Has Climate Change "reporting" reached "End Game'?

[tgh]

what happens if they reach the age of having power and the world is colder

......nothing useful ; in terms of anthropogenic input.
Alla same warmer….. other than wringing their hands and plaintively demanding that someone does something…
Leads to ….. enter stage left the pollies , the shiv's and the spin doctors , offering hope and salvation…

 

[drron]

Although we already have examples of some who are pollies,shiv's and spin doctors all rolled into one.Malcolm Turnbull and John Hewson for example.

 

[RooFlyer]

It seems also that the debate has centered around carbon.

Yes, it is, but arrrrgh!! The following, general comments, not reacting to you, Pushka

The whole global warming thing has as much to do with 'carbon' as it does with 'oxygen', in fact its more to do with oxygen -

CO2: Carbon - atomic weight 14; oxygen atomic weight 16. So carbon 14, oxygen 32. Why isn't it called 'oxygen pollution'?

I'd suggest because its political spin. Remember the 'Carbon pollution reduction scheme'? The mindless media is happy to repeat 'carbon pollution' BS. Its not an excess of carbon that is in the dock (are there too many diamonds?) - its an excess of carbon dioxide gas. Isn't it funny how the catastrophist media purport to sit at the feet of 'the science' and yet continually propagate this high school science error.

 

[drron]

Actually thought the main problem could be H2o acknowledged as a potent GHG.
Now websites such as SkepticalScience run by John Cook counter this by saying that it causes a positive feedback effect.So increased warming causes increased water vapour so increasing the effect of CO2.
however they fail to mention that there can also be a negative feedback.As water vapour increases there is a greater tendency for it to condense at higher altidude forming clouds which reflect the suns rays.So on a summer day that is cloudy the temperature is lower than a clear day.however in the night there are basically no sun's rays and the clouds reflect back the heat given off by the earth hence a warmer night if cloudy,
The science of this is still being studied.The climate models haven't taken proper account of clouds in their calculations.
Here is one explanation though slanted towards warming but admitting the science isn't proven.

ACS Advocacy Workshops - American Chemical Society

American Chemical Society: Chemistry for Life.

www.acs.org

 

[tgh]

More extreme right wing "denialistic" fervour from our national media… disgraceful stuff…..

On the road to Apocalypse Soon with Greta Thunberg and her disciples

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

Since the world, according to Greta Thunberg and her disciples, faces extinction it came as no surprise that this year there was a certain madness in the air — especially among those who regard themselves as progressive.
After all, when the end of the world seemed (relatively) nigh it was no surprise that hyperbole, exaggeration, hypocrisy, wish fulfilment, false prophecy and a lack of self-awareness, along with double standards, prevailed in the land as we headed towards Apocalypse Soon — month after month.

…continues… (paywalled)

 

[drron]

Found an article that will put a spring in @RooFlyer's step.
"The people most qualified to comment on earth’s climate are geologists, yet curiously they are left out of the IPCC list of scientists. While one Climate Feedback critic decries the lack of biologists and women in the EU Climate Declaration, Roger Higgs has reviewed the IPCC AR6 list of experts and finds
Working Group I (WGI), ‘The Physical Science Basis’, 232 authors, including meteorologists, oceanographers, climate scientists, glaciologists, physicists, geographers and computer modellers, but no geologists.

WGII, ‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’, 323 authors, no geologists.

WGIII, Mitigation of Climate Change, 229 authors, no geologists. Grand total 784authors, no geologists.

IPCC’s Lee again, in true UN egalitarian style: “Of the selected experts, 44% come from developing countries and countries with economies in transition, 53% are new to the IPCC process and 33% are women.”

How lovely: no geologists, but at least we have politically correct quotas of women, third worlders and youngsters! Worse: the 53% “new” people are doubtless nearly all younger than 50, i.e. indoctrinated through school and university with the ‘CO2 = pollutant’ fallacy."

Analysis of Climate Feedback Response to 500 Scientists’ Declaration to UN “There is No Climate Emergency” | Friends of Science Calgary

blog.friendsofscience.org

 

[RooFlyer]

Of all my geological friends and colleagues, not a single one has swallowed the 'climate emergency' / catastophist BS.

Why? Because we've seen it all before; we've "seen the movie" as the saying goes. Geologists don't just take current experiences, and because they haven't experienced such-and-such before, or its not in the records of the past 200-odd years, think OMG its unique! OMG the climate is changing like never before! etc etc.

We've studied, either at Uni or in the field the earth for millions of years. We know the climate had changed radically several times in the past 20,000 years and has changed, or has been changing probably since the earth formed solid continents, maybe 4 billion years ago. We, nor anyone else knows the rate of change of the climate in the past. We can have a good idea for the past ice-ages or so, but we don't know whether the current pattern of change is unique, different or where it lies in the spectrum.

We also know the earth's atmosphere has changed radically in the past - more CO2, less etc by the composition of the soft sediments which of course react with the air and water. I think everyone realises that the current earth's atmosphere is 'oxidising' - put some iron out in the air and it will oxidise, or rust. What would people think about the opposite - a 'reducing' atmosphere? Freak you out? The rocks are green not red.

We realise that just about all the current alarmist information/data comes from very complex predictive 'models'. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say. For Australia part of the garbage in is the 'raw' temperate data from the BoM. As its been pointed out numerous times, the BoM has been 'adjusting' that data for years. Usually downwards in the past, so there appears to be an inexorable rising trend. 'Science' means knowing how to read data and reports, and not just present conclusions. 'Science' doesn't include with-holding the data that your scientific paper is based on, as has been done by some alarmists. I've published peer-reviewed scientific papers. I know that 'peer review' isn't the paragon of virtue and stamp of truth that its held up to be by many in the alarmist media.

I once ran a renewable energy company; - that's more of a meaningful effort to 'save the planet' than many on this forum who criticise me, and others who think like me on the subject of global warming. I'll put my credentials up any day against he name-callers and the sneerers who appear to get their information from the ABC, the Guardian, 'the Saturday paper' and the like.

 

[tgh]

Aksherley the debate around here seems to be quite moribund and I don't see from whence rooflyer is getting his knickers in a knot.
I for one , miss the noisy green lemmings , as atm we seem to be mostly creating little homilies to amuse ourselves….

 

[RooFlyer]

whence rooflyer is getting his knickers in a knot.

I thought that post was fairly calmly put ! You should see when I'm worked up about something . Like when PB doesn't work, or my selected seat has been pinched by a P1 or CL.

But in the Global Warming debate, you always have to keep pushing back against the green lemmings, else one day they will overwhelm us.

 

[Matt_01]

..... or my selected seat has been pinched by a P1.....

Send me a PM with your up coming flights and your preferred seating I will do my best to pinch it.

 

[zenyattamondatta]

an act of Climate Change, or the Vengeance of Gaia

St Greta

the vicious insult of ‘deniers’

a deliberate, vicious insult, aimed to wound and denigrate

name-callers and the sneerers

the green lemmings

Get a grip.

 

[RooFlyer]

Get a grip.

Oh dear. We don't agree, but maybe you can contribute your perspective on the reporting of global warming?

 

[drron]

Now just who doesn't believe the science?

But the next steps in the global fight against the climate crisis remain far from clear. In the speech she delivered to US Congress in September, Thunberg maintained: “No matter how political the background to this crisis may be, we must not allow it to become a partisan political question. The climate and ecological crisis is beyond party politics. And our main enemy right now is not our political opponents. Our main enemy is physics.”

Climate change denial was defeated in 2019. But what comes next won't be easierg | Carlo Invernizzi-Accetti

Defeating the climate crisis is just the beginning of the struggle – and tough political choices will have to be made

www.theguardian.com

 

[RooFlyer]

Interesting. That article goes on ... (my bolding)

While Thunberg’s intention was evidently to preserve the environmental movement’s unity and common resolve, this may paradoxically soon start to look like a new form of climate denial. As the issue rises to the top of everyone’s agenda, several difficult questions which were previously kept in the background – or indeed actively suppressed – by the environmental movement are becoming impossible to ignore.

The environmental movement is going to have to become more, not less, politicized, to keep up the momentum
For one, no one seems quite clear what is the ultimate goal of the global fight against the climate crisis. Is it merely to enable constant economic growth in a sustainable way, or is it about imposing limits on humanity’s ambitions, in pursuit of a more harmonious relationship with nature?

Even assuming that question can be settled, it remains to be determined what is the relationship – and whether there are any tradeoffs – between environmentalism’s overarching goal(s) and other potentially desirable ends, such as personal freedom, distributive justice and respect for established traditions and ways of life.

Never let it be said that we don't read the hard left/green media .

 

[Hvr]

 

[RooFlyer]

@Hvr : "Idiots" = those who disagree with the noisy.

Yawn. Name-calling; see also, Brexit, the republic, etc. Anything original, there?

 

[Hvr]

@Hvr : "Idiots" = those who disagree with the noisy.

Yawn. Name-calling; see also, Brexit, the republic, etc. Anything original, there?

It's just too easy to get the outrage flowing.

 

[RooFlyer]

It's just too easy to get the outrage flowing.

Ya call that outrage? Sheesh. Think boredom (as in 'yawn') and contempt. Keep 'em coming; its as good as the alarmists get.

 

[drron]

Yes RooFlyer I remember the days when Al Gore told us snow would be a thing of the past.Now the Northern Hemisphere has record snow falls so the science has changed to explain why this is so.
But doesn't that mean that 97% of scientists were wrong then?The science wasn't settled.

 

[RooFlyer]

Yes RooFlyer I remember the days when Al Gore told us snow would be a thing of the past.

Shhhh! That was in the 'global warming' scare period. We don't talk about that now. When that model was shown to be bereft, we went to the new, improved can't lose 'climate change' mantra. If its hot - "climate change". If its cold - "climate change". If it happens quickly - "climate change". If nothing happens - that's odd, must be "climate change".