Climate Change(d)?

[Shadowy Man]

And I have previously agreed with you that a fair amount of the alarmism is unwarranted and actually detrimental to the goals of combating climate change.

In what way is the alarmism detrimental to the battle against climate change?

An example would be if a non-scientist alarmist makes a prediction that doesn't come true and it leads to people dismissing the science because it predicted something wrong. And if those people support, or are themselves, anti-intellectual politicians that can result in the undermining of any reasonable (non-almarist) government-level efforts to combat climate change.

There's a fable called "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" that basically outlines this very basic aspect of human behavior.

 

[bilby]

And I have previously agreed with you that a fair amount of the alarmism is unwarranted and actually detrimental to the goals of combating climate change.

In what way is the alarmism detrimental to the battle against climate change?

It encorages fuckwits to dismiss the entire issue as alarmist nonsense.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The problem is that even the non-alarmists are ignored. Because the changes were slow and subtle to begin they could be ignored, starting decades ago.

There’s just too much money to be made in the fossil fuel industry to give it up. So, if the science can be undermined it benefits those who make short term profit at the long term expense of the rest of us.

Since we didn’t put into effect a reasonable transition plan when it could have been affordable it looks like we will just have to adapt, but even a rational adaptation plan isn’t being put into place.

 

[bilby]

The problem is that even the non-alarmists are ignored. Because the changes were slow and subtle to begin they could be ignored, starting decades ago.

There’s just too much money to be made in the fossil fuel industry to give it up. So, if the science can be undermined it benefits those who make short term profit at the long term expense of the rest of us.

Since we didn’t put into effect a reasonable transition plan when it could have been affordable it looks like we will just have to adapt, but even a rational adaptation plan isn’t being put into place.

That's because there's just too much money in the intermittent renewables industry to give it up.

 

[TSwizzle]

And I have previously agreed with you that a fair amount of the alarmism is unwarranted and actually detrimental to the goals of combating climate change.

In what way is the alarmism detrimental to the battle against climate change?

An example would be if a non-scientist alarmist makes a prediction that doesn't come true and it leads to people dismissing the science because it predicted something wrong. And if those people support, or are themselves, anti-intellectual politicians that can result in the undermining of any reasonable (non-almarist) government-level efforts to combat climate change.

Well I see much of Europe and the USA has policies in place for years in the combat against climate change. I think the notion of combatting climate change (a natural phenomenon) is a stupid proposition in the first place.

There's a fable called "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" that basically outlines this very basic aspect of human behavior.

At some point a wolf actually showed up. Right now you can't even prove wolves exist.

 

[steve_bank]

TSwizzle

All that hand waving must be tiresome. Any sore muscles or joint pain?

Do you dispute that sea levels are rising? If not what is the natural cause?

Do you dispute that rising sea levels are now causing problems here in the USA and globally?

Go ahead and strike a blow against the alarmists, activists, and cult the cult like climate science.

Al you have to do is answer the questions to make your case.

Are you afraid to answer?

 

[Shadowy Man]

And I have previously agreed with you that a fair amount of the alarmism is unwarranted and actually detrimental to the goals of combating climate change.

In what way is the alarmism detrimental to the battle against climate change?

An example would be if a non-scientist alarmist makes a prediction that doesn't come true and it leads to people dismissing the science because it predicted something wrong. And if those people support, or are themselves, anti-intellectual politicians that can result in the undermining of any reasonable (non-almarist) government-level efforts to combat climate change.

Well I see much of Europe and the USA has policies in place for years in the combat against climate change. I think the notion of combatting climate change (a natural phenomenon) is a stupid proposition in the first place.

There are good scientific reasons to believe the current climate change discontent with historical natural changes. That we are directly influencing the climate through our actions and changes in our actions could alleviate the deleterious effects our actions are likely to cause.

I don’t know why you don’t believe that but that is the current scientific consensus of the very same climate research field that leads you to understand the historical natural variability you seem to desire to attribute recent changes to (despite the obvious inconsistency).

 

[TSwizzle]

The Spectator? Seriously. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that Twiz would use a rag that is known for far right bias to try and convince us that climate change isn't real.
Oh and Boris Johnson was a part of the British version for awhile. So yeah. Whatever that piece of shit says must be true. /s

How about this rag, The Los Angeles Times?

For years, climate alarmism has reigned as political catechism: The planet is burning and only drastic action — deindustrialization, draconian regulation, even ceasing childbearing — could forestall certain apocalypse. Now, at least some signs are emerging that both the broader public and leading liberal voices may be recoiling from the doom and gloom. First, recent polling shows that the intensity of climate dread is weakening. According to a July report from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, while a majority (69%) of Americans still say global warming is happening, only 60% say it’s “mostly human-caused”; 28% attribute it mostly to natural environmental changes. A similar October study from the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute found that “belief in human-driven climate change declined overall” since 2017. Interestingly, Democrats and political independents, not Republicans, were primarily responsible for the decline. Moreover, public willingness to countenance personal sacrifice in the name of saving the planet seems to be plummeting: An October 2024 poll from the Pew Research Center found that only 45% said human activity contributed “a great deal” to climate change. An additional 29% said it contributed “some” — while a quarter said human influence was minimal or nonexistent. The moral panic is slowly evaporating. The fading consensus among ordinary Americans matches a more dramatic signal from ruling-class elites. On Oct. 28, no less an erstwhile ardent climate change evangelist than Bill Gates published a remarkable blog post addressing climate leaders at the then-upcoming COP30 summit. Gates unloaded a blistering critique of what he called “the doomsday view of climate change,” which he said is simply “wrong.” The climate alarm machine — powered by the twin engines of moral panic and groupthink homogeneity — is sputtering. When the public grows skeptical, when billionaire techno-philanthropists question the prevailing consensus and when supposedly mainstream scientific projections reverse course, that’s a sign that the days of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” propaganda documentary and John Kerry’s “special presidential envoy for climate” globe-trotting vanity gig are officially over.

LA Times

The jig is up.

 

[TSwizzle]

And I have previously agreed with you that a fair amount of the alarmism is unwarranted and actually detrimental to the goals of combating climate change.

In what way is the alarmism detrimental to the battle against climate change?

An example would be if a non-scientist alarmist makes a prediction that doesn't come true and it leads to people dismissing the science because it predicted something wrong. And if those people support, or are themselves, anti-intellectual politicians that can result in the undermining of any reasonable (non-almarist) government-level efforts to combat climate change.

Well I see much of Europe and the USA has policies in place for years in the combat against climate change. I think the notion of combatting climate change (a natural phenomenon) is a stupid proposition in the first place.

There are good scientific reasons to believe the current climate change discontent with historical natural changes. That we are directly influencing the climate through our actions and changes in our actions could alleviate the deleterious effects our actions are likely to cause.

I don’t know why you don’t believe that but that is the current scientific consensus of the very same climate research field that leads you to understand the historical natural variability you seem to desire to attribute recent changes to (despite the obvious inconsistency).

I don't believe it because there is zero evidence to support it.

 

[steve_bank]

The Spectator? Seriously. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that Twiz would use a rag that is known for far right bias to try and convince us that climate change isn't real.
Oh and Boris Johnson was a part of the British version for awhile. So yeah. Whatever that piece of shit says must be true. /s

How about this rag, The Los Angeles Times?

For years, climate alarmism has reigned as political catechism: The planet is burning and only drastic action — deindustrialization, draconian regulation, even ceasing childbearing — could forestall certain apocalypse. Now, at least some signs are emerging that both the broader public and leading liberal voices may be recoiling from the doom and gloom. First, recent polling shows that the intensity of climate dread is weakening. According to a July report from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, while a majority (69%) of Americans still say global warming is happening, only 60% say it’s “mostly human-caused”; 28% attribute it mostly to natural environmental changes. A similar October study from the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute found that “belief in human-driven climate change declined overall” since 2017. Interestingly, Democrats and political independents, not Republicans, were primarily responsible for the decline. Moreover, public willingness to countenance personal sacrifice in the name of saving the planet seems to be plummeting: An October 2024 poll from the Pew Research Center found that only 45% said human activity contributed “a great deal” to climate change. An additional 29% said it contributed “some” — while a quarter said human influence was minimal or nonexistent. The moral panic is slowly evaporating. The fading consensus among ordinary Americans matches a more dramatic signal from ruling-class elites. On Oct. 28, no less an erstwhile ardent climate change evangelist than Bill Gates published a remarkable blog post addressing climate leaders at the then-upcoming COP30 summit. Gates unloaded a blistering critique of what he called “the doomsday view of climate change,” which he said is simply “wrong.” The climate alarm machine — powered by the twin engines of moral panic and groupthink homogeneity — is sputtering. When the public grows skeptical, when billionaire techno-philanthropists question the prevailing consensus and when supposedly mainstream scientific projections reverse course, that’s a sign that the days of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” propaganda documentary and John Kerry’s “special presidential envoy for climate” globe-trotting vanity gig are officially over.

LA Times

The jig is up.

Ok, there are highly exacted alarmists and activists. The flip side of the anti climate science activists lie you.

That there is hyperbole on the side of climate science activists does not change the science and does not change the observed consequences of climate change right now.

Are sea levels rising or not? Grow a backbone and answer.

What's a jig?

 

[pood]

And I have previously agreed with you that a fair amount of the alarmism is unwarranted and actually detrimental to the goals of combating climate change.

In what way is the alarmism detrimental to the battle against climate change?

An example would be if a non-scientist alarmist makes a prediction that doesn't come true and it leads to people dismissing the science because it predicted something wrong. And if those people support, or are themselves, anti-intellectual politicians that can result in the undermining of any reasonable (non-almarist) government-level efforts to combat climate change.

Well I see much of Europe and the USA has policies in place for years in the combat against climate change. I think the notion of combatting climate change (a natural phenomenon) is a stupid proposition in the first place.

There are good scientific reasons to believe the current climate change discontent with historical natural changes. That we are directly influencing the climate through our actions and changes in our actions could alleviate the deleterious effects our actions are likely to cause.

I don’t know why you don’t believe that but that is the current scientific consensus of the very same climate research field that leads you to understand the historical natural variability you seem to desire to attribute recent changes to (despite the obvious inconsistency).

I don't believe it because there is zero evidence to support it.

There is a TON of evidence and it is empirically observable RIGHT NOW.

The problem is that even the non-alarmists are ignored. Because the changes were slow and subtle to begin they could be ignored, starting decades ago.

There’s just too much money to be made in the fossil fuel industry to give it up. So, if the science can be undermined it benefits those who make short term profit at the long term expense of the rest of us.

Since we didn’t put into effect a reasonable transition plan when it could have been affordable it looks like we will just have to adapt, but even a rational adaptation plan isn’t being put into place.

The fossil fuel industry knew about climate change as far back as the 1960s from their own scientific studies and suppressed the studies, in the same way the tobacco industry knew as far back as the 1930s that their product caused cancer and suppressed those studies too. Capitalism, baby! But of course climate change was predicted as far back as the 19th century, because only a dunderhead could fail to apprehend that putting more and more carbon into the atmosphere would trap heat. Guess some people are dunderheads who applaud Trump getting the FIFA “peace prize.”

 

[Shadowy Man]

And I have previously agreed with you that a fair amount of the alarmism is unwarranted and actually detrimental to the goals of combating climate change.

In what way is the alarmism detrimental to the battle against climate change?

An example would be if a non-scientist alarmist makes a prediction that doesn't come true and it leads to people dismissing the science because it predicted something wrong. And if those people support, or are themselves, anti-intellectual politicians that can result in the undermining of any reasonable (non-almarist) government-level efforts to combat climate change.

Well I see much of Europe and the USA has policies in place for years in the combat against climate change. I think the notion of combatting climate change (a natural phenomenon) is a stupid proposition in the first place.

There are good scientific reasons to believe the current climate change discontent with historical natural changes. That we are directly influencing the climate through our actions and changes in our actions could alleviate the deleterious effects our actions are likely to cause.

I don’t know why you don’t believe that but that is the current scientific consensus of the very same climate research field that leads you to understand the historical natural variability you seem to desire to attribute recent changes to (despite the obvious inconsistency).

I don't believe it because there is zero evidence to support it.

A review of the climate science literature, which I assume you have never done, shows your statement to be demonstrably false.

 

[TSwizzle]

And I have previously agreed with you that a fair amount of the alarmism is unwarranted and actually detrimental to the goals of combating climate change.

In what way is the alarmism detrimental to the battle against climate change?

An example would be if a non-scientist alarmist makes a prediction that doesn't come true and it leads to people dismissing the science because it predicted something wrong. And if those people support, or are themselves, anti-intellectual politicians that can result in the undermining of any reasonable (non-almarist) government-level efforts to combat climate change.

Well I see much of Europe and the USA has policies in place for years in the combat against climate change. I think the notion of combatting climate change (a natural phenomenon) is a stupid proposition in the first place.

There are good scientific reasons to believe the current climate change discontent with historical natural changes. That we are directly influencing the climate through our actions and changes in our actions could alleviate the deleterious effects our actions are likely to cause.

I don’t know why you don’t believe that but that is the current scientific consensus of the very same climate research field that leads you to understand the historical natural variability you seem to desire to attribute recent changes to (despite the obvious inconsistency).

I don't believe it because there is zero evidence to support it.

A review of the climate science literature, which I assume you have never done, shows your statement to be demonstrably false.

Sure, Jan.

 

[Shadowy Man]

At the barest minimum we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and human activity produces more CO2 than would be naturally produced in the current climate. That is evidence but not yet proof. That alone dispels your statement that there is “zero evidence”.

If you really care, which I suspect you do not, you could learn about the scientific research not from the alarmists but from the scientists themselves to understand the current state of understanding.

Your statement would have us believe that the climate scientists, the same ones who discovered the natural variability you agree exists, had invented the concept of anthropogenic climate change in the complete absence of evidence. Is that what you are suggesting?

 

[pood]

And I have previously agreed with you that a fair amount of the alarmism is unwarranted and actually detrimental to the goals of combating climate change.

In what way is the alarmism detrimental to the battle against climate change?

An example would be if a non-scientist alarmist makes a prediction that doesn't come true and it leads to people dismissing the science because it predicted something wrong. And if those people support, or are themselves, anti-intellectual politicians that can result in the undermining of any reasonable (non-almarist) government-level efforts to combat climate change.

Well I see much of Europe and the USA has policies in place for years in the combat against climate change. I think the notion of combatting climate change (a natural phenomenon) is a stupid proposition in the first place.

There are good scientific reasons to believe the current climate change discontent with historical natural changes. That we are directly influencing the climate through our actions and changes in our actions could alleviate the deleterious effects our actions are likely to cause.

I don’t know why you don’t believe that but that is the current scientific consensus of the very same climate research field that leads you to understand the historical natural variability you seem to desire to attribute recent changes to (despite the obvious inconsistency).

I don't believe it because there is zero evidence to support it.

A review of the climate science literature, which I assume you have never done, shows your statement to be demonstrably false.

Sure, Jan.

Quiet, piggy,

 

[Shadowy Man]

And I have previously agreed with you that a fair amount of the alarmism is unwarranted and actually detrimental to the goals of combating climate change.

In what way is the alarmism detrimental to the battle against climate change?

An example would be if a non-scientist alarmist makes a prediction that doesn't come true and it leads to people dismissing the science because it predicted something wrong. And if those people support, or are themselves, anti-intellectual politicians that can result in the undermining of any reasonable (non-almarist) government-level efforts to combat climate change.

Well I see much of Europe and the USA has policies in place for years in the combat against climate change. I think the notion of combatting climate change (a natural phenomenon) is a stupid proposition in the first place.

There are good scientific reasons to believe the current climate change discontent with historical natural changes. That we are directly influencing the climate through our actions and changes in our actions could alleviate the deleterious effects our actions are likely to cause.

I don’t know why you don’t believe that but that is the current scientific consensus of the very same climate research field that leads you to understand the historical natural variability you seem to desire to attribute recent changes to (despite the obvious inconsistency).

I don't believe it because there is zero evidence to support it.

A review of the climate science literature, which I assume you have never done, shows your statement to be demonstrably false.

Sure, Jan.

“Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.”