The models are fully evaluated in the article and found wanting.
No they are not.
Nothing has changed except the Economist’s willingness to say so
Conspiracy nonsense.
Star
Allow me to answer for you…
Just because the previous models amounted to an unadulterated load of horse shit, doesn’t mean that these will.
Hahaha
Its okay Plum you have already demonstrated you ignorance enough, no need to keep doing it.
Star is a computer guy. He hangs around on Reddit way more than he should.
I actually very rarely go on Reddit but hey why am I not surprised a conspiracy theorist makes a claim he has no evidence to support.
The mental gymnastics retort is an old favourite there.
It goes like this…
Follow my long and often nonsensical logic please. And if you counter with something that I can’t answer then I’ll simply accuse you being tenuous.
I'm sorry if you find my posts long but the topic can be quite complex at time, as for nonsensical logic, can you point to where I'm being nonsensical please?
What part can't I counter. Moz made a claim that the Economist reviewed all models (referring to climate change models) and found the vast majority where wrong.
So I did some searching on what the Economist had to say about climate models because I find the claim he made highly suspicious as what would the Economist a newspaper that focuses on business and politics be doing reviewing climate change models and what would makes its journalist and editors qualified to conduct a review of climate models considering they are you know journalists and editors and not actual climate scientists.
I found no such review but did find a relatively recent article from them that states that climate models have been most part pretty good at predicting whats happened so far.
Moz responds to that with what amounts to a conspiracy theory which he provide no evidence for in order to dismiss the economist statement that the climate models where generally pretty good.
He then quotes a 2013 article from the Economist in which they refer to what became known as the global warming hiatus that was said to have occurred between 1998 and 2013. They also referred to research conducted by Ed Hawkins which appeared to show that the observed temperature readings where less than what was predicted by 20 climate models.
Couple of points here.
1. He omitted the articles intro lines that indicated that even with a pause in temperature rise that doesn't mean the problem (ie. climate change) is going away at least in the Economist's view.
2. It isn't a review of all models conducted by the Economist. They are referring to research by an expert who is referring to 20 climate models.
3. 20 models isn't even a third of all the climate models.
But here is the thing Ed Hawkins no longer stands by his 2013 analysis.
https://twitter.com/ed_hawkins/status/1370312992647225347
Basically the global warming hiatus never happened and perception of a hiatus was caused by incomplete data set. At the very most that time period saw a minor decrease in the rate of warming.
But I can already predict Moz's response to this. Its gonna to be one or more of the following. Its science cheating and editing the data to suit its presets conclusion. Or Ed Hawkins is caving to political correctness, or he was got too, or he realized that he came make more money from promoting climate change or he will get more government grant money for research by towing the climate change line etc etc. None of which he will be able to back up with a shred of evidence.
The thing with amateur climate skeptics like Moz, is they seize on any apparent evidence that does not support man made climate change and hold it as gospel that overrides the far greater volume of evidence that supports man made climate change.
Amateur climate skeptic sees 99 pieces of evidence that support climate change and 1 piece that doesn't support it. They conclude the 1 piece of evidence that doesn't support climate change must be right.
Climate scientists sees 99 pieces of evidence that support climate change and 1 piece that doesn't support it, they go on the balance of probabilities the 99 pieces of evidence are more likely correct and the one piece is either an error or possibly a genuine factor that needs to be considered going forward but we will need to research it to know for sure.
They then publish their findings on that one piece of evidence which conclude it was caused by an error in data collection, or the evidence was accurate but doesn't make any significant difference to the overall picture, or on closer examination that evidence actually supports man made climate change.
The climate skeptics start crying and going that's not fair, that's cheating!
What I see Anger is 1.2 degrees, half of which occurred before man made CO2 was a factor. I see a bunch of models that have consistently over predicted the temperatures and are still predicting catastrophe. I see a Climate movement that seizes on every wild fire as evidence, but doesn’t even mention one of the coldest periods in Arctic history I see politicians promoting solutions that have no chance of making a difference, with no attempt to do practical things that could have an immediate effect. I see countries walking away from the cleanest and safest energy source on the basis of it not being clean or safe.
In short I see a lot of self serving politics, dishonest science and selective reporting. All of which you seem to support.
What I see Anger is 1.2 degrees, half of which occurred before man made CO2 was a factor. I see a bunch of models that have consistently over predicted the temperatures and are still predicting catastrophe. I see a Climate movement that seizes on every wild fire as evidence, but doesn’t even mention one of the coldest periods in Arctic history I see politicians promoting solutions that have no chance of making a difference, with no attempt to do practical things that could have an immediate effect. I see countries walking away from the cleanest and safest energy source on the basis of it not being clean or safe.
In short I see a lot of self serving politics, dishonest science and selective reporting. All of which you seem to support.
Here I'll make your last post a lot more concise for you.
What I see is what I want to see.
What I see Anger is 1.2 degrees, half of which occurred before man made CO2 was a factor. I see a bunch of models that have consistently over predicted the temperatures and are still predicting catastrophe. I see a Climate movement that seizes on every wild fire as evidence, but doesn’t even mention one of the coldest periods in Arctic history I see politicians promoting solutions that have no chance of making a difference, with no attempt to do practical things that could have an immediate effect. I see countries walking away from the cleanest and safest energy source on the basis of it not being clean or safe.
In short I see a lot of self serving politics, dishonest science and selective reporting. All of which you seem to support.
Here I'll make your last post a lot more concise for you.
What I see is what I want to see.
Well one thing I know for sure is you never had a clue half the temperature increase occurred before carbon could have been a factor. Why? Because unlike you I never read that in any article, with just a little digging I discovered it for myself.
There are those that think for themselves and those that are spoon fed.
But I do recognize your response above …’what I see is what I want to see’…. as a transparent attempted diversion, stemming from the undeniable validity of every point I made.
A little too obvious don’t you think, but what are you going to do. Google everything you can find on each point and cut and paste…LOL
Mozart
I will give you an example of hy the climate change narrative is aimed at a non science narrative.
In 1997 a heat wave hit Europe and the temperature in for instance Berlin in August was 38 degrees. However, the average temperature for August since then has hardly changed and it is an average of 24,2 degrees. In the case of Vienna the Maimum temperature was 38,4 degrees in 1997 - but the average is 26 degrees.
I spent some time in berlin in 1973 and the temperature in the time I spent there was 24 degrees. However, I only went to Vienna in October 1973 and if one compares the October 1997 high it was 14,5 degrees.
The media went ballistic about the 1997 heatwave about climate change that would destroy the world - but that heatwave was never repeated and further studies indicated the heatwave was linked to a particularly acute El Nino situation in the Pacific Ocean causing drought conditions in Europe and consequently higher temperatures.
If the change over 200 years was 1,2 degrees over that period I cannot see why this should be an ultimate instrument of Government control. I said above that politics took over and science is now a political weapon and nothing more
The story that manmade climate change is a major problem have in fact not been proven and as you pointed out has been a farce. Agree with you here.
Well one thing I know for sure is you never had a clue half the temperature increase occurred before carbon could have been a factor. Why? Because unlike you I never read that in any article, with just a little digging I discovered it for myself.
It doesn't matter how many times you bring up warming the first half of the 20th century, climate scientists know about it and understand what caused it and it's in no way contradictory to or evidence against man made climate change.
There are those that think for themselves and those that are spoon fed.
There are those that are capable of been fair and balanced in assessing evidence and those that are biased or indoctrinated.
But I do recognize your response above …’what I see is what I want to see’…. as a transparent attempted diversion, stemming from the undeniable validity of every point I made.
That is rich coming from the master of diversion. Where is that link to the Economist reviewing and finding issue with all those climate models...I'm still waiting?. As for the undeniable validity of every point you make...christ on a bike you really do love yourself don't you. Care to withdraw that article you linked into the Economist which was based on scientific research that the scientists who conducted it no longer stand by?
A little too obvious don’t you think, but what are you going to do. Google everything you can find on each point and cut and paste…LOL
Ah come on now, I occasionally use Bing! But damn these search engines, allowing people to fact check ones bullshit arguments, its so not fair. Well that doesn't matter I'll know what I'll do I'll just ignore them and repeat the same unoriginal and long debunked arguments over and over.
Star
What never ceases to amaze me is how predisposed humans are to falling for the same garbage so endlessly.
It’s like it doesn’t matter how loudly history is screaming at you to treat what you’re being fed with ever increasing amounts skepticism, people just refuse to listen.
Its also not a matter of history but looking at evidence and facts and assessing them in and fair and balanced manner. Now please apply that same scepticism to your side of the argument.
That fact is that the science isn’t in.
Its most definitely a fact that the science is in.
You can and copy/paste five books on MMGW and hit us with a thousand models, but ultimately the science is simply not as settled as what you keep saying it is. And saying so a hundred times does settle the science either.
Translation, no matter what evidence is presented I won't accept it. Talking about a close mind.
I’m sure that if this conversation were being held twenty years back you’d have copy and pasted all the models and doomsday science of the day back then too. So much of which has turned out to be broken and wrong. I have no doubt that you’d also have tried to convince us that we’re fools for not buying into it.
The models and predictions have been mostly right. On the other hand I can link to where climate sceptics have made predictions that have turned out to demonstrable wrong.
Looking back, I’m sure Hitler made many Nazis believe that following him was the way to prosperity. The Catholic Church convinced everyone they were doing God’s work. Apartheid was sold as a great solution to SA. Venezuelans just had to do their bit and everything would be better. There were certainly WMDs in Iraq. It’s always in our best interest to listen to the politicians, churches, monarchies, scientists and other small groups that seek to “help” the masses to a better and safer tomorrow.
The result is that it’s all too often a shitshow where everyone, besides the few, is worse off.
Ah Godwin's law, the Nazi's always show up don't they. Not sure what any of this has got to do with climate change.
Look back at all the worst events in human history, from war to famine and genocide…how many of them have the exact same underlying theme of people blindly obeying out of fear of what will happen if they don’t?
Imagine how much better the world would have been for so many people if everybody was less trusting of small groups that persuaded us that theirs was the best path and the other road spelled doom?
On average, most people are good. But if that’s the case then why are there all these terrible man made problems and events that have killed hundreds upon hundreds of millions throughout history?
Because small groups of self-serving, greedy and power hungry assholess manage to spread their shit ideas to the people they are supposed to serve. And fear is most often the vehicle achieving this.
Emmm this thread is about climate change, can we get back to that?
And it makes your continual references to conspiracies quite laughable because it’s clear as day that if more people were a lot more skeptical, we may have avoided a great many human catastrophes in the past. Do you disagree?
But you are conspiracy theorist. From 9/11 to Climate Change to Covid, all of them are conspiracies to you. Sure more scepticism could of helped at times in history, but firstly not everything is a conspiracy and secondly the scepticism needs to be applied equally to each side of the debate something I know from your posts your completely unable too.
But I get it, calling people brainwashed conspiracy theorists is too seductive a proposition to ignore. It’s the modern day replacement for blasphemer. Remember the chappie who correctly suggested that the sun was at the centre of the solar system…that blaspheming heathen? He was right though. We now know that…but it’s too late for him. And it’s also too late for the other intellectuals that could have immediately commenced building upon his work.
You mean the chappie with research and evidence to back up his claim...yes I do indeed remember Galileo.
It’s great to have the leverage of a doctrine so powerful that anyone outside of it can be immediately exiled/silenced/disparaged/ignored. Particularly so when one can use that doctrine to your advantage.
The great refrain of the side of the debate with no evidence or facts to back their viewpoints up. I'm being silenced, I'm being ignored, I'm being disparaged. Their being ignored and disparaged because their viewpoints do not hold up to scrutiny and when people kindly take the time to explain/demonstrate/present the evidence to why they are wrong, they usually either ignore the evidence and insult or get angry with the other side. Incapable of admitting an error they just double down and repeat the same demonstrably wrong arguments over and over.
I’m not interested in arguing the science with you because I have done enough research to know that it’s not settled, even though you keep screaming that it is.
Because you know you don't have the facts on your side. And no matter how many times you "scream" the science is not settled its by any reasonable metric most definitely settled.
I’m more interested in understanding how you fail to be more skeptical when taking the macro picture of human history into account.
I'm far more sceptical than you are. You actually aren't a proper sceptic because you only apply it to one side of a argument. You start from the position that a conspiracy must be occurring and only apply scepticism to anything that contradicts this view.
Like there was a time when humans stopped being the humans that we read about in all the history books, and newspapers from not so long ago, where suddenly these small groups that poison the masses simply vanished.
It’s ironic to me that you are so convinced of future doom while entirely being able to ignore the real, measurable and recorded cause of so many past dooms.
Sigh...I'm actually pretty interested in history but then again that's actual history and not history as viewed by your politicized eyes.
So, were you in Germany when the Nazis came to power, living in dark ages Europe or a white South African during apartheid…do you believe that you’d fall in line or not?
Perhaps the true irony here is that you think you wouldn’t.
Who I am is a product of the time I live in and the same is true of you, had I been living in Nazi Germany, dark ages Europe or apartheid SA I'd like to think I wouldn't have fallen in line but like most people I probably would have. Here's the thing though, so would have you.
Good analysis Plum….Anger is a believer. He despises the Poms but they at least are capable of a little free thought. I provide him with an article from the Economist proving the climate models are all over estimating reality and he obsesses about the fact that the author only studied 20 models.
I school him on the fact that half the Climate Change occurred before CO2 could have been the cause. He pretends that’s a known and understood fact….when all we hear is how CO2 has been implicated in the 1.2 degree increase. Not the 0.6 degree increase.
He is totally convinced that the Climate scientists are the authority. But how good are they at modeling. I can’t remember any Climate ‘scientists’ being much good at mathematics in the doctoral classes. . And the models test two things….their knowledge of climate science and secondly their ability to model. Can they, the results say no.
But Anger would have been the guy arguing with the majority for a flat earth, decried Darwin as a dangerous loon, supported the no fat diet, argued vigorously that we were about to go into another Ice Age! All things ‘scientists’ believed at one point.
Good analysis Plum….Anger is a believer.
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZ.
He despises the Poms
You're a liar.
but they at least are capable of a little free thought
I'm happy to stand by my view that Brexit was stupid.
I provide him with an article from the Economist proving the climate models are all over estimating reality and he obsesses about the fact that the author only studied 20 models.
The article proves nothings, the data that indicated the those 20 models where over estimating reality turned out to be in accurate and the authors of the research quoted in the article no longer stand over it. And yes when you claim all models have been shown to be wrong and then cite an out of date article which was referring to 20 models when there is 69 models then yes I'll call out the claim for what it is...Bullshit.
I school him on the fact that half the Climate Change occurred before CO2 could have been the cause. He pretends that’s a known and understood fact….when all we hear is how CO2 has been implicated in the 1.2 degree increase. Not the 0.6 degree increase.
ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZ. Wake me up when you have something original to say.
He is totally convinced that the Climate scientists are the authority.
As opposed to Moz who thinks he's the authority on everything. Who else but climate scientists would be the authority on climate science, a mime artist?
But how good are they at modeling.
Well to quote the economist .
"In spite of all this uncertainty, climate models have done a pretty good job of predicting what has happened so far."
I can’t remember any Climate ‘scientists’ being much good at mathematics. And the models test two things….their knowledge of climate science and secondly their ability to model. Can they, the results say no.
Not according to the Economist
But Anger would have been the guy arguing with the majority for a flat earth, decried Darwin as a dangerous loon, supported the no fat diet, argued vigorously that we were about to go into another Ice Age! All things ‘scientists’ believed at one point.
Yes that's it cite the times religious dogma attacked science, that will really help you argument
As for vigorously arguing about going into another ice ace, that's a misrepresentation of the scientific process, but no surprise coming from you, you're a dishonest liar.
Does anyone out there think we’re at the dawn of a new ice age?
If we had asked that question just 40 years ago, an astonishing number of people — including some climatologists — would have answered yes. On April 28, 1975, Newsweek published a provocative article, “The Cooling World,” in which writer and science editor Peter Gwynne described a significant chilling of the world’s climate, with evidence accumulating “so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.” He raised the possibility of shorter growing seasons and poor crop yields, famine, and shipping lanes blocked by ice, perhaps to begin as soon as the mid-1980s. Meteorologists, he wrote, were “almost unanimous” in the opinion that our planet was getting colder. Over the years that followed, Gwynne’s article became one of the most-cited stories in Newsweek’s history.
And Gwynne’s was no lone voice, at least in the popular press. Scores of similar articles, some with even more dire predictions of a “little ice age” to come, appeared during the 1970s in such mainstream publications as Time, Science Digest, The Los Angeles Times, Fortune, The Chicago Tribune, New York Magazine, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, Popular Science, and National Geographic. A worldwide freeze proved irresistible to feature writers prowling for a sexy news peg. “The media are having a lot of fun with this situation,” observed climatologist J. Murray Mitchell.
We now see that these forecasts were badly off course, but how did climate science go so wrong? The quick answer is that it didn’t.
…..
They didn’t, very compelling. How?
…..
The answer Climate Science says they never predicted this at all. Newsweek just went out on a limb….hahaha!
But this revisionist fluff is of course just that. I liked this this rebuttal on Skeptical Scientist.
Easy to throw around words like liar Mick, but magazines like Newsweek never headlined an article on science without interviewing the scientists of the day.
‘Who else would be the authority on Climate Science’….I guess anybody who could make their models predict reality. At this level the old Climate part is largely irrelevant….it hinges on discerning new relationships, if they even exist.
Does anyone out there think we’re at the dawn of a new ice age?
If we had asked that question just 40 years ago, an astonishing number of people — including some climatologists — would have answered yes. On April 28, 1975, Newsweek published a provocative article, “The Cooling World,” in which writer and science editor Peter Gwynne described a significant chilling of the world’s climate, with evidence accumulating “so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.” He raised the possibility of shorter growing seasons and poor crop yields, famine, and shipping lanes blocked by ice, perhaps to begin as soon as the mid-1980s. Meteorologists, he wrote, were “almost unanimous” in the opinion that our planet was getting colder. Over the years that followed, Gwynne’s article became one of the most-cited stories in Newsweek’s history.
And Gwynne’s was no lone voice, at least in the popular press. Scores of similar articles, some with even more dire predictions of a “little ice age” to come, appeared during the 1970s in such mainstream publications as Time, Science Digest, The Los Angeles Times, Fortune, The Chicago Tribune, New York Magazine, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, Popular Science, and National Geographic. A worldwide freeze proved irresistible to feature writers prowling for a sexy news peg. “The media are having a lot of fun with this situation,” observed climatologist J. Murray Mitchell.
We now see that these forecasts were badly off course, but how did climate science go so wrong? The quick answer is that it didn’t.
…..
They didn’t, very compelling. How?
…..
The answer Climate Science says they never predicted this at all. Newsweek just went out on a limb….hahaha!
But this revisionist fluff is of course just that. I liked this this rebuttal on Skeptical Scientist.
There was debate among client scientists back in the 1970's about rising CO2 levels would cause global arming or global cooling, but in terms of numbers far more climate scientists where proponents of global warming than cooling. By the 1980's temperature measurements conclusively proved the planet was warming so the theory of global cooling went by the way side. The normal scientific process in action. A theory is presented and then tested. If the theory fails the test then its discarded.
Easy to throw around words like liar Mick, but magazines like Newsweek never headlined an article on science without interviewing the scientists of the day.
You are a liar. I've been repeatedly accused of hating the English on this forum and I've called that out as bullshit multiple times yet you repeat it. What you're doing is straight out of the Donald Trump playbook. If you're against the politics I support you must hate the people who support those politics. Pure dishonesty plain and simple.
‘Who else would be the authority on Climate Science’….I guess anybody who could make their models predict reality. At this level the old Climate part is largely irrelevant….it hinges on discerning new relationships, if they even exist.
In general they do work, you repeating over and over that they don't doesn't make it so.
This from the Economist in 2020:
In other words there still is no consensus, just a swathe of models predicting from 1.5 to 4.8 degrees increase depending on assumptions. :
Yes there is a range of temperature estimates on how much the planet will warm by. But again your using out of date research. More recent research has narrowed it down to between 2.6 and 3.9 degrees. Where there is absolute consensus is that even with the best case prediction without mitigation the amount of warming will have extremely bad consequences for the human race.
But even that is an improvement on where scientists were in 1990. This from a Washington Post article summarizing prospects:Does anyone out there think we’re at the dawn of a new ice age?
If we had asked that question just 40 years ago, an astonishing number of people — including some climatologists — would have answered yes. On April 28, 1975, Newsweek published a provocative article, “The Cooling World,” in which writer and science editor Peter Gwynne described a significant chilling of the world’s climate, with evidence accumulating “so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.” He raised the possibility of shorter growing seasons and poor crop yields, famine, and shipping lanes blocked by ice, perhaps to begin as soon as the mid-1980s. Meteorologists, he wrote, were “almost unanimous” in the opinion that our planet was getting colder. Over the years that followed, Gwynne’s article became one of the most-cited stories in Newsweek’s history.
And Gwynne’s was no lone voice, at least in the popular press. Scores of similar articles, some with even more dire predictions of a “little ice age” to come, appeared during the 1970s in such mainstream publications as Time, Science Digest, The Los Angeles Times, Fortune, The Chicago Tribune, New York Magazine, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, Popular Science, and National Geographic. A worldwide freeze proved irresistible to feature writers prowling for a sexy news peg. “The media are having a lot of fun with this situation,” observed climatologist J. Murray Mitchell.
We now see that these forecasts were badly off course, but how did climate science go so wrong? The quick answer is that it didn’t.
…..
They didn’t, very compelling. How?
…..
The answer Climate Science says they never predicted this at all. Newsweek just went out on a limb….hahaha!
But this revisionist fluff is of course just that. I liked this this rebuttal on Skeptical Scientist.
There was debate among client scientists back in the 1970's about rising CO2 levels would cause global arming or global cooling, but in terms of numbers far more climate scientists where proponents of global warming than cooling. By the 1980's temperature measurements conclusively proved the planet was warming so the theory of global cooling went by the way side. The normal scientific process in action. A theory is presented and then tested. If the theory fails the test then its discarded.
Easy to throw around words like liar Mick, but magazines like Newsweek never headlined an article on science without interviewing the scientists of the day.
You are a liar. I've been repeatedly accused of hating the English on this forum and I've called that out as bullshit multiple times yet you repeat it. What you're doing is straight out of the Donald Trump playbook. If you're against the politics I support you must hate the people who support those politics. Pure dishonesty plain and simple.
‘Who else would be the authority on Climate Science’….I guess anybody who could make their models predict reality. At this level the old Climate part is largely irrelevant….it hinges on discerning new relationships, if they even exist.
In general they do work, you repeating over and over that they don't doesn't make it so.
This from the Economist in 2020:
In other words there still is no consensus, just a swathe of models predicting from 1.5 to 4.8 degrees increase depending on assumptions. :
Yes there is a range of temperature estimates on how much the planet will warm by. But again your using out of date research. More recent research has narrowed it down to between 2.6 and 3.9 degrees. Where there is absolute consensus is that even with the best case prediction without mitigation the amount of warming will have extremely bad consequences for the human race.
But even that is an improvement on where scientists were in 1990. This from a Washington Post article summarizing prospects:So let me summarize what I have:
1 Half the increase in temps occurred before CO2 could have a role.
2 A body of climate scientists in 1970 believed we were heading into an Ice Age….according to a major Newsweek article.
3 By 1990 they had flipped the switch and a were predicting a 3 degree F increase by 2020, with a credible 6 degree increase in N America and some were advocating seeding the oceans with iron….according to the Washington Post. And there were many scare stories propagated like the reversal of the Gulf Stream
4 The initial models reflected that radical view and as a body of work were all hopelessly high by 2013…when the Economist documented it.
5 By 2020 instead of a 3 plus degree F increase we had a 0.5 degree C increase, some of which was likely still the effects of natural warming. But the Economist still reported the models predicting 1.5 to 4.5 degree increases by the end of the century.
…..
It’s a tawdry record of mistakes, exaggerations and scare mongering, which you accept as a true believer. But there is no proof here. Scientific proof could be a mathematical model….not possible here. It could be a lab experiment, but in this case the world is always more complex.
Or it could be a model, parameterized with real data which actually predicts the truth at a sufficiently high confidence level that it’s accepted as verified. Certainly not the case.
….
So what do you have? The belief of a true disciple…who trusts the climatologists implicitly even though they haven’t got one prediction right yet in the case of Climate Change. A cut and paste groupie who has to be spoon fed all his beliefs.
Mozart
You should pass this thread onto some responsible politicians and I think identify those based on whether they are honest or not - the latter excludes all Democrats.
Star,
The broader question that I asked you here is.....
I get what your saying, I just don't think its credible.
To use the example of the Nazi's. They told the big lie, that the Jews where to blame for Germany's defeat in World War I. They also claimed the communism was a Jewish plot and that the Jews where the enemy of the German people. They created this bogeyman, this fear so they could say to the German people we need to protect you from this threat, and in order for us to do so we need to take away certain freedoms to suppress the threat of the Jews already among us and take aggressive action against enemy states, if not then Germany will be destroyed. And aided by a very effective propaganda machine they where able to convince the German people that what they where doing was not only acceptable but necessary.
What your suggesting is a simialr thing happening at the moment, is that governments across the world along with powerful individuals in business have seized on the concept of man made climate change as an excuse to once again take away freedoms but this time on global level. They have created a massive threat in which they claim they are the only ones capable of solving and to do so they need to take away freedoms and again are implementing a sophisticated propaganda machine to do and have hijacked the science to serve their own ends, which is one of control the planets population via the removal of freedoms and increasing their power via the huge amount money they will get from inventing the solution to a largely non existent problem.
Problem is their is an actually a much more plausible conspiracy that climate skeptics refuse to acknowledge. Fossil fuel companies are spending billions lobbying against climate change, as if climate change is real and action needs to be taken then the whole viability of the fossil fuel industry could cease to exist and they stand to lose an absolute fortune. To that end they have created another big lie to make people fearful that global warming is being used as a plot for governments to gain more control and limit peoples freedoms and push towards a one world government. They need people to believed this so they can carry on making their countless billions and maintain the power and influence that wealth grants them.
Too me its equally mind blowing you can't see its your side of the argument that's the one doing the deceiving. The evidence underpinning man made climate change is overwhelming, we have decades of research at this point. The motives of those who are funding climate change skepticism are extremely transparent, and the financial trail of that funding are far more clearly established then the ridiculous claim that climate scientists are promoting climate change merely to get more funding. And just exactly what freedoms are supposedly being curtailed in an effort to combat climate change, they are never stated by the sceptics.
"It seems impossible for academia to admit that one possible explanation could be that there was indeed pre-flood civilisation and that perhaps it was more advanced that we previously believed."
Are we now assuming there was indeed a flood? I thought it's supposed to be a Biblical myth.
Draad
There is a theory that the Black Sea of today was at one stage a low-lying below sea level area rea with towns and settlements separated by a higher land area from the Mediterranean Sea.
For some reason the higher land collapsed or became weakened and the Bosphorus came into being. With the result that the Blacks sea was formed. many think that was referred to in the Bible as to what happened. The Dead Sea is similarly below see surface of Se level and could have suffered the same fate - with the latter drying out afterwards since their were major catchment areas serving the Jordan rover are and creating a permanent bigger sea such as happened in the case of the Black Sea.
.
I know that Plum, but I'm not sure it's seen as fact by mainstream historians.
Conspiracy of the fossil fuels companies. How would you conspire? By persuading the scientists to falsify their findings….opening yourself up, as a senior executive to legal action and possible jail terms? Needing only one scientist to go to The NY Times to sell their story.
Nope they are not that stupid. Sure they employ scientists to research the facts from their perspective. They frame questions which would support their case…but you would expect them to act in their self interest.
But even that is muted. When last did you hear an oil executive denying global warming….it just attracts too much vitriol. Instead you have Shell partnering with Chinese car manufacturers to provide Tesla like networks in Europe.
The conspiracy if anything is not actively investigating all possible CO2 effects. But that is the job of academia who can certainly be accused of only looking for facts that support the warming case. Have we seen one major study that says a warmer earth has some benefits….have we seen anything that could be described as a dispassionate, honest review of the data.
There are huge profits being made on Climate Change. Tesla is a billion dollar company….Exxon has a market cap of 250 billion. There are vast gains in all the EV stocks and many of the battery related stocks like Lithium miner Albemarle. Ample reason not to rock the boat.
Plum
Lets del with something very important . Putin today made a remark that is very important - if a nation destroy their culture and history they destroy the nation itself. That is what is going in Europe and in the USA .
You mention the Zimbabwe farming collapse where the country regarded as breadbasket of Africa became the basket case to be fed by food provided by international organizations. However, there is something that people don.t always know.
According to existing statistics Russia in 1914 produced more food than they did in 1984. When the Communist Party took control in Russia they did not only took all the land ownership - they also took heir tools and whatever food and animals they had. In fact the Soviet Government tried to wipe out the Kulaks - the wealthier peasants most of those were taken to Siberia where they were used as slave labor. In the resultant starvation an estimated 30 million people died of starvation in especially Ukraine and Kazakstan - as well as in Crimea. Gorbachov himself stated that two of his brothers died of starvation in the 1930's.
The peasants lucky enough not sent to Siberia were oved to collective farms where they ere basically used as slave labor. However - that whole process was a disaster - especially when starvation hit Russia again in 1946-47 resulted in a Government being forced to review the system. The result was that each staff member working on State Collective Farms were given a half-hectare of land - which they could farm and sell the produce to private buyers - not the State. The result was that their was a marked increase in productivity and what happened was that 80% of agricultural output was from the half-hectare smallholdings. The system never really worked because of incompetence and management of collective arms by pople with no idea of farming.
What is happening in the USA at present is a disaster and will cause major problems as to food production in the USA and in the world at large, I heard somewhere that immediate objective is not immediate nationalization of land ownership in the USA - but the land ownership will not be part of the estate of the owner when he died - it will revert to state ownership. The fact is the State will not necessarily expropriate the land - what they intend to do is to raise inheritance tax on farms to about 50% and when people cannot pay ownership will be taken over by the State.
The whole agriculture system will collapse within he next 2 decades and I do think that Putin is correct in what he stated. It brings something forth in what President Kruger said in the late 18990's:-
"Take from the past what was good and noble and build on that your future".
.
The falling Great Lakes is another of the Warming embarrassments……I live right beside Lake Michigan, I have for 30 years. The lake level has never been this high, not even close.
Because
1. Science has been wrong in the past,
2. Corporations can be corrupt,
3. Scientists could be corrupt
does not mean scientific consensus is wrong. Most countries want to abide by the Paris Accord.
An accord which will do very little to improve CO2 in the atmosphere. If that was you objective it was a political cop out.
ButtPlug is always one step of the curve. Going from conspiracy to conspiracy to get his next fix.
Most countries wants to abide by the Paris Accord? Really - it is the foolish leftist governments that preach about global warming as a political issue. Stav wrote it is proven that the world is heating up fast and models presented based on the heating up fast model is real. So why not look at the history of the last 100 years to see whether the heating up did in fact occur and was of such magnitude that drastic action is needed to protect the globe. Of as Mozart said the heating up was 1,2 degrees over the last 200 years .then why has "models" that does not take historical trends into account?
i am not sure about it - but think that Covid and Climate Change give Government additional chances to issue rules and mandates that would be regarded as dictatorial in normal circumstances, In that they love to get more taxation - which they normally waste anyway. On the whole both are used by Governments and both routinely punish the ordinally people.
As to the real issue - I regard the preset scenario as a bit out of the ordinary. I have never known Roversdale and the rest of the Southern and Western Cape as being as cold as it is this year. We had since the beginning of November had two hot days at just about 30 degrees Celsius. - for the rest the temperatures varied between 17 and 23 degrees Celsius - just about the day temperature in July-August in this part of the world. But that according to Stav is only an area occurrence - but then area occurrences do not count. .