Global Cooling. The sky is falling.

[Rob C]

Jeremy, I have long abandoned faith in absolutes. One only has to consider the fate of what used to be clearly understood as defining the concept of street photography to realise that.

:-(

[HSakols]

Alain,
Regarding my idiot comment - I shouldn't have said that.  That day was also the day of another school shooting which as a teacher I find a bit sad. My point is that many politicians do not understand the nature of science.  They will use it when they get cancer, but when it comes to something like Global Climate Change they switch to religion!  This is not science.  I don't see how Bart has the patience for this. 

[Ray]

The thing I find interesting is that Bart, clearly an intelligent and educated man, spends so much energy and time arguing with - sorry but I can't find a more appropriate word - idiots.

Calling people idiots, and using other forms of insults, is a form of 'psychological projection' whereby people defend themselves against an unconscious hint or impulse that they themselves have the same qualities that they are attributing to others.

By attributing those faults to others, they are more easily able to deny the existence of those same faults in themselves. This is a well-known psychological phenomena.

The following Wikipedia article provides an overview.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[HSakols]

Here in Yosemite National Park the Lyell and Maclure glaciers have shrunk 78% since 1883.  Hmmmm something is going on. 

[Ray]

All types of pollution are bad for the planet and its inhabitants. If anybody thinks otherwise, he is not only denier, but also a type of person characterized in Jeremy's post.

Les,
There are lots of toxic waste products from industrial processes which are clearly pollutants, such as arsenic, lead, mercury, asbestos, benzene, sulphur dioxide, various nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, particulate carbon in the atmosphere (smog), numerous pesticides used for agriculture, and so on, and so on.

However, I find very absurd and unscientific to describe CO2 as a pollutant when we know with certainty that CO2 is essential for all life and that increases in CO2 result in greater plant growth.

In connection with this issue, I just came across the following article, in relation to the waste problem of solar systems.

"Dubbed as a clean source of energy, new research findings are showing that home and property owners producing clean, CO2-electricity may, in fact, find themselves sitting on a pile of hazardous waste once the module lifetime expires. In many countries, it is illegal to simply discard hazardous materials into the household garbage, and so many solar energy module operators may find themselves paying high fees for hazardous waste disposal, while in third world countries the hazardous modules will simply end up being discarded onto the landscape.

The researchers say that currently there are about 3700 square kilometers of solar modules installed globally and estimate that as of 2016 the modules contained 11,000 tons of lead and 800 tons of cadmium, reports Welt, citing the study."

https://principia-scientific.org/new-study-solar-panel-owners-sit-on-a-pile-of-toxic-lead-cadmium/

[Rob C]

Here in Yosemite National Park the Lyell and Maclure glaciers have shrunk 78% since 1883.  Hmmmm something is going on.

Yep! Not enough carbon dioxide floating about, and you need more cows to chew more cud to make more chlorine, too! I do my bit by feeding Moira carrots, but there's a limit to what one bloke and somebody else's horse can do.

On the other hand, it's long been known that the dinosaurs brought about their own extinction by eating too much and having shocking table manners, so shocking that they altered the climate and attracted meteors. The few surviving dinos always denied responsibility, so there's an object lesson there.

[Ray]

Here in Yosemite National Park the Lyell and Maclure glaciers have shrunk 78% since 1883.  Hmmmm something is going on.

Of course something is going on. Nothing is static. Climate is changing all the time, as everything else is changing, as you are changing as you get older.

We are currently in a slight warming period in relation to a previous colder period, know as the Little Ice Age.

Climate changes in big cycles, known as Ice Ages, and smaller cycles within those inter-glacial periods. Jesus Christ lived during a warm period, similar to today. The Dark Ages, prior to the Middle Ages, were miserably cold. The Middle Ages became warm again, enticing the Vikings to emigrate to Greenland, but that warmth lasted just a few hundred years, and was followed by the Little Ice Age.

We are now in another warm period, similar to the warmth during the life of Jesus Christ. We should rejoice. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

I know it's what you like to think, Alan, but as I pointed out the last time you made that smugly self-satisfied assertion, it isn't true. The thread continues, on its 20th page now and for the most part in decent humour, needing only minor nudges from me to keep it on track.

Perhaps the failure of the thread you moderated wasn't entirely the fault of the contributors.

Jeremy

With all due respect you have totally missed the point of my comment.   IIRC, you said you hadn't even looked at the previous thread.   I predicted that the same thing would happen on this one as did before.   Your cheeky final comment was uncalled for since you seem to have no clue about what we tried to do on the earlier thread.   I guess you can sanction me if you want,  it really doesn't matter as the history of this topic will continue  to repeat itself regardless of any new title.

[LesPalenik]

Michael Soule On Vanishing Wildeness

It’s human nature to be concerned mostly with short-term threats. We don’t change our behavior to avoid future disasters. Instead we wait around for something to force us to change.

Conservative politicians are in the business of denying that anything bad is happening, and just about all politicians want to avoid controversy. In the most recent presidential election, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both avoided talking about environmental issues.

Maybe we can’t change, even though the day of reckoning approaches. In western Colorado we’re at the edge of the Southwest, a very dry place. Climatologists say that water-stressed regions will be altered dramatically. Drought will become the norm. What little water remains will be the most valuable resource. In some parts of the world it already is. Most people who study climate change agree that droughts, rising seas, forest fires, and hurricanes will exert such overwhelming stress on daily life that even politicians will be concerned. By then it will be too late for a lot of species and a lot of places and a lot of human communities.

it’s not only time that’s hard for us to grasp but space. We have evolved to comprehend issues at the scale of a watershed or mountain range. Thinking about anything “global” presents a serious cognitive challenge. Few fields in science deal with these widespread, long-term issues. People in politics and business and the media don’t look at these phenomena. Our life spans are so short that we just can’t deal psychologically with long-term changes in the environment. We’re not equipped.

https://www.thesunmagazine.org/issues/508/we-only-protect-what-we-love

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The thing I find interesting is that Bart, clearly an intelligent and educated man, spends so much energy and time arguing with - sorry but I can't find a more appropriate word - idiots.

Apparently, there is one particular idiot who, from post to post, from thread to thread, keeps insulting everyone he disagrees with or doesn’t like. Thinly-veiled personal insults, without mentioning names, just so he can avoid being outright banned.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Apparently, there is one particular idiot who, from post to post, from thread to thread, keeps insulting everyone he disagrees with or doesn’t like. Thinly-veiled personal insults, without mentioning names, just so he can avoid being outright banned.

Hi Slobodan,

Maybe you'll find this as interesting as I do, since we both have backgrounds in Finance:
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/05/11/zirp-interest-rate-federal-policy-funded-fracking-industry-loss

Others may find this financially oriented information less interesting, even though it (fossil fuel, and soil pollution) is very relevant for the topics under discussion in this thread.

Disclaimer, 'Desmog' sources to credible scientific information, and the DeSmogBlog site is labeled as having a 'Left'-leaning bias in reporting (based on its political stance regarding climate change), but also has a rating of Factual Reporting: High  (see attached).

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Hi Slobodan,

Maybe you'll find this as interesting as I do, since we both have backgrounds in Finance:
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/05/11/zirp-interest-rate-federal-policy-funded-fracking-industry-loss

Others may find this financially oriented information less interesting, even though it (fossil fuel, and soil pollution) is very relevant for the topics under discussion in this thread.

Disclaimer, 'Desmog' sources to credible scientific information, and the DeSmogBlog site is labeled as having a 'Left'-leaning bias in reporting (based on its political stance regarding climate change), but also has a rating of Factual Reporting: High  (see attached).

Cheers,
Bart

I just cannot understand how a media outlet can be  "High factual reporting" when they're "Biased".  If all they're doing is cherry-picking truthful facts on one side and ignoring truthful facts on the other side, calling them Highly factual is just stupid.  What's the point?  How does a reader understand what the Truth really is? 

It's like listening to a used car salesmen extol the features of the car he's trying to sell you but not telling you the engine is burning oil.  Would you buy a car from that guy?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I just cannot understand how a media outlet can be  "High factual reporting" when they're "Biased".  If all they're doing is cherry-picking truthful facts on one side and ignoring truthful facts on the other side...

Alternative-fact deniers? 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Alternative-fact deniers? 

Assuming you are referring to that website in general, No, that would be that PSI site that Climate change deniers use (see attached).

Deniers are easily spotted by them saying things like "Climate always changes", conveniently hiding the fact that the change that is going on in the last decades is changing at a rate that is unprecedented in recent history, and it's objectively caused by man (so say even the reports by the US government).

Here's the Official Government Site:
Climate Science Special Report
Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

Cheers,
Bart

[Rob C]

I just cannot understand how a media outlet can be  "High factual reporting" when they're "Biased".  If all they're doing is cherry-picking truthful facts on one side and ignoring truthful facts on the other side, calling them Highly factual is just stupid.  What's the point?  How does a reader understand what the Truth really is? 

It's like listening to a used car salesmen extol the features of the car he's trying to sell you but not telling you the engine is burning oil.  Would you buy a car from that guy?

Caveat emptor.

I bought one used car in my life, just to leave in the UK for our use during our return trips from here. It was one year old when I bought it, and our son used to drive it when we weren't there. I would never buy used again. I would rather buy the cheapest new around within my means, but have it covered by a maker's guarantee for a few years, dodgy as those guarantees may be.

In the end, as my son was living city-centre and was young, the insurance became absurd, so we just told him to use the bus and sold it back where we'd bought it (the car, not the bus). One of the delights of city life was that I discovered shoe prints on the roof. A positive outcome was that it prompted us to start to drive to Scotland instead, and that turned into some of the best adventures of my life. My life; I suspect my wife worried a bit more about where we were going to sleep at night as I did tend to drive long hours. However, we always did fine nice hotels and good dinners! You can't beat France for so many, unexpected delights.

[Alan Klein]

Assuming you are referring to that website in general, No, that would be that PSI site that Climate change deniers use (see attached).

Deniers are easily spotted by them saying things like "Climate always changes", conveniently hiding the fact that the change that is going on in the last decades is changing at a rate that is unprecedented in recent history, and it's objectively caused by man (so say even the reports by the US government).

Here's the Official Government Site:
Climate Science Special Report
Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

Cheers,
Bart

Just like deniers slant their reporting, supporters slant theirs as well. The report you refer to if you read the executive summary shows no advantages to a warming climate when we know that species including plant life will increase due to the higher temperatures and more rainfall. The report only reports the negative facts and conveniently never reports on the positive facts. It's biased reporting truthful facts but only truthful facts on one side.

But we need to have complete information both positives and negatives so we could intelligently figure out what we should be doing. As long as one or both sides continue to slant the news and cherry pick the points of views the opposite sides will continue to claim that their adversaries are not correct in any way at all.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I just cannot understand how a media outlet can be  "High factual reporting" when they're "Biased".  If all they're doing is cherry-picking truthful facts on one side and ignoring truthful facts on the other side, calling them Highly factual is just stupid.  What's the point?  How does a reader understand what the Truth really is? 

This is why one needs to constantly read up on the issues of the day.   Obviously not everyone can be well schooled  in atmospheric science (I had a single semester course in atmospheric chemistry as an under grad a lot of years ago but still read general science journals on these topics).  The key is to be able to put things in an appropriate context.   Often times modeling is complex such as in climate change and yes v there will be uncertainty.   Scientists studying this are doing the best they can and increasing data will lead to improved prediction.

Ultimately there will have to be some political decisions made.   It 'may' be that the longer decisions are put off  the more difficult the transition will be.   Certainly moving to a carbon tax (as well as increasing the current gasoline tax in the U.S.  which is used to pay for road and bridge maintenance) will provide economic nudging to effect some changes.  I believe this is better than the current CAFE standards.

[Alan Klein]

This is why one needs to constantly read up on the issues of the day.   Obviously not everyone can be well schooled  in atmospheric science (I had a single semester course in atmospheric chemistry as an under grad a lot of years ago but still read general science journals on these topics).  The key is to be able to put things in an appropriate context.   Often times modeling is complex such as in climate change and yes v there will be uncertainty.   Scientists studying this are doing the best they can and increasing data will lead to improved prediction.

Ultimately there will have to be some political decisions made.   It 'may' be that the longer decisions are put off  the more difficult the transition will be.   Certainly moving to a carbon tax (as well as increasing the current gasoline tax in the U.S.  which is used to pay for road and bridge maintenance) will provide economic nudging to effect some changes.  I believe this is better than the current CAFE standards.

Since a lot of the info we get is biased, or just plain wrong, discernment, instinct, and just plain common sense are often more important then what we read or hear or even learn in school.  Professors have biases too.  Also, we're easily swayed by our own prejudices.  We read and listen to what confirms our opinions.  Independent thinkers are a rarity.  Most people are like cattle following the herd hoping there's water over the hill.

[LesPalenik]

Since a lot of the info we get is biased, or just plain wrong, discernment, instinct, and just plain common sense are often more important then what we read or hear or even learn in school.  Professors have biases too.  Also, we're easily swayed by our own prejudices.  We read and listen to what confirms our opinions.  Independent thinkers are a rarity.  Most people are like cattle following the herd hoping there's water over the hill.

Or that all the pollution will affect only the people on the other side of the hill.

[RSL]

Right, Alan. But what Goldhammer means is (1) we don't yet know exactly what problem we want to solve, so we have no way to build algorithms that actually can solve it, and (2) since we don't know the objective, we don't really know what kind of "data" to gather and feed into our nonexistent algorithms. But he's right about the political part. We want to control what people do. Raise their gas prices, etc. Because WE know what's right, and they don't.