sea levels are not wealthy and have few resources. It's not like hundreds of millions of people can just pick up and move elsewhere without some serious instability. The displacement that is likely to happen from the rise in sea level dwarfs anything we've ever experienced before.

[RegGuheert]

Please speak only for yourself. I care a lot about the global average sea level and how it might affect other parts of the world not near me. I care about how it would affect all life, not just humans. It's called empathy.

 

So if the ocean sea level gradually increases to 10 meters higher in the exact center of the ocean, you care about that?  I don't.

 

The ONLY thing that matters is what happens at individual coasts.  And that is completely different depending where you go.

 

Do you think I should shed a tear for those poor souls in Manhattan?

 

Again, the global average sea level really doesn't matter to anyone.  The ONLY thing that matters is what is happening where people live.

[Slartibartfast]

Okay. I was giving the most basic and polarized hypothetical argument, not trying to characterize your specific flavor of it - same basic principle applies. Neither can be proven conclusively from the current data set, both sides have fundamental disagreements and the same body of evidence. I'm personally not worried in the slightest, given that every human who lives on this planet has a vested personal interest in staying alive and much human innovation is spent on that task in this and all other areas - we fundamentally disagree on the premise and therefore solutions. Both sides will push and pull at it and the results will show for better or worse.

 

Insert least insulting mental image of me calmly and peacably shrugging *here*. I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you - there really is nothing more for me to say :)

I don't suppose that it is a concern that the vast majority of climate scientists have reached similar conclusions and have growing concerns while a cartoonist with no Ph.D appears to be a source for skepticism regarding climate change?

[RegGuheert]

There is evidence of ice ages and warmings. Those are also accompanied by wide spread planetary extinctions.

 

I am aware of evidence for wide-spread extinctions during ice ages.  Do you have evidence of widespread extinctions during warmings? (Serious question.)

 

 

There is extensive evidence of wide spread extinctions during periods of climate instability.

 

Since you will not provide evidence to support your assertion, I assume you have none.

[TranquilMind]

Except it is not valid to refuse to sell a non-pornographic cake to someone even if they came in wanting a pornographic cake. It IS valid to refuse to sell a pornographic cake.

 

You are correct about the distinction made by the defendant between types of birth control in Hobby Lobby, but incorrect about the actual science. The actual science was irrelevant because the decision was based on their strongly held beliefs which do not require actual science to back them up.

 

Which is part of where Hobby Lobby went off the rails. An employer can not believe in Christmas trees, and refuse to sell them, but they shouldn't be allowed to forbid their employees to buy them with their paychecks from the employer. Employer-funded health insurance is a benefit to the employee, not the employer. This goes back to what I previously said about needing to restrict how corporations should be allowed to exercise rights intended for individuals.

 

[Note- people keep responding on this issue, so I am going to answer].

 

Nope.  Not true.  The baker could indeed decline to sell a cake with an objectionable message.

 

See here:  Adolph Hitler cake declined.  http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28269290/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/-year-old-hitler-cant-get-name-cake/#.WEm4DX2LUxg

 

 

Deborah Campbell, 25, said she phoned in her order last week to the ShopRite. When she told the bakery department she wanted her son's name spelled out, she was told to talk to a supervisor, who denied the request.

 

Karen Meleta, a spokeswoman for ShopRite, defended the supermarket. She said the Campbells had similar requests denied at the same store the last two years and said Heath Campbell previously had asked for a swastika to be included in the decoration.

 

"We reserve the right not to print anything on the cake that we deem to be inappropriate," Meleta said. "We considered this inappropriate."

The Campbells ultimately got their cake decorated at a Wal-Mart in Pennsylvania, Deborah Campbell said.

So as long as the baker isn't Christian, it's ok. 

 

You are correct that I was merely repeating the argument from Hobby Lobby regarding the abortifacient nature of the declined types of birth control.

However, your Hobby Lobby analogy is off.  No one disallowed Hobby Lobby employees from buying whatever method they wanted with their paychecks.  These employees can spend their own money how they want.  Hobby Lobby just didn't want to spend its money on these few narrow types of birth control and the Court upheld this. 

 

[Amira]

Urban islands, for example, are at great risk from climate change. Lower density or uninhabited islands appear to change and grow when sea levels rise, but urban islands are not able to and sea level changes matter greatly.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-kiribati-maldives-cyclone-marshall-islands/

 

"Urban islands are in trouble because they've lost their capacity to adapt," Kench says. "They're environmentally degraded. Their reefs are damaged, the sedimentation processes are undermined, and the islands aren't actively connected to their reefs. For densely urban centers, the only strategies to cope with rising sea levels will be engineered ones."

[ktgrok]

Reg, the next line of the article says that that pause is statistically insignificant. And if you dig further down,it says that there WAS an increase in certain parts of the globe, but they were offset by decreases in other areas, related to other effects. That doesn't mean that carbon can't effect global warming. 

"

This statistically non-significant trend indicates that the enhancing global atmospheric greenhouse effect is slowed down."

 

 

[idnib]

So if the ocean sea level gradually increases to 10 meters higher in the exact center of the ocean, you care about that?  I don't.

 

I care. It doesn't matter if you don't care because I'm not asking you to. I'm simply asking you not to speak for all of us. 

 

I care because it doesn't happen in isolation. I was talking about average sea level, but you've moved the goalposts by suspending the laws of fluid dynamics while also saying this theoretical exact center of the ocean also happens to contain no life, no food webs, nothing that would disrupt human life on the coasts. It's just some completely isolated 10m column of lifeless water encased in glass and hovering by itself over the water surface, and that column is increasing the average global sea level? OK, then I guess I don't care much in your unrealistic example.  

[RegGuheert]

Reg, the next line of the article says that that pause is statistically insignificant. And if you dig further down,it says that there WAS an increase in certain parts of the globe, but they were offset by decreases in other areas, related to other effects. That doesn't mean that carbon can't effect global warming. 

"

This statistically non-significant trend indicates that the enhancing global atmospheric greenhouse effect is slowed down."

 

Read what you just quoted again.  It says the TREND is non-significant, which is precisely what I said when I said "There has been no trend, up or down,..."

[RegGuheert]

II was talking about average sea level, but you've moved the goalposts by suspending the laws of fluid dynamics while also saying this theoretical exact center of the ocean also happens to contain no life, no food webs, nothing that would disrupt human life on the coasts. It's just some completely isolated 10m column of lifeless water encased in glass and hovering by itself over the water surface, and that column is increasing the average global sea level? 

 

I have suspended nothing.  (Actually, 10 meters is a bit extreme, but 1 meter is not too unreasonable.  The point stands that if the ocean is higher in the center, and it often is, it is no problem for anyone.)

 

For those interested in learning more about sea level, here is an interesting video from an expert on the subject:

 

[Slartibartfast]

Since you will not provide evidence to support your assertion, I assume you have none.

What?

 

You agreed with me.

 

Climate instability is climate instability. Global warming and ice ages are connected. Climate change is not *only* Global warming, there is also cooling.

 

You said yourself that ice ages are related to extinctions. I agreed.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[RegGuheert]

What?

 

You agreed with me.

 

Only with regards to ice ages.  Here is what I wrote:

 

I am aware of evidence for wide-spread extinctions during ice ages.  Do you have evidence of widespread extinctions during warmings? (Serious question.)

 

I know of NO mass extinctions due to warming.  Historically, life on Earth flourishes during warm periods and dies during cold periods.

 

If you want to claim that there are extinctions that occur due to warmings, you will need to support that assertion with some sort of scientific evidence.

[Slartibartfast]

Only with regards to ice ages.  Here is what I wrote:

 

 

I know of NO mass extinctions due to warming.  Historically, life on Earth flourishes during warm periods and dies during cold periods.

 

If you want to claim that there are extinctions that occur due to warmings, you will need to support that assertion with some sort of scientific evidence.

I included ice ages in my assertions.

 

I did not say "extinctions during warming only and not ice ages" I did say both. You can see I said ice ages where you quoted me.

 

Ice Ages and Global Warming are both a part of Climate Change. They are related.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[hornblower]

For anyone interested in factual information about why international bodies, governments, and yes, even OIL companies ( ex  "Chevron shares the concerns of governments and the public about climate change risks and recognizes that the use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs contributes to the rising concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in Earth’s atmosphere. GHGs contribute to increases in global temperatures. ) are working to try to mitigate climate change the reports are all available online. 

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

The IPCC is now in its 6th reporting cycle. The next major report will be 2022. 

 

[ktgrok]

Only with regards to ice ages.  Here is what I wrote:

 

 

I know of NO mass extinctions due to warming.  Historically, life on Earth flourishes during warm periods and dies during cold periods.

 

If you want to claim that there are extinctions that occur due to warmings, you will need to support that assertion with some sort of scientific evidence.

 

It's not a mass extinction event at this point, but what is happening to the Great Barrier Reef right now is pretty darned sobering. 

[RegGuheert]

Ice Ages and Global Warming are both a part of Climate Change. They are related.

 

The latest research shows that idea of a big "switch" in the ocean currents due to warming was, like most claims related to CO2, completely overblown (read "wrong"):

 

URI oceanographer refutes claims that climate change is slowing pace of Gulf Stream

 

If you don't know about that study, it is probably because the mainstream tends to only report the stories which are scarier.  When those stories are rolled back by actual science where the measurements refute the simulations, they almost never make a big deal out of that.

 

[Guest]

It's not a mass extinction event at this point, but what is happening to the Great Barrier Reef right now is pretty darned sobering.

Except there have been coral dieoffs as well, we have evidence of that in multiple oceans at varying junctures, and as far as I can tell from the current reporting on that specific location they can't actually figure out what is causing it beyond conjecture. It seems unrelated to water temperature or even pollution or human contact with the reef. It's weird no doubt, but it isn't conclusive evidence of any particular thing in terms of cause.

 

Have you seen something proving otherwise? I could have missed something. I've been tracking that story with interest unrelated to climate.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[hornblower]

 

 

If you want to claim that there are extinctions that occur due to warmings, you will need to support that assertion with some sort of scientific evidence.

 

Mayhew, Jenkins, Benton: A long-term association between global temperature and biodiversity, origination and extinction in the fossil record

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2008

 

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1630/47

 

Write up about this research in SciAm

 

"global warming is consistently associated with planetwide die-offs."

 

"eras with relatively high concentrations of greenhouse gases bode ill for the number of species on Earth. "The rule appears to be that greenhouse worlds adversely affect biodiversity," Mayhew says.

 

That also bodes ill for the fate of species currently on Earth as the global temperatures continue to rise to levels similar to those seen during the Permian. "The risk of future extinction through rapid global warming is primarily expected to occur through mismatches between the climates to which organisms are adapted in their current range and the future distribution of those climates," 

[Slartibartfast]

The latest research shows that idea of a big "switch" in the ocean currents due to warming was, like most claims related to CO2, completely overblown (read "wrong"):

 

URI oceanographer refutes claims that climate change is slowing pace of Gulf Stream

 

If you don't know about that study, it is probably because the mainstream tends to only report the stories which are scarier.  When those stories are rolled back by actual science where the measurements refute the simulations, they almost never make a big deal out of that.

It might be because I read actual science publications and not nonsense.

[RegGuheert]

Polar bears are starving.

 

No. They aren't.

 

Please read the following article from Dr. Susan Crawford for details:

 

More scientific evidence that polar bears are doing just fine - a 42% increase in population with some of them "as fat as pigs"

 

She also has an excellent website: PolarBearScience.com

[RegGuheert]

It might be because I read actual science publications and not nonsense.

 

So now you are calling Geophysical Research Letters nonsense?  That's where the research was published but you didn't learn about it because you apparently consider any site which finds and links to the non-alarmist climate science to be nonsense.

[Slartibartfast]

No. They aren't.

 

Please read the following article from Dr. Susan Crawford for details:

 

More scientific evidence that polar bears are doing just fine - a 42% increase in population with some of them "as fat as pigs"

 

She also has an excellent website: PolarBearScience.com

Her name is Dr Susan Crockford and she was paid quite a bit of money from the Heartland Institute.

[Slartibartfast]

So now you are calling Geophysical Research Letters nonsense?  That's where the research was published but you didn't learn about it because you apparently consider any site which finds and links to the non-alarmist climate science to be nonsense.

NASA is alarmist nonsense? NOAA is alarmist nonsense?

[Guest]

Her name is Dr Susan Crockford and she was paid quite a bit of money from the Heartland Institute.

Do you really want to go down the road of discrediting input because of research funding? Almost no scientist has a leg to stand on in your own pro camp if we are playing follow the money :lol:

 

The purpose of financial disclosure is information, not ad hominem fallacies. That goes for both sides.

[Slartibartfast]

Do you really want to go down the road of discrediting input because of research funding? Almost no scientist has a leg to stand on in your own pro camp if we are playing follow the money :lol:

 

The purpose of financial disclosure is information, not ad hominem fallacies. That goes for both sides.

It isn't an ad hominem to question someone's funding, how am I insulting them?

 

It is standard procedure to discuss someone's funding and a perfectly legitimate concern.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[RegGuheert]

Mayhew, Jenkins, Benton: A long-term association between global temperature and biodiversity, origination and extinction in the fossil record

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2008

 

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1630/47

 

Write up about this research in SciAm

 

"global warming is consistently associated with planetwide die-offs."

 

"eras with relatively high concentrations of greenhouse gases bode ill for the number of species on Earth. "The rule appears to be that greenhouse worlds adversely affect biodiversity," Mayhew says.

 

That also bodes ill for the fate of species currently on Earth as the global temperatures continue to rise to levels similar to those seen during the Permian. "The risk of future extinction through rapid global warming is primarily expected to occur through mismatches between the climates to which organisms are adapted in their current range and the future distribution of those climates," 

 

Thanks for the link.  However, that paper from 2008 is simply a bunch of incorrect predictions based on simulations.  It does NOT provide any evidence of what has happened during warmings of the past.

 

Here is what has ACTUALLY happened to the biosphere on the REAL Earth due to the increase in CO2 concentration:

 

18 million square kilometers of more greenery due to "carbon polution" that the "Greens" hate

 

Yet again, a satellite study of leaf area shows that the world is greener than it was in 1982. There are more plants mostly thanks to CO2 aerial fertilization. The biggest benefits from CO2 are in the warm tropics. The extra greenery in colder areas was due to that other disaster called “global warmingâ€. About a tenth of the greening had nothing to do with either carbon pollution or extra warmth and was apparently thanks to nitrogen from man-made fertilizers.

[swimmermom3]

I live on the coast too. I'm personally very happy for the economic development of the country and the rollback of onerous and dubious regulation by the EPA that has very little real effect on the climate but a very measurable, deleterious impact on the businesses and property rights of millions of Americans. It's a bad agency that needs major reform.

 

And as someone who lives in a state strangled by federal AND state regulation on resource development, where hundreds of thousands of people depend on water, mineral, and logging rights to survive and real jobs have been really lost to the imaginary doomsday scenarios of sierra club carpet baggers? Super thrilled with the EPA pick. And lots of the othe cabinet picks. Yay.

 

We are now in a state recession and our polar bears are still not drowning, no matter how many stupid commercials have been aired to that effect over the last two decades. I have my own concerns and the likelihood of them being addressed federally is increasing. Of course I'm happy.

 

NM off topic

Edited December 8, 2016 by swimmermom3

[Slartibartfast]

Thanks for the link.  However, that paper from 2008 is simply a bunch of incorrect predictions based on simulations.  It does NOT provide any evidence of what has happened during warmings of the past.

 

Here is what has ACTUALLY happened to the biosphere on the REAL Earth due to the increase in CO2 concentration:

 

18 million square kilometers of more greenery due to "carbon polution" that the "Greens" hate

All this is is an exchange of links between climate change deniers and science institutions.

 

I will just start using blogs as well since it doesn't seem to matter.

 

https://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/

 

NOAA

 

http://www.noaa.gov/resource-collections/climate-change-impacts

 

 

You are linking a blog, I am linking NOAA. Do you see the issue here?

Edited December 8, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[Charlie]

Again, the global average sea level really doesn't matter to anyone.  The ONLY thing that matters is what is happening where people live.

 

Also great news: World hunger is over because I just ate.

- Stephen Colbert

 

@ Swimmermom3, the reason calling out lies, conspiracies, and anti-science in an education community isn't a slam is because it's a real problem that can be addressed in some small measure by holding arguments accountable to reality. This poster's weird fear-mongering and absurd implication that one can understand complex scientific data accurately because they have google and can find websites that provide simple explanations should be run off such a board as fast promoting cannibalism as brain-food would be.

 

@ anyone, this... bizarre turn of conversation here and the thread about educational neglect are eerily connected. When people believe their own opinions and personal beliefs are immune to reality checks, then anything goes. And our kids suffer. And our society suffers. It's amazing to me to see such an absurd topic responded to as if it were legit. It lends the topic the image of credibility it does not deserve. It shouldn't only be quickly squished, it should be embarrassing for any educator to come here and promote such foolishness.

[bibiche]

Thank you, Charlie.