The No-Climate-Change Perspective "All Lies About Global Warming DEBUNKED in One Article"

(I'm probably going to regret starting this thread, as I don't wish for a flame war AT ALL. And, any other moderators are free to lock or delete this thread if it starts going off the rails like a crazy train.)

A friend of mine posted a link to this on facebook, and bunch more people started commenting about how true it was and how climate change scientists are lying, etc. All Lies About Global Warming DEBUNKED in One Article

So often these days, we end up in echo chambers of our own opinions, and no one ever respectfully tries to share the other view and engage in discorce. But, here at permies, we DO just that. We discuss stuff like this  in a fair way that allows for other's view points. I would LOVE to see other's views and responses to the above article. Some snippets:

Over the last 30 years, there has been a gradual increase in the CO2 level. But what is also observed is that despite deforestation, the planet’s vegetation has grown by about 20%. This expansion of vegetation on the planet, nature lovers largely owe it to the increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

[If we study, however, what has been happening at the geological level for several million years, we realize that the present period is characterized by an extraordinarily low CO2 level. During the Jurassic, Triassic, and so on, the CO2 level rose to values sometimes of the order of 7000, 8000, 9000 ppm, which considerably exceeds the paltry 400 ppm that we have today.

That being said, the recorded rise is 0.8 degrees Celsius and is, therefore, nothing extraordinary. If the temperature goes up, ocean water obviously dilates and some glaciers recede. This is something glaciers have always done, and not a specificity of our time.

Thus, in Ancient Roman times, glaciers were much smaller than the ones we know nowadays. I invite the reader to look at the documents dating back to the days of Hannibal, who managed to cross the Alps with his elephants because he did not encounter ice on his way to Rome, (except during a snow storm just before arriving on the Italian plain).  

Still another phenomenon we tend to exaggerate is the melting of the polar caps. The quantity of ice in the Arctic has not gone down for 10 years: one may well witness, from one year to the other, ice level fluctuations, but on average that level has remained constant.

Many other climate myths and legends exist. From storms to tornados, extreme events are going down all around the world; and when they occur, their level is much lower, too.

As explained by MIT physicist Richard Lindzen, the reduction of the temperature differential between the north hemisphere and the equatorial part of our planet makes cyclonic energy much smaller: the importance and frequency of extreme events thus tend to decrease. But once again, the rise of temperatures shows a magnitude considerably lower with respect to that we currently project.

The agreement of the Paris COP 21 was not signed to save the planet and to prevent us from roasting due to an imaginary temperature increase of +2°C. Behind all that masquerade is hidden, as always, the ugly face of power, greed, and profit.

All the industrialists who are in favor of that commitment, which will ruin Europe and immensely impoverish its citizens, do so for the good reason they find in it a huge and easy source of income.

As for NGOs, when they are not simply motivated by greed, their motive consists in a resolutely Malthusian ideology.

Their object is to return the world to a very small population, on the order of a few hundred million people. To do so, they impoverish the world, remove the power of fossil fuel energies, and thus ensure that the number of deaths increases.

I know that I, myself, am not nearly as well versed on these subjects as I would like to be. I very much wish to understand and be able to explain what I believe and why. Right now, I cannot in any great detail. I would love to know more about these subjects. Thank you.

Climate change is real. Climate changes all the time, "change is constant". But not for reason stated by the mainstream media and governments. its one of the "problem,reaction, solution" which is ultimately aimed to control the populace. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a18Fi9jQQEQ. Carbon tax is one part of it. But on the sidelines there is a more dangerous agenda that is quietly carried on. "Carbon sequestration". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration. Imagine if there is little carbon dioxide in the air.. less plants right? This is a ploy to control much of the food supply. Already rigths to water aquifer is being put into the hands of the few who controls the money. And have you heard of bottled air?

Nicole Alderman wrote:So often these days, we end up in echo chambers of our own opinions, and no one ever respectfully tries to share the other view and engage in discorce. But, here at permies, we DO just that. We discuss stuff like this  in a fair way that allows for other's view points. I would LOVE to see other's views and responses to the above article.

I don't understand the Permies mission in quite the same way.  When talking about the advancement of permaculture, perhaps yes; our publishing standards require a certain exaggerated deference to the opinions of others, for the narrow and specific reason that gentle souls with useful insights about permaculture would otherwise be driven away, as they are from places like Reddit, to our great loss.  However, when it comes to the advancement of understanding, this respectful effort to see all sides and engage in pleasant discourse is not always helpful, especially when the other side is not wearing the same water-filled boots and feels no constraints to play nicely.  This is a tax and a toll that we can afford to pay at Permies because, in great part, we pretty quickly rid ourselves of people who aren't willing to discuss permaculture in this way, and so we don't have to engage with them using this pre-handicapped exaggerated gentleness that we use in permaculture discussions.  But the "gentle souls encouraging" mode of discourse breaks down utterly on highly political topics, which is why they were originally banned, and are now only allowed here in the Cider Press, where they nonetheless cause great difficulty for our approach a high percentage of the time.  

Another issue is that Permies publishing standards strongly discourage resorts to arguments from science, again so that gentle souls with perspectives in areas where science is murky (or simply has not yet been done) will not be driven away.  The anthropogenic climate crisis is the opposite of such an area.  The science is not murky, it is just extremely complicated, and it is essentially impossible to refute arguments that ignore the science or get the science wrong without resorting to "science says" modes of discourse that, again, are discouraged on Permies for realm-specific reasons relating to permaculture advancement.  That makes discussion of these other issues in the Permies mode an exercise in frustration and/or futility.

But beyond all that, I have come around to the point of view -- increasingly espoused by climate scientists and people who report on the climate crisis -- that the time is passed for having these arguments.  As  Chuck Todd, host of NBC's Meet The Press, put it while introducing a lengthy TV segment on the topic:

We're not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter. And human activity is a major cause, period. We're not going to give time to climate deniers. The science is settled, even if political opinion is not.

This article from 4-5 years ago about the difficulty actual climate scientists are having, dealing with a world full of climate crisis deniers who are well-funded by what we here on Permies.com call "corporate trolls", contains a long paragraph that I think sums things up pretty well:

For more than thirty years, climate scientists have been living a surreal existence. A vast and ever-growing body of research shows that warming is tracking the rise of greenhouse gases exactly as their models predicted. The physical evidence becomes more dramatic every year: forests retreating, animals moving north, glaciers melting, wildfire seasons getting longer, higher rates of droughts, floods, and storms—five times as many in the 2000s as in the 1970s. In the blunt words of the 2014 National Climate Assessment, conducted by three hundred of America's most distinguished experts at the request of the U. S. government, human-induced climate change is real—U. S. temperatures have gone up between 1.3 and 1.9 degrees, mostly since 1970—and the change is already affecting "agriculture, water, human health, energy, transportation, forests, and ecosystems." But that's not the worst of it. Arctic air temperatures are increasing at twice the rate of the rest of the world—a study by the U. S. Navy says that the Arctic could lose its summer sea ice by next year, eighty-four years ahead of the models—and evidence little more than a year old suggests the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is doomed, which will add between twenty and twenty-five feet to ocean levels. The one hundred million people in Bangladesh will need another place to live and coastal cities globally will be forced to relocate, a task complicated by economic crisis and famine—with continental interiors drying out, the chief scientist at the U. S. State Department in 2009 predicted a billion people will suffer famine within twenty or thirty years. And yet, despite some encouraging developments in renewable energy and some breakthroughs in international leadership, carbon emissions continue to rise at a steady rate, and for their pains the scientists themselves—the cruelest blow of all—have been the targets of an unrelenting and well-organized attack that includes death threats, summonses from a hostile Congress, attempts to get them fired, legal harassment, and intrusive discovery demands so severe they had to start their own legal-defense fund, all amplified by a relentless propaganda campaign nakedly financed by the fossil-fuel companies.

These days when I'm faced with an article like the one quoted in the OP in this thread, my urge is not to debate, refute, or argue point-by-point.  I consider that we are long past the point where that sort of thing is useful.  And it's been done so often and so well, by people smarter than me, that all a person needs to do is read critically and Google a phrase like "climate change denier arguments refuted" to find dozens of really-well-sourced articles where other people have done that painstaking work.  A few of my favorites, just from the first page (!) of that Google search, are:

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming
Debunking Climate Change Myths: A Holiday Conversation Guide
Global Warming and Climate Change Myths

These resources are not hard to find.  These conversations have been had, elsewhere, already, in endless detail.  I'm not greatly interested in having them again, here on Permies, wearing the water-filled boots of our "gentle souls" approach that was crafted by Paul Wheaton specifically for the narrow purpose of drawing out gentle permaculture practitioners who otherwise would not be interested in coming here to talk about permaculture.  

Conversations about how permaculture on our individual scales can help us secure our families from the earliest stage of the climate apocalypse?  I'm here for them.  Conversations about the role that advancing permaculture in the world can play slow and start to mitigate the effects of the climate emergency?  Sure.  But rehashing the "whether and if" conversations?  I'm sorry, but it's not for me.  This is, obviously, work that still needs to happen in the world.  But in "the world" it's acceptable to be rhetorically violent when necessary.  In "the world" it's possible to advance scientific arguments forcefully.  And, yes, in "the world" it's possible to use deserved mockery and derision against corporate trolls and the other monied denialist interests.  None of that is anything we want here at Permies.  

I'd like to leave it there, but maybe it would be useful to engage just one of the claims from the quoted article with the resources I've offered here, just to show how to use them.  

Over the last 30 years, there has been a gradual increase in the CO2 level. But what is also observed is that despite deforestation, the planet’s vegetation has grown by about 20%. This expansion of vegetation on the planet, nature lovers largely owe it to the increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

So I did my five word Google search, and right there in the "Holiday Conversation Guide" on the first page we find:

Research has shown that increased carbon dioxide has had a fertilizing effect on plants, boosting growth of certain vegetation in some areas over the past three decades.

But after CO2 delivers an initial jolt to some plant life, levels of plant productivity drop as most plants get saturated with CO2. Besides, plants need more than CO2 to grow—like people, they need other nutrients, too. Without an increase in those, growth plateaus.

The real problem is that with more CO2 entering the atmosphere, temperatures will rise, droughts will expand and rain patterns will change. The National Climate Assessment has said these changes will be "increasingly negative on most crops and livestock."

This breezy summary is backed up by a link that offers enormous detail: Carbon Dioxide And Plants.  But it's one huge "science says" explanation.  Here on Permies -- where we discourage arguments that sound like we are trying to pound each other over the head with arguments from authority -- it's especially laborious to get into the weeds of these issues.  And is the game really worth the candle?  Anybody who can read and Google can do this.   Out in the world, is arguing with people who won't read/Google worth your time, in a time of enormous crisis?  Here on Permies, is arguing with people who won't read/Google going to advance permaculture, which is ostensibly the reason we are all here?

The "greenhouse effect" of carbon dioxide has been understood for a long time.  Global warming has been understood for a long time. If this is a conspiracy it is a very old one.

 

I think one of the downsides to living in the information age is honesty/dishonesty, pro/con, for/against can be found for anything on the internet, on tv and in print. We even have 24 hour tv news stations that tailor what they report to a target audience, giving those people what they want to hear. My father had a subscription to The New York Times for decades, and one day I noticed the ever present daily issue of the paper wasn't by his chair in the den anymore. I asked him "did you stop reading The New York Times?" and he responded "they started saying things I didn't like so I quit reading it". I would swing by my dad's house for a bite on my lunch break when I was in my twenties and he would have foxnews on the tv, muted, and Rush (not Lee, Lifeson & Peart unfortunately) on the radio, sitting in his chair listening and reading the ticker scrolling across the bottom of the tv screen. He found what he wanted to hear/read. My father has long since passed, so I'm ok sharing this about him. It seems now that if something is too difficult to consider, grasp, or comprehend, or if someone thinks something is just plain nonsense, it's easier to ignore it and think "it's not true" and seek information from people who also think the same instead of weighing & considering both sides then forming an personal conclusion.

I'm not sure who first said it, but there's an old saying that the internet has really brought to reality. It goes: A lie will be half way around the world before the truth gets its boots on.

"But beyond all that, I have come around to the point of view -- ... -- that the time is passed for having these arguments."

The quote that Dan posted sums up the feelings of scientists in different areas.  The theory of evolution by natural selection is another area where scientists have simply given up debating.  The quote made by the scientist when refusing to debate a subject with a person not in the field is often "to debate this may help your curriculum vitae, but it won't help mine".  The evidence is abundant and overwhelming to people that spend their lives in that field, yet lay people debate it endlessly.  I understand the frustration scientists in both fields must feel.  They spend all day, most every day of their lives studying, analyzing, working out details, trying to find solutions, only to have people say things like "if they are so sure it's real, why is it just a theory?"  While I understand the frustration, I'm torn on the direction this should take.  On the one hand, giving up on trying to educate lay people that seem unwilling or unable to understand something that is seems very obvious to the scientists studying it, and just working on the issue is one possible route.  I can see how it is much less frustrating, but at the same time, to a degree, the lay people are the ones that hold the purse strings, and are the "boots on the ground" in combating the problem.  If you can't bring the average person around to the idea that climate change is real, is happening, and needs to be a focus of our attention, can we hope to take steps in the right direction?  I don't see an easy answer.

Trace Oswald wrote:They spend all day, most every day of their lives studying, analyzing, working out details, trying to find solutions, only to have people say things like "if they are so sure it's real, why is it just a theory?"  While I understand the frustration, I'm torn on the direction this should take.  On the one hand, giving up on trying to educate lay people that seem unwilling or unable to understand something that is seems very obvious to the scientists studying it, and just working on the issue is one possible route.  I can see how it is much less frustrating, but at the same time, to a degree, the lay people are the ones that hold the purse strings, and are the "boots on the ground" in combating the problem.  If you can't bring the average person around to the idea that climate change is real, is happening, and needs to be a focus of our attention, can we hope to take steps in the right direction?  I don't see an easy answer.

You also can't underestimate the level of depression that scientists in this field are suffering from.  It can be quite debilitating.
Weight of the world climate scientist grief article

Greg Martin wrote:

Trace Oswald wrote:They spend all day, most every day of their lives studying, analyzing, working out details, trying to find solutions, only to have people say things like "if they are so sure it's real, why is it just a theory?"  While I understand the frustration, I'm torn on the direction this should take.  On the one hand, giving up on trying to educate lay people that seem unwilling or unable to understand something that is seems very obvious to the scientists studying it, and just working on the issue is one possible route.  I can see how it is much less frustrating, but at the same time, to a degree, the lay people are the ones that hold the purse strings, and are the "boots on the ground" in combating the problem.  If you can't bring the average person around to the idea that climate change is real, is happening, and needs to be a focus of our attention, can we hope to take steps in the right direction?  I don't see an easy answer.

You also can't underestimate the level of depression that scientists in this field are suffering from.  It can be quite debilitating.
Weight of the world climate scientist grief article

It's understanding.  To have something be your life's work, your passion, the thing you spent your life studying, be dismissed by people that won't even look at the mountains of evidence supporting your side of the equation has to make you feel hopeless.  I've watched many debates between scientists and people not in the field of study being debated, and it's easy to see the frustration.  The people debating often don't even understand the most basic terminology.  How can you possibly debate an issue this complex with a person that thinks the word "theory" in a scientific context means "our best guess"?  

julian Gerona wrote:

An article on ThinkProgress About Dr. Judith Curry here Dr. Judith Curry abandons science

Here is a quote from the article:  "My one-time lecture-circuit companion, Dr. Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, has now taken the crown as the most debunked person on the science blogosphere, which is quite a feat considering the competition. But she invites debunking by her tendency to make scientific-sounding pronouncements without having actually read the relevant literature, and then backing down the minute she is challenged by someone who has or who has actually contributed to that literature."

Q: How many climate change denialists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: None, they dispute the lightbulb is broken.

Reasonable people would consider, for the sake of balanced discussion, isn't the World worth the benefit of the doubt?

With most of Europe and the U.K moving to a low carbon future, and the benefits of cleaner air and the move to new technologies as things progress, it's hard to argue the continuance of the 250 year old Industrial Revolution.

Regardless of it being real or not, we simply cannot continue to use finite resources without contingencies.

One may question the motives of some denialists - no doubt many of them are heavily invested in the carbon economy so have lots to lose = personal greed and power. Others are simply out there for personal aggrandisement via social media platforms and don't give a damn about the consequences. Most are not technically proficient or involved in science - armchair experts.

A low carbon future has the potential to produce the next generation of technology spinoffs like the space race.

An oldie but a goodie

The climate is currently warming in some areas.  The problem is that the climate never has been stable.  It shifts over time.  Do you want to compare the climate for the last ten years (we usually call that weather), the last 100 years, the last 1000 years, million?  You will find that the climate has shifted a lot.  About 100 years ago we came out of a mini ice age.  Our warmest years are mostly in the 1930s.  Our measurement systems get fewer and coarser as we move back in time.  100 years ago we were actually taking measurements on a very small segment of the globe.  Growing cities have dramatically changed local climates.  

I am not saying that there is no human global warming.
The arctic is warming.  Why? I don't  know, and I don't think anyone does.  Reality is complicated.  Models are not reality.  In permaculture we learn that a topo map and pictures are good, but they are not reality.  You need to walk the ground.  They started screaming global warming and too much CO2 10 years before they had any evidence it was a minor warming gas.  Water vapor is actually much a more effective warming gas.  Some warming may just be due to the soot on arctic ice from all the coal being burned in the orient.

At base, I believe this is largely a scam.  I recognize the climate is varying in the far north and south.  

Should we abandon hydrocarbons?  Yes, absolutely.  As fast and whenever and wherever we can.  It just makes sense to do so.  Financially, politically (how much would we care about Arabia or Iran if the was no oil), and medically.  

I learned when I was a kid climbing trees to have a good hold on a strong branch before I let go of my current branch.  I also learned not to cut the branch I was sitting on.  So before we abandon oil and gas, we need to reorganize.  Our current situation, with much of the population in megapolises (and more all the time), is like a madmans nightmare.  If we stopped using hydrocarbons right now, there would be mass death.  We simply couldn't move food and materials fast enough.  We need to simplify, diversify and spread our population out.  (The solution to pollution is dilution).

A strong totalitarian govt might be able to force the change, like Mao did in the great leap forward.  It doesn't matter if the govt is right or left wing, because they become the same at some point. People forget that the nazi's were avowed socialists and claimed Russia hadn't gone far enough). A totalitarian state can marshal massive resources if needed (see geoff law tons videos on the loess region of china).

I'm not in favor of this solution.  The problem with a totalitarian regime is that it ends up serving itself.  Totalitarian govts killed far more of their own people in the 20th century than died in all of the 20th century wars. In short, I don't see our current system shifting without some massive event forcing it.  People are too comfortable as they are a nod there I are too many invested in the current system for it to change quickly or willingly.  

The good and bad news is that our current house of cards is not real stable.  Eventually it will tumble, for any of a dozens of possible causes.

To me it doesn’t matter if I believe one side or the other.  If I want the next generation to have a better ecology, I need to change what I am doing.  I need to do better.

I fully understand the side of engineers be dismissed though.  These equations are easily solved with the typical 1 or 2 variables. Last winter a design was brought to me and I ran the calculations on it.  It was over 300,000 psi stress.  The best material I could find would yield at 130,000 psi stress.  The owner said build it anyway.  Well on Saturday night around 8 I get a call asking why did it break?  It was a stressful situation to be in!  I am glad that money doesn’t change physics.

There are so many variables with the global temperature calculations it’s just like permaculture. It is not solvable by 1 person or 1 calculation. From my studies there is no way to put real numbers on it. They are the best that science can do at this moment.  That doesn’t mean it is true or false.  I can observe vast changes in my personal ecology though. From permies I can use the input from so many people around the globe with totally different values and goals that it gives me a much better picture.  

I used to ask questions like this.  1CH4 becomes 1CO2 and 2H2O.  If it take 100 years to absorb the CO2 into the ecology, how long does it take to absorb the H2O?  Being a ENTP I am always ready for a good discussion. I enjoy discussing the frequencies and how they react of different materials in the air. This just goes above most people’s heads and then they get really mad, so I accomplished nothing.

I want to accomplish the most I can, so I practice not asking them type of questions anymore.  After reading thousands of permie’s responses it has helped me a better positive communicator.  This, I am grateful for!

James Freyr wrote:...I would swing by my dad's house for a bite on my lunch break when I was in my twenties and he would have foxnews on the tv, muted, and Rush (not Lee, Lifeson & Peart unfortunately) on the radio, sitting in his chair listening and reading the ticker scrolling across the bottom of the tv screen. ...

"We've secretly replaced the Rush on this news network, with a more enlightened and musical Rush, let's see if anyone notices..." ;-)

But seriously, to Dan Boone's point, about the need for continued debate. I feel it is foolish to relent, and to ignore what the deniers are saying. Yes, the beating of one's head against the wall, doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result as the definition of insanity...it sounds dreadful, nice and easy to say "We're done here, you do you, I'm going to spend my time doing good things instead."
To be clear, I don't think the debate should be about whether the science is right, or wrong, or part of a deep-state conspiracy... , but instead, what are we going to do to make things better in a way that hits home for these folks. oh, and by the way, better, just happens to solve some other problems along the way.

It's very much Permaculture, because it's systems design. Not a single issue, single approach; but many issues and approaches. Not all-or-nothing, but incremental.
Realizing that if we cut car and truck exhaust, we not only cut CO2 and "global warming", but also cut small particulates and improve air quality, and reduce asthma in children, which reduces healthcare spending/money going to big pharma/lost productivity for parents (and these kids who continue to have asthma into adulthood)/early mortality...
The arguments also need to be systems design... not "oh well, they just won't read the science". It's finding which issue hits home for this person? is it childhood asthma? is it taxes? is it drug prices? By listening to the rhetoric, by listening to what the deniers are saying about the issues, it's possible to recognize.

Christopher Shepherd wrote:
To me it doesn’t matter if I believe one side or the other.  If I want the next generation to have a better ecology, I need to change what I am doing.  I need to do better.

Chris, you are 100% right.  The argument about global warming, while of interest, is not as important as focusing on what we can do and know we should do.

System design.  That is our weak point.  Our current system was never really designed, it just kind of grew accidentally in a disjointed way and then we try to improve the rube goldberg design with slight tweeks.

As we are able to show better working systems, people will move to them.  It wasn't hard to get native Americans to adopt steel knives and axes.  They were obviously superior in enough ways that people wanted them.  

It will be the same eventually with better systems.  

Most of the time we can't see down the whole path.  We have a general idea, but we have to experiment and feel our way along.  Arm waving generalities are fine, but the devil is in the details.  If we wait to get everyone else on board, the train will never leave the station.

 Another word for courage is faith.

I get a little down on the future sometimes, but civilizations and empires have crashed repeatedly, and yet we survive.  

I admittedly didn't watch the video because I have no doubt it would be emotionally rousing.  I'm responding strictly to the quotes provided which I understand may be leaving out further detail possibly given in the video itself.  

But here we go.

Just as a response to the quotes provided from the video; the 'facts' are vague and misleading.  
More vegetation despite deforestation.  How is that calculated?  Because our industrial monoculture crops count as vegetation,  And if you can replace 1 tree in the forest with 100 corn stalks, yeah, you get "more vegetation".  That doesn't really SAY anything or MEAN anything.  It's just a sully fancy way of saying "20% more plants exist".  From when?  What time frame is being measured here?  From the last 10 years?  10,000 years?  Hopefully that's explained in the video, but if it's not, it's just propaganda and misleading and out-of-context information.

Also, if the whole point is a "no climate change" stance, why do those quotes readily admit that climate change is totally normal and natural.  It's not a climate change denial stance, it's a "calm down, climate change is normal" stance.  The wording of the title is created to be inflammatory, which should be a yellow flag from the get go, IMO.  

"one may well witness, from one year to the other, ice level fluctuations, but on average that level has remained constant."
Again, this quote is useless without more information.  "On average" they've "remained consistent".  What is the scope and perspective here?  If 1,000,000 tons of ice hasn't receded more than 1-2% per year, and after 10 years there's still 850,000 tons of ice (these are totally random numbers btw), in the scope of "that's a hell of a lot of ice", yeah, it's stayed arguably consistent and hasn't fluctuated too much.  

My last point on the blip of info provided, is that If natural disasters around the world "[are occurring at] a much lower level", how do we explain the giant train of climate refugees migrating to the US border because their region of the world has gone so dry the entire region is teetering on the verge of famine?  This is not the only region this is happening in.  No more rain, means no crops, means starvation for millions of people.  (meanwhile our grocery stores destroy megatons of good food every year and most of our land is covered in non-edible corn grown to feed cows that can't digest that corn so they can be slaughtered and turned into meat that more and more people can't afford to buy).  California and parts of the West coast are going through severe drought right now too.  And other regions around the world are suffering record droughts and crop failures.  A friend of mine in Norway has reported fear of total crop failure due to the droughts there.  

Just as a judgement from the quotes, from the chosen delivery of information, and from the articulate flaming at the end of the quote list... Nothing I just read leads me to believe any of it is legit.

Jen Fan wrote:
Also, if the whole point is a "no climate change" stance, why do those quotes readily admit that climate change is totally normal and natural.  It's not a climate change denial stance, it's a "calm down, climate change is normal" stance.  

I guess my question is, why should we calm down if "normal climate change" looks like it will change the Earth into a place where it is likely to be extremely more difficult for civilized humans to exist?  Some people say we should stop being civilized, but that's a really, really hard sell when only about 5% of humans on Earth at this time are indigenous non-civilized tribes.  

Even if climate change is "normal" and human activity is a small percentage of it, wouldn't it be prudent to reduce that percentage to increase the chances of not killing 95% of Earth's human population?

Resource about non-civilized cultures:  https://www.survivalinternational.org/

I'm not convinced civilization can survive in any case.  But maybe we can change to something that can.  Like, say, permaculture.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nLKHYHmPbo&t=1113s

A lot of the denialist claims are cloaked in illogical conspiracy theorist.  Not sure how any "elites" benefit from reducing the world's population - don't they need us peons to keep the markets moving and stores full?  Also the high CO levels cited in the past were probably reached quite slowly, giving the environment time to adapt.  Note that Arctic ice levels don't matter for sea rise - that is Greenland and Antarctica, which are not looking good.

The Paris accords were voluntary, and fortunately the US emissions have gone down, mainly through converting coal plants to natural gas. https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/global-carbon-emissions-continue-to-stabilize-us-has-3-drop/

Subsidizing electric vehicles, transit and renewables would help, though we'll need more baseload power (nuclear or natural gas).  As others have mentioned, there are so many benefits to reducing emissions - costs, particulate matter levels, energy independence, etc.  If climate change really turns out to be a hoax from the UN/Gore/etc it's not going to really do that much damage.  We've got plenty of coal in the ground in the U.S., and could always re-mine it if we really have to.

It's just intellectually tiring to discuss. It's like trying to describe to a flat-earther the physics behind how a ship sailing from port disappears from hull to mast-tip. Beyond a certain point, we just need to make sure all the sharp and pointies are out of reach so nobody gets hurt, then stand at a comfortable distance and respect the fact that they have opinions without evaluating them on their merits.

If the topic being discussed is scientific in nature, and people don't want to form a scientific opinion, it doesn't render their opinions moot, just invalid to the conversation at hand, and therefore irrelevant. Those interested in a scientific approach aren't being unnecessarily dismissive; those not interested in a scientific approach have disqualified themselves; they haven't done the homework.

In other words, if you want to have a discussion in Portuguese, both parties involved need to be speaking Portuguese. I don't care how well-versed you are in Esperanto or Klingon, if it's not in Portuguese, it's not relevant to the conversation.

The no-climate-change perspective is that of the mythical ostrich with its head in the sand, except in this case, the sand is by the ocean, and the tide is coming in, or rather, the global water level is rising.

But nothing appears to be changing from their perspective.

-CK

I'd like to add a different perspective here, although it is already somewhat mentioned in the last quote the opening post gives. Climate measures are being taken on international level; mainstream politics is accepting climate change is a reality and is drawing up extensive plans to help it stop. The Paris climate agreement is very ambitious in reducing CO2 levels and is binding for the countries that have signed up.

Interesting is that an agreement like this is attracting criticism, not only from people who believe climate change dangers are being exaggerated, but also from people who are concerned about the environment and say that the agreement hasn't been made with the objective of saving the planet, but that the real objective is to save financial capitalism from falling apart. It's not concern about the environment that has led to these measures, it's concern about the position of big businesses and banks, and those institutions have lobbied hardest for this, the oil industry first; apparently they already started it in the eighties. The climate measures are meant to create a new level of investment. Electric cars, energy neutral houses and new energy sources all mean new levels of investment that'll give businesses work to do and create a new cash flow that'll keep banks going as well. At the moment everybody's screaming 'We need investment!' and the climate change scenario is coming in very handy. Now they can say 'We need to invest: we need to save the world!' This isn't the agenda of a few green thinking environmentalists that is being followed, this is the ploy of the big players in our capitalist world and it is convenient for them to be able to wrap a message in a way that is cutting the grass in front of environmentalists' feet.
Note that the plans that are being drawn up all mean the building of stuff; adapting new technologies, implementing new appliances. It's never 'let's cut less trees', or 'let's travel less miles'. The objective is the next industrial revolution, to keep the wheels in motion.
Also note that less CO2 output is about the only goal of the Paris agreement. Saving the environment isn't quite the same thing.

Personally I believe, whether we are in a climate crisis at the moment or not, we can't keep intensifying our use of industrial means. I believe less is more. We need new sets of rules to judge our societies by as well. GDP isn't saying how well we are doing, it just means we've collectively been very busy. I believe a change for the better isn't likely to come from within the current system, certainly not the European system which requires a lot of consensus and where the powers that be don't want real change. I don't believe the Paris climate agreement is a good thing. It'll serve Deutsche Bank, not the climate, just like the Greek bailout after the credit crisis served Deutsche Bank and not the Greeks. So I'm with this part of the criticism, one doesn't need to be a climate sceptic to be distrustful of European politics on this issue.      

Just wanted to make a quick comment regarding the scientists mentioned above that are put forward by climate change deniers....scientists are not in lockstep on global warming understanding.  We are human beings with all that comes with that.  Part of that is diversity of understanding and reactions.  For every 100 scientists you ask you'll find a few like those displayed above, but the vast majority of scientists are confident that humans are driving the climate to warm above and beyond natural forcings.  It's actually remarkable to have this level of consensus from a group of people....not something I ever see short of from the results of dictator "elections".  For most scientists the case is very compelling and straightforward.  

Nicole, I'll try to work my way through the article you linked to, but I have to admit, it's very frustrating to push my way through articles like this because they are so skewed and ridiculous.  Generally it feels like such a waste of good time that could be spent in the garden, kitchen, or with friends and family.  Anyway here's a very minor start.

"CO2 is not a poison".....groan.  The old straw man set up never grows old I guess.  No one ever says that CO2 is a poison...certainly no one that tries to communicate accurately.  At best that would be an amazing stretch to extend "poison" to CO2.  You could make that connection by demonstrating that you'll die at high concentrations of CO2 as it would interfere with our ability to clear the CO2 our bodies produce from our lungs (btw, at night plants have to clear CO2 from their bodies too).  But that is at best a distraction as it is not related to climate change forcings.  Also, life is generally not black and white....CO2 is critical, but changes in it's concentration drive changes in the environment that will probably create more cost to our society than we are capable of dealing with.

"the major greenhouse gas is water vapor"....yes, of course!  This is part of our basic understanding of the greenhouse effect.  Water vapor and the greenhouse effect it creates is a major part of what keeps the Earth from being a ball of ice.  But water vapor doesn't cover the same absorption bands of longwave IR radiating from the Earth to space.  Radiation loss to space is the way the Earth cools, balancing the temperature rise we get from sun light and the greenhouse effect.  Since CO2 blocks long wave IR transmission that water vapor doesn't, we end up with a stronger greenhouse effect.  It's kind of like the greenhouse has some open windows (in this case windows in the longwave IR spectrum where heat is able to escape from the Earth into space) and the water vapor closes most of the windows, but then CO2 concentration rises and now the an important window that was letting heat out additionally gets closed.  This causes heat buildup that causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.  That's why scientists say that CO2 levels are a bit like the control on a thermostat.

Articles like this that are completely biased are easily dismissed.  I feel very strongly that we desperately need better scientific literacy so folks can more easily see this.  

J Grouwstra wrote:
Also note that less CO2 output is about the only goal of the Paris agreement.

I'm not seeing that.  Looks like a bunch of goals to me.

"The Paris Agreement, adopted through Decision 1/CP.21, addresses crucial areas necessary to combat climate change. Some of the key aspects of the Agreement are set out below:

Long-term temperature goal (Art. 2) – The Paris Agreement, in seeking to strengthen the global response to climate change, reaffirms the goal of limiting global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees Celsius, while pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees.
Global peaking (Art. 4) –To achieve this temperature goal, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) as soon as possible, recognizing peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of GHGs in the second half of the century.
Mitigation (Art. 4) – The Paris Agreement establishes binding commitments by all Parties to prepare, communicate and maintain a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and to pursue domestic measures to achieve them. It also prescribes that Parties shall communicate their NDCs every 5 years and provide information necessary for clarity and transparency. To set a firm foundation for higher ambition, each successive NDC will represent a progression beyond the previous one and reflect the highest possible ambition. Developed countries should continue to take the lead by undertaking absolute economy-wide reduction targets, while developing countries should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts, and are encouraged to move toward economy-wide targets over time in the light of different national circumstances.
Sinks and reservoirs (Art.5) –The Paris Agreement also encourages Parties to conserve and enhance, as appropriate, sinks and reservoirs of GHGs as referred to in Article 4, paragraph 1(d) of the Convention, including forests.
Voluntary cooperation/Market- and non-market-based approaches (Art. 6) – The Paris Agreement recognizes the possibility of voluntary cooperation among Parties to allow for higher ambition and sets out principles – including environmental integrity, transparency and robust accounting – for any cooperation that involves internationally transferal of mitigation outcomes. It establishes a mechanism to contribute to the mitigation of GHG emissions and support sustainable development, and defines a framework for non-market approaches to sustainable development.
Adaptation (Art. 7) – The Paris Agreement establishes a global goal on adaptation – of enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reduction of vulnerability to climate change. It aims to significantly strengthen national adaptation efforts, including through support and international cooperation. It also recognizes that adaptation is a global challenge faced by all. All Parties should engage in adaptation planning and are expected to submit and periodically update an adaptation communication on their priorities, implementation and support needs, plans and actions. Developing country Parties will receive enhanced support for adaptation actions.
Loss and damage (Art. 8) – The Paris Agreement significantly enhances the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage, which will develop approaches to help vulnerable countries cope with the adverse effects of climate change, including extreme weather events and slow-onset events such as sea-level rise. The Agreement provides a framework for Parties to enhance understanding, action and support with regard to loss and damage.
Finance, technology and capacity-building support (Art. 9, 10 and 11) – The Paris Agreement reaffirms the obligations of developed countries to support the efforts of developing country Parties to build clean, climate-resilient futures, while for the first time encouraging voluntary contributions by other Parties. Provision of resources should also aim to achieve a balance between adaptation and mitigation. In addition to reporting on finance already provided, developed country Parties commit to submit indicative information on future support every two years, including projected levels of public finance.
The agreement also provides that the Financial Mechanism of the Convention, including the Green Climate Fund (GCF), shall serve the Agreement. International cooperation on climate-safe technology development and transfer and building capacity in the developing world are also strengthened: a technology framework is established under the Agreement and capacity-building activities will be strengthened through, inter alia, enhanced support for capacity building actions in developing country Parties and appropriate institutional arrangements.
Climate change education, training, public awareness, public participation and public access to information (Art 12) is also to be enhanced under the Agreement.
Transparency (Art. 13), implementation and compliance (Art. 15) – The Paris Agreement relies on a robust transparency and accounting system to provide clarity on action and support by Parties, with flexibility for their differing capabilities of Parties. In addition to reporting information on mitigation, adaptation and support, the Agreement requires that the information submitted by each Party undergoes international review. The Agreement also includes a mechanism that will facilitate implementation and promote compliance in a non-adversarial and non-punitive manner, and will report annually to the CMA.
Global Stocktake (Art. 14) – A “global stocktake”, to take place in 2023 and every 5 years thereafter, will assess collective progress toward meeting the purpose of the Agreement in a comprehensive and facilitative manner. Its outcomes will inform Parties in updating and enhancing their actions and support and enhancing international cooperation. For 2018 a facilitative dialogue is envisaged to take stock of collective progress towards the long-term emission reduction goal of Art 4.
Decision 1/CP.21 also sets out a number of measures to enhance action prior to 2020, including strengthening the technical examination process, enhancement of provision of urgent finance, technology and support and measures to strengthen high-level engagement."

https://unfccc.int/resource/bigpicture/#content-the-paris-agreemen

Tyler, it depends somewhat from country to country, but for the country I live in, The Netherlands, there is one goal: Reduction of greenhouse gasses by 49% in 2030 compared to the level of 1990. It mentions specifically that this is the one goal the agreement has, so I wasn't making a personal interpretation.
Also, in practice, this figure of 49% reduction is what we here politicians talk about all the time when they are presenting policies. All that is implemented has to do with this desired reduction of 49%.
At the same time we're still seeing plans of expanding airports and The Netherlands is being deforested faster than the rain forest area in South America. I'm sure that is contradicting with that line you highlighted in the Paris agreement, but no rule is binding any government officials in this respect.
I'm not sure this link to the Dutch version is any good to people here, but this is what is presented to us: https://www.klimaatakkoord.nl/documenten/publicaties/2019/06/28/klimaatakkoord.

J Grouwstra wrote:it depends somewhat from country to country, but for the country I live in, The Netherlands, there is one goal: Reduction of greenhouse gasses by 49% in 2030 compared to the level of 1990. It mentions specifically that this is the one goal the agreement has, so I wasn't making a personal interpretation.

That may be the goal of the Netherlands, but it is not the goal of the Paris Agreement, the goals of which are summarized above.

The figures are Dutch, each country chooses its own exact objectives, but the basic objective of the Paris agreement is to reduce CO2 emissions in order to limit global temperature rises. That's the central goal and that's what countries are committing to.
Countries set their own targets and are being encouraged to be ambitious, that's true, so an optimist may hope it'll lead to a lot of good things. I'm a pessimist. If real nature conservation progress is being made in some country I tend to think they must have really cared in that place, instead of it being the result of this agreement.

Here's a link to a newspaper piece that appeared when Maurice Strong died, an oil baron and one of the people responsible for current climate change narrative. Doubts about his true motives are still true for today's movement. The article is a little bit outdated in some respects, for certainly China is making great progress on environmental issues nowadays, but otherwise it still holds true today: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/paris-climate-change-conference/12035401/Farewell-to-the-man-who-invented-climate-change.html

Looks like an article written by a global warming denialist, so I put little credence in what it says.

Here in the US some people claim Al Gore invented climate change.

I guess these guys went back in time to work on the Bell Science film referenced above.

Tyler Ludens wrote:
I guess these guys went back in time to work on the Bell Science film referenced above.

Also let's not forget the famous physical chemist, Svante Arrhenius, who wrote up his calculations for how a build up of CO2 would lead to heating of the Earth....in 1896.  Deniers are fond of saying that scientists thought the Earth would cool into an ice age and then just changed their minds and said no, now we think it's warming.  Many believe that the Earth should have been slipping back into an ice age, but that our CO2 emissions have reversed the onset of the next ice age, and that we've known CO2 could do that for more than 100 years.

It's unclear how bad it will be that we're skipping this next ice age.  The fine grinding of stone by the glaciers helps to free massive amounts of minerals into our environment.  Hope we don't need that service....otherwise we'll have to do the work of the glaciers.

Greg Martin quoted - "CO2 is not a poison"

Water (H2O) is also not a poison, but it is quite capable of killing humans and does so regularly. That equally old saying, "it's the dose that makes the poison" suits both chemicals!

"Heat" isn't a chemical but it also kills and there are very definite limits above which human life is not possible. The OP's article quotes about long term changes on Earth noticeably doesn't mention that humans didn't live in that Earth environment. At one point in geological history, the area that is currently the "great plains" (Alberta and Saskatchewan in Canada) was a shallow ocean. I'm quite sure that all the people living in Calgary wouldn't like that to suddenly recur!

Unfortunately, humans seem to fear change and uncertainty. They, and the companies that benefit from the status quo, see dialing back on materialism and learning to reduce and repair rather than buying the latest shiny toy, as a negative and fear the change that my planet desperately needs. Just visit this link: https://permies.com/t/67524/simple-pleasures-day-add - it's grown to 5 pages, and see all the ways that a permie's lifestyle can bring enjoyment without it involving a trip to the mall. We can stabilize the climate while building a self-reliant and humane society rather than just building electric cars, but it seems there are many powerful industrialists willing to try and convince us otherwise.

interesting data that explains climate change. The real climate change. No I dont deny climate change. As I have mentioned in my first post. Climate change is real. What I dont understand is why take a perfectly normal phenomena and cast it as huge problem.

Mount Pinatubo eruption caused a 1.1 degree fall in temperature because dust particles in the atmosphere serves as barrier for suns radiation. All major eruptions is followed by a rapid cooling. More eruptions more cooling. This points to more particles in the atmosphere, including CO2, should cause cooling not warming.

Jay Angler wrote:We can stabilize the climate while building a self-reliant and humane society rather than just building electric cars, but it seems there are many powerful industrialists willing to try and convince us otherwise.

That's the frustrating thing to me, because the "industry/technology will fix it" point of view leads most people to feel powerless*, when there is so much positive each person can do.  Mitigation could happen so quickly and on a vast scale if people implement permaculture design and regenerative practices where they live.

*or lazy. "I don't need to change because tech will fix it."