The coming demise of global warming industry: Physics professor speaks out

Make it rain on my face baby!

What your data really shows is that we need to put sulfur back into our fuels ;). It's been well documented that aeresolized SO2 has a cooling effect on the planet

. When the US passed the clean air act, atmospheric SO2 levels began to drop and the rise in global temps that had accompanied the rapid post war industrialization was able to resume.

Honestly, though. If it is about pushing an agenda, what possible reason would there be for almost all climate scientists on Earth to drink the climate cool aid? It can't be the money, that's squarely in the camp of the FF industries.

From today's NYTimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/science/fish-climate-change-northeast.html?_r=0

I'd urge people to read it, but the folks who most need to probably won't. (It might contradict their pre-set opinions--and of course it would involve "reading" and "thinking" and all that other tiresome stuff.)

Pretty interesting, nevertheless: current rules for the catch limits of different kinds of fish were set decades ago, and now the rules are messing up the fishing industry...because the oceans are getting warmer, and fish that thrive at a particular water temp have been relocating considerably northward. So now you've got governors and other elected officials from the affected states pushing for a serious update and redistribution of the catch limits.

See, that's the thing: reality eventually bites you in the ass, regardless of your opinion. The mayors of cities on the Eastern Seaboard don't have the luxury of adopting "contrarian" views--they have to deal with steadily rising waters that threaten portions of their cities. You don't have to convince *those* people about the reality of global warming. They're dealing with it every day.

I'm thinking it is too late after seeing the divergent temperature and ice numbers from the last two months.

https://wwa.climatecentral.org/analyses/north-pole-nov-dec-2016/

We don't trust anything anymore about this crap. So many lies and manipulations for so many years. We simply don't believe it any more. The scientists made these calamitous warnings decades ago and they never came to fruition. So, we have wised up and realize it was always a giant hoax. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice and shame on us.

1) If the climate-change folks are wrong, no need to make adjustments.

2)If the climate-change folks are right, it's too late to alter the course in a meaningful way.

3) Climate-change is a way for the scientific community to gain power, status and money. No climate change leaves them with nothing. Plus the solution (reducing emissions) is something they see as inherently "good" regardless of climate effects.

Piano_Man87 wrote:

2. Would you take life saving medicine from your doctor if 97% of doctors thought the medicine would save your life? Or would you quote some wingnut doctor who was on Dr. Oz. who thought Acai Berries would save you? Go ahead and believe the fringe minority of scientists, but then you'd better hold all other beliefs in your life to the same standard.

Why do all of his other beliefs in life have to held to the same standard? That makes zero sense. Not everything in life is dictated by fact, logic, and evidence. However, science is. Suggesting that he apply this bound to non scientific things makes you look scientifically ignorant.

As for your 97% of doctors example, no I would take their recommendation if that is all it is. I would want the medicine to actually have gone through clinical trials and medium term observations. The medical community does this and does NOT do what you are suggesting. Otherwise, we would let companies invent and sell medicine's without testing them based solely on their hypotheses. Again, you are just demonstrating that you are scientifically ignorant.

Climate research is not as available as medicine or other fields to ACTUAL experimentation and conclusion making based on the scientific method. It is more statistics than it is science. So again, you are just demonstrating that you are scientifically ignorant.

Consensus has nothing to do with whether or not something is true.

Xuxuux wrote:Consensus has nothing to do with whether or not something is true.

Xuxuux wrote:

Consensus has nothing to do with whether or not something is true.

It's true that consensus itself does not have any impact on whether something is true or not. The vast majority can agree on something that is patently false.

That being said, consensus of a very significant majority of experts in a certain field of study regarding an issue is something that those of us who don't have PhDs in the field should seriously weigh before forming our opinions.

Could the experts be wrong? Sure. But can you really give an intelligent and informed answer as to why you doubt the position of the field's leaders? I'd put the research-based theories of experts who've dedicated their lives to a field above those of a guy took a few college physics courses and occasionally reads the science section of the paper.

?????????????? wrote:

Xuxuux wrote:

Consensus has nothing to do with whether or not something is true.

It's true that consensus itself does not have any impact on whether something is true or not. The vast majority can agree on something that is patently false.

That being said, consensus of a very significant majority of experts in a certain field of study regarding an issue is something that those of us who don't have PhDs in the field should seriously weigh before forming our opinions.

Could the experts be wrong? Sure. But can you really give an intelligent and informed answer as to why you doubt the position of the field's leaders? I'd put the research-based theories of experts who've dedicated their lives to a field above those of a guy took a few college physics courses and occasionally reads the science section of the paper.

I'm not making any judgement on climate change but I would like to point out that all humans make judgement calls without any expertise. Humans are not computers. For example, I don't have a clue how paint is made. I also know that companies that make paint have very knowledgeable experts that create the paint. However, if I paint my fence and the paint does not work like they advertise, I will probably try another brand.

So yes, you can disagree with experts without having technical knowledge. You probably do it every day. You do it when buying a car, you do it when buying food and you do it when choosing a president. You may claim that humans will self destroy because sometimes they rely on "intuition" instead of "knowledge", but the human's brain has been the most successful animal on the planet. So history and evolution is against you.

SAlly V wrote:

The scientists made these calamitous warnings decades ago and they never came to fruition.

Well, unless you're an American whose livelihood depends on fishing along the Eastern Seaboard. That's gotten pretty calamitous, obviously.

Or unless you're the mayor of, say, Miami Beach:

The warnings have come to fruition for them...

But, yeah, people who live away from the coasts can probably kid themselves for a *lot* more years before reality bites their personal ass.

????????????? wrote:

WSJ, Economist, and BBC are all excellent, fairly centrist news sources. Things get sketchier with NYT, which is certainly left wing establishment, and much sketchier with CNN and Fox, which are clear left wing and right wing establishment respectively. Then you have extreme right and extreme left (Breitbart, HuffPost) which are about as reliable as Buzzfeed.

Serious question: If the guy that the OP quoted were interviewed by WSJ, and said he said the same thing to them, would you then call this credible?

I still don't understand why global warming has become a political issue. It can't be argued realistically and accurately if your position is based on political affiliation.

If sea levels are rising, global warming can't be denied. If you believe global warming exists, but not affected by man, at least offer an alternative cause.

SAlly V wrote:

Piano_Man87 wrote:

1. Citation needed

2. Would you take life saving medicine from your doctor if 97% of doctors thought the medicine would save your life? Or would you quote some wingnut doctor who was on Dr. Oz. who thought Acai Berries would save you? Go ahead and believe the fringe minority of scientists, but then you'd better hold all other beliefs in your life to the same standard.

3. Redundant, same as point 1, citation needed.

Okay, once and for all ... that 97% figure is completely bogus. You citing it shoots to smithereens everything else you said. Please read up and learn what is made-up propaganda and what are the facts.

Depends on the study you look at. Verheggen et al 2014 pegs it at 90%. Powell 2013 pegs it at 99.8%. Source:

My point is that people who deny climate change tend to hold absolutely nothing else in their life to such a rigorous standard. They will trust a scientist on one thing (medicine), but not on another (climate change).

No, you don't have to hold everything to the same standard. It depends on the nature of the subject, which dictates how "pure" the science is. It also depends on the impact it could have on your life. Medicine is not a very pure science, but there is a lot of trust in it, and it has a large impact on our lives. And most wouldn't think twice about getting a prescription for a few pills from a doctor, even though the pills could kill them. It is very high personal risk, and immediate risk. No questions about "what percentage of doctors believe this will work" are raised. Yet with climate change, which is very low personal risk in the developed world, and a very far off risk in terms of time, people are questioning it. (at least, in the USA. The rest of the developed world pretty much believes in it. Shocking that the nation where 50% of people believe in a magical man in the sky is having a hard time grappling with reality.)

All through the 70's it was the biggest thing. TV all day nonstop. Scientists all over the world...we are entering the next ice age! Global cooling! Went on for years the same as today. Look it was Gore, Hillary and Bill. It was a campaign platform. Only a liberal can save us from global warming. Gore's warning of global warming date of destruction has come and gone. Come on guys think.

Was beginning to worry everyone in this thread was an idiot... it's extremely concerning that people refuse to take climate change seriously when you consider the consequences for future generations.

Jobbyhogger69 wrote:

Was beginning to worry everyone in this thread was an idiot... it's extremely concerning that people refuse to take climate change seriously when you consider the consequences for future generations.

How old are you?

sameold wrote:

All through the 70's it was the biggest thing. TV all day nonstop. Scientists all over the world...we are entering the next ice age! Global cooling! Went on for years the same as today.

None of the above is true. (I was watching TV in the '70s!) A couple of popular magazines (not science mags) tried to make a big deal out of it, but a lot of people (scientists and other) thought it was kind of a crackpot idea, even at the time, and it never got the traction that (A)GW has had over the last x decades.

The whole New Ice Age bit never really became a thing back then, mostly because people didn't see changes in their personal lives that they "should" have seen if it were true. Similarly, a lot of people now don't really buy in to the warming because their personal lives aren't much affected by the gradual changes in climate.

...unless, as other posts indicate above, you're a fisherman whose livelihood depends on whether the fish are relocating (which they are); or you live in a city like Miami Beach, which gets flooded on non-stormy days. Then you care about the warming and acknowledge it, but only because you're confronted with its effects in your daily life and you're forced to figure out ways to cope.