More Climate BS...

[BartW]

Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening​

ditor—The apocalyptic tone that Smith adopted in relation to the environment bears little relation to reality.1 In his editorial Smith asserts, “virtually all scientists agree that global warming is happening.” Global warming is now joining the list of “what everyone knows.”

Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global warming is happening is less relevant than whether the climatologists do. A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. “The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not agree.”2 Those who have signed the letter represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the United States, of whom there are about 60. McMichael and Haines quote the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is widely believed to “prove” that climate change induced by humans has occurred.3 The original draft document did not say this. What happened was that the policymakers’ summary (which became the “take home message” for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, “In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”4

Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation. Most members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that current climate models do not accurately portray the atmosphere-ocean system. Measurements made by means of satellites show no global warming but a cooling of 0.13°C between 1979 and 1994.5 Furthermore, since the theory of global warming assumes maximum warming at the poles, why have average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88°C over the past 50 years?5

References​

• 1.Smith R. Climate change: decision time in Kyoto. BMJ. 1997;315:1326. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7119.1326. . (22 November.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 2.Michaels P. Conspiracy, consensus or correlation? What scientists think about the ‘popular vision’ of global warming. World Climate Review. 1993;1:11. [Google Scholar]
• 3.McMichael AJ, Haines A. Global climate change: the potential effects on health. BMJ. 1997;315:805–809. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7111.805. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 4.Seitz F. Major deception on global warning. Wall Street Journal 1996 June 12;section A:16(col 3).
• 5.Balling RC. Global warming: messy models, decent data and pointless policy. In: Bailey R, editor. The true state of the planet. New York: Free Press; 1995. pp. 83–107. [Google Scholar]

An official website of the United States government

Awesome. A source dated 1998, citing older crap, including a notorious Big Tobacco shill (and general all-around anti-environmentalist, of course) Fred Seitz, writing in the WSJ in 1996. This guy was already senile by then. A 1989 internal memo at Philip Morris described him as, “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.” You’re posting insanely outdated propaganda.

You should read Merchants of Doubt by Conway and Oreskes.

 

[MHS Rebel]

ask if we measured the temps in 2024 the same way we did in 1850?

same equipment, same number of readings, same locations, same local weather conditions.

Some of the monitoring equipment used in 1850 is in the same location today. The difference it that in 1850, it was rural. Since then, a city has risen around it making it a heat sink.

 

[OHvol40]

Tell me about Climate Gate. I haven't heard any of y'all explain that one.

Explain to me what that is.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Rik, you're littering this place with a gish gallop of climate denier talking points from 15+ years ago. I suspect that if I engage you on a single point, you'll ignore the lesson again, and go on posting more nonsense. How about, I'll address two topics of your choosing, if you will discuss the subject of my previous posts:

If you think global warming is being caused by "natural cycles" in the energy we receive from the sun, why is the upper atmosphere cooling?

Anybody?

I'll bite. I think we can agree the climate is one of those most complex systems on the planet. We should be able to agree the modeling systems are consistently getting it wrong with their predictions. While what you are saying may be entirely correct, it is based on the supposition that the system is completely and fully understood and that the observation does not demonstrate a correlation, but the causation as postulated. It also requires that some part of the system previously unknown or understood will not correct as part of a feedback loop.

Additionally, it is my understanding that as it is, we are only at a fraction of the estimated high, give or take a few % points of the estimated high for CO2 contained in the atmosphere since the meteor took the dinosaurs?

While some may believe (still have a strong suspicion that dollars has a lot to do with one's conviction on the topic) that humans account for all of it, again, I'll go back to we are trying to predict a very complex system and I do not for minute we have anywhere near all the input variables and feedback loops identified to know without question what is happening, why it's happening or what is going to happen.

Hey, I appreciate your discourse on the subject. I seriously do. But do you know how many times in history people have become absolutely convinced the world was going to end and they could explain why? I suspect you might and given all the above, it is why I'm skeptical when a new crowd jumps up and screams the sky is falling.

 

[LouderVol]

Some of the monitoring equipment used in 1850 is in the same location today. The difference it that in 1850, it was rural. Since then, a city has risen around it making it a heat sink.

another factor that is ignored.

 

[LouderVol]

Rik, you're littering this place with a gish gallop of climate denier talking points from 15+ years ago. I suspect that if I engage you on a single point, you'll ignore the lesson again, and go on posting more nonsense. How about, I'll address two topics of your choosing, if you will discuss the subject of my previous posts:

If you think global warming is being caused by "natural cycles" in the energy we receive from the sun, why is the upper atmosphere cooling?

Anybody?

didn't fixing the ozone have something to do with this. maybe not the act of "closing" - i know its not really "closed" - but something to do with the chemicals in the air. like whatever caused the holes in the ozone was heating those upper portions, and now that they are decreasing those temps are dropping.

I would have to go back and find that study to remember what it was really saying. but IIRC it was talking about stratification changing/being more defined, and with the chemical/density changes we should see changes to temperatures even with the same input.

*may not have been those ozone related chemicals, but maybe some other ones we have removed.

this isn't the study itself, and it doesn't address the stratification effect, I will keep looking. but it touches on some law of unattended consequences.

Reducing air pollution has triggered something even worse for the planet that scientists did not predict

Cleaner air is making marine clouds dimmer and oceans warmer, revealing a climate trade-off called the "clean air paradox."

www.earth.com

 

[OHvol40]

If the climate change crowd was serious about the climate and truly believed fossil fuel emissions were causing the earth to warm they would be all on board with nuclear and hydroelectric generation. They would also be in full support of changing what we use in internal combustion engines to natural gas which would require pipelines and update distribution networks. But where that group trips over their own dork everytime is they are against nuclear, building more hydro electric dams and natural gas pipelines. Kinda hard to take them seriously when they oppose almost everything that is a viable and reliable alternative to oil/gas/coal.

I think you’re generalizing and being dismissive when you should actually listen. I’ve taken this up as a pet project to be informed on over the last 20ish years. Attended conferences/lectures on climate, emissions, conservation, nuclear energy, ecology, GIS and weather forecasting, oceanography, etc. I’ve heard people from many fields explain in depth what they’ve seen in the past, what they observe in the present, and what they expect to happen in the future. Most don’t have a financial dog in the hunt, though some do. I’ve have never heard anyone in that time completely dismiss the idea of nuclear or hydro. As a matter of fact, most point out that nuclear is a good option (sans some practical issues). Hydro has its own practical issues, the ecologists don’t like it, but most don’t completely poo poo that idea either. Maybe you’re hearing from the wrong people? I don’t know.

 

[OHvol40]

None are viable for reliable base load electricity generation or unfettered transportation.

So what’s to stop us from diversifying our energy grid so we can be at least partially untethered from the volatile FF industry? There are more benefits to this than just environmental.

 

[OHvol40]

Aren't the renewables a much more expensive energy source than what we have now? We're talking energy density. What is the cost to deliver wind or solar powered energy at the equivalent density of a gallon of gasoline? All in. Without government subsidies, how many wind and solar farms would be built?

Our power is cheap because we get a significant portion of it from hydrocarbons and nukes.

No, renewable energy is no longer more expensive. Today, solar and onshore wind are the cheapest sources of new electricity generation globally, generally coming in 41% to 53% cheaper than the lowest-cost fossil fuel

https://www.irena.org/News/pressreleases/2025/Jul/91-Percent-of-New-Renewable-Projects-Now-Cheaper-Than-Fossil-Fuels-Alternatives

 

[OHvol40]

depending on what you mean by "consistent sun rays", yes the earth does NOT receive the same amount of energy from the sun day to day, month to month, year to year, and so forth. most of the difference comes from sunspots, but there are also solar cycles.

when you apply those tiny differences over areas like the earth (sun facing side) it adds up.

but don't worry the article mentions that climate change isn't tied to those changes. I was pointing out an error in your assumption. its a very well established fact that there are differences in what the earth receives from the sun.

Just wanted to make sure you weren't turning into another science denier and knew all of the SETTLED sciences before you went making incorrect claims to assert a point that isn't supported by the facts.

I don’t believe any of what you’re making sure I don’t believe. All I’m asserting is that there is a constant source of heat/energy hitting the earth. As long as we’re orbiting the sun, it will stay that way.

 

[hog88]

I think you’re generalizing and being dismissive when you should actually listen. I’ve taken this up as a pet project to be informed on over the last 20ish years. Attended conferences/lectures on climate, emissions, conservation, nuclear energy, ecology, GIS and weather forecasting, oceanography, etc. I’ve heard people from many fields explain in depth what they’ve seen in the past, what they observe in the present, and what they expect to happen in the future. Most don’t have a financial dog in the hunt, though some do. I’ve have never heard anyone in that time completely dismiss the idea of nuclear or hydro. As a matter of fact, most point out that nuclear is a good option (sans some practical issues). Hydro has its own practical issues, the ecologists don’t like it, but most don’t completely poo poo that idea either. Maybe you’re hearing from the wrong people? I don’t know.

LOL

 

[OrangeTsar]

Yes. When he moves to Tellico Plains, I'll start paying attention.

Obama couldn’t handle Tellico Plains. That place is from a different era .
Love the cafe and the Indian Boundary Campground

 

[hog88]

So what’s to stop us from diversifying our energy grid so we can be at least partially untethered from the volatile FF industry? There are more benefits to this than just environmental.

The green wienies.

 

[hog88]

Funny how this topic comes alive at the start of every summer.

 

[OHvol40]

LOL

Aaand, disengaged

 

[OrangeTsar]

I don’t believe any of what you’re making sure I don’t believe. All I’m asserting is that there is a constant source of heat/energy hitting the earth. As long as we’re orbiting the sun, it will stay that way.

But the amount of energy per square meter does change. Think of the sun as a lightbulb with a dimmer switch. Some years it is measurably brighter. Solar activity follows a well documented 11 year cycle.

 

[hog88]

Aaand, disengaged

Buddy, it's not me that is dismissive and generalizing. You dismiss offhand anything that contradicts your religion. And yes man caused climate change is definitely a religion.

 

[rikberry31]

Rik, you're littering this place with a gish gallop of climate denier talking points from 15+ years ago. I suspect that if I engage you on a single point, you'll ignore the lesson again, and go on posting more nonsense. How about, I'll address two topics of your choosing, if you will discuss the subject of my previous posts:

If you think global warming is being caused by "natural cycles" in the energy we receive from the sun, why is the upper atmosphere cooling?

Anybody?

I reject the premise that the earth's temperature is getting warmer. If that is the case why are rural temperatures not showing that? To make the bogus Hockey Stick Graph they fudged the numbers by removing the the data from rural temperature monitoring stations so called "outliers.".
Of course urban centers and airports are getting warmer, there's more population. If anything the earth is entering a period of cooling and has been for a decade. Why don't they use the term global warming any more, its now climate change. Remember Climategate?
It's all .

 

[LouderVol]

I don’t believe any of what you’re making sure I don’t believe. All I’m asserting is that there is a constant source of heat/energy hitting the earth. As long as we’re orbiting the sun, it will stay that way.

we are consistently being warmed by the sun. but its not always the same. lots of factors go into how much it is, and what is all is turned into heat.

visible light has stayed even more consistent than the overall energy reaching the earth, but even that isn't absolutely consistent.

what don't you believe, and why? I linked a website that said those differences WEREN'T contributing to global warming, so its not like it even challenges a BELIEF you hold. its literally a SCIENCE you are outright rejecting because you want to. I guess you could be trolling to try and prove a point, but its falling flat.

 

[rikberry31]

Awesome. A source dated 1998, citing older crap, including a notorious Big Tobacco shill (and general all-around anti-environmentalist, of course) Fred Seitz, writing in the WSJ in 1996. This guy was already senile by then. A 1989 internal memo at Philip Morris described him as, “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.” You’re posting insanely outdated propaganda.

You should read Merchants of Doubt by Conway and Oreskes.

 

[hog88]

Facts:
Wind and solar are not green, clean and reliable when used for base load electric generation.
If your goal is to electrify all public and private ground transportation our electricity generation capacity would have to triple or even quadruple. That cannot be done with renewables.
Solar and wind have their places, small scale generation. Instead of subsidizing large commercial solar/wind generation systems the focus should be on getting more individual houses, businesses or even small subdivisions generating their own electricity through solar/wind systems with backup coming from the grid.
If your serious about slowing climate change you should be the biggest proponent of nuclear and hydro electric power generation.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

I think you’re generalizing and being dismissive when you should actually listen. I’ve taken this up as a pet project to be informed on over the last 20ish years. Attended conferences/lectures on climate, emissions, conservation, nuclear energy, ecology, GIS and weather forecasting, oceanography, etc. I’ve heard people from many fields explain in depth what they’ve seen in the past, what they observe in the present, and what they expect to happen in the future. Most don’t have a financial dog in the hunt, though some do. I’ve have never heard anyone in that time completely dismiss the idea of nuclear or hydro. As a matter of fact, most point out that nuclear is a good option (sans some practical issues). Hydro has its own practical issues, the ecologists don’t like it, but most don’t completely poo poo that idea either. Maybe you’re hearing from the wrong people? I don’t know.

Did you meet any hot babes at these lectures/conferences? That would probably be the highlight after listening to a bunch of John Kerry and Al Gore wannabes telling the public that they need to start cutting their lawn with scissors to reduce emissions.

 

[LouderVol]

No, renewable energy is no longer more expensive. Today, solar and onshore wind are the cheapest sources of new electricity generation globally, generally coming in 41% to 53% cheaper than the lowest-cost fossil fuel

https://www.irena.org/News/pressreleases/2025/Jul/91-Percent-of-New-Renewable-Projects-Now-Cheaper-Than-Fossil-Fuels-Alternatives

"n China, where vertically integratedsupply chains and abundant domestic manufacturing capacity continue to exert downward pressure oncosts, LCOE fell to USD 0.033/kWh. India also reported competitive values at around USD 0.038/kWh.In contrast, PV LCOE increased in the United States and the European Union, where permitting delays, interconnection bottlenecks and higher balance-of-system costs limited further cost reductions."

"However, higher costs arelikely to persist in Europe and North America, reflecting structural factors such as permitting delays andhigher balance-of-system costs."

"Integration costs must be recognised and addressedWhile the plant-level solar and wind costs continue to fall, grid constraints are increasingly limiting theirdeployment. A substantial volume of wind and solar projects worldwide are facing delays due to gridconnection bottlenecks, while long procurement lead times for key components such as transformers andhigh-voltage cables are further affecting project timelines. These delays contribute to rising integrationcosts, including expenditures associated with storage, curtailment and transmission infrastructure. Althoughoften triggered by renewable expansion, investments in such assets enhance grid flexibility and benefitthe entire power system – including non-renewable generators. Recognising and addressing these costsis essential, particularly in emerging markets, where grid investment must keep pace with rising demand.In Australia, for example, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)estimates that integration costs can add USD 0.028–0.032/kWh to the cost of variable renewables at highpenetration levels.7 These integration costs vary significantly depending on project location, grid distanceand infrastructure availability, and are often higher for projects requiring long-distance transmission orthat are located in remote areas."

I am trying to dig on their numbers as well because I am pretty sure they are burying the lede with some of the data. they are counting the costs of the structure itself that generates the power, and thats it. they aren't counting the costs of integrating the systems, in terms of new equipment, as well as decreased efficiency, and increased maintenance.

I am also willing to bet this doesn't look at life cycle costs, as the renewable structures tend to require more maintenance costs than FF.

 

[OHvol40]

But the amount of energy per square meter does change. Think of the sun as a lightbulb with a dimmer switch. Some years it is measurably brighter. Solar activity follows a well documented 11 year cycle.

Yes, all true.

 

[OHvol40]

Buddy, it's not me that is dismissive and generalizing. You dismiss offhand anything that contradicts your religion. And yes man caused climate change is definitely a religion.

You’ll engage riiiiight up to to point where you would have to concede something that challenges your own narrative, and then poof, and LOL. That’s what stops any productive discussions. Pride.