Liberal Democrat has a change of heart about climate change alarmism

[Anonymous]

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace#.wgsoicbd5">https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-lea ... .wgsoicbd5">https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace#.wgsoicbd5

What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?



If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that's what I thought, too. This is my story.



More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it's not), and I've stayed vegan because I believe it's better for the environment (it is). I haven't owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I'll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I'm a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.



Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I'll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.



1 Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves.



2 Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call "global warming" is natural, not man-made. The earth is warming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.



3 There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.



4 New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth's temperature, better than CO2 levels.



5 CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn't going to change the climate much.



6 There is no such thing as "carbon pollution." Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.



7 Sea level will probably continue to rise — not quickly, and not much. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.



8 The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others. Polar bear numbers are up, not down. They have more to do with hunting permits than CO2*.



9 No one has demonstrated any unnatural damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them. Reefs are more threatened by sunscreen than by CO2.



10 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There's a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*.

[Anonymous]

According to Bjorn Lomborg's calculations, the EU's goal of spending $250 billion per year until the end of the century will result in — and this is not a typo — 0.1 degree lower temperatures.

[Anonymous]

All the decarbonization we can do won't change the temperature much. We have much bigger real problems to pay attention to. I am not saying the climate is not changing or that man is not having an affect on it. But, the alarmism and especially the solutions to it will not change much besides costing us a lot.

[cc]

I saved a very responsible and respected German researchers recent findings



I will try to find it as his research was very thorough and very similar



His focus was in verifying (or not) all NASA data and finding how after a certain date NASA data was deliberately distorted to give the result desired

[Renee]

As I've always said....follow the money trail. There is a big pile of hot steaming money fueling the climate change hysteria among it's most ardent proponents. That's where most of the planetary warming is coming from.

[Anonymous]

I don't know what I believe anymore about climate change..



I don't believe that it is the cause of terrorism though.

[Anonymous]

Pat Michaels, PhD, a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists had some advice for some questionable comments made by Al Gore.



Gore contends the number of extremely hot days has multiplied dramatically, and that people are "connecting the dots" after seeing things like floods, mudslides, rising sea levels from the melting ice, and forest fires.



Michaels reiterates that the IPCC couldn't find any systematic trends in droughts or floods.



"Yes, you do have hotter days – for two reasons," he continues. "One, of course, cities heat up of their own accord, without global warming; and the surface temp is warmer than it was 100 years ago.



"But to say that is 'extreme' or is a problem is a bit of a stretch because it turns out – and we published this in scientific literature – that the more frequent heat waves become, the fewer people die in them. It seems logical, you know? People adapt. They get used to it."

[Anonymous]

One of the most independent and science focused voices on climate change research is Professor Judith Curry, based at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. She does not dispute for a moment that human-generated carbon dioxide warms the planet. But, she says, the evidence suggests this may be happening more slowly than the alarmists fear.



http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/">http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-wa ... terviewed/">http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/

In the run-up to the Paris conference, said Curry, much ink has been spilled over whether the individual emissions pledges made so far by more than 150 countries — their 'intentional nationally determined contributions', to borrow the jargon — will be enough to stop the planet from crossing the 'dangerous' threshold of becoming 2°C hotter than in pre-industrial times. Much of the conference will consist of attempts to make these targets legally binding. This debate will be conducted on the basis that there is a known, mechanistic relationship between the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and how world average temperatures will rise.



Unfortunately, as Curry has shown, there isn't. Any such projection is meaningless, unless it accounts for natural variability and gives a value for 'climate sensitivity' —i.e., how much hotter the world will get if the level of CO2 doubles. Until 2007, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gave a 'best estimate' of 3°C. But in its latest, 2013 report, the IPCC abandoned this, because the uncertainties are so great. Its 'likely' range is now vast — 1.5°C to 4.5°C.



This isn't all. According to Curry, the claims being made by policymakers suggest they are still making new policy from the old, now discarded assumptions. Recent research suggests the climate sensitivity is significantly less than 3˚C. 'There's growing evidence that climate sensitivity is at the lower end of the spectrum, yet this has been totally ignored in the policy debate,' Curry told me. 'Even if the sensitivity is 2.5˚C, not 3˚C, that makes a substantial difference as to how fast we might get to a world that's 2˚C warmer. A sensitivity of 2.5˚C makes it much less likely we will see 2˚C warming during the 21st century. There are so many uncertainties, but the policy people say the target is fixed. And if you question this, you will be slagged off as a denier.'



Curry added that her own work, conducted with the British independent scientist Nic Lewis, suggests that the sensitivity value may still lower, in which case the date when the world would be 2˚C warmer would be even further into the future. On the other hand, the inherent uncertainties of climate projection mean that values of 4˚C cannot be ruled out — but if that turns out to be the case, then the measures discussed at Paris and all the previous 20 UN climate conferences would be futile. In any event, 'the economists and policymakers seem unaware of the large uncertainties in climate sensitivity', despite its enormous implications.



Meanwhile, the obsessive focus on CO2 as the driver of climate change means other research on natural climate variability is being neglected. For example, solar experts believe we could be heading towards a 'grand solar minimum' — a reduction in solar output (and, ergo, a period of global cooling) similar to that which once saw ice fairs on the Thames. 'The work to establish the solar-climate connection is lagging.'



 'I think that by 2030, temperatures will not have increased all that much. Maybe then there will be the funding to do the kind of research on natural variability that we need, to get the climate community motivated to look at things like the solar-climate connection.' She even hopes that rational argument will find a place in the UN: 'Maybe, too, there will be a closer interaction between the scientists, the economists and policymakers. Wouldn't that be great?'

[Anonymous]

Extremist politics has replaced science. The biggest assault on working Westerners I have ever seen. Meanwhile the coldest temperature ever recorded on earth in Antarctica: -94.7C (-135.8F)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/coldest-temperature-recorded-earth-antarctica-guinness-book">http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/d ... nness-book">http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/coldest-temperature-recorded-earth-antarctica-guinness-book

[Anonymous]

Extremist politics has replaced science. The biggest assault on working Westerners I have ever seen. Meanwhile the coldest temperature ever recorded on earth in Antarctica: -94.7C (-135.8F)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/coldest-temperature-recorded-earth-antarctica-guinness-book">http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/d ... nness-book">http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/coldest-temperature-recorded-earth-antarctica-guinness-book

And they had a record high in the past few years too. That is climate doing what it always does. I believe man is contrubuting to climate change, but it's not like it has never happened before. Decarbonization will not alter it either.

[Anonymous]

I saved a very responsible and respected German researchers recent findings



I will try to find it as his research was very thorough and very similar



His focus was in verifying (or not) all NASA data and finding how after a certain date NASA data was deliberately distorted to give the result desired

Be sure to post it if you find it.

[Anonymous]

Dictators Demand Trillions in "Climate" Loot From West

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22086-dictators-demand-trillions-in-climate-loot-from-west">http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/envi ... -from-west">http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22086-dictators-demand-trillions-in-climate-loot-from-west

[Phagdish Hardy]

All I can tell you is that Shen Li is one brilliant fucking poster.  ac_razz

[cc]

All I can tell you is that Shen Li is one brilliant fucking poster.  ac_razz

It certainly took a while for Phag to come around, but truth and good always win out in the end



 ac_smile