Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Which will leave more food for your Overlords.

 

I doubt this kind of thoughtless behavior advances the alarmists' cause.
“Scientist Rebellion” Protestors Cause Traffic Chaos in Melbourne Australia
Eric Worrall
Climate protestors once again taking advantage of Melbourne’s soft anti roadblock laws, to mess up everyone elses day – just a week after the last major protest. . . .

 

The alarmists avoid these topics.
Climate Change Skeptics’ Arguments Are Inconvenient Facts, Won’t Ever Be Refuted!
By P Gosselin on 12. March 2024

Huge data gaps, crude models, system complexity and endless unknowns frustrate climate scientists

The science of climate change is very complex and there are many different points of view. This post summarizes some of the strongest arguments of climate skeptics.



The earth’s system is chaotic and unpredictable. Today’s climate models are still crude given the earth’s huge complexity. (Symbol image: NASA)

1. Natural climate variability

The Earth’s climate has always changed in the past, often dramatically, even without human influence. The current warming is therefore likely just part of a natural cycle, and one that is totally capable of reversing on its own.

2. Climate models are still in their infancy

Climate models are complex computer programs that attempt to simulate the climate system. These models provide different results and are not able to accurately reproduce past climate changes. All are filled with assumptions and guesses.

The climate is a highly complex, chaotic system and so much of it is still poorly understood. Much remains a complete mystery, which means it is impossible to accurately model. Model outputs are thus unreliable.

Remember that with chaotic systems like weather and climate, even very small changes in the initial inputs, which are many, can be amplified over time, thus making long-term predictions impossible. That’s a hard fact of life that climate scientists have to accept.

3. The influence of the sun

The sun is the earth’s main energy supplier and its activity certainly greatly influences the climate. There are hundreds of publications that show this. Many of these impacts are poorly understood, and so climate scientists like to pretend they don’t exist.

4. Limited effects of trace gas CO2

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a trace, “greenhouse” gas that human activities release into the atmosphere. Many scientific publications show CO2’s impact on global warming is overestimated.

5. Oceanic cycles hugely impact climate change

The ocean acts like the earth’s giant heat re-distributor. There are many cycles that impact climate. Ocean currents move warm water from the equator towards the poles, and from higher depths to lower depths, thus redistributing energy. Ocean cycles play a crucial role in regulating Earth’s temperature and weather patterns. Changes to these cycles can have significant consequences for global climate.

The heat content of the oceans is about 100 times that of the atmosphere, so even small heat redistribution changes can significantly impact the atmosphere above.

Predictions are difficult because there is little historical data available from the ocean depths and scientists can only speculate what the oceans will do next.

6. Economic consequences of climate change

Measures to combat climate change entail extremely high costs and are especially socially unbearable for the poor. Study after study suggest these costs far outweigh the negative consequences of climate change, which we are unable to steer in the first place.

 

Can't like this, particularly #6 enough.

 

How can this be. The negative costs of climate change have no upper limit, we keep adding Co2 the earth keeps getting warmer the climate keeps changing. How did someone work out the costs of that?

Though to be fair extinction is probably cheaper.

 

The blogs you post are noted for their holes.

 

Never denied climate change the climate has been changing for at least 25,000 years probably 100 million or more years.

 

LOL . Probably. This lovely planet Earth will continue to exist long after humans self destruct by not taking care of it.( or some stupid Nuke activity) When will humans realize that the planet cannot handle unlimited number of humans?? That is another factor in all this.

 

I think the bigger problem will be disruptions around the world - lots of refugees from the areas with the most devastation, along with the associated violence, wars, etc. Also a lot of economic devastation - billions and billions with every extreme weather event.

 

IMO it could handle a great many more if we just did it properly. Unfortunately our survival as a species depended on us being greedy, which sadly may also mean our demise.

 

War has existed for thousands of years, that doesn't mean a nuclear war is going to be OK.

 

So you're suggesting we have nuclear climate change or some sort of ultra mega climate change?

Based on what?

 

More effective Management of resources will be imperative. And as has been mentioned, the detestation due to climate change will affect living conditions, food growth and supply...... Inhabitable space will become more restricted. UNLESS humans get creative and industrious in preparing for those situations. The risk of more diseases in an increasing vulnerable population would also be a factor.

 

Excellent points.

 

What do you think to the idea occasionally suggested that currently uninhabitable space will become habitable?
As for better management I think agriculture needs to go upwards rather than sideways.

 

No. I'm saying that just because something has happened over thousands of years, that doesn't make it harmless in the future.
We are seeing very fast climate change created by increased atmospheric Co2. That climate change is progressive, we keep pumping Co2, the climate keeps changing.
Our climate has been stable pretty much since we humans took over the whole planet. The infrastructure in each country has developed to its climate. To change the infrastructure to suit an ever changing climate is more expensive than the cost of reducing the primary cause.

Warning. If you are just going to deny the science, I will not reply.

 

Possible. It might mean a different type of habitation. It would probably depend on the degree of devastation . The planet does have a remarkable ability to restore itself but that would take a lot of time. Humans will have to adapt to the changes. Survival of the fittest will continue to factor in as well.

 

That's another falsehood.

 

Yes, to change the infrastructure is very expensive, and many of the countries that will be hit the hardest cannot afford to alter their infrastructure. Bangladesh comes to mind.

 

The major problems Bangladesh has are because they did alter their“infrastructure”. I don’t know how deep you want to go on the subject but here’s a start. It’s a function of the following information on lost accretion as well as severe silting caused by deforestation in the highlands of the country and a completely disrupted water cycle.

Also, shrimp farming has destroyed much of the mangroves that used to protect coastal areas. The following source alludes to the deforestation problem but doesn’t go into detail.

Anyway, here’s a start.

https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2015/01...ladesh-exacerbate-flooding-threaten-millions/

Carbon dioxide emissions could cease globally tomorrow and flooding would continue to occur and get worse in many areas of Bangladesh—because flooding there has little to do with AGW. The problems are certainly anthropogenic in nature, but not directly attributable to CO2 driven changes.

Here’s an introduction to the shrimp farming problem. Again, anthropogenic but not AGW related.

https://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin-art...rming has been,who have depended on mangroves.

Changing Bangladesh’s infrastructure (deforestation, coastal shrimp farming, coastal barrier erection, and polder creation) has come with a very high cost. These changes are directly responsible for the vast majority of the problems residents there face.

I find it disturbing that we are led to believe reducing CO2 emissions will help these people. Their problems have very little to do with AGW. If we want to help people in Bangladesh we must address the CAUSES of their problems, not something mostly unrelated to their problems.

 

I was thinking of Greenland becoming green along with large tracts of Siberia.?

 

Thanks for you article 557. Good stuff and I agree flooding is something Bangladesh has lived with long before climate change was a thing.
I remember reading a National Geographic many many years ago, where Bangladesh was adapting to their regular flooding by breaking the flood banks and growing rice.
But the threat they are highlighting is from sea water rise and the salination of farmland.
IMO Sea water rise is one of the overblown threats from climate change. Significant seawater rise will only happen at the end of this game if we do nothing to stop climate change.
Interesting look.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-ne...-resistant-rice-bangladeshis-adapt-to-survive

 

The floating crop production is brilliant. I wasn’t aware they were doing that.

I noticed in your link the government of Bangladesh is wanting money to build a higher sea wall. Doubling down on structures causing a big part of their problem. Sigh.

I agree on sea level rise. When a specific area is said to be threatened it’s almost always the case the main threat is not absolute sea level rise. It’s usually subsidence or prevented accretion causing the main problem. The subsidence and/or accretion deficit is almost always the major component (by far) of the reported relative rise.

Examples include New Orleans and Kiribati Islands for subsidence and accretion respectively.

Bangladesh has destroyed more of their forests than most places on earth. Up to 90% gone. There are serious consequences to that. Including most of the complaints about Bangladesh. Increased summer high temps. Increased runoff/flooding. Increased erosion. Increased silting of waterways. Increased ocean pollution. Decreased precipitation in some seasons. Less predictable precipitation. All related to deforestation. But few seem to care about trees anymore. As if driving an EV will help with any of those concerns in Bangladesh. Breaks my heart if I think about it too much.

 

if it's been happening for 25,000 years and it has there's nothing you can do about it you can panic what that won't make the planet cooler. In fact nothing at all you could ever conceive will help

something about CO2 production is we don't know if it's produced by the warming or if it's the cause of the warming. Did you know and pass warnings CO2 levels rose even before humans were in the planet. It seems to coincide with the temperature rising whether it causes it or not we're not sure

you don't know what the primary cause is. You're listening to people who are just guessing.

Translation if I don't agree with you you'll remove me from your echo chamber that's okay I don't really care. You can go be wrong with other people all you want.

But I've never denied any science in fact you've denied science because he wouldn't adhere to your religion.

This climate change crap makes you people act just like Christians. You think you know everything. Instead of act of God we say active climate change. And it's the raging planet bringing punishment on you the AKA God's wrath this isn't science it's religion duplicates it almost perfectly.

 

Not sure it's all accretion but certainly seems to be areas that were always borderline under the sea anyway. I include Norfolk UK in that.
Deforestation in Bangladesh has caused major problems but again changing rain patterns are global and they haven't suddenly deforestation in the last 30 years. Still your argument holds water.
(Oops pun alert)