Here is an article I have only just come across on the BBC website:
COP26: The truth behind the new climate change denial - BBC News
It turned out to be a hatchet job, lumping all climate sceptics together with as many loony conspiracy theorists as possible, just as I suspected they would.
Here are a few of the arguments put forward:
1. Sceptics claim a grand solar minimum will reverse global warming. This claim is only made by a small number of people. It is certainly not the main argument used.
2. Global warming will make parts of the earth more habitable, and that cold kills more people than heat does. This argument is a valid one, depending on the degree of warming. But this nuanced argument is completely ignored by the BBC. Presumably because it would be much harder to refute.
3. Limiting fossil fuel use will inevitably stunt economic growth and increase the cost of living, hurting the poorest. The article then claims that renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels, while not mentioning that they suffer from unreliability and so need back up. It then claims that increases in extreme weather events will cause more harm to the poor. Something which is not supported by the data.
While no doubt there are some "loonies" who say global warming is a hoax, there are also clearly many people with impressive qualifications who still remain sceptical of the predictions of doom and destruction put out by the climate extremists. Look at the list of people on the Global Warming Policy Foundation Advisory Council : Who We Are - The Global Warming Policy Foundation (thegwpf.org)
The BBC has made a big mistake by not admitting any slight doubt to any of the predictions, nor even to allow a proper discussion of the policies being enacted to deal with it. Such a stance will drive reasonable people to find that it's the BBC and the government who are the extremists.
[1. Sceptics claim a grand solar minimum will reverse global warming. This claim is only made by a small number of people. It is certainly not the main argument used.]ReplyDelete
There is a game played with the data to try and fake people out by the deniers. It's called picking your end points to fit your narrative. This guy on another site did exactly that. Telling everyone he has a phd in physics and that he is superior to everyone else in his knowledge of physics. By his statement,
"The end of warming is here, because its been cooling since 2016".
2016 to 2022 GISTEMPv3
Trend: -0.548 ±1.281 °C/decade (2σ)
Sure enough it has a negative trend. Notice the plus or minus 1.281 *C. The uncertainty is very high. So high is the uncertainty, that from that point of data, there is a pretty high chance that it is actually warming in the climate.
ANother point of view on this denier's schtick, that he holds back on discussion, is that 2016 was a very strong El Nino year and the last three years have been La Ninas.
The example I have been given is what is called cherry picking.
Now let me take this trend calculator and show some other end points of data.
Start date: 2018 End date: 2022
Trend: 0.897 ±2.888 °C/decade (2σ)
I can show warming with a shorter time period but also even higher uncertainty in the data for a conclusion.
Should I be motivated to defend my data conclusion, I would standing on weak ground. But this fake PHD defends his own data stake out just the same on a weak confidence of trend.
Another strong El Nino year was 1998. Lets see what the trend calculator does with that.
Start date: 1998 End date: 2022
Trend: 0.196 ±0.091 °C/decade (2σ)
See how low the uncertainty is, which is the plus or minus number. Which ever way the uncertainty swings in this point of the data, the trend is still positive. This is a part of why we know solidly the earth is warming.
This fake PHD is telling me and others on that comment site, that the earth is now going to cool and implies the warming is now over. If he really is a phd, and knows what I know, his is a complete liar. If he really belives his little story, he is the most ignorant phd on earth or is highly delusional and needs help with reality.
I'm use to dealing with the fear of accepting the truth about global warming from the sceptics. I can make a really strong case about the earth is warming from the very tools science uses itself. Further argument goes into how we know humans warmed the earth. But that is another issue to dealt with seperately.
I am not a part of what some other person, who I don't know and have no connection with, claims using selected data. Trying to see a trend over short time scales is foolish and I have never done this.Delete
[2. Global warming will make parts of the earth more habitable, and that cold kills more people than heat does. This argument is a valid one, depending on the degree of warming. But this nuanced argument is completely ignored by the BBC. Presumably because it would be much harder to refute.]ReplyDelete
BBC isn't the final word on global warming. Media outlets chose how much to cover due to the limited media space they are working in. If you are frightened the picture painted by climate science, so am I. THe difference between us is that I believe the science to be true and you chose to doubt it no matter what.
This argument is very well covered in Skeptical Science
Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
The harmful impacts of climate change, which have the ability to alter ecosystems and expose society’s vulnerabilities, significantly outweigh any beneficial impacts that may arise.
The consequences of climate change become increasingly bad after each additional degree of warming, with the consequences of 2°C being quite damaging and the consequences of 4°C being potentially catastrophic.
Below is the conclusion of the advanced discussion of Global Warming is bad. Data and there is nothing but data on this.
Climate contrarians will often mock 'CAGW' (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming), but the sad reality is that CAGW is looking more and more likely every day. But it's critical that we don't give up, that we keep doing everything we can do to reduce our emissions as much as possible in order to avoid as many catastrophic consequences as possible, for the sake of future generations and all species on Earth. The future climate will probably be much more challenging for life on Earth than today's, but we still can and must limit the damage.
Advanced rebuttal written by dana1981
[3. Limiting fossil fuel use will inevitably stunt economic growth and increase the cost of living, hurting the poorest. The article then claims that renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels, while not mentioning that they suffer from unreliability and so need back up. ]ReplyDelete
Iowa customers get 88.5% of power from renewable sources
MidAmerican Energy provided 88.5% of customers' annual power needs from renewable energy last year, the Iowa Utilities Board has verified. That's five percentage points higher than 2020, according to a Monday news release from the utility.
(To my knowledge, Mid American is not using backup that I know of. And yet their customers are getting very good rates on their electricity. I have presented this on other comment sites and the doubters can barely believe what I am presenting. It just can't be true. RE is not suppose to be successful. And yet here it is. 88.5% wind electricity.)
[3. conclusion: It then claims that increases in extreme weather events will cause more harm to the poor. Something which is not supported by the data.]
The rising temperatures are especially detrimental in Europe because air conditioners are not as widely used as they are in the United States. As a result, many homes are not properly equipped to withstand such temperatures, posing risks to many populations.
“[This] really enhances the concern and risk to the most vulnerable segments of the population, such as the elderly or the homeless,” Bowen said.
(If you can't afford air conditioning, you have a much greater chance of getting ill or dying. It's very easy and clear to see.)
This is one of the key reasons the doubters have been a shrinking society over time. This 10 to 1 ration of warm to cold records includes Great Britain. This doesn't happen in a cooling. This happens in a world warming up.ReplyDelete
Global heat records are outpacing cold records by 10-1, data shows
Who are you going to believe? You have been a part of the campaign against climate action funded by guess who (fossil fuels). And they won. You care about whether or not climate science is true. They couldn't care less about the truth. Its about the vast wealth fossil fuels creates. And they aren't going to give it up.ReplyDelete
This is the very same story around big tobacco in the United States and cancer. FF is on the very same path.
The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change
Thirty years ago, a bold plan was cooked up to spread doubt and persuade the public that climate change was not a problem. The little-known meeting - between some of America's biggest industrial players and a PR genius - forged a devastatingly successful strategy that endured for years, and the consequences of which are all around us.
On an early autumn day in 1992, E Bruce Harrison, a man widely acknowledged as the father of environmental PR, stood up in a room full of business leaders and delivered a pitch like no other.
At stake was a contract worth half a million dollars a year - about £850,000 in today's money. The prospective client, the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) - which represented the oil, coal, auto, utilities, steel, and rail industries - was looking for a communications partner to change the narrative on climate change.
Don Rheem and Terry Yosie, two of Harrison's team present that day, are sharing their stories for the first time.
"Everybody wanted to get the Global Climate Coalition account," says Rheem, "and there I was, smack in the middle of it."