Why accept consensus as reality?

Read the books and then respond.

I believe the earth’s atmosphere is warming (fact based) and that human activity is a likely contributor (untestable hypothesis that seems likely). The apocalyptic predictions of future events, and the apocalyptic assertions about current conditions are not likely to be true. For example, describing global warming as an existential threat to life on earth and human existence is hyperbolic in the extreme. Also, statements about needing to bend the temperature curve by 2030 or we loose our window of opportunity to save the planet have no basis in fact, and are not even accurate conclusions based on IPCC (consensus) modeling. The recent bill passed by the Senate and expected to pass the house and be signed by President Biden is being taught as necessary actions to stop global warming. The Rhodium Group estimate for CO2 emissions reductions from the bill, if plugged into the United Nations climate model to measure the impact on global temperature by 2100 finds the bill will reduce the estimated global temperature rise at the end of this century by all of 0.028 degrees Fahrenheit in the optimistic case. In the pessimistic case, the temperature difference will be 0.0009 degrees Fahrenheit, i.e., inconsequential impact on the climate but consequential in the sense that there are many other places to spend money that would impact human well-being, e.g. malaria vaccines.

1 Like

There isn’t anything untestable about it. Arrhenius and others in the late 1800’s hypothesized that if we continued to increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels that temperatures would rise, and they based their hypothesis on solid physics which is just as true today as it was over 100 years ago. Well, we ran the experiment, and wouldn’t you know it, temperatures went up as predicted. Hypothesis tested.

I don’t know of any scientist who as ever said that global warming will sterilize the planet, nor have I heard of any scientist who has said that global warming will cause humans to go extinct.

2 Likes

The physics allow one to make the hypothesis but they do not provide evidence that the hypothesis is correct, i.e., that the human contribution to elevation of O2 gas in the atmosphere is the primary cause of elevated atmospheric temperatures. Correlation does not equal cause, at least that is what scientists were taught to think when I got my degrees. So far, the science has been insufficient to make useful projections about how climate will change over the coming decades, much less what effect our actions will have on it. Despite the media driven overreach of existing data, there has been no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century, Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking more rapidly today than 80 yrs ago, nor is sea level rising at a rate that would be different than many previous changes in sea level over past millennia.

1 Like

Computer modeling has tested that hypothesis. The correlation with real world data is what supports the modeling.

Without us putting an extra 30+% of CO2 in the atmosphere we would be much closer to the blue area instead of the red area.

Mechanism does equal cause, and the mechanism is the greenhouse effect.

And if those things were observed you would probably trot out the same “Correlation is not causation”.

3 Likes

What books? I was responding to what you said on this forum.

2 Likes

I think you’re confused about gasses.

[moderated]! You’re just a climate contrarian

1 Like

Last I checked Wikipedia is not considered a scientific source, and you have only proved my point.

1 Like

The books were mentioned in my earlier post.

Start with Ronald Bailey’s The End of Doom.

Why should I read it? Who is this person? What are his credentials?

Maybe you should check it our. Are you afraid?

Only of wasting the limited time we have in our lives.

@beaglelady @T_aquaticus

Just to clarify… the problem isn’t the production of CO2 so much as where we are getting it. After all, nothing is more natural than producing CO2. That is what we do as animals just breathing. It is all a part of the natural cycle. This is what made me very skeptical of all this talk of CO2 causing global warming.

The real problem is that the atmosphere we have now isn’t the original atmosphere of the earth. All the oxygen was tied up in CO2 and the climate was very hot. Plants (especially algae) converted nearly all the CO2 in the atmosphere to O2 and over billions of years stored most of the carbon in the fossil fuels. So what is going to happen if we take that carbon out of the fossil fuels and dump that into the atmosphere? That should be obvious. Less oxygen and a very hot climate.

The higher CO2 in the atmosphere is producing huge algae blooms to convert that CO2 back into O2 – just as I expected when I was skeptical of this whole global warming stuff. But most of the carbon it absorbs from the atmosphere gets dumped right back into the atmosphere when the algae dies. But instead we could use it for biofuels. The thing with biofuels is that it gets all of its carbon out of the atmosphere. So no net shift from O2 to CO2 as happens with fossil fuels.

2 Likes

He’s a libertarian with a B.A. in philosophy and economics. And an impressive career. I like him. As I do Schellenberger, who recruits from Extinction Rebellion.

So, let the temperature rip to >4 degrees, the seas rise by eight feet and vaccinate against it.

Citations for actual primary studies backing up these assertions, please.

3 Likes

In the Ronald Bailey’s book, The End of Doom and Matt Ridley’s The Rational Optimist.

Again, why?

Not afraid of your silly books. More afraid of more intense hurricanes, more intense wild fires, more deadly heat waves, rising sea levels, and the like. And these things and more are already happening.

1 Like

Ridley is another libertarian, an enormously privileged one, and was chairman of Northern Rock bank when it was the first to have a UK run in 130 years, costing £27 bn. He owns a coal mine. Bless.

3 Likes

I believe she wants to see studies in the primary literature. You know, from peer-reviewed professional journals for atmospheric scientists.

1 Like

Preaching to the choir, bro. We know it’s fossil fuels and not volcanoes and the like because of the isotopes of carbon we’re seeing.

1 Like