The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I know it's not a scientific paper.
It's a sign of the times. Because you or Neil maybe both have insisted that the global cooling scare was limited to one or 2 out of context magazine articles.
Well it kind of looks like people were writing books about it too.

When we had lots of particulate pollution - it did cool the climate. It was not a hoax. We changed it - by cleaning up our smokestacks and cars.

We have also changed what we were doing to cause the hole in the ozone layer. And we stopped poisoning ourselves with lead, by taking it out of our gasoline.

You really gotta think more before you post.

[oil pan 4]

Oh so now that it's exposed it's not a hoax.

Ozone layer? Red herring alert.

No one is talking about leaded gasoline. Nice red herring, again. There is no debate about leaded gasoline, if you posted anything about how leaded gasoline is bad I think everyone would agree it is bad.

You are confusing thinking with obeying.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by niky

Colder climes with a set growing season means that you have a flurry of agricultural productivity for one season, and then a harsh winter in which people are stuck indoors doing nothing but drinking and inventing sewing machines and atom bombs.

Tropical places have longer growing seasons, but unpredictable weather means more famines, more disasters

I've been learning about ringing Gauge Blocks. Northern societies had an advantage in that they could put steel stock in ice caves overwinter and do finer precision machine work.

...may I refer you to my favorite crackpot, Velikovsky?

Velikovsky did nothing wrong. ...at least according to Electric Universe theory.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

At the point that we add carbon to the air more quickly than it can be weathered out, it will lead to climate change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb_8DJF6Hp0

Someday we'll all look back and laugh.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Someday we'll all look back and laugh.

I'm always saying that about everything. Future humans will look back at chemotherapy as something akin to bloodletting.

I wonder what their energy conversion efficiency is?

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Oh so now that it's exposed it's not a hoax.

Ozone layer? Red herring alert.

No one is talking about leaded gasoline. Nice red herring, again. There is no debate about leaded gasoline, if you posted anything about how leaded gasoline is bad I think everyone would agree it is bad.

You are confusing thinking with obeying.

The Time cover was a hoax. And the idea that global cooling was settled science is not correct. We were seeing a cooling trend, because of particulate pollution.

It stopped being an issue - because we cleaned up our air.

How is it again that you deny facts, and deny science - is anything but magical thinking?

[oil pan 4]

I saw an article by the AP calming there is an ipcc report saying that global warming may pause for up to 11 years.
I thought that was kind of odd, with all the CO2 china is pumping out.

[All Darc]

They will look back to LCD/LED TVs with clipped whites and crushed shadows, motion bluer and angle distortions, and regurgitate their soylent green lunch over their Mecha (like A.I film) girlfriend.

They will look to our psichologist and psichiatrist and see it as lobotomy.

They will see surgery for lose weight, gastric bypass and others, as a chastity belt for mouth

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'm always saying that about everything. Future humans will look back at chemotherapy as something akin to bloodletting.

I wonder what their energy conversion efficiency is?

[niky]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The US by far puts the most money and man power into the UN and then they try to screw us every way possible.

China is being ignored.
Maybe some one can find a report of where the UN asks china for a ludicrous amount of money to fix their global warming?
I think that would be like trying to find cheap solar power.

The US puts money and manpower into the UN to protect its interests.

UN rules apply to all. As long as one of the big eight in the Security Council doesn't object. (The US uses that seat to protect Israel, for example)

China is not being ignored. Again: I've been paying attention to these issues for decades, and China used to chafe at climate agreements.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...nge-mark-lynas

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...hagen-document

Now it's clamping down on itself.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-15756235

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/poli...nese-polluters

Because China in 2011 was where the US was in the 70's... choking to death on its own pollution. Now it's pulling back. No pull back is instant. It takes years to set change in motion. But it's doing it. Increases in *gross* emissions will continue as population and productivity grow, but China has been working on lowering the rise.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-o...-gas-emissions

Whether they'll hit their targets or not (maybe not) and whether you trust them or not (eh... who does?), China has been doing a bit more than paying lip service to emissions.

Again, again... been listening to the left complain for decades that climate legislation is a capitalist conspiracy to keep the proletariat poor. So again (again again), mildly amused that the right is now taking the same position. Only this time it's a socialist conspiracy.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I know it's not a scientific paper.
It's a sign of the times. Because you or Neil maybe both have insisted that the global cooling scare was limited to one or 2 out of context magazine articles.
Well it kind of looks like people were writing books about it too.

Larry Niven wrote about a new Ice Age in "Fallen Angels" in 1991, taking potshots at climate scientists and the idea of global warming. (albeit in a rather tongue in cheek manner. I do like the way they burned down Detroit to create a heat island greenhouse to stave off the harsh winter. ).

"2012" froze New York.

What pop culture puts out has nothing to do with scientific consensus.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Oh so now that it's exposed it's not a hoax.

Whut?

Again, pop culture =/= scientific consensus.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I saw an article by the AP calming there is an ipcc report saying that global warming may pause for up to 11 years.
I thought that was kind of odd, with all the CO2 china is pumping out.

Cite the exact article, please.

Journalists are often not scientists. And the headlines do not always reflect the whole truth or even the flavor of the truth.

https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-gl...ming-pause.htm

Originally Posted by freebeard

I've been learning about ringing Gauge Blocks. Northern societies had an advantage in that they could put steel stock in ice caves overwinter and do finer precision machine work.

That's interesting. Gotta look that up.

Easier to store food, as well. Though the ancient Persians found a way:

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2017/...-refrigerator/

(given, the dry climate and cold winters helped, also, it's a fascinating concept.)

Originally Posted by freebeard

Velikovsky did nothing wrong. ...at least according to Electric Universe theory.

He's a good example of confirmation bias... looking for data to prove his ideas right rather than basing his ideas on a thorough reading of the data. Some of the dates don't line up with his theories.

Gotta admit, though, he was an awesome researcher. And it's still a fascinating read.

[oil pan 4]

So the pop culture of man man global warming has nothing to do with actual science?
That's good to know.

[freebeard]

Pop culture vs science? Pop culture has been high-jacked.

Originally Posted by niky

That's interesting. Gotta look that up.

Nobody is sure why when you ring gauge blocks together, you can't pull them apart. It's air pressure or Van der Waals force or something.

The part about ice caves was a comment in some story about cryogenic tempering.