Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Ridiculous measure? In what way? When PRIME wind sites are taken out of play by ENTIRE COUNTIES banning development you don’t see that as limiting potential for wind power going forward?

There is nothing political about the FACT that potential wind farm sites are BANNING development at twice the rate potential farm sites are approving development!

It’s not my fault our political system of local politics within states uses a county government system. It’s how our country is set up. If you think having COUNTIES that have elections and ballot measures within states is ridiculous, I don’t know what to tell you. Change it. Get rid of county governments so they can’t ban wind development at twice the rate they approve of it. Go ahead. Get rid of ridiculous counties so we can’t count the ones banning wind development!

Counting counties is ridiculous when figuring how much development potential is left in the US? That’s your argument against the fact land masses are banning development at twice the rate they approve proposed sites? Official records of counties BANNING development isn’t real analysis? The existence of county government that has jurisdiction over land use is some political hack job by me?

SMH. Unbelievable.

 

The deniers are to be found among the alarmists, not the skeptics.
‘Alternative Facts’: Ted Nordhaus explains how extreme events came to represent climate change contrary to an overwhelming scientific consensus


https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/alternative-facts

BY ROGER PIELKE JR.


Excerpt: …[A]n excellent new essay by Ted Nordhaus of The Breakthrough Institute2 published today by The New Atlantis, titled — Did Exxon Make it Rain Today?. Nordhaus does a nice job explaining that disasters occur at the confluence of an extreme event and an exposed and vulnerable society, but most attention these days is paid to extreme events, and climate change in particular:

What determines whether hurricanes, floods, heat waves, and wildfires amount to natural disasters or minor nuisances, though, is mostly not the relative intensity or frequency of the natural hazard but rather how many people are in harm’s way and how well protected they are against the climate’s extremes.

Infrastructure, institutions, and technology mediate the relationship between extreme climate and weather phenomena, and the costs that human societies bear as a result of them. . .

The implications of this point will be counterintuitive for many. Yes, there are many types of disasters, like hurricanes and floods, that are causing greater economic costs in many places than they used to. But this is almost entirely because the places that are most exposed to weather disasters have far more people and far more wealth in harm’s way than they used to. Even if there were no global warming, in other words, these areas would be much more at risk simply because they have much more to lose.

However, what I find really interesting about Nordhaus’ essay is his discussion of how we got to a point where leading journalists and scientists are seeking to deny these rather obvious conditions and instead, to focus obsessively on human-caused climate change, and specifically on the fossil fuel industry as bearing responsibility for increasing disaster costs, contrary to an overwhelming scientific consensus. . . .

 

We don't have wind farms in our immediate area, but there are quite a few anywhere between 20-40 miles away - thousands of turbines... I enjoy seeing them. I've stopped in these areas - the turbines are quiet and elegant. We have a lot of residential solar around here. Most of it is roof-mount, but there are also some pedestal systems. No problems that I've heard - the pedestals are typically in the back yard area. Rooftop can always be seen from the road. Two of the most Conservative guys in our neighborhood installed huge rooftop systems. Renewable energy is not a liberal-only concept in Colorado. The NREL is based in Colorado, and I think that has a lot to do with it...

 

More examples of alarmist claims defeated by data.
3 More New Studies Indicate There Has Been No Climate-Induced Precipitation Trend Since The 1800s
By Kenneth Richard on 11. March 2024

CO2-induced global warming was supposed to intensify the hydrological cycle and extreme precipitation. It hasn’t.
New research (Mitchell and Knapp, 2024) at a southeastern United States study site indicates there has been no significant trend in either total precipitation or intense rainfall events (IRE) over the last 250 years (1770-2020).

However, there was more IRE precipitation from 1936-1959 than from 1960-2020. In fact, the most recent 60 years has the lowest record of extreme precipitation during the study, with averages of 81.20 mm for 1770–1935, 230.45 mm for 1936–1959, but just 168.27 mm during 1960–2020.

“Despite interannual variability, IRE [intense rainfall events] precipitation and total precipitation have no significant (p < 0.05) trend with time (year) during the observed study period of 1940–2020.”

“Similarly, over the longer-term reconstructed time-period (i.e., 1770–2020), the reconstructed values of total precipitation and IRE precipitation have remained stable with no significant correlation with time (year). The total precipitation and IRE precipitation reconstructions have the same significant regime shifts during the reconstruction period (Figure 3): 1770–1935, 1936–1959 (above-average moisture), and 1960–2020 (below-average moisture). The mean total precipitation values for each regime are 347.45 mm (1770–1935), 409.70 mm (1936–1959), and 331.11 mm (1960–2020) while the mean IRE precipitation values for each regime are 181.20 mm (1770–1935), 230.45 mm (1936–1959), and 168.27 mm (1960–2020), suggesting that IRE and total precipitation has been mostly stable since 1770 with the exception of the 1936–1959 regime period.”



Image Source: Mitchell and Knapp, 2024
Another new study (Irdem and Coskun, 2024) finds no trend in precipitation in NW Turkey (Türkiye) throughout the 1858-2015 period.



Image Source: Irdem and Coskun, 2024
Finally, proxy data from Eastern China suggest there has been no trend precipitation trend detectable in this region since 1896 (Sun et al., 2024).



Image Source: Sun et al., 2024

 

The longer the posts and the more graphs included, the more credible?

 

Peer-reviewed research raises the level of debate.

 

Not really.

You want to make the debate to be between some paper you found and the general board public that has no claim to the particular science.

That's just not legit.

 

In a sane world.

 

The problem is that one peer reviewed paper hand picked to promote one side, is not a foundation for understanding why scientists confirm anthropogenic climate change.

Besides, as his own posts repeatedly claim, being peer reviewed is not prophylaxis against retraction.

 

No matter what your opinion is concerning ANYONE’S post content on PF, this statement is equal parts sound and succinct.

 

And yet the alarmists claim the legitimacy of peer-reviewed science and shout down questions with "Follow the science!" You can't have it both ways. If peer-reviewed science is a valid foundation for alarmism then it is a valid foundation for skepticism too.

 

This is a textbook example of special pleading.

 

You carefully pick papers you believe support your view.

Science does not work that way.

 

No, there is no double standard being applied here.

It doesn't matter what side of the issue one might be on.

Posting single papers picked to promote a view is not a valid way forward.

 

The bigger problem is that his papers almost never claim what he says they claim.

He hopes no one actually looks at them and figures that out.

 

Of course. This is a debate forum.

 

This is a debate forum. You are arguing against debate.

 

I recall scrutinizing some of them a few years ago, and that's exactly what I found.

 

Two posters joining in a falsehood does not change the fact that it's a falsehood. You are both making a claim contrary to the facts. Try debating the substance rather than making unfounded allegations.

 

OK, I'll prove a few more of them to be false. I recall totally refuting the credibility of some of the oil-industry-paid climate deniers that you quoted years ago, so I pretty much started to ignore all your links.

 

Sure you do.
Odd that no one else recalls that.

 

Too little too late.

I believe Gore's tipping point has been reached.
Without cutting emissions to zero the best that can be hoped is to slow the progression until some magical technology solution presents.

I see the world's human population reduced by 80% over the next 100 years due to climate issues like coastal flooding, loss of cropland, mass starvation, and resource wars.

That is IF effective change is implemented.

Otherwise the food chains will be destroyed and the ability of large mammals to survive on this planet becomes doubtful.

Meet the new Masters of this Universe

 

Crop production continues to rise.

 

Good.

It will mean more food for your Overlords.

 

Worldwide standard of living is rising.