That source that you're pulling from, that conservative Christian think tank, has received nearly a million dollars from Exxon mobile. Let's follow that money. — flannel jesus

The pot calling the ice cream-maker black. Reminds me of the sexual morality of the Catholic church.

How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think-tanks by suggesting that their research findings are perverted by hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts. The irony of this indignation is that any academic whose research dares question the “settled science” of the climate change complex is instantly accused of being a shill for the oil and gas industry or the Koch brothers.

What “research” dares to question it? All I’m seeing is the usual claims of “maybe data is being suppressed because of Big Climate” conspiracies. No research whatsoever. Just stupid claim after stupid claim by an economic commentator for a conservative think tank.

While it’s funny that he accurately describes himself, plenty of con man do the same thing. “I’m not gonna steal your money — what do you think I am, a con man?”

Naomi Oreskes has documented this very well.
— Mikie

:rofl: — Agree-to-Disagree

What’s funny about that?

Oh wait, you’re just imitating me, like a child. My bad— I forgot who I was dealing with.

Fits right in with everything else you’ve written. “Big oil” — no, “big climate!” :rofl:

If nearly a trillion dollars has been spent, and almost no progress has been made, who has been getting lots of money for producing next to nothing. We definitely need to follow the climate change money. — Agree-to-Disagree

Except plenty of progress has been made, and Moore’s claims that anyone is saying otherwise is, as usual, complete nonsense that you lap up unquestioningly.

For someone so skeptical of climate science, you sure do put a lot of trust in the Heritage Foundation and non-climate scientists.

It’s almost as if this were selective skepticism.

Moore rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2009, he described climate change as "the biggest scam of the last two decades."[25] In columns and op-eds, Moore called those with concerns about climate change "Stalinistic" and has accused climate scientists of being part of a global conspiracy to obtain money via research grants.[26][27] In an April 2019 interview, Moore said that the Federal Reserve should not consider the economic impacts of climate change in decision-making.[28]

Just a non-biased source bravely questioning the establishment, the groupthink of scientists around the world who are just faking the data for research grants, and who don’t dare present the “evidence” disproving climate change.

People believe this stuff. Do people this ignorant really exist or am I being punk’d?

That source that you're pulling from, that conservative Christian think tank, has received nearly a million dollars from Exxon mobile. Let's follow that money. — flannel jesus

No no! Remember he said not to question the person or the institution. So that’s ruled out. Except when dealing with scientists and scientific institutions around the world — that’s where the real conspiracy lies.

NASA and the Royal Society? Questionable sources — never mind the evidence.

The Heritage Foundation? Hey stick with what’s said.

Mikie, you suffer from the worst case of "black-or-white" logical fallacy that I have ever seen. Compared to you devout christians are tolerant and reasonable. :grin:

No, I just have little tolerance for climate deniers spreading propaganda from the Heritage Foundation. There’s no “black and white” fallacy. And the attempts to portray those who listen to the counter scientists and overwhelming evidence is, as usual, quite pathetic.

Anyway — do you have anything left to add to this thread? Any more Koch propaganda you’d like to share? If not, consider running along.

Another conspiracy narrative graph.

But how do we REALLY know there’s that much CO2 or that the temperatures have risen? Have YOU seen the thermometers or ice core samples? Have YOU been to Mauna Loa?

Science has been wrong before! We should question the overwhelming evidence narratives! And I say this because I’m super smart and free thinking. Unlike the dupes that listen to these “climate scientist” types.

But Heritage Foundation is cool. And trustworthy. Because they have no reason whatsoever to undermine trust in science or deliberately manufacture doubt.

But , can you not see the graphs going up? That means things are getting better, because nearer to God.

Some US government officials want to leave climate to God:

Congressman Tim Walberg, as per Time · May 31, 2017
Former president spokeswoman Sarah Sanders, as per Raw Story · Jan 22, 2019

Climate change denial in the Trump cabinet: where do his nominees stand?
^{— Mazin Sidahmed · The Guardian · Dec 15, 2016}

Maybe the US needs better voters.

Of the two major political parties, they want to accelerate it. Which is why they’re the most dangerous organization in history. Unless of course there’s some organization I missed that explicitly states they want to push for more usage of nuclear weapons. — Mikie

"In history" you say, that is quite an absurd exaggeration. The ccp is accelerating it as well. And unchallenged, since they have no opposition from anyone. At least the Republicans have the dems constantly bitching about the world coming to an end and giving pushback.

"In history" you say, that is quite an absurd exaggeration. — Merkwurdichliebe

No, it isn’t.

the world coming to an end — Merkwurdichliebe

Strawman.

ccp — Merkwurdichliebe

China deflection.

Actually the CCP are doing far more than the Republicans. And they also don’t pretend climate change isn’t happening. Whatever their failings, they don’t hold a candle to the most dangerous organization in history.

But way to go exhuming that old diversion. :clap:

That means things are getting better, because nearer to God. — unenlightened

Nearly forgot about him. God and free markets. Two foundational beliefs.

Nearly forgot about him. God and free markets. Two foundational beliefs. — Mikie

What you did forget about Mikie is that MANY locations on Earth will be better because of a little global-warming.

Notice that this statement is NOT denying global-warming. It assumes that global-warming is happening.

Did you have a look at this website? As far as I know the republican party is not connected with this website. :grin:

https://weatherspark.com

Would be great:

US aims to create nuclear fusion facility within 10 years, Energy chief Granholm says
^{— Stephanie Liechtenstein, Matthew Daly · AP · Sep 25, 2023}

Our goal is to get the cost of clean hydrogen down to 1 dollar per kilogram within one decade. — Jennifer Granholm

Ambitious.

What you did forget about Mikie is that MANY locations on Earth will be better because of a little global-warming. — Agree-to-Disagree

:snicker: Yeah we’ve gone over this already. I think @unenlightened did a good job unpacking that statement.

My house burning down has positive aspects too— like creating lots of briquettes.

Anything else to say or are we now at the repeating BS state?

Would be great: — jorndoe

Indeed.

My house burning down has positive aspects too— like creating lots of briquettes. — Mikie

The Earth is much bigger and more complex than a house. We have been burning parts of the Earth (e.g. wood, coal, gas, oil, etc) for a long time, and this has improved the quality of life for most people (including you).

The Earth is much bigger and more complex than a house. — Agree-to-Disagree

:ok:

Nevermind. Bye.

Mikie has absolute faith in climate scientists.

But do climate scientists have absolute faith in themselves?

These quotes come from Wikipedia's "Model accuracy" section of the "General circulation model" webpage"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_circulation_model#Model_accuracy

The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report asserted "very high confidence that models reproduce the general features of the global-scale annual mean surface temperature increase over the historical period". However, the report also observed that the rate of warming over the period 1998–2012 was lower than that predicted by 111 out of 114 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project climate models.

AOGCMs internalise as many processes as are sufficiently understood. However, they are still under development and significant uncertainties remain.

A debate over how to reconcile climate model predictions that upper air (tropospheric) warming should be greater than observed surface warming, some of which appeared to show otherwise, was resolved in favour of the models, following data revisions.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE MODELS WERE WRONG. BUT INSTEAD OF CORRECTING THE MODELS THEY "DOCTORED" THE DATA TO MAKE IT LOOK AS IF THE MODELS WERE CORRECT.

Cloud effects are a significant area of uncertainty in climate models. Clouds have competing effects on climate. They cool the surface by reflecting sunlight into space; they warm it by increasing the amount of infrared radiation transmitted from the atmosphere to the surface. In the 2001 IPCC report possible changes in cloud cover were highlighted as a major uncertainty in predicting climate.

However the simulated change in precipitation was about one-fourth less than what was observed. Errors in simulated precipitation imply errors in other processes, such as errors in the evaporation rate that provides moisture to create precipitation. The other possibility is that the satellite-based measurements are in error. Either indicates progress is required in order to monitor and predict such changes.

THEY EVEN ADMIT THAT THE SATELLITE-BASED MEASUREMENTS COULD BE IN ERROR.

The precise magnitude of future changes in climate is still uncertain

Just worth throwing these out here again:

In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:



Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.

What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:



That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.

So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.

One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?

Turns out there is.

Over 100 years:



And over 800 thousand years:



Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?

The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."

But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.

But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.

So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.

Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?

I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how only a few fractions of a degrees has large effects over time, which we're already beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.

In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.

Ambitious. — jorndoe

Pipe dream. a literal pipe dream. Two of them in fact. Hydrogen and fusion. Instead of taking action, fantasise about the magic bullet we will have in ten or twenty years. Maybe.

Instead of

Agriculture reform.
transport system reorganisation
building redesign
development of green energy sources and infrastructure including mass storage, using already available technology.

Judith Curry is a genuine climate scientist. — Agree-to-Disagree

But in this case, of course, Do not follow the money.

https://www.desmog.com/2023/05/15/judith-curry-denier-montana-climate-trial/

Kevin Trenberth — Agree-to-Disagree

Chris Hipkins and Chris Luxon were both asked about climate change at the end of the leaders' debate this week, and neither response was helpful.

Both talked about cutting emissions – and in a personal capacity, recycling – but neither addressed the most important issue staring us in the face, and that is recognising that climate change is here, it is accelerating and getting worse, and it has consequences. We must adapt to the changes, plan for them and build resilience, and we need to do so urgently. — Trenberth et al.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ideasroom/beyond-recycling-what-to-do-about-climate-change

Since the late 1800s, global average surface temperatures have increased by about 1.1℃, driven by human activities, most notably the burning of fossil fuels which adds greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and methane) to the atmosphere.

As the atmosphere warms, it can hold more moisture in the form of water vapour, which is also a greenhouse gas. This in turn amplifies the warming caused by our emissions of other greenhouse gases.

Some people mistakenly believe water vapour is a driver of Earth’s current warming. But as I explain below, water vapour is part of Earth’s hydrological cycle and plays an important role in the natural greenhouse effect. Its rise is a consequence of the atmospheric warming caused by our emissions arising especially from burning fossil fuels. — Trenberth

https://theconversation.com/how-rising-water-vapour-in-the-atmosphere-is-amplifying-warming-and-making-extreme-weather-worse-213347

To address climate change threats in New Zealand will require more than mobilising private investment with a focus on renewable energy. It will need a comprehensive and collaborative approach that acknowledges dependencies on shipping and air travel, which continue to depend on fossil fuels.

Here are ten broad areas that must be considered when tackling the specific and sometimes unique challenges New Zealand faces in the years ahead. — Trenberth

https://theconversation.com/meeting-the-long-term-climate-threat-takes-more-than-private-investment-10-ways-nz-can-be-smart-and-strategic-211100

And the ten point plan that follows is quite radical, sensible and doable without waiting for the magic bullet that is only decades away.

But in this case, of course, Do not follow the money. — unenlightened

From your link:

Climatologist Judith Curry has already billed the state around $30,000 for a report filed in the case Held v. State of Montana, according to the deposition she made in December to an attorney for the 16 young Montanans suing the state. Curry also claimed that she charged $400 an hour for her consulting work, although she did not disclose the full amount Montana will pay her for appearing in court.

Are you seriously comparing the $30,000 paid to Judith Curry with the $2.2 TRILLION that the US is spending to slow global warming?

Seriously ???

$400 an hour seems like a very reasonable rate for an expert's time.

Do you expect Montana to not use any expert witnesses to support their case? How much money do you think California has spent promoting climate alarmism?

The lawyers for the Montana youth, who first filed their complaint in 2020, intend to bring a dozen expert witnesses to the stand.

How much do you think the dozen expert witnesses will be paid to support the other side of the case?

Yes. Please follow the money. For Judith Curry AND the other expert witnesses working for the other side of the case.

Kevin Trenberth — Agree-to-Disagree

At least 2 of my comments have been removed.

They were about the climate scientists Kevin Trenberth and Judith Curry.

Can anybody please tell me why these comments were removed?

In 1900 the biggest problem was horse shit.

Nowadays the biggest problem is bullshit.

It is worth remembering that oil, and cars, saved humanity from drowning in horse shit. :grin:

Let’s think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn’t know what an atom was. They didn’t know its structure. They also didn’t know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet, interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS. None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn’t know what you are talking about.

Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it’s even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They’re bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment’s thought knows it. — Dr. Michael Crichton

$400 an hour seems like a very reasonable rate for an expert's time.

Do you expect Montana to not use any expert witnesses to support their case? How much money do you think California has spent promoting climate alarmism?

The lawyers for the Montana youth, who first filed their complaint in 2020, intend to bring a dozen expert witnesses to the stand. — Agree-to-Disagree

Now I see how it works! One maverick retired scientist is a honest Joe getting fairly paid, but a dozen is a venal conspiracy. You must be right because everyone disagrees.

with the $2.2 TRILLION that the US is spending to slow global warming? — Agree-to-Disagree

You’ve been corrected on this several times now. The US government is NOT spending 2.2 trillion on climate change. Not even close. And that figure is from a bill that didn’t pass anyway.

Stop deliberately spreading misinformation.

Would be great — jorndoe

Indeed it would be. Though I expect there to be militant lobbying efforts against fusion once it starts posing an immediate threat to oil and gas. Renewables and EVs weren't as demonized 10-20 years ago as they are today.

The US government is NOT spending 2.2 trillion on climate change. Not even close. — Mikie

What’s the price of a green economy? An extra $3.5 trillion a year

Getting to net zero by 2050 will cost an extra $3.5 trillion a year, according to a new study by McKinsey.

Consultancy firm McKinsey says total global spending by governments, businesses and individuals on energy and land-use systems will need to rise by $3.5 trillion a year, every year, if we are to have any chance of getting to net-zero in 2050.

That’s a 60% increase on today’s level of investment and is equivalent to half of global corporate profits, a quarter of world tax revenue and 7% of household spending. A further $1 trillion would also need to be reallocated from high-emission to low-carbon assets. — World Economic Forum

This quote states that $3.5 trillion a year is a 60% increase on todays level of investment.

So todays level of investment = $3.5 trillion divided by 1.6 = $2.1875 trillion

$2.1875 trillion is very close to $2.2 trillion, the amount that I mentioned

[added after the original post - I just realised that these numbers are for the whole world, not just the US]