Green new deal equals magical thinking

[DJL 235]

43 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

https://www.climategate.nl/2019/09/84293/

Hundreds of scientists agree, THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGANCY 

Ran out of English language denier sources?

Edit:  Ha, I was curious about the signatories on the list and I only checked two but it was humorous.  

Professor Richard Lindzen (Retired), best known for his entire academic body calling him out as not reflecting the views and research of his former colleagues:

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

Terry Dunleavy, was found IN COURT to be entirely unqualified and lacks scientific expertise:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10834154

Edit2:

A third, Fritz Vahrenholt, debunked climate denier, as in he actually research, had it published and it was wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Vahrenholt

I'm kind of busy this morning but this is funny, as the only three I've looked at basically hookers for hire in the denier movement.  The group Dunleavy was with was actually fined for the cost of the court case they brought as it was found to be a waste of taxpayer dollars.  They liquidated and declared bankruptcy leaving taxpayers on the hook for $85k.  

 

Edited September 26, 2019 by DJL

[brenthutch 444]

That leaves 497

[brenthutch 444]

39 minutes ago, DJL said:

 The group Dunleavy was with was actually fined for the cost of the court case they brought as it was found to be a waste of taxpayer dollars.  They liquidated and declared bankruptcy leaving taxpayers on the hook for $85k.  

 

Sound just like what just happened to Michael Mann

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/08/michael-mann-refuses-to-produce-data-loses-case.php

If his data could withstand scrutiny, why wouldn't he produce it and win his case?

 

Edited September 26, 2019 by brenthutch

[DJL 235]

22 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

That leaves 497

Yaaawwwnnn....

I don't see 500.  They only list 14 (Who are well known deniers) but say it was prepared by 500 scientists.  Who are the other 486?  And really, if they're going to list these as the most relevant why couldn't they find people who weren't formally discredited in a courtroom or by their entire academic body?

Professor Guus Berkhout – The Netherlands
Professor Richard Lindzen – USA
Professor Reynald Du Berger – French Canada
Professor Ingemar Nordin – Sweden
Terry Dunleavy  – New Zealand
Jim O’Brien – Rep. of Ireland
Viv Forbes – Australia
Professor Alberto Prestininzi – Italy
Professor Jeffrey Foss – English Canada
Professor Benoît Rittaud – France
Morten Jødal – Norway
Professor Fritz Vahrenholt – Germany
Rob Lemeire – Belgium
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley – UK

Edit: Also, is there some research associated with this or was it a letter that just said, "We don't think there's a climate emergency and plants like CO2."

Edited September 26, 2019 by DJL

[DJL 235]

48 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

If his data could withstand scrutiny, why wouldn't he produce it and win his case?

Because the lawsuit wasn't about the data but about an organization's ability to disagree and publish a contesting view.  Even ACLU thought Mann was overstepping himself.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-climate-change-for-lawsuits-11569279287

[tonyhays 86]

6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

That leaves 497

Remember when the 9/11 truthers were making a big deal about 1000 architects signing up and saying that it was an inside job?  Sounds similar

[billvon 3,118]

7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

https://www.climategate.nl/2019/09/84293/

Hundreds of scientists agree, THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGANCY 

I just looked at the first one.

Augustinus Johannes "Guus" Berkhout is a Dutch engineer. He has worked for Shell in the oil- and gas industry and served as professor of acoustics, geophysics and innovation management at Delft University of Technology between 1976 and 2007.  I can see why a Shell scientist wants people to think there's no emergency - his bonus probably depends on it.

[billvon 3,118]

9 hours ago, brenthutch said:

"A recent study cited by the report estimated the total acres burned in western forests under current climate conditions and in a model without human-caused warming. It found that half as much forest area would have burned between 1984 and 2015 in a world not warmed by climate change."

But the MODEL claims that wildfires would be halved if not for climate change.  Therefor we would need to see above average drought and high temperatures for that claim to be valid.  But we don't and it isn't. 

Again, read it again.  The ACTUAL acerage burned has significantly increased.  That's not a model.

Quote

The most devastating fire in recent history was on the heals of one of the wettest springs in history and temperatures were in the 70s.

It was during a Red Flag warning, a warning during times of high winds, low humidity and warm temperatures.  Those are the times that have the highest risk of fires - and they are steadily increasing as the climate warms.   And since there was a wet spring, fuel loads were high.  

[DJL 235]

27 minutes ago, billvon said:

I just looked at the first one.

Augustinus Johannes "Guus" Berkhout is a Dutch engineer. He has worked for Shell in the oil- and gas industry and served as professor of acoustics, geophysics and innovation management at Delft University of Technology between 1976 and 2007.  I can see why a Shell scientist wants people to think there's no emergency - his bonus probably depends on it.

Brent's response:  Well...ok. that leaves 496.

Next up: The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Do we even need text for this one?

Nope.  Pictures will do.

Brent's response:  "Ok....that leaves 495."

 

Edited September 26, 2019 by DJL

[JoeWeber 2,940]

12 hours ago, brenthutch said:

That leaves 497

Brent,

This is an interesting, narrowly focused study. One interesting take away is that areas of Wheat production will be subject to increased periods of severe water shortage as global temperatures increase. Currently, only 15% or so of areas under wheat production world wide suffer coterminously from severe water shortage. So no biggie in terms global supply. Also, local mitigation efforts and the hardiness of the crop attenuate the total impact. But, wheat today accounts for 20% of calories consumed worldwide. In the coming years, if global temperatures continue to increase, the percentage of severe water shortage area overlap will increase as will demand for wheat calories. That does not agree with your more CO2 = more food argument. 

I think you need to start putting time frames alongside your claims. Also, maybe state when CO2ppm numbers will no longer support your position.

 

 

 

Wheat Production.pdf

[mbohu 77]

14 hours ago, brenthutch said:

That leaves 497

Not likely. If out of a group of 500, you pick a random 3, and all of these 3 are members of another group (i.e. debunked scientists), the likelihood of the other 497 to all NOT to be part of that sub-group is near zero. The likelihood of a majority of the 497 to be also part of the sub-group is very large and even the likelihood of all 497 to be part of that same sub-group is not insignificant.
I am sure someone with a background in combinatorics and more time than myself could give us the actual numbers pretty easily.

Edited September 27, 2019 by mbohu
edited for spelling

[DJL 235]

11 hours ago, mbohu said:

Not likely. If out of a group of 500, you pick a random 3,

Actually, see above, we're at 495.  But let's be clear, there are not 500 signatories, it says the report was put together by 500 scientists and never says who they are.  We're just picking at random for the 14 who they listed.  Ok, I'll grab another at random:  Professor Ingemar Nordin Sweden

He's a basic denier with no credentials in climate research, he's a professor in the Department of Culture and Communication at a college in Sweden and writes blog posts on a denier website.

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingemar_Nordin

Of interest is that Professor Nordin doesn't know who the signatories of the letter are:

http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2019/09/25/det-finns-ingen-klimatkris/

 

So, 494.

Edited September 27, 2019 by DJL

[brenthutch 444]

18 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Brent,

This is an interesting, narrowly focused study. One interesting take away is that areas of Wheat production will be subject to increased periods of severe water shortage as global temperatures increase. Currently, only 15% or so of areas under wheat production world wide suffer coterminously from severe water shortage. So no biggie in terms global supply. Also, local mitigation efforts and the hardiness of the crop attenuate the total impact. But, wheat today accounts for 20% of calories consumed worldwide. In the coming years, if global temperatures continue to increase, the percentage of severe water shortage area overlap will increase as will demand for wheat calories. That does not agree with your more CO2 = more food argument. 

I think you need to start putting time frames alongside your claims. Also, maybe state when CO2ppm numbers will no longer support your position.

 

 

 

Wheat Production.pdf

Joe, you are conflating a prediction with what is actually happening.  The study also assumes that drought will accompany any warming we might experience.  Thus far there is no indication that higher global temperatures result in an increase in drought.  If anything adding more water to the hydrologic  cycle will result in LESS drought not more.

[billvon 3,118]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Joe, you are conflating a prediction with what is actually happening.  The study also assumes that drought will accompany any warming we might experience.  Thus far there is no indication that higher global temperatures result in an increase in drought.  If anything adding more water to the hydrologic  cycle will result in LESS drought not more.

In the first part of that paragraph you say you don't believe anything unless it's actually happening.  By the end of it you are predicting something that hasn't happened yet, that you just believe because you like a model.

Fun times.

[JoeWeber 2,940]

11 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Joe, you are conflating a prediction with what is actually happening.  The study also assumes that drought will accompany any warming we might experience.  Thus far there is no indication that higher global temperatures result in an increase in drought.  If anything adding more water to the hydrologic  cycle will result in LESS drought not more.

You're right. If you aren't there yet how can you know if you're actually going. My bad.

[brenthutch 444]

40 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

You're right. If you aren't there yet how can you know if you're actually going. My bad.

If you are half way there (1 degree C) and there is still none of the scary stuff that we were promised, it is a pretty good indication that there won't be.

 https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2019/9/23/no-evidence-that-climate-change-is-accelerating-sea-level-rise-35

[brenthutch 444]

53 minutes ago, billvon said:

In the first part of that paragraph you say you don't believe anything unless it's actually happening.  By the end of it you are predicting something that hasn't happened yet, that you just believe because you like a model.

Fun times.

Just like the IPCC.  Global warming er.. uh...Climate change will result in a 100% chance of something happing.

[JoeWeber 2,940]

33 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

If you are half way there (1 degree C) and there is still none of the scary stuff that we were promised, it is a pretty good indication that there won't be.

 https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2019/9/23/no-evidence-that-climate-change-is-accelerating-sea-level-rise-35

So no one actually plummets to their death from 13,000 feet, right? The plummeting doesn't start until 2000 feet. Up until then it's just a lot of fun and a pilot chute toss.

[mbohu 77]

 

4 hours ago, brenthutch said:

If you are half way there (1 degree C) and there is still none of the scary stuff that we were promised, it is a pretty good indication that there won't be.

That's a funny thing for a skydiver to say! "I'm half way down without a parachute and none of the scary things they said will happen, happened. I'm going to be just fine."

Edit: oh, someone already pointed that out. Sorry!

Edited September 28, 2019 by mbohu
just read previous post

[brenthutch 444]

No, its more like a Dr. telling you that you will have heart disease by thirty if you don't take her very expensive prescription, then at thirty she tells you that you will definitely have gout when you are forty if you don't.  Then at forty she tells you that you will certainly have cancer by the time you are fifty if you do not heed her advice.  When you are fifty years old and all of her predictions have failed will you continue to believe her?  I'm sure some on this forum will point out that when you do pass at the tender age of 95 that the doctor was right all along and her timing was just off.

[JoeWeber 2,940]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

No, its more like a Dr. telling you that you will have heart disease by thirty if you don't take her very expensive prescription, then at thirty she tells you that you will definitely have gout when you are forty if you don't.  Then at forty she tells you that you will certainly have cancer by the time you are fifty if you do not heed her advice.  When you are fifty years old and all of her predictions have failed will you continue to believe her?  I'm sure some on this forum will point out that when you do pass at the tender age of 95 that the doctor was right all along and her timing was just off.

About your coming gout, is your heart still O.K? I assume you think it was worth the money.

[brenthutch 444]

I forgot to mention that at no time did was her advice taken

Edited September 28, 2019 by brenthutch

[JoeWeber 2,940]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

I forgot to mention that at no time did was her advice taken

Good man. You're an inspiration to us all

[wmw999 2,588]

My father smoked for 45 years, quit when he was 65, and didn’t get cancer!

Obviously tobacco is harmless! And I’m sure I can find 500 people who will say that, too. Some of them might be PhD’s as well  

Wendy P. 

[brenthutch 444]

I actually feel sorry for you guys.  There is going to be no green new deal.  Fossil fuels will continue to be the mainstay of energy on our planet for the foreseeable future.  CO2 levels will continue to rise for the rest our lives.  We will all live to realize that that your predictions of death and destruction were all wrong.  And the most pathetic of all, is that you will be (and are) mad about it.