The end of the world as we know it (29 Nov, 2019)

[Perry]

Right. Remind me, what was it called before it's present title?

Oh, that's right - global warming. Or was it AGW?

Can't be sure, now.

Why was a subsequent name change needed, I wonder?

Was it that the initial label didn't work out as it should, by chance?

[Necrotic Kingdom]

Labels are usually meaningless. Take "the big bang" for example. It wasn't big, it wasn't a bang, and that label was coined by somebody completely opposed to the idea.
Humans brains are demonstrably bad at statistics, that's why lotto sells so well. So Global Warming is perfectly adequate if you understand it refers to a trend in global long term averages. But some people misinterpret it to mean that every day must be warmer than the last in every location, and then refute that, ie strawman fallacy.

[phill]

i have to wonder why you dont believe its happening

is it you just dont want to ?

[Necrotic Kingdom]

As I recall, it wasn't the graph line that was the problem, it was the way it was [pictorially] framed.

So you acknowledge that the data the graph represents is correct?

As for "the science," I do wonder - especially with certain interests involved the way they are.

I cannot deny that it might be possible 97% of scientists are in a conspiracy which has been exposed by a plucky group of oil companies. I just consider it as extremely implausible as all the other conspiracy theories. Consider:

• Fourier calculated that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere in 1824. Was he part of the conspiracy?
• Tyndall demonstrated that some gases block infrared radiation, and noted that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change in 1859. Was he part of the conspiracy?
• Arrhenius published the first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2 in 1896. Was he part of the conspiracy?
• Chamberlin produced a model for global carbon exchange including feedbacks in 1897. Was he part of the conspiracy?
• Revelle finds that CO2 produced by humans will not be readily absorbed by the oceans in 1957. Was he part of the conspiracy?
• Keeling accurately measured CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere and detected an annual rise in 1960. Was he part of the conspiracy?
• The first meeting of experts concerned with global warming warned that a rise in sea level is likely, with "immense flooding" of shorelines back in 1963. Were they part of the conspiracy?

As for your money cartoon, here is a real climate scientist giving an analysis of where her funding goes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq8Jo9QN0qA

[phill]

https://news.yahoo.com/since-1992-earth ... 01845.html

after reading some of the comments my ears were ringing from the deafening sound of empty drums

[aardvark_admin]

Why can't these magazines hunt down their own stories instead of stealing them from Aardvark!

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12 ... al-warming

[phill]

wow

that debunks almost all the historical "facts " about computer modelled climate change the greedies have ever used

[Necrotic Kingdom]

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

Thanks, very interesting article. I won't say "the science is settled" because science is by design never settled. But the science is very very clear. Those who oppose it are starting to sound more and more like flat-earthers, inventing tales of ridiculously implausible conspiracies with no obvious motive.

[Necrotic Kingdom]

You've probably already seen this, but I've only just seen it: Juice Media's Honest Government ad on the state of our environment, entitled "We're ****ed". The link is to the teacher's PG version, because, hey, I'm a teacher.
https://youtu.be/hbhwJZ8M9dg

[pctek]

Computers are not smart. Or dumb. They are machines that produce an output based 100% on the input given it.
They predict nothing,