The first poll that produced the number “97%” came in 2009, 19 years after the basic science of CO2…
David Piepgrass
1

Alarmist science depends on 3 incredibly unlikely things happening that if even one doesn’t happen completely nullifies the problem

I’m going to ignore the surveys because as I’ve said surveys mean nothing.

If you asked in surveys any number of things of scientists they would have been 99% wrong before a new discovery. It simply is stupid to use them regarding science. You won’t convince me of anything that way. I will only be convinced by actual facts and logic. That is the way I was taught science and the only way I believe science can be done and anyone resorting to that proves the science is weak because it cannot be explained. Scientists don’t need surveys to convince or to do science.

I also have no way of knowing how the numbers you quote are calculated. The term “contrary” is very subjective. Contrary to when or to what? I read articles all the time that show blaring errors in the science.

You quote one article that talks about a 4–9 meter rise in oceans over 7 centuries. As you must know we are seeing 15-30 centimeters in a century now. Which means over 7 centuries at most 2 meters. We also have seen that this rate happened BEFORE significant global warming meaning that this rise will happen EVEN IF WE COMPLETELY ELIMINATE ALL GLOBAL WARMING AND EVEN RETURN TO THE TEMPERATURES OF 1880 or wherever you want.

In other words there will be sea level rise that we will have to cope with no matter what. We are going to have to move buildings, increase sea walls or whatever anyway even if we spend trillions and are successful in starving our planet of the CO2 it needs. So, what is the difference? That is not covered is it?

What is also not mentioned in that article is that there is increasing coastal area. From man made reasons to natural ones including silt pouring off mountains, plate tectonics, accumulation of detritus on islands, volcanoes and other reasons a rising sea DOESN’T automatically mean that land or coast is being swallowed. It’s not that simple. That is never mentioned.

Over the last 115 years man has been doing one of the most amazing things. We have reduced our death rate from natural disasters by 99%. That is 1 in 100 die compared to 115 years ago. A similar improvement is happening all the time. Regardless of climate change or not we are every year massively improving our ability to handle any natural disaster. We improve building codes, we lift buildings, we divert rivers, we have early warning, we have supplies, ability to lift people out of situations, better medical care. What this means is that by 2100 we have no clue what we can do or who will die from what. We assume based on what we know today and that has always been a BAD BAD BAD way to make predictions. It has always been wrong. Usually horrifically wrong. This idea we can project anything out 85 years is utterly stupid. The rate of change of technology is exponential. Our ability to do things grows astronomically from year to year. So any prediction has to meet a stiff test to be worth taking seriously.

Here the 3 things all of which must be true or the alarmism fails

1) You have to be able to predict CO2 levels as huge — which means making gross assumptions about technology that is not believable.

2) You have to be able to predict the temperature change from such CO2 which you have been extremely poor at doing and the climate MUST be extremely sensitive to CO2.

If you want to belabor it I will admit that if co2 climbed 30% and produced 0.5C or 0.25C or 0.64C another 30% increase in CO2 will produce another quantity of that magnitude NOT 3C not 6C. You are arguing with me about tenths of a degree which distracts from the big problem. We are talking tenths of a degree difference which won’t make a difference even if you are right.

The IPCC has the 8.5line for a reason. That is so they can show graphs that combined with a much higher sensitivity to CO2 than is true produces massive temperature change.

Based on massive temperature change they can justify massive damage with flawed studies. The 8.5 assumption is for 1200–1400ppm or 3 times the CO2 of today not 30% more. They then assume that co2 sensitivity is twice or three times what it actually is and the result is 10 times the temperature change that could actually happen.

They don’t mention that.

3) You have to be able to predict the consequences of that temperature change from 2).

This is the weakest link in the whole chain. Every study of consequences is horribly done and horribly wrong. Everything they’ve ever said is wrong. They completely have ignored the positive effects of co2 and higher temperatures. They have completely miscalculated how things would react. A simple one is storms. They assumed more heat energy meant more storms. It’s actually the difference between the poles and the equator that generates the energy for storms. They didn’t figure the huge benefit CO2 has on plant growth as well as drought resistance which one study showed completely negated all the negative effects of higher temps on food.


All 3 must be huge and true or else alarmism collapses

You see let’s say we do make solar more affordable fast (likely) then we won't produce 30% more CO2 let alone 200% more CO2 and the problem doesn’t exist.

Let’s say we do keep producing a lot of co2 but the sensitivity is less than 3.0 which is clearly obviously the case and it is more like 1.0 then guess what? High co2 levels don’t make a difference. We don’t get much temperature change and it makes no difference. There is no problem.

Let’s say we do get more co2 and the sensitivity is higher then we get more temperature change but what if all the predictions about the consequences are wrong and it actually turns out good or just neutral, then okay, not a problem. Sorry for worrying you. I will be vacationing in Sunny Moscow.

What if damages turn out high and we do produce a lot of CO2, guess what if sensitivity is low we don’t get damages.

What if damages are high and sensitivity is high but we cut back on co2 fast then damages are low.

What if none of them is true. Well you get it.

The point is that for us to be worried you have to be right about predicting CO2 levels, predicting the sensitivity and predicting the consequences and they all have to be bad. All these turn out to be grossly in error even looking at them today. We can see all of these have gross problems. We can see the rate of change of technology is such that it is incredibly unlikely we will produce 1400ppm of co2. It is also obvious that sensitivity of co2 is way less already. It is at most 2.0 which the IPCC will have to admit in the next draft and probably lower. Lastly the effects are dead. All of the theories of negative effects have been killed. The idea that food production will decline in 2080 is dead. The idea that we will die from malaria. Dead. A new vaccine kills that. The idea that storms increase. Dead. 20% Fewer storms not more. Dead. Dead. Dead.

This whole thing depends on your ability to correctly estimate 1, 2 and 3. You haven’t shown any capability to do any of them.

Error in any one of the 3 above completely nullifies the whole alarmist agenda. You need all 3 to come out as you wish. They aren’t. None of them.


Thus if you look at the big picture the problem is it is grossly alarmist. You assume CO2 levels which are unattainable and grossly over what is happening or could happen and ignores technological change.

Then you grossly miscalculate sensitivity using PDO as part of the CO2 effect in the period 1975–2000 to double sensitivity at least. You overestimate the effect of aerosols. All of this leads to the reason why the models are so out of whack but you refuse to accept it and continue to try to patch and adjust land temperatures and ignore the best data we have to push an alarmist agenda.

Then using the two effects above to produce absurd numbers use terrible studies and disproven studies to show impacts that cannot possibly happen and are being mitigated or would happen anyway regardless of co2 or man.

The result is a forced narrative that doesn’t meet any standard needed to make trillions of dollars in investment decisions. What you have at best is a good science fiction tale of a possible world. A world that is incredibly unlikely and more and more unlikely every day as we see the theory and the data diverge which usually results in ignominy and the death of a theory but makes no difference.

The reason it makes no difference is because this is not science. This is advocacy. That is why when I said these things are never mentioned is important. It is CLEARLY political because scientists would NEVER leave out the other side. Scientists would never just assume the worst case. Scientists would never make the assumptions or let a theory get so whacked out of kilter with the data without admitting some problems, some issues and admitting failure. CLimate scientists never do that which is proof of political not scientific reason.

This is a filthy business David. Preaching religious crap as science. It has to be defunded and replaced with real scientists. This fantasy has gone on too long. We can’t keep living in filter bubbles David. We have to have the end of all these fairy tales liberals are spinning. We have to live in the real world.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated John the TIB’s story.