[Truth To Power]

The scientific debate ended 20 years ago

Perhaps in the sense that dissenting scientists were silenced and dissenting views suppressed...

[Truth To Power]

Roy Spencer works for Big Oil...

Nope. He works for the University of Alabama. He has done work for organizations that get donations from big oil, but that describes plenty of perfectly respectable charitable and scientific organizations.

[late]

Nope. He works for the University of Alabama. He has done work for organizations that get donations from big oil, but that describes plenty of perfectly respectable charitable and scientific organizations.

Can I sell you a bridge? I find myself in financial difficulty and am willing to sell for pennies on the dollar.

Don't delay!

https://www.facingsouth.org/2011/09/cli ... -ties.html

[late]

Perhaps in the sense that dissenting scientists were silenced and dissenting views suppressed...

If you believe that I'll sell you the keys to the Emerald Kingdom.

When Spencer publishes, his work gets routinely ripped apart.

[Hindsite]

If you believe that I'll sell you the keys to the Emerald Kingdom.

When Spencer publishes, his work gets routinely ripped apart.

None of that matters. We don't need a carbon tax. We have plenty of taxes already.

[Truth To Power]

When Spencer publishes, his work gets routinely ripped apart.

No it doesn't. It gets attacked because he doesn't toe the anti-CO2 hysteria line, but the attacks are rarely well founded.

[late]

No it doesn't. It gets attacked because he doesn't toe the anti-CO2 hysteria line, but the attacks are rarely well founded.

While back in the real world, 11,000 scientists signed a statement that climate change is a serious threat.

Of course, your oil company shills know a lot more than real scientists.

You do know scientific communities work towards a rough consensus? And that that consensus was reached 20 years ago?

Do you do real, or is this all BS all the time??

"The world’s people face “untold suffering due to the climate crisis” unless there are major transformations to global society, according to a stark warning from more than 11,000 scientists.

“We declare clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency,” it states. “To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -suffering

[Nonsense]

None of that matters. We don't need a carbon tax. We have plenty of taxes already.

If taxes are used by a state to change or direct activity, then perhaps we ought to tax people by eliminating child 'benefits' & charge for their education.

Whilst we are at it, we ought to tax migrants,because they contribute significant carbon footprints once they arrive in their host countries & many countries are reducing theirs, by allowing emigration.

There is no point in punishing people, we really need to stop reproducing,because population reduction on a substantial scale, is the best solution to climate change caused by, yes, you guessed it, too many people.

[Pants-of-dog]

Immigrant moms with four kids are not the problem.

100 corporations produce over 70% of all GHG emissions:
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable ... ate-change

Just 100 companies have been the source of more than 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1988, according to a new report.

The Carbon Majors Report (pdf) “pinpoints how a relatively small set of fossil fuel producers may hold the key to systemic change on carbon emissions,” says Pedro Faria, technical director at environmental non-profit CDP, which published the report in collaboration with the Climate Accountability Institute.

Traditionally, large scale greenhouse gas emissions data is collected at a national level but this report focuses on fossil fuel producers. Compiled from a database of publicly available emissions figures, it is intended as the first in a series of publications to highlight the role companies and their investors could play in tackling climate change.

The report found that more than half of global industrial emissions since 1988 – the year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established – can be traced to just 25 corporate and state-owned entities. The scale of historical emissions associated with these fossil fuel producers is large enough to have contributed significantly to climate change, according to the report.

ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Chevron are identified as among the highest emitting investor-owned companies since 1988. If fossil fuels continue to be extracted at the same rate over the next 28 years as they were between 1988 and 2017, says the report, global average temperatures would be on course to rise by 4C by the end of the century. This is likely to have catastrophic consequences including substantial species extinction and global food scarcity risks.

While companies have a huge role to play in driving climate change, says Faria, the barrier is the “absolute tension” between short-term profitability and the urgent need to reduce emissions.

A Carbon Tracker study in 2015 found that fossil fuel companies risked wasting more than $2tn over the coming decade by pursuing coal, oil and gas projects that could be worthless in the face of international action on climate change and advances in renewables – in turn posing substantial threats to investor returns.

CDP says its aims with the carbon majors project are both to improve transparency among fossil fuel producers and to help investors understand the emissions associated with their fossil fuel holdings.

A fifth of global industrial greenhouse gas emissions are backed by public investment, according to the report. “That puts a significant responsibility on those investors to engage with carbon majors and urge them to disclose climate risk,” says Faria.

Investors should move out of fossil fuels, says Michael Brune, executive director of US environmental organisation the Sierra Club. “Not only is it morally risky, it’s economically risky. The world is moving away from fossil fuels towards clean energy and is doing so at an accelerated pace. Those left holding investments in fossil fuel companies will find their investments becoming more and more risky over time.”

...

[BeesKnee5]

No it doesn't. It gets attacked because he doesn't toe the anti-CO2 hysteria line, but the attacks are rarely well founded.

Christy and Spencer have a habit of not finding errors when their model runs cooler than others but being swift to find errors when it's warmer

The attack for being 40% out and claiming cooling was most certainly well founded.

At least for now they are on a similar path to RSS who use the same data to obtain global temperatures.

http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

[Truth To Power]

I was going to give a full response but there is no point as it's unsupported waffle.

It is fact you cannot refute.

You are now resorting to invention.

No. That is an invention on your part.

I have already shared this with you to show how the main absorption bands of H20 and CO2 dovetail rather than completely overlap as Angstrom believed based on his primative measurements.

And I proved you wrong: because H2O completely dominates CO2 at ground level -- which is the only place warming has any meaningful effect -- CO2 has very little effect on global temperature, just as Angstrom's experiments implied. The advancement of measurement technology since then does not affect the basic result.

I will add to that the spectra of energy the earth reflects back out into space showing the chunk CO2 takes out of it .


Something Angstrom could only dream of measuring.

No, that graph is deceitful. The parts of the spectrum labelled H2O, CO2 and O2 do not correctly represent the amounts of IR radiation absorbed by each of them.

Don't like me attacking your climate denying Palestinians who have no peer reviewed papers and zero credibility because their predictions are crap.

Their predictions have been confirmed by the unchanged climate. It is the falsified temperature data that are crap.

Tough, come back with one of the their peer reviewed papers rather than their untested pseudoscience and we'll discuss it.

I don't need peer-reviewed papers. Just look out the window. Where is the crisis you claim we are in? Where is the emergency you claim we are suffering?

[BeesKnee5]

It is fact you cannot refute.

No. That is an invention on your part.

And I proved you wrong: because H2O completely dominates CO2 at ground level -- which is the only place warming has any meaningful effect -- CO2 has very little effect on global temperature, just as Angstrom's experiments implied. The advancement of measurement technology since then does not affect the basic result.

No, that graph is deceitful. The parts of the spectrum labelled H2O, CO2 and O2 do not correctly represent the amounts of IR radiation absorbed by each of them.

Their predictions have been confirmed by the unchanged climate. It is the falsified temperature data that are crap.

I don't need peer-reviewed papers. Just look out the window. Where is the crisis you claim we are in? Where is the emergency you claim we are suffering?

Those two charts are from the same research paper.

Being at ground level does not change where the absorption bands are, the density changes the width of the band. You have proved no one wrong other than to show you haven't a clue about what Angstrom did in his experiment ( clue, he did not test at the density of gasses at ground level)
Further to this my investigations have thrown up some further flaws in Angstroms experiment. Firstly he didn't even do the experiment himself and his assistant got the measurements wrong.

'Koch had only a thermocouple to measure heat across the entire infrared spectrum. He accurately reported that about 10% of the radiation from a 100°C black body was absorbed in his tube, and that at lower pressure at most 9.6% was absorbed.

Repeats of this experiment have shown that about 9% is absorbed making the difference caused by a reduction of CO2 far more significant.'

Still want to hang your hat on an experiment that had no way of knowing what was absorbed by CO2 and what was absorbed by H2O and was clearly not accurate enough to get the measurement right when compared to today's equipment?



You are now arguing with the world renowned source for the spectroscopy of molecules, that is how far your delusion has taken you.

Does your window look out on the Chukchi sea?

[Truth To Power]

While back in the real world, 11,000 scientists signed a statement that climate change is a serious threat.

True: a return to cooler LIA temperatures would be catastrophic. But periods of global warmth used to be called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically incorrect.

Of course, your oil company shills know a lot more than real scientists.

'What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.' -- Mark Twain

You do know scientific communities work towards a rough consensus? And that that consensus was reached 20 years ago?

Yes, and the consensus of economists was that there would be no financial crisis in 2007.

"The world’s people face “untold suffering due to the climate crisis” unless there are major transformations to global society, according to a stark warning from more than 11,000 scientists.

That is despicable scare-mongering designed to divert people's attention from the untold suffering they ALREADY endure because of systematic, institutionalized injustices that could be fixed if people's attention was not being taken up with Chicken-Little doom-saying nonsense.

“We declare clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency,” it states. “To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -suffering

But that's just clearly and self-evidently false. There is no emergency, nor will there be one unless the sun goes quiescent and it starts to get cold.

[late]

There is no point in punishing people...

But we do have to get them to reduce carbon emissions, lame excuses notwithstanding.

As for our technophiles. If you want to get serious, that's great. But this isn't the forum for it. Any Journal of Climate Science would love to see your work.

You're part of the peanut gallery, like the rest of us. We are amateurs, and the pros know how to do their job. There are adults who hadn't been born when the science reached consensus. You're re-fighting a battle that ended in the previous millennium. It's silly when it's not shilly...

[Nonsense]

But we do have to get them to reduce carbon emissions, lame excuses notwithstanding.

As for our technophiles. If you want to get serious, that's great. But this isn't the forum for it. Any Journal of Climate Science would love to see your work.

You're part of the peanut gallery, like the rest of us. We are amateurs, and the pros know how to do their job. There are adults who hadn't been born when the science reached consensus. You're re-fighting a battle that ended in the previous millennium. It's silly when it's not shilly...

Disagree, the issues are as relevent today,if not more so, than at anytime since WW2.

I would say that we should use technology to change the the debate on climate by addressing & reducing or eliminating the causes.

Even that proposition incurs environmental cost,but does give the prospect of eclipsing the worst outcome of failing to address the issues comprehensively.
As for the 'experts' lol, two-a-dime.

As I say, it's all about numbers, drastically cut the world's population levels, much of the problems can be addressed at much lower cost & to think otherwise is delusional.

[late]

I would say that we should use technology to change the the debate on climate by addressing & reducing or eliminating the causes.

As I say, it's all about numbers, drastically cut the world's population levels, much of the problems can be addressed at much lower cost & to think otherwise is delusional.

Nuking a country so you can dodge a gas tax is an impressive disregard of morality.

But it's not delusional.

Of course, it won't do squat to nuke a poor country. So you have to nuke basically China or Europe. And they'd throw nukes back our way.

Qualifies for entry into the 'dumbest idea anyone has ever had ever' category, and I think you've got a winnah there.

A real winner.

[Hindsite]

If taxes are used by a state to change or direct activity, then perhaps we ought to tax people by eliminating child 'benefits' & charge for their education.

Whilst we are at it, we ought to tax migrants,because they contribute significant carbon footprints once they arrive in their host countries & many countries are reducing theirs, by allowing emigration.

There is no point in punishing people, we really need to stop reproducing,because population reduction on a substantial scale, is the best solution to climate change caused by, yes, you guessed it, too many people.

That would be going against God's will. God wants people to fill the entire earth.
Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
(Genesis 1:28 NKJV)

But we do have to get them to reduce carbon emissions, lame excuses notwithstanding.

Planting more trees should absorb the excess carbon emissions. That would be a more natural and less expensive way.
https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/storie ... -footprint

[Sivad]

Yes, of course, but that's not the proper way to compare the numbers. I'm sensing the dunning-kurger effect with you right now (you don't realize your own incompetence).

Let me help you understand the flaw in what you are saying.

Population:
The planet has 7 billion (7,000,000,000)
USA population is about 330 million (330,000,000)

Emissions:
2/3 is the rest of the world
1/3 is the USA

That means the US is 4.7% (330million divided by 7 billion) of the global population. Thus, 4.7% of the global population is responsible for 1/3 (33%) of the emissions. Where as 95.3% are responsible for the other 2/3 (67%). If this disproportion isn't obvious now, then you really do suffer from dunning-kruger.

What the numbers above say is that the typical American emits 10x ((33/4.7)/(67/95.3)) more emissions than the typical anyone else on the planet that is not American. That is, the typical american is far more wasteful than the typical non-American by a factor of 10.

it's hilarious that you lectured on dunning-kruger and then epically dunning-krugered the fuck out of the rest of your post. you're now a dunning kruger legend.




I heart pofo.

[late]

Planting more trees should absorb the excess carbon emissions. That would be a more natural and less expensive way.

That would absorb a small percentage of the amount we need to reduce.

But you are also one forest fire away from reducing the benefit to zero.

You are desperately lunging for an excuse, any excuse, to feed your addiction.

[Hindsite]

That would absorb a small percentage of the amount we need to reduce.

Even if that were true, if would still be better than punishing people with more taxes.

But you are also one forest fire away from reducing the benefit to zero.

The liberal fools in California do not know how to manage their forests to provide jobs and lumber, instead of fires and destruction.

You are desperately lunging for an excuse, any excuse, to feed your addiction.

I never thought of living a comfortable life as an addiction, but I would much rather have that addition than your addition to climate hysteria.