Climate Change Mega Thread

[Bigjohn69]

About 80 per cent of denier blogs cited the work of University of Victoria zoologist Susan Crockford, even though she has published almost no peer-reviewed research on polar bears and hasn't done any field studies.

Crockford, who writes the Polar Bear Science blog, has been associated with think-tank the Heartland Institute, which denies climate change, and spoke at one of its conferences as recently as last spring.

She also appears in North American and European mainstream media, including Canadian newspapers such as the Financial Post.

University of Victoria adjunct professor Susan Crockford doesn't seem interested in discussing the monthly payments she appears to receive from the climate denying Heartland Spinstitute.

“Crockford would not respond to emails, and refused to speak with the Martlet,” reports a UVic student newspaper attempting to probe the payments.


It is regrettable that anyone affiliated with the University of Victoria participated in the activities of an organization like the Heartland Institute,” says Dr. Thomas F. Pederson, Executive Director of the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS) at UVic. “The University prides itself on being an institution of higher learning that deals with facts and that is nowhere more true than in the field of science. Those who deny that the planet is warming as a direct result of human activity are denying facts.


https://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-pa ... ord-probed




The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) both recently reported that 2016 was the warmest year on record (Potter et al. 2016), followed by 2015 and 2014. Currently, 2017 is on track to be the second warmest year after 2016. The vast majority of scientists agree that most of the warming since the Industrial Revolution is explained by rising atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Cook et al. 2013, Stenhouse et al. 2014, Carlton et al 2015, Verheggen et al. 2015), that the frequency of extremely warm years will increase in a future of continually rising GHG levels, and that the harmful effects of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) on natural and managed ecosystems across the biosphere (Stocker et al. 2013) will escalate.


Crockford vigorously criticizes, without supporting evidence, the findings of several leading researchers who have studied polar bears in the field for decades. In this manner, her blogs highlight a second frame, “public accountability of science,” evidenced by her claims that scientists overstate their findings. For example, Crockford recently called the findings of a new peer-reviewed and vetted paper by USGS scientists (Durner et al. 2017) “bogus,” “lame,” and “dangerous.” (Crockford 2017). Rhetorical devices to evoke fear and other emotions, such as implying that the public is under threat from deceitful scientists, are common tactics employed by science-denier groups (Barry et al. 2008).


https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/adv ... 33/4644513

[Bigjohn69]

The North Pole thawed recently, hitting above-freezing temperatures, and experts say it's because of a burst of warm, southern air coupled with diminishing Arctic sea ice.

"We've basically got a weather system that's funnelling winds up into the Arctic from the Atlantic — from the south," said Walt Meier, senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.


http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/nort ... -1.4554864

[The Green Barbarian]

*removed*

[rustled]

About 80 per cent of denier blogs cited the work of University of Victoria zoologist Susan Crockford, even though she has published almost no peer-reviewed research on polar bears and hasn't done any field studies....

Interesting.

Have you looked at how many people refer to Cook's work? I've always found it odd that people include his work (and work done specifically to support his case) as proof of science, when he himself was very up-front about his motivational bias right from the beginning. And, as always, there's no willingness to address the consequences of Cook's actions. "First, do no harm" is completely lost on passionate ideologues, and Cook and his followers are no exception.

[Mark5]

How can you then explain how the climate has always been changing, sometimes rapidly in the past when humans were not even around? The climate is variable and is not static and unchanging. 20,000 years ago Canada was covered by a layer of ice a few kilometers in thickness. 12,000 years ago it started to melt because the planet began to warm and the ice has been melting ever since. The fact that the earth continues to warm has little to do with mankind and more to do with the way nature has cycles. Nothing ever remains the same. Change is the norm. In fact, we are actually due for another ice age soon. Smug and puny mankind thinks we are all so powerful and are so strong we can actually affect the climate on earth, something that has evolved over billions of years. The man made climate change believers are like doomsday cultist who will not even entertain others opinions or beliefs. Only they know the truth and everyone else is a heretic and a fool. It is only within the last few decades that we have been able to take precise measurements of climate and now all these so called climate scientists are jumping to conclusions based on a tiny little data set compared to the history of the earth and the universe. And there is NOT 100 percent consensus. It is still only a theory, not a fact. Nobody really knows for certain and those who say they do are charlatans. The planet earth itself is never in the same place and is hurtling through space as the galaxy expands and spins. We have no idea what affect that is having. The Sun dims and warms as well. Fossil fuels are solar energy that was converted by plants. Animals ate the plants and they all died off in many cycles of warming and cooling over millions of years producing this rich complex chemical soup we call oil. There are the remains of tropical forests in the arctic for example. The oceans have risen and fallen long before mankind and the industrial revolution arrived. The real push for man made climate change is political and ideological. It itself has evolved from the anti-capitalistic anti - war sentiment by the left starting in earnest with the Vietnam war. That is why we see anti-war "heroes" like Jane Fonda and Neil Young pushing it. Many people can see through this charade.

[Bigjohn69]

No one suggests anything but the rate of change . Thats the evidence

[rustled]

^^Conclusion reached on that evidence presupposes, among other assumptions, that the only variable in the equation is man's use of fossil fuels.

[Glacier]

No one suggests anything but the rate of change . Thats the evidence

The rate of change has not changed. 70% of all emissions have been release in the past 50 years, and yet the rate of change has not increase from the previous 50 years.

[Jflem1983]

U know we have a minister of climate change now lol. It is akin to having a minister of mythological creatures. Lol. What a joke

[The Green Barbarian]

No one suggests anything but the rate of change . Thats the evidence

You are right. It's the evidence that so far, all of the doomsaying and apocalyptic nonsense surrounding the unproven AGW scientific hypothesis has been a giant hoax.

[CapitalB]

The thing that bugs me about this whole thing is that you guys want proof but the only proof you think is acceptable is proof that climate change is right now ending the world. Which is not doable, I mean we can point to the unprecedented temperature variations we've had this winter, or a rapidly melting ice, or any number of other factors that are currently not right. All those are denied with either no evidence or spurious claims of denial.

Theres not really an argument to be made to people that disbelieve every single piece of scientific evidence presented to them. No way to have a rational discussion with people that rebut peer reviewed science with unsourced random graph images that don't prove anything at all let alone disapprove the literally overwhelming amount of evidence they are being used against. And constantly drop videos from the same one or two sources, where a dude literally just whinges for 15 minutes in a logical sounding way while providing no solid evidence.

Everything we know about weather data is making the future look increasingly bad. Not in the short term, which is all that seems to matter to deniers (or all they can understand), but in the long term weather scientists are expecting just increasingly unstable weather. But I know all the scientists are in cahoots against whoever in some grand conspiracy to ruin the economy or something. Like that makes sense as a goal for any entity, but no its so much more likely than all these people that have devoted their lives to learning and science are telling you the truth about things that they are experts in. It makes so much more sense to believe a bunch of conspiracy theorists, bought politicians, and corporate shills, all of whom know next to nothing about the topics the spend all their time on.

[The Green Barbarian]

The thing that bugs me about this whole thing is that you guys want proof .

and the thing that bugs me is that guys like you want trillions of dollars wasted on this unproven hypothesis with no proof being given, only massive emotional out-bursts and name-calling. Screaming "denier" at me every time you are reaching for my wallet is no way to get me on board with your unproven theory.

[JLives]

and the thing that bugs me is that guys like you want trillions of dollars wasted on this unproven hypothesis with no proof being given, only massive emotional out-bursts and name-calling. Screaming "denier" at me every time you are reaching for my wallet is no way to get me on board with your unproven theory.

You not understanding something doesn't mean it hasn't been proven. A planetful of climate scientists understand what is happening based on scientific evidence. Your opinion is irrelevant to that. You're just another climate change denier who thinks they're smarter than the experts and tries to prove it with blogs and youtube clips. Lame.

[CapitalB]

Says the guy who outbursts emotionally and calls people names in nearly every post.

You've made it quite clear that literally nothing short of the literal climate apocalypse happening will convince you. Theres no mountain of facts and evidence that you won't turn a blind eye to. I will continue to call deniers deniers because thats what they are, people denying a literal scientifically proven fact. A hypothesis is :a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. The evidence for this isn't limited, it outnumbers the evidence against it 10,000 : 1, trying to disprove climate change is like trying to prove god exists. You'll keep saying things, and denying it but that is literally it.

I don't debate with you to convert you. I'm debating so that people can see both sides of the debate and make an informed choice. I'm pretty confident that most people are sane rational logical human beings, that they will read or at least look at the mountain of evidence and be able to make the correct assessment. I know there are a bunch of people with preconceived notions in this regard, and I know those people are so predisposed against anything that encroaches on their chosen opinion space that they cannot be convinced to come back to reality. And I'm ok with that, there will always be ignorant crazy people in the world. If I can help one person avoid falling into that trap though I'll be happy with my contribution.

[Glacier]

The thing that bugs me about this whole thing is that you guys want proof but the only proof you think is acceptable is proof that climate change is right now ending the world. Which is not doable, I mean we can point to the unprecedented temperature variations we've had this winter, or a rapidly melting ice, or any number of other factors that are currently not right. All those are denied with either no evidence or spurious claims of denial.

It's a two way street, bucko. You have concocted an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There's simply no way to falsify your alarmist hypothesis. If you can't falsify something, you are no longer dealing with science.