Maui Forest Fire: We need to change the Global Warming narrative

When they intentionally mislead, I have good reason to doubt them. If they had a consensus of scientists they would simply ask them, not do this BS scientific study hoax. Every survey of scientists said there was no consensus.

 

Scientific American is he house organ for the Climate Change Alarmist Consortium. They Have enough hockey sticks to make the Stanley Cup

 

If you're interested in exploring the topic in depth, I created a pretty sizable thread some time ago.
Continuing Problems with Paleoclimate Proxies

 

Peak Oil Is Near, Energy Agency Says, but Climate Change Is Far From Solved

Cleaner energy technologies like electric cars and solar panels are spreading so rapidly that the global use of oil, coal and natural gas could peak this decade, but countries will still need to pursue more aggressive measures if they want to limit global warming to relatively safe levels, the world’s leading energy agency said Tuesday.

In a new report, the International Energy Agency issued an updated road map of what it would take to slash the world’s energy-related greenhouse gas emissions to nearly zero by 2050. Doing so would probably prevent global temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, above preindustrial levels, a goal many world leaders have endorsed in order to lessen the risk of catastrophic climate disruptions.

The agency laid out its first version of the road map in 2021 and said at the time that immediate action was needed to hit that target. Since then, progress has been uneven. On the one hand, global investment in low-emissions energy has increased roughly 40 percent, reaching $1.8 trillion this year. And the rapid expansion of solar power and electric vehicles has largely been in line with what that earlier report recommended, particularly in places like China, the United States and Europe.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/26/climate/iaea-road-map-renewable-energy.html

The world is still moving away from burning fossil fuels too slowly.

 

Fossil fuel use will continue to increase, as it should. It is critical for the betterment of humankind.

 

Thankfully, the majority of world's governments and private industries continue to follow the science, not those who deny it.

 

What science? There is no consensus among scientists. Only that phony easily manipulated scientific paper consensus.

 

The more governments follow the science, the weaker the climate alarmist narrative becomes.

 

I was referring to the actual science, not blogger's junk science.

 

Meanwhile, on planet earth….

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50978

https://www.reuters.com/business/en...up-fossil-fuel-approvals-research-2023-08-03/

 

Tsk tsk. You're not keeping up with the science.
Here's a refresher:
Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023

 

NOAA and the Media Continue to Misinform About Climate Change and Extreme Weather
ALARMIST MESSENGERS/CLAIMS SEPTEMBER 25, 2023

The Scientific American, among other mainstreams media outlets, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post, are promoting claims made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), that climate change is causing increased instances of extreme weather, causing billions of dollars of damage. An examination of the press release NOAA put out shows that the agency’s claims are unsubstantiated. Extreme weather does cost Americans billions of dollars each year, but there is no evidence climate change is making weather worse, so it can’t be the cause of higher costs.

In fact, hard data refute NOAA’s claims, suggesting the press release is nothing more than a slick campaign to hype up climate fear Exposing this campaign, climate Scientist Roger Pielke, Jr. Ph.D., Tweeted three years ago:

Former NOAA official admits tabulation of “billion dollar” disasters was/is a shadow campaign to get people to “connect the dots” on climate change and severe weather Why not instead rely on actual data, IPCC, USNCA & peer-reviewed research?

Pielke showed that in a USA Today opinion piece, the deputy administrator for NOAA, Monica Medina, admitted the shadow campaign to fool the media, as the screencap below, shows:



In a 2020 Forbes article, “Everything You Hear About Billion-Dollar Disasters Is Wrong,” Pielke cites data and graphs that refute NOAA’s claims, blowing its effort to “connect the dots” apart, saying:

Are there more or more severe US hurricanes since 1900? No.



Is extreme weather costing us more as a proportion of GDP? No.



Pielke goes on to say that the entire episode “is an embarrassment.”

I worked in a @NOAA cooperative institute for 16 years & it is an important agency, staffed by smart, thoughtful scientists But the “billion dollar” disasters “connect the dots” propaganda is an embarrassment.

Despite the evidence that extreme weather events haven’t become more common or severe during the recent period of modest warming, the “connect the dots” propaganda continues today courtesy of disaster loaded NOAA press releases like the one that resulted this flurry of stories in the mainstream media in recent days, uncritically parroting NOAA’s claims. . . .

 

A few suggested "changes" for bureaucrats in Hawaii:

1. Set off the fire alarms when there is a dangerous fire.
2. Do not shut off the water to firefighters to 'Save The Planet'
3. Do not direct cars into blocked roads where they will be trapped and burned to crisp.
4,5. Help people survive. Stop killing them.

 

To the contrary events such as these are as "old as the hills." What is very different is the level of inhabitation and record-keeping. There are literally no records of the details of the St. Croix Hurricane of 1772 (link) (dispute as to whether it was August 31 or September 14) that drove Alexander Hamilton to New York City (intended destination was Boston), the bitter cold of the "Valley Forge winter") and the similar-period winters where the Hudson froze enough to safely move cannons over the ice), the Year Without Summer of 1816, see 200 years ago, we endured a 'year without a summer', the Hurricane of 1821, where the Hudson and the East River joined up to Chambers or Canal Street (I forget which but it is less than a five-minute walk between them),The “Children's Blizzard” or even the Blizzard of (March) 1888 in New York City. We simply do not know what was occurring at the same time or geographical locations.

The hottest U.S. summers were definitely during the Dust Bowl era. The Midwestern and Northeastern states all broke records, which have not been matched, in the days surrounding July 9, 1936.

In New York, "Climate Central" (link) hit the panic button after we had a four-day September heat wave. They ignored (as is typical of "climate science" or "AGW Science") that there were twelve 90+ days this summer in NYC, including two in April that I don't believe were 90+ (bringing the number down to ten or eleven) and the four-day September heat wave. Eighteen is the typical number. Epic fail.

Much worse late summer heat waves, meaning to me ones that straddled the August/September line or were exclusively in September, happened in:

1. 1953 (I wasn't alive then, but from media reports, and actually exceeded 100° in September, a very rare event, the latest of which was in 1881);
2. 1970, which I remember quite well, hit 90° as late as September 25, and was hot from mid-to-late August through yesterday or today that year. The heat started as early as May 2, the day of my Bar Mitzvah. A week later, at my friend Bill's Bar Mitzvah it hit 90° for the first time. 94° was the peak heat that summer, below the 97° of the much-cooler and rainier preceding summer and 96° of the following summer.
   
3. 1973, which I remember vividly (second longest NYC heat wave, exceeded only by aforementioned 1953 event);
4. 1980;
5. 1983, which I remember clearly (hit 94° as late as September 19, and if my memory served lasted a few days more. It hi 97° and 99° the weekend after Labor day);
6. 1985, which I remember clearly (hottest for summer, 95° was after Labor Day);
7. 1989, which I remember clearly (hottest for summer, 95° was also after Labor Day);
8. 1991, which I remember clearly (tied with 1993 for 41 days over 90°, the record, beating 1944's record of 39 such days);
9. 1993, which I remember clearly (tied with 1991 for 41 days over 90°, the record, beating 1944's record of 39 such days);
10. 1995, which I remember clearly (no records but pretty brutal);
11. 2005, which I remember clearly (no records but pretty brutal);
12. 2007, which I remember clearly (87° on Columbus Day); and
13. 2010, which I remember clearly (very similar to 1973 and 1953 events in terms of when it happened but managed only 97°, shy of 1953's 100+ reading and 1973's 98°)

In short, there is nothing new under the sun.

I don't know why this thread can't be about discussing "AGW Science." AGW Science amounts to a mutual admiration society, i.e. agreeing with each other's "conclusions." The first bolded portion of the above post appears to concede that nothing realistically will have any results. The second bolded portion is akin to stating "I'm so angry I want to scream!"

 

Perfect response.

Frankly too many people are living where they should not live. Southern California is also a tragedy waiting to happen.

 

What you are really telling us is that the West has to give up its standard of living, with no similar movement by the Chinese or Indian governments. Their officials and "business" people can continue living like potentates. The middle class and upper middle class in the West, with more modest living standards, can trim back to pre-Industrial levels. Sounds like a great deal.

 

I'm not sure what your chart is supposed to mean. But "Global Warming " doesn't mean "late summer heat waves". It means the GLOBAL temperature as measured all through the year. THAT is what is causing more and more dangerous events which we have ALWAYS experienced every few years... but now we see them multiple times every single year.

THAT is what "Climate Change" is about.

To discuss AGW Science, you would first need to understand what science is and how it works. I think the above statement proves that this might be something you still need to research quite a bit about. Once you understand that, there are probably people who might want to debate AGW Science with me. As for myself, I think the time for that is way past. I used to do it up to about 10 years ago. But now it's too late for that. The scientific consensus has been demonstrated in ways that go way beyond just the scientific studies. They have been proven in real life for EVERYBODY to see, by way of every single year record temperatures, and the almost continuous occurrence of catastrophic weather events. Just as predicted decades ago by AGW models. And yet, some still refuse to look at reality (Have you seen the movie "Don't Look Up"?) even when it's hitting them on the head day after day.

So, bottom line, you can talk about AGW Science. But open your own thread. This is simply not about that. Most of us are focusing now on the consequences of Science Denial and how to deal with them.

 

And if we don't find a way to stop global warming, some day EVERYBODY will be living where they should not live. Unless they are living in a Colony on Mars... or something like that.

 

So what you want is sacrifice by the West, to no good end.

 

Yep. That one degree C every hundred years is a major threat. To avoid it, try moving about a mile further north.

 

The only way to do that is to lower populations and technology levels to pre-Industrial levels. Is that what you propose?

 

How many "dangerous events" were there in the 1700's, just before the Industrial Revolution? Fine, you don't know.

Agreed, I wouldn't want to see it, like the making of sausages.

Again, we don't have a base line for pre-Industrial events. Granted these probably raised havoc in the mangrove swamps and bayous. But the casualties would have been muskrats and alligators, not people. When you have people living in places like semi-arid (and earthquake prone) California or the desert parts of Hawaii there's no end to the things that can go wrong.

 

Not even close. What I am saying is that those people being manipulated by politicians seeking more access to our tax dollars make it obvious that they don't really care.

 

I don't see how a reasonable person could translate my post into that. If you want to know what I want, you can ask and I will tell you.

 

Wrong! That is NOT the only way.

You're going to have to catch up on the topic of Global Warming, if you expect to make a serious contribution to the topic. Most of us have moves far beyond this sort of 'binary solutions" that you think you are the first one to bring up in this forum.