Save the launch costs! I’ll summarize it as follows: the long cycles of climate changes; i.e. rises and drops in temperatures on Earth, are nearly exclusively due to cyclical patterns of Solar activity, with a minimal impact of others factors restricted to Earth.
Polarizing BARReportoday says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Says me, again, to defeat the BOT Censorship by Greenie Weenies!
Thumb up 5
Thumb down 18
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Save the launch costs! I’ll summarize it as follows: the long cycles of climate changes; i.e. rises and drops in temperatures on Earth, are nearly exclusively due to cyclical patterns of Solar activity, with a minimal impact of others factors restricted to Earth.
Reply
“climate changes…are nearly exclusively due to cyclical patterns of Solar activity.”
This statement is just flat-out false. Currently, we are experiencing a solar *minimum*, so we should expect cooling, not warming. In any case, solar cycles have a periodicity of about 11 years, so can’t account for long-term warming trends, and in any case they have minimal impact on the climate (some studies suggest they may impact rainfall in some regions of the earth). So…nope, it’s not solar cycles. You have apparently been misinformed.
Why does this website still have a comment section? It very obviously is no longer a forum for any sort of constructive or interesting dialogue. Other than the people (from both sides of the aisle) who enjoy commenting to one another in a manner that reminds me of extremely immature children, who else values this comment section?
Think about all of the discoveries and reaffirmations we never would have made with an attitude like this.
Roger Waters may have summed it up pretty well:
“And in the end you’ll pack up and fly down south
Hide your head in the sand,
Just another sad old man
All alone and dying of cancer
And when you lose control, you’ll reap the harvest you have sown
And as the fear grows, the bad blood slows and turns to stone
And it’s too late to lose the weight you used to need to throw around
So have a good drown, as you go down, all alone
Dragged down by the stone”
You know what would be great? It would be great if the IJ would do what it is supposed to do. Report on insurance issues. Climate change …. not happening. I remember the great drought of the 50’s here in Texas. 5 brutal years. The climate alarmists would have been going nuts. Polar and Craig are correct. Let CNN push the BS.
Only, climate change is THE premier subject at every insurance convention I have been to over the last 3-5 years and literally every emerging risk leader is talking about it at their companies. You know what would be great, let IJ decide what they are going to publish and you choose whether or not you are going to read it.
If you want stories that will spread misinformation or tell you what you want to hear regardless of the truth then go watch fox news or some other right wing propaganda outlet. You and the flat earthers, and the antivaxers can all line up.
What will be the impact of Climate Change on global cloud formation and size? Will there be more clouds, less clouds, or the same? And what will be the impact on global temperatures?
Why did NOAA’s recent projection of the cost of climate change 60 years from now indicate it would only be about 2-3% of current global GDP if we do nothing? And if that is true, why bother at all?
Why HAVE all the computer models failed to accurately predict the amount of warming of the planet while CO2 production has gone up over the past 20 years? Why has the warming been so much lower than the projections?
How does Sun spot activity impact global temperatures?
Has the Earth been warmer than today in the distant past? (I will help you here: yes, many times.) And what was the impact on the planet? (More help for you: life on Earth thrived.)
Can we stop global warming without the use of nuclear power, according to the consensus of Climate Scientists? (Answer: no.)
Why are liberals who “believe” in Global Warming refusing to solve the problem with nuclear power, if we only have 12 years remaining to address it?
April 19, 2019 at 10:10 am
Polarizing BARReport says:
Like or Dislike:
3
7
Your grouping of Conservatives with Flat-Earthers and Fox viewers is a Straw Man argument. Those groups are not perfectly coinciding. Casting ‘Flat-Earther’ on all of the other groups is flawed projection.
April 19, 2019 at 10:12 am
Polarizing BARReport says:
Like or Dislike:
5
7
Anti-vaxers is also a flawed projection. You aren’t good at debate.
I don’t spread mis-information. You did by your dual flawed projection, which I assume is an act of desperation because science doesn’t support the Global Man-Made Climate Change Hoax.
April 22, 2019 at 8:20 pm
Reality says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Craig wrote – “Why HAVE all the computer models failed to accurately predict the amount of warming of the planet while CO2 production has gone up over the past 20 years? Why has the warming been so much lower than the projections?”
Again, more misinformation. IN fact, the models have been remarkably accurate. Even James Hansen’s models from the 80s, which are primitive by today’s standards, were spot on. Please stop spreading misinformation:
Did you read the article from the Guardian with your thinking cap on?
Seriously?
Hansen proposed 3 scenarios. Three different predictions. And two were wrong (and left out of the article) and one was right, Scenario B.
Hilarious. Want me to predict the future? How many guesses do I get?
April 25, 2019 at 5:33 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
P.S. Even the article admits his Scenario B prediction was wrong. But they have an after-the-fact excuse: unexpected change in CHC in the atmosphere (read not predicted by Hansen).
And did that make the actual temperature increase higher or lower than Hansen’s Scenario B prediction. Sadly, lower by almost 30%. Oh, how sad.
April 18, 2019 at 2:59 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
5
13
How many people at these insurance conventions relayed to you the legitimate scientific basis for skepticism about what we know today (and what it is possible to know) and what we don’t yet understand at all about Climate Change?
Care to list the legitimate reasons Climate Scientists have doubts about what we actually know?
I’ll answer for you: “Captain Kangaroo not know about science. Captain Kangaroo just believe what Nancy Pelosi tell me to believe.”
APRIL 10, 2019 AT 7:12 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
1
Data cannot be ignorant. Data does not have a brain and cannot think. Only a person can be ignorant. And dishonest. (See mirror.)
Reply
“Captain Kangaroo’s comments are thought-free. Easier that way.”
April 19, 2019 at 1:00 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
7
3
What would your son say about you belittling other people all the time? All I am doing is pointing out your hypocrisy. Making other people look bad doesn’t make you look good, Craig. Good luck with life, dude. I hope all that contempt you have for anyone but yourself treats you well. I’ll keep praying for you. Don’t worry, I don’t expect reciprocity.
April 20, 2019 at 2:04 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
3
4
Just answer the legitimate question I raised: what legitimate skeptical science is cited at your insurance conventions when the topic of Climate Change comes up?
Prediction: insult to follow.
April 22, 2019 at 9:00 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
At NAMIC, there was a meteorologist who showed data related to extreme weather patterns in the past, citing the fact extreme weather isn’t some new phenomenon as some in the media have made it out to be (thanks Weather Channel). I don’t have his presentation, but that is what he spoke about. So, you can say he is a skeptic at least on that correlation.
April 22, 2019 at 12:49 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
Our air is 24% cleaner than it was 10 years ago.
April 22, 2019 at 3:20 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
That was not one of the questions I posed. Fail. (As usual, zzzz.)
April 18, 2019 at 2:35 pm
Puzzled in PA says:
Like or Dislike:
9
0
When the satellite launches in 2021, I just want to make sure that my home address is not one of the methane plumes. LOL!!!
Great. The satellites will confirm that the greatest source of methane is now natural – melting permafrost and clathrates – which means there’ s nothing to be done…..humanity is toast. Soon insurance companies will realize their business model is unsustainable.
I’m hoping that this initiative will put pressure on corporations to be responsible for their actions. Imagine if someone could dump their trash over your backyard fence without consequence. If these companies are allowed to pollute unabated then we are validating their actions by doing nothing.
While devil’s advocate is a wonderful position to take in fleshing out issues with rhetorical and opinionated discussions, it simply doesn’t hold water in this scenario. Opposing statistically significant and data-driven scientific truths in favor of unsubstantiated conjecture is your right (See 1st Amendment). However, the science is very much irrefutable. Keep in mind that ‘global warming’ isn’t the issue at large, but rather the compounding effect of multitudes of climate, habitation, migration, contamination, disease, extinction, dietary, and oceanic (and
so on and so forth) variables.
Now, I must say I agree with you (somewhat) on your first comment, as earlier solar-climate research indicated weak correlation between mean global surface temperature and solar activity. Unfortunately, however, that model has been outdated with rejuvenated anemology, aerostatics, aerology, heliology and climatology (and so on and so forth) research that mitigate for confounding variables like never before.
I’ll try my best to dumb it down for you.
Heliologists themselves don’t believe your aforementioned thesis, why should anyone else?
I suggest going to school (or take online classes) and pursuing ANY scientific degree. Perhaps this will enlighten you to the painstakingly collected, synthesized, and analyzed pertinent data points from which you can then form a relevant position.
Have a good one, Polarizing.
You certainly “dumbed it down”. Many variables exist to contribute to Climate Change, and MAN is a ‘low significance variable’ because NO CREDIBLE MODEL, with uncensored data inputs, shows it to be highly significant in regression analyses, or GLM/ AI modeling. If you disagree, SHOW US THE SPECIFIC MODELS AND PROVIDE LINKS THERETO.
Now, answer Craig’s questions instead of bloviating.
I think climate scientists have provided enough information to prove you wrong, yet you constantly troll the message boards of IJ with no information to prove yourself right.
How about you provide some peer reviewed articles that don’t come from websites like the drudge report?
Ready, set, go…
April 22, 2019 at 8:26 pm
Reality says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
” Many variables exist to contribute to Climate Change, and MAN is a ‘low significance variable’ because NO CREDIBLE MODEL, with uncensored data inputs, shows it to be highly significant ”
Again, this is flat out false, and is exactly the opposite. The models incorporate all known “forcings” or determinants of climate, including all known natural forcings. This includes solar irradiance, volcanism, natural sources of CO2 etc etc. Natural forcings do not account for a warming climate. In fact, natural forcings would have led to a slight cooling trend absent human activity – i.e. human activity accounts for *all* of the warming. There are literally thousands of studies. Please do a little research before spreading misinformation.
April 22, 2019 at 8:37 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
How about this from the U.S. Government. That good enough for you?
The National Science Foundation cites the unbelievably complex nature of cloud formation. Which is called by the IPCC, “the largest source of uncertainty” surrounding Climate Change.
Yep. Settled Science, right JayZee? (I can give you plenty more if you have a bone of integrity and a curious mind. But trust me, when I get done, you won’t “believe” much about Global Warming anymore.)
Craig wrote – “the National Science Foundation cites the unbelievably complex nature of cloud formation. Which is called by the IPCC, “the largest source of uncertainty” surrounding Climate Change.”
Craig, did you even read your own citation? It points to a possible amplifying impact of human caused climate change due to the effects on cloud formation. How does this in any way militate against the science?
April 22, 2019 at 8:22 pm
Reality says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
“Pollute unabated” = Straw Man argument.”
Ok, this is annoying. You keep using the term “straw man argument.” I do not think it means what you think it means. Please look it up.
I get it. You aren’t honest, the affliction of most of the True Believers in Climate Scary Monsters.
As the article stated, there is great uncertainty surrounding the impact on cloud formation due to Climate Change. Including the possibility, as stated in the article, that more cloud cover could reduce global temperatures.
Bottom Line: It ain’t anything like “settled science” no matter how many times the High Priests of your Religion says so.
Hi everyone! My students read this article and had some thoughts they’d like to share. Here are some of the things that some students (who will remain anonymous) would like to say:
—————————–
“Using these satellites would really help discover what’s really going on and might help find solutions for carbon dioxide emissions. We think that it is important to know what is causing these harmful emissions. These satellites would help our planet control climate change and emissions and better our world. ”
“Getting these satellites in the atmosphere is great! It’s nice to know that there are other individuals that care about the greenhouse emissions and the health of other organisms in the environment. This could be one great step for the Earth’s life-span, but one giant leap for human survival.”
“it’s good that scientists are trying to stop global warming because too much greenhouse gas can hurt the environment. Space-based technologies are allowing us for the first time to quickly and cheaply measure greenhouse gases.”
“I really feel like the MethaneSAT plan is really good idea. We should definitely be forcing companies to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they are releasing. Hundreds and thousands of creatures are dying and their habitats are getting destroyed because of air pollution and this is just the start. It will only get worse if we don’t stop or at least reduce air pollution. Even humans are being affected by it. In fact, we might even get wiped out if there is to much greenhouse gases in the air. That is why I feel like ideas like the MethaneSAT that invest money to help the nature and everyone survive are really beneficial and necessary for everyone.”
“I think that it is a good start setting a plan to stop the amount of greenhouse gasses in the air, but I feel like we need to have people investing more time and money to help this cause. The effects of this could be catastrophic if we don’t stop it, leaving our descendants to deal with it.”
“I believe that the MethaneSAT plan is a great idea. We should reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses that we are emitting into the environment. Hundreds of animals could die if we don’t come up with a solution soon. I also feel that we all need to put more effort and money into stopping this cause. ”
” Although your plans for tracking and reducing carbon and methane emissions are ingenious, I have some questions that I want to raise in case you haven’t thought of them, or, by what I’m sure is some perfectly understandable reason, ignored.
I’ll start small and question your plan on diets for livestock including a special type of seaweed. How do you plan to obtain this seaweed? Will it require methods that involve creating carbon emissions in one form or another? Will your methods of harvesting said seaweed, in how much of a quantity you need, disrupt the ecosystem that it’s involved in? If so, then how much? If you’re planning on somehow farming this seaweed, how are you going to do so, and will it harm the areas around it?
Now, moving onto more business-like matters, what will you do if you come across a company/corporation/etc., as I’m sure this will happen at least once, that refuses to be monitored? Are you going to bribe them if you have the money/resources available or leave then unmonitored? Would you bring in higher powers(?) that agree with your cause? Are you planning on making it legally required for any form of business that may produce carbon emissions to let you monitor them?
My final barrage of questions concern your satellites. First of all, I want to bring up the increasing amount of space debris that can pose a threat to these satellites of yours. Even though I’m only a Middle school student, I am aware of how present space debris is near our planet, and I am also aware that it can orbit the Earth at alarming speeds, posing a threat to your satellites. How do you intend to maintain your satellites with this increasing number of space debris and not contribute to the space debris problem? Aside from the safety and maintenance of the satellites, is there a chance that they can make a mistake and confuse atmospherically harmless chemicals for carbon emissions and methane? These are all of my questions that is have thought of, and thank you for taking the time to read my comment, if you have.”
“I think it’s important that we are trying to monitor our greenhouse gas emissions because if we don’t, the temperature will be on the rise. If the temperature rises, the ocean level rises, droughts will be more frequent, severe weather will be common, and entire environments will change, killing many species and pushing most animals to extinction. If we utilize this soon and cut down our emissions produced by factories, companies, and mines, we could possibly delay our self destruction for a couple more centuries.”
“I think that finding the source of the most greenhouse gas emissions is going to be very helpful for our environment. On https://www.oneworldeducation.org/carbon-emissions-world-danger.com it says, “People all around the world need to change their habits in order to prevent the dangerous effects of global warming from destroying the environment.” This starts with determining where the gas is coming from. We have to start somewhere, and this is the perfect place to start. We need to change this and quick before it is too late.”
“This is a project in need of using. So many people wait for other generations to fix the problem. With this project, you can see how truly damaging some of these companies are. By seeing the results, we can try and force them to take action or else we might not have a future. ”
”
This article goes to show how much we need to change our habits . In the article it says “California was the site of the largest natural gas leak in U.S. history in 2015 when a broken well outside Los Angeles owned by Sempra Energy released more than 100,000 tons of methane before being plugged” . This passage is is eye opening because this event that changed the world could have possibly been prevented . Now that we have the satellites we could see the leeks and try to stop them from getting worse .
The satellite that detects methane seems like a good idea because we can find who uses the most greenhouse gasses and slow then down so we can reduce climate change.”
“Obviously the greenhouse gas problem is getting so out of hand to where they have to put satellites in space to
see where it’s coming from. According to Yotam Ariel, the the founder of Bluefield Technology Inc he says, “Seeing exactly who is emitting what, where, how much and when is a must in order to reduce emissions and stop climate change.” We need to make an effort to stop this spread before it gets way too out of hands to where we can’t fix it.”
“The article only really informed us about the gasses, such as Carbon Dioxide and Methane. The whole article is based on the satellites and “how they can’t really reach what is needed”. They also bring up a point about not being able to track other emission sources.”
“This article shows the importance of trying to stop greenhouse gasses from being released into the air. This is a very important topic and should be shared with everyone. Even though there are different opinions on this topic (global warming) people should have some understanding of how this can affect the word in a horrible way, So the word could be a better place for your children and your children’s children.”
“To send a satellite to monitor the greenhouse gas emissions is a great idea. Protecting the earth and all the living organisms on it is necessary. This satellite will protect the earth by informing us about the gas emissions and when to take action. Climate change is a very difficult topic, especially since it is currently in strong effect. If we want futures we need to do something now.”
“In the article it states that the satellites are not yet advanced enough to account for natural methane emissions. If the new technology is to be useful it must be able to account for natural emissions of gas. While I believe certain companies should be held accountable for their emissions, how can we assure that we don’t let some companies may be held accountable for something that they didn’t partake in.”
“California is the largest natural gas leak. How did it happen. When did it happen. How much does gas cost. How many gallons of gas do we have left in the world of gas.”
—————————–
If you read each of these comments, THANK YOU! Our classroom appreciates it. We look forward to hearing any replies you folks might have, and have a wonderful weekend!
Not a single skeptic in the bunch. I believe the correct word is “cult”, not school.
It is a universal call for spending more and more, without any apparent limits based on the nature of the problem. (obviously, it’s not the kids money, so it is easy for the kids to advocate unlimited spending).
Every comment: “do more, spend more, sacrifice more”. That’s not thinking, that’s parroting PC nonsense. As a teacher, you should be embarrassed.
Dear Craig, the information given by Mr. Struss and his science class is incredible for high schoolers. Your rude comments on calling them a “cult” makes me laugh. Talk about internet drama. You have your opinions, and saying that there is “not a skeptic in the bunch” makes them seem uneducated, the comments they provided on the topic in hand where very well thought out and I applaud that. You need to think before you type sir.
Not a single student posed any questions about the seriousness of Climate Change or what we should actually do about it. Not one.
It was all: “I BELIEVE! Hallelujah! Spend more!”
That’s not thinking. Climate Change is not as serious as these kids have been taught. Look at their comments. Not one comment about nuclear energy. Not one comment about the limits of wind and solar. In other words, not one comment that is in line with the scientific truth about climate change. It is serious but manageable and the projections of doom are a sad, dishonest joke.
But that’s what the kids believe: existential threat.
MAY 23, 2018 AT 11:41 AM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Boring. Nothing but Insults. No insights whatsoever. Just Boring.
You must not be very smart. Sorry. (Have you heard of MIT?)
You sound like the type of person that believes vaccines cause autism. We have actual facts proving that the climate is changing, and people like you are the reason that we haven’t fixed it yet.
Actually, liars like you are the problem. Go back and read “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”. Al Gore said we only had 10 years to address Global Warming/Climate Change back in 2009.
AOC said we only have 12 years left today. People who actually read about Climate Change were appalled. And liberals like you said nothing to shut her up or dispute her. The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Who believes you clowns? Nobody. And it is your fault for not telling the truth about the science.
April 22, 2019 at 8:29 pm
Reality says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
“AOC said we only have 12 years left today. People who actually read about Climate Change were appalled.”
Ummm….no. AOC is just repeating the conclusions of the last report of the IPCC, which did indeed say we have about a decade left to reduce the worst effects of climate change (though the effects will still be bad).
April 23, 2019 at 8:20 am
Reality says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
“Who believes you clowns? Nobody. And it is your fault for not telling the truth about the science.”
Really? So the 75% of Americans who “believe you clowns” are nobody? How long have you inhabited an alternate universe?
Let me correct myself: “What thinking, rational people free of the influence of the Cult of Doom actually believes you people. None”
There. Fixed it.
April 23, 2019 at 11:48 am
Reality says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
oh, you mean you, as opposed to the reality based community that makes decisions and informs beliefs based on the actual science. It’s truly odd that someone who simply parrots Koch funded propaganda, completely unencumbered by the thought process, considers themselves a “free thinker.”
April 23, 2019 at 11:51 am
Bill Washington The Second says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Craig you are an uneducated nerd neck. Get your facts straight. The fact that you can reply and be so empty-minded is pretty hilarious. If you want to see who is smarter 1v1 me on fortnite
FUNNIEST Clown Quote ever on Insurance Journal! Awesome. (“You dumb. Me smart.”) Terrific. Still laughing.
April 23, 2019 at 3:01 pm
Craig Smells says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
I agree Bill, if you are anymore uneducated you could take us both in becuase we all know you are a default and no matter what you couldn’t take any of us on you uncultured swine of a person. HOW COULD YOU!!!
Every one of these climate change articles bring out the deniers in force, along with their flat-out false assertions based on nothing. The evidence for climate change is overwhelming. The evidence that current warming is entirely caused by human activity is overwhelming. You folks are beginning to resemble flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers and moon-landing deniers, and are equally immune to evidence.
It is simply amazing to me that people can deny the obvious evidence right in front of their face. Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt.
Five hottest years on record were the last five years. Nine of the last ten years were also the hottest years on record. Somehow, those “hoaxers” have managed to warm an entire planet. Pretty clever…
Such an easy and fun game, refuting the Religious Cult:
“Nine of the past 10 years . . . blah, blah, blah.”
1. Weather records are only about 140 years old. The Earth is billions of years old, and it has been hotter than this many times in the distant past. And did life shrivel and die then? Nope. Life thrived when it was warmer. In fact, honest climate scientists agree that if the present warming only increases by another 1 centigrade or so, it will be very good for life on Earth. More plants, food, less cold. All good.
2. When the zombies in the news media (redundant, I know) repeat “another warmest years on record” they ignore the fact that usually, the increase is actually very minor, within the margin of error. It could be stated just as accurately that each year is “about the same as the year before”. But that wouldn’t juice up the Climate Cult.
3. The predictions of warming over the past 30 years have been wildly overstated by the computer models. Despite the screaming “warmest on record” nonsense, the actual warming over the past 30 years has been far less than the models predicted, based on the amount of added CO2 to the atmosphere.
Bottom line on the “10 hottest years” terror: yawn. (I mean for thinking people.)
Wow, everything you just stated is entirely false or, at a minimum, either irrelevant and/or misleading. Let me take it one uninformed assertion at a time:
“Weather records are only about 140 years old. The Earth is billions of years old, and it has been hotter than this many times in the distant past. And did life shrivel and die then? Nope. Life thrived when it was warmer. In fact, honest climate scientists agree that if the present warming only increases by another 1 centigrade or so, it will be very good for life on Earth. More plants, food, less cold. All good.”
Actually, the earth has experienced six mass extinctions. The largest of these, the Permian mass extinction, was caused by global warming which massively acidified the oceans. 97% of all species on the planet went extinct. So yes, life did “shrivel and die,” on a massive scale. There is strong evidence that we are currently in the midst of a seventh mass extinction. See https://phys.org/news/2018-12-biggest-mass-extinction-global-ocean.html
“When the zombies in the news media (redundant, I know) repeat “another warmest years on record” they ignore the fact that usually, the increase is actually very minor, within the margin of error. It could be stated just as accurately that each year is “about the same as the year before”. But that wouldn’t juice up the Climate Cult.”
Another extremely vacuous and uninformed comment. Increases are within the margin of error (error bars are always published with the data in reputable scientific journals). They are far outside of the margin of error. What does just a 2C increase mean? Try reading actual science at the following link. And some projections place increases significantly above that. The end of the last ice age was caused by only a 7C increase. https://www.popsci.com/what-happens-if-earth-gets-2-degrees-warmer#page-2
“The predictions of warming over the past 30 years have been wildly overstated by the computer models. Despite the screaming “warmest on record” nonsense, the actual warming over the past 30 years has been far less than the models predicted, based on the amount of added CO2 to the atmosphere.”
This is just flat-out false. I already posted above links the clearly show the models have been remarkably accurate. I honestly don’t understand how someone could possibly so misinformed. I mean, it must take a lot of work to be that willfully ignorant.
Do you have proof of this, if so can you please show us the link?
If you don’t, stop spouting these unsubstantiated that you are trying to push just your narrative.
You are embarrassing yourself and showing a lack of knowledge that transfers to other topics you attempt to debate with studies.
April 24, 2019 at 4:04 pm
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I just want to apologize for leaving this out of my original response, but I meant *unsubstantiated claims*.
April 25, 2019 at 12:51 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
PS Look at the last link I post, the one defending the IPCC’s inaccurate predictions. It is unintentionally hilarious:
“We are really good at long term forecasts, not short term, even though we made short term forecasts before for some reason.”
“Oh yeah! Well our crappy forecasts were more accurate than the skeptics crappy forecasts! So there!” (Right. Tied for last place. You should be proud. While you admit no one can predict this nonsense.)
April 25, 2019 at 12:41 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Let me ask you:
Since “Reality” (HA) made the claim that predictions were accurate, shouldn’t HE be the one to link those predictions?
Answer: Yes. He made the claim first. And guess what? When he does (as if), you will see the projections were revised after the original projections proved faulty. (More accurate computers now, don’t you know.)
I will request it from you since you were the one who said that the studies were falsified after.
The first one does point to how studies are falsified, but it is an organization that is funded by the Koch brothers (he helped start the company, and they still gave a donation to IER in 2015 and 2016). There does not discuss studies that highlight the revised after the original conclusion that you are referring to.
The second piece I am going to disregard because it was in the opinion section.
The 3rd one does have a little bit more merits, because it does discuss cherry picking data, and I always enjoy reading that. Most studies you refer here have cherry picked data so it is interesting you do know what it is. My biggest issue discussing the cherry picking is that both models that they presented between the difference are cherry picking points, it is just the converse points. the IPPC picked a year where it was below the model average by a good portion, the model Tamino chose was also cherry picked by choosing a higher year. Overall the best one you posted, but still slightly skewed with bias! My other issue is that it only talks about one model and how there are infinite possibilities, studies are trying to fit a best model, of course there are anomalies, but that is a normal thing in most complex statistics.
I am still not certain that what you said is factual though Craig. You asserted they revised the model, and I really do not see that examined with your credible posts. Where did you get the information that the models were revised to prove for the appearance of more accuracy? I ask you, due to the fact you were the one who made that statement.
April 25, 2019 at 8:47 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
You live in Bizarro World, where anything true can be discarded if only you can claim it is from a right-of-center source.
Do your own work. There are tons of reputable sources that admit the predictions of warming haven’t panned out, and ALWAYS the predictions were too high.
Here is the reality: the lying is on the Left. Conservatives like me who read alot about Climate Change admit it is a problem, but also admit it is not the end of the world. Even NOAA predicted that if we do nothing between now and the end of the century, the cost would be – worst case – only 10% of the economy.
And the reality is that between now and then, science will find lots of solutions that don’t require us to all live in a cave and walk to work.
April 26, 2019 at 9:28 am
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I claim it does not matter because that institute was funded by the oil industry. The political sides do not really matter, but the Koch brother was only one source, another was Exon in 2016,
You keep playing on the political stances Craig. That should not matter. Anyone who disagrees with you must be a liberal. It is not true and you need to wake up to that fact.
You made an assertion, you should be able to back it up. You have failed to do so, and you have either lied or misrepresented facts on this thread multiple times. Unless you provide a real source I will continue with the current logic that you are not reading real credible sources.
April 26, 2019 at 1:34 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
I can’t tell if you are dishonest or just not very smart.
The article I posted from the Institute of Energy Research had over 20 links to the actual predictions made by many, many people about the doom to come that never actually arrived.
Click the links and learn something new. It is actually quite a funny article, especially the end when all the Climate Change believers bemoaned the predictions of doom that caused so many rational people (no, not you) to become skeptics.
April 23, 2019 at 12:13 pm
Reality says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
My god your level of ignorance is actually stunning. Pretty much everything you just said is wrong. Let me take it one at a time.
“The Earth is billions of years old, and it has been hotter than this many times in the distant past. And did life shrivel and die then? Nope. Life thrived when it was warmer. ”
There have been six mass extinctions in earth’s history. The largest of these, the Permian extinction, was cause by rapid planetary warming. Nearly 97% of all species on earth went extinct. There is strong evidence that we are in the midst of a 7th mass extinction, much of it caused by warming. So yes, life did “shrivel and die.”
[[[” When the zombies in the news media (redundant, I know) repeat “another warmest years on record” they ignore the fact that usually, the increase is actually very minor, within the margin of error. It could be stated just as accurately that each year is “about the same as the year before”. But that wouldn’t juice up the Climate Cult.”]]]
The level of ignorance in this statement is pretty astounding. Just a 2C warming will have huge impacts on life on the planet. 3C will be devastating, according to all of the science. These increases aren’t “within the margin of error (assuming you even know what the term means). They are well outside of it, by huge amounts. A tip of just 6C-7C represented the end of the last ice age. I’ll post links below.
{{{The predictions of warming over the past 30 years have been wildly overstated by the computer models. Despite the screaming “warmest on record” nonsense, the actual warming over the past 30 years has been far less than the models predicted, based on the amount of added CO2 to the atmosphere.}}}}
And again, more disinformation. As I already posted, the models have proven remarkably accurate. Even Jame Hansen’s models from the 80s, which are primitive by today’s standards, were spot on and got it exactly right. So you just don’t know what you’re talking about. Perhaps stop simply parroting climate denial talking points and do some actual research into the actual science?
Name calling and conflating one issue (current temperature increases) with another (future temperature increases). Stop now. You are embarrassing yourself and you can’t keep up and you know it. I know more about the Scary Monster than you do.
Craig, you are way way way out of your depth. I just fully rebutted every single false assertion you made. You’re wrong. You don’t have a clue as to what you’re on about.
A classic example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
April 23, 2019 at 12:13 pm
Your boy says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
What you’re forgetting to say is that while there have been hotter years, there haven’t been any sudden changes of this magnitude outside of major events such as volcanic eruptions or other such disasters. You want to be special and unique, living in a delusion of exceptionalism, while you sit in a corner with everyone laughing at you. You are the type of person who is easily manipulated if they can fulfill the childish delusion of being different or the one person who thinks differently. You desperately want to believe you’re living among idiots who can’t understand you.
However, you end up as a laughing stock to everyone else who didn’t peak in middle school. You believe you aren’t controlled by corporate or big pharma or whatever common charicture of a generic conspiracy enemy that comes next, but you only become an easily manipulated plague infecting those without the capacity for critical thought and evidence.
If you want evidence for my first claim before I started insulting you, I am happy to provide many sources. Or you could just look it up, after all, humans pay a lot of attention to extremes by nature, so massive, rare changes documented for concrete reasons are common through earths vast history.
The Permian mass extinction resulted from an 18 degree warming of the oceans. No Climate Scientist alive today is predicting anywhere near an 18 degree warming; in fact, the worst predictions are a small fraction of that amount.
How do you sleep at night, after convincing yourself we are all going to die? I hope you keep your Scary Monster fear mongering to yourself and allow you friends and family to live happy lives in the Land of Truth.
“”Under a business-as-usual emissions scenarios, by 2100 warming in the upper ocean will have approached 20 percent of warming in the late Permian, and by the year 2300 it will reach between 35 and 50 percent,” Penn said. “This study highlights the potential for a mass extinction arising from a similar mechanism under anthropogenic climate change.””
I sleep at night just fine, and thanks for asking. How do you sleep at night spreading lies and disinformation?
The Permian extinction resulted from an 18 degree warming of the oceans, as stated in your own NY Times article. And 20% is not 100%, is it? Now who is the liar? You.
I thought it was all “settled science”, according to you and Obama and Al Gore and AOC.
You ask me “what IF the earth warms by just 2 degrees”?!?
You mean you aren’t certain what is going to happen!
Now you sound like me. Pray tell, what will be the global cost to address climate change in 60 years if we do nothing to address it now? (Warning: trick question that has been answered by climate scientists already. And you won’t like the answer: 2-3% of GDP. In other words, yawn.)
Obviously nobody is certain what will happen. the peoples of the earth could regain their senses and decide to drastically reduce carbon emissions thereby avoiding the worst case scenario. I don’t think that’s very likely though.
Also, do you have a cite for the 2-3% of GDP figure? Or did you just make that up. If civilization collapses, which is well within the realm of possibility, the impact will be rather larger than 2-3% of GDP.
Craig you are a poopy head if you think your so smart try making a red stone trap in Minecraft that can actually kill me you are a nerd I will steal your diamonds
You can look it up. NOAA predicted the worst case scenario of a 10% GDP cost at the end of this century if we do nothing.
Consider that most economists predict the global economy will grow by 2 to 3 times in conservative estimates. So 10% then equates to about 3% now. Yawn.
“You can look it up. NOAA predicted the worst case scenario of a 10% GDP cost at the end of this century if we do nothing.”
I attempted to look it up, and found nada. Given your record in just this conversation of massive disinformation, I’m not inclined to just take your word for it. So you don’t have a cite?
And all this while you were pretending to have insight into Climate Change that I don’t have!
And you can’t find NOAA on the internet?!?!!? Try Google: “NOAA predicts 10% GDP cost at end of century.” I did and guess what! It came right up. (Run. Hide. Truth stalking you.)
Craig, I just clearly demonstrated that everything you previously said is dead wrong. Somehow, you are unphased, and have the nerve to call others liars even as you spread the most absurd misinformation. Give it up. Go join the flat-earthers. They have a little more credibility than you climate change deniers.
Name calling with zero factual information. You must be proud of yourself. (And no, you clearly did NOT demonstrate that “everything you previously said is dead wrong”. Hence: you are a liar.
April 23, 2019 at 1:21 pm
Reality says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
The deniers on here are clearly not conversant with the science. they are just repeating and parroting right-wing talking points that just are not grounded in the science. In fact, the entire GOP is largely become the anti-science party, given their denial of fundamental science such as climate change, evolution, cosmology, geology, etc etc. It’s really rather said and kind of pathetic. And they spew all of this with the false confidence that arises from living in the right-wing bubble. But none of their nonsense can be found in the actual annals of science.
Andrew: what is your policy towards someone using someone else’s on-line name and posting comments falsely. Someone is doing that on this thread with my name.
Sorry to hear that, Craig. It is a violation of this comment section policy to use someone else’s user name or otherwise pretend to be them. Comments will be removed. Second time violators will be banned.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Says you and NO climate scientist.
“Climate Scientists” are not the ultimate authority.
I am not the only person to refute MAN-MADE Global Climate change.
You’re not good at debate.
Polarizing BARReportoday says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Says me, again, to defeat the BOT Censorship by Greenie Weenies!
Thumb up 5
Thumb down 18
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Save the launch costs! I’ll summarize it as follows: the long cycles of climate changes; i.e. rises and drops in temperatures on Earth, are nearly exclusively due to cyclical patterns of Solar activity, with a minimal impact of others factors restricted to Earth.
Reply
Polar, the biggest amount of CO2 emanating will be over Washington DC.
“climate changes…are nearly exclusively due to cyclical patterns of Solar activity.”
This statement is just flat-out false. Currently, we are experiencing a solar *minimum*, so we should expect cooling, not warming. In any case, solar cycles have a periodicity of about 11 years, so can’t account for long-term warming trends, and in any case they have minimal impact on the climate (some studies suggest they may impact rainfall in some regions of the earth). So…nope, it’s not solar cycles. You have apparently been misinformed.
Why does this website still have a comment section? It very obviously is no longer a forum for any sort of constructive or interesting dialogue. Other than the people (from both sides of the aisle) who enjoy commenting to one another in a manner that reminds me of extremely immature children, who else values this comment section?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
There is going to be a lot of great info coming out of this. Even if it starts with cow farts.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Yogi wrote, “Save the launch costs!”
Think about all of the discoveries and reaffirmations we never would have made with an attitude like this.
Roger Waters may have summed it up pretty well:
“And in the end you’ll pack up and fly down south
Hide your head in the sand,
Just another sad old man
All alone and dying of cancer
And when you lose control, you’ll reap the harvest you have sown
And as the fear grows, the bad blood slows and turns to stone
And it’s too late to lose the weight you used to need to throw around
So have a good drown, as you go down, all alone
Dragged down by the stone”
We don’t need to discover something that is ‘settled science’, right?
Global Climate Change is man-made, right?
So, why are satellites needed?
Grammar matters…reaffirmation. Especially for those in denial. Thanks for trying out, Yogi!
Oh, how sad. Guess how many people you have convinced to change their minds with your sad story? It rhymes with “hero”.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Only, climate change is THE premier subject at every insurance convention I have been to over the last 3-5 years and literally every emerging risk leader is talking about it at their companies. You know what would be great, let IJ decide what they are going to publish and you choose whether or not you are going to read it.
IJ doesn’t publish articles that deny Climate Change… so we are going to react to their GCCH stories. We have so chosen.
If you want stories that will spread misinformation or tell you what you want to hear regardless of the truth then go watch fox news or some other right wing propaganda outlet. You and the flat earthers, and the antivaxers can all line up.
Please explain to me:
What will be the impact of Climate Change on global cloud formation and size? Will there be more clouds, less clouds, or the same? And what will be the impact on global temperatures?
Why did NOAA’s recent projection of the cost of climate change 60 years from now indicate it would only be about 2-3% of current global GDP if we do nothing? And if that is true, why bother at all?
Why HAVE all the computer models failed to accurately predict the amount of warming of the planet while CO2 production has gone up over the past 20 years? Why has the warming been so much lower than the projections?
How does Sun spot activity impact global temperatures?
Has the Earth been warmer than today in the distant past? (I will help you here: yes, many times.) And what was the impact on the planet? (More help for you: life on Earth thrived.)
Can we stop global warming without the use of nuclear power, according to the consensus of Climate Scientists? (Answer: no.)
Why are liberals who “believe” in Global Warming refusing to solve the problem with nuclear power, if we only have 12 years remaining to address it?
Your grouping of Conservatives with Flat-Earthers and Fox viewers is a Straw Man argument. Those groups are not perfectly coinciding. Casting ‘Flat-Earther’ on all of the other groups is flawed projection.
Anti-vaxers is also a flawed projection. You aren’t good at debate.
I don’t spread mis-information. You did by your dual flawed projection, which I assume is an act of desperation because science doesn’t support the Global Man-Made Climate Change Hoax.
Craig wrote – “Why HAVE all the computer models failed to accurately predict the amount of warming of the planet while CO2 production has gone up over the past 20 years? Why has the warming been so much lower than the projections?”
Again, more misinformation. IN fact, the models have been remarkably accurate. Even James Hansen’s models from the 80s, which are primitive by today’s standards, were spot on. Please stop spreading misinformation:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/25/30-years-later-deniers-are-still-lying-about-hansens-amazing-global-warming-prediction
Did you read the article from the Guardian with your thinking cap on?
Seriously?
Hansen proposed 3 scenarios. Three different predictions. And two were wrong (and left out of the article) and one was right, Scenario B.
Hilarious. Want me to predict the future? How many guesses do I get?
P.S. Even the article admits his Scenario B prediction was wrong. But they have an after-the-fact excuse: unexpected change in CHC in the atmosphere (read not predicted by Hansen).
And did that make the actual temperature increase higher or lower than Hansen’s Scenario B prediction. Sadly, lower by almost 30%. Oh, how sad.
How many people at these insurance conventions relayed to you the legitimate scientific basis for skepticism about what we know today (and what it is possible to know) and what we don’t yet understand at all about Climate Change?
Care to list the legitimate reasons Climate Scientists have doubts about what we actually know?
I’ll answer for you: “Captain Kangaroo not know about science. Captain Kangaroo just believe what Nancy Pelosi tell me to believe.”
APRIL 10, 2019 AT 7:12 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
1
Data cannot be ignorant. Data does not have a brain and cannot think. Only a person can be ignorant. And dishonest. (See mirror.)
Reply
“Captain Kangaroo not think much. Me just make insults. Me boring, I know.”
Oh, and I’m not a fan of Botoxisorus. But, hey, thanks again for trying out. We’ll see you again next year, Happy!
“Captain Kangaroo’s comments are thought-free. Easier that way.”
What would your son say about you belittling other people all the time? All I am doing is pointing out your hypocrisy. Making other people look bad doesn’t make you look good, Craig. Good luck with life, dude. I hope all that contempt you have for anyone but yourself treats you well. I’ll keep praying for you. Don’t worry, I don’t expect reciprocity.
Just answer the legitimate question I raised: what legitimate skeptical science is cited at your insurance conventions when the topic of Climate Change comes up?
Prediction: insult to follow.
At NAMIC, there was a meteorologist who showed data related to extreme weather patterns in the past, citing the fact extreme weather isn’t some new phenomenon as some in the media have made it out to be (thanks Weather Channel). I don’t have his presentation, but that is what he spoke about. So, you can say he is a skeptic at least on that correlation.
Our air is 24% cleaner than it was 10 years ago.
That was not one of the questions I posed. Fail. (As usual, zzzz.)
When the satellite launches in 2021, I just want to make sure that my home address is not one of the methane plumes. LOL!!!
Great. The satellites will confirm that the greatest source of methane is now natural – melting permafrost and clathrates – which means there’ s nothing to be done…..humanity is toast. Soon insurance companies will realize their business model is unsustainable.
I’m hoping that this initiative will put pressure on corporations to be responsible for their actions. Imagine if someone could dump their trash over your backyard fence without consequence. If these companies are allowed to pollute unabated then we are validating their actions by doing nothing.
“Pollute unabated” = Straw Man argument.
IF YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST, PLEASE READ
While devil’s advocate is a wonderful position to take in fleshing out issues with rhetorical and opinionated discussions, it simply doesn’t hold water in this scenario. Opposing statistically significant and data-driven scientific truths in favor of unsubstantiated conjecture is your right (See 1st Amendment). However, the science is very much irrefutable. Keep in mind that ‘global warming’ isn’t the issue at large, but rather the compounding effect of multitudes of climate, habitation, migration, contamination, disease, extinction, dietary, and oceanic (and
so on and so forth) variables.
Now, I must say I agree with you (somewhat) on your first comment, as earlier solar-climate research indicated weak correlation between mean global surface temperature and solar activity. Unfortunately, however, that model has been outdated with rejuvenated anemology, aerostatics, aerology, heliology and climatology (and so on and so forth) research that mitigate for confounding variables like never before.
I’ll try my best to dumb it down for you.
Heliologists themselves don’t believe your aforementioned thesis, why should anyone else?
I suggest going to school (or take online classes) and pursuing ANY scientific degree. Perhaps this will enlighten you to the painstakingly collected, synthesized, and analyzed pertinent data points from which you can then form a relevant position.
Have a good one, Polarizing.
Before you look down you nose at other people, why don’t you answer the legitimate questions about climate change I posted above.
Show me your integrity and intelligence by answering all of the questions.
“I’ll try my best to dumb it down for you.”
You certainly “dumbed it down”. Many variables exist to contribute to Climate Change, and MAN is a ‘low significance variable’ because NO CREDIBLE MODEL, with uncensored data inputs, shows it to be highly significant in regression analyses, or GLM/ AI modeling. If you disagree, SHOW US THE SPECIFIC MODELS AND PROVIDE LINKS THERETO.
Now, answer Craig’s questions instead of bloviating.
Polar,
I think climate scientists have provided enough information to prove you wrong, yet you constantly troll the message boards of IJ with no information to prove yourself right.
How about you provide some peer reviewed articles that don’t come from websites like the drudge report?
Ready, set, go…
” Many variables exist to contribute to Climate Change, and MAN is a ‘low significance variable’ because NO CREDIBLE MODEL, with uncensored data inputs, shows it to be highly significant ”
Again, this is flat out false, and is exactly the opposite. The models incorporate all known “forcings” or determinants of climate, including all known natural forcings. This includes solar irradiance, volcanism, natural sources of CO2 etc etc. Natural forcings do not account for a warming climate. In fact, natural forcings would have led to a slight cooling trend absent human activity – i.e. human activity accounts for *all* of the warming. There are literally thousands of studies. Please do a little research before spreading misinformation.
How about this from the U.S. Government. That good enough for you?
The National Science Foundation cites the unbelievably complex nature of cloud formation. Which is called by the IPCC, “the largest source of uncertainty” surrounding Climate Change.
Yep. Settled Science, right JayZee? (I can give you plenty more if you have a bone of integrity and a curious mind. But trust me, when I get done, you won’t “believe” much about Global Warming anymore.)
https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/clouds/articles/wild_card_climate.pdf
Craig wrote – “the National Science Foundation cites the unbelievably complex nature of cloud formation. Which is called by the IPCC, “the largest source of uncertainty” surrounding Climate Change.”
Craig, did you even read your own citation? It points to a possible amplifying impact of human caused climate change due to the effects on cloud formation. How does this in any way militate against the science?
“Pollute unabated” = Straw Man argument.”
Ok, this is annoying. You keep using the term “straw man argument.” I do not think it means what you think it means. Please look it up.
I get it. You aren’t honest, the affliction of most of the True Believers in Climate Scary Monsters.
As the article stated, there is great uncertainty surrounding the impact on cloud formation due to Climate Change. Including the possibility, as stated in the article, that more cloud cover could reduce global temperatures.
Bottom Line: It ain’t anything like “settled science” no matter how many times the High Priests of your Religion says so.
Hi everyone! My students read this article and had some thoughts they’d like to share. Here are some of the things that some students (who will remain anonymous) would like to say:
—————————–
“Using these satellites would really help discover what’s really going on and might help find solutions for carbon dioxide emissions. We think that it is important to know what is causing these harmful emissions. These satellites would help our planet control climate change and emissions and better our world. ”
“Getting these satellites in the atmosphere is great! It’s nice to know that there are other individuals that care about the greenhouse emissions and the health of other organisms in the environment. This could be one great step for the Earth’s life-span, but one giant leap for human survival.”
“it’s good that scientists are trying to stop global warming because too much greenhouse gas can hurt the environment. Space-based technologies are allowing us for the first time to quickly and cheaply measure greenhouse gases.”
“I really feel like the MethaneSAT plan is really good idea. We should definitely be forcing companies to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they are releasing. Hundreds and thousands of creatures are dying and their habitats are getting destroyed because of air pollution and this is just the start. It will only get worse if we don’t stop or at least reduce air pollution. Even humans are being affected by it. In fact, we might even get wiped out if there is to much greenhouse gases in the air. That is why I feel like ideas like the MethaneSAT that invest money to help the nature and everyone survive are really beneficial and necessary for everyone.”
“I think that it is a good start setting a plan to stop the amount of greenhouse gasses in the air, but I feel like we need to have people investing more time and money to help this cause. The effects of this could be catastrophic if we don’t stop it, leaving our descendants to deal with it.”
“I believe that the MethaneSAT plan is a great idea. We should reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses that we are emitting into the environment. Hundreds of animals could die if we don’t come up with a solution soon. I also feel that we all need to put more effort and money into stopping this cause. ”
” Although your plans for tracking and reducing carbon and methane emissions are ingenious, I have some questions that I want to raise in case you haven’t thought of them, or, by what I’m sure is some perfectly understandable reason, ignored.
I’ll start small and question your plan on diets for livestock including a special type of seaweed. How do you plan to obtain this seaweed? Will it require methods that involve creating carbon emissions in one form or another? Will your methods of harvesting said seaweed, in how much of a quantity you need, disrupt the ecosystem that it’s involved in? If so, then how much? If you’re planning on somehow farming this seaweed, how are you going to do so, and will it harm the areas around it?
Now, moving onto more business-like matters, what will you do if you come across a company/corporation/etc., as I’m sure this will happen at least once, that refuses to be monitored? Are you going to bribe them if you have the money/resources available or leave then unmonitored? Would you bring in higher powers(?) that agree with your cause? Are you planning on making it legally required for any form of business that may produce carbon emissions to let you monitor them?
My final barrage of questions concern your satellites. First of all, I want to bring up the increasing amount of space debris that can pose a threat to these satellites of yours. Even though I’m only a Middle school student, I am aware of how present space debris is near our planet, and I am also aware that it can orbit the Earth at alarming speeds, posing a threat to your satellites. How do you intend to maintain your satellites with this increasing number of space debris and not contribute to the space debris problem? Aside from the safety and maintenance of the satellites, is there a chance that they can make a mistake and confuse atmospherically harmless chemicals for carbon emissions and methane? These are all of my questions that is have thought of, and thank you for taking the time to read my comment, if you have.”
“I think it’s important that we are trying to monitor our greenhouse gas emissions because if we don’t, the temperature will be on the rise. If the temperature rises, the ocean level rises, droughts will be more frequent, severe weather will be common, and entire environments will change, killing many species and pushing most animals to extinction. If we utilize this soon and cut down our emissions produced by factories, companies, and mines, we could possibly delay our self destruction for a couple more centuries.”
“I think that finding the source of the most greenhouse gas emissions is going to be very helpful for our environment. On https://www.oneworldeducation.org/carbon-emissions-world-danger.com it says, “People all around the world need to change their habits in order to prevent the dangerous effects of global warming from destroying the environment.” This starts with determining where the gas is coming from. We have to start somewhere, and this is the perfect place to start. We need to change this and quick before it is too late.”
“This is a project in need of using. So many people wait for other generations to fix the problem. With this project, you can see how truly damaging some of these companies are. By seeing the results, we can try and force them to take action or else we might not have a future. ”
”
This article goes to show how much we need to change our habits . In the article it says “California was the site of the largest natural gas leak in U.S. history in 2015 when a broken well outside Los Angeles owned by Sempra Energy released more than 100,000 tons of methane before being plugged” . This passage is is eye opening because this event that changed the world could have possibly been prevented . Now that we have the satellites we could see the leeks and try to stop them from getting worse .
The satellite that detects methane seems like a good idea because we can find who uses the most greenhouse gasses and slow then down so we can reduce climate change.”
“Obviously the greenhouse gas problem is getting so out of hand to where they have to put satellites in space to
see where it’s coming from. According to Yotam Ariel, the the founder of Bluefield Technology Inc he says, “Seeing exactly who is emitting what, where, how much and when is a must in order to reduce emissions and stop climate change.” We need to make an effort to stop this spread before it gets way too out of hands to where we can’t fix it.”
“The article only really informed us about the gasses, such as Carbon Dioxide and Methane. The whole article is based on the satellites and “how they can’t really reach what is needed”. They also bring up a point about not being able to track other emission sources.”
“This article shows the importance of trying to stop greenhouse gasses from being released into the air. This is a very important topic and should be shared with everyone. Even though there are different opinions on this topic (global warming) people should have some understanding of how this can affect the word in a horrible way, So the word could be a better place for your children and your children’s children.”
“To send a satellite to monitor the greenhouse gas emissions is a great idea. Protecting the earth and all the living organisms on it is necessary. This satellite will protect the earth by informing us about the gas emissions and when to take action. Climate change is a very difficult topic, especially since it is currently in strong effect. If we want futures we need to do something now.”
“In the article it states that the satellites are not yet advanced enough to account for natural methane emissions. If the new technology is to be useful it must be able to account for natural emissions of gas. While I believe certain companies should be held accountable for their emissions, how can we assure that we don’t let some companies may be held accountable for something that they didn’t partake in.”
“California is the largest natural gas leak. How did it happen. When did it happen. How much does gas cost. How many gallons of gas do we have left in the world of gas.”
—————————–
If you read each of these comments, THANK YOU! Our classroom appreciates it. We look forward to hearing any replies you folks might have, and have a wonderful weekend!
Not a single skeptic in the bunch. I believe the correct word is “cult”, not school.
It is a universal call for spending more and more, without any apparent limits based on the nature of the problem. (obviously, it’s not the kids money, so it is easy for the kids to advocate unlimited spending).
Every comment: “do more, spend more, sacrifice more”. That’s not thinking, that’s parroting PC nonsense. As a teacher, you should be embarrassed.
Dear Craig, the information given by Mr. Struss and his science class is incredible for high schoolers. Your rude comments on calling them a “cult” makes me laugh. Talk about internet drama. You have your opinions, and saying that there is “not a skeptic in the bunch” makes them seem uneducated, the comments they provided on the topic in hand where very well thought out and I applaud that. You need to think before you type sir.
Not a single student posed any questions about the seriousness of Climate Change or what we should actually do about it. Not one.
It was all: “I BELIEVE! Hallelujah! Spend more!”
That’s not thinking. Climate Change is not as serious as these kids have been taught. Look at their comments. Not one comment about nuclear energy. Not one comment about the limits of wind and solar. In other words, not one comment that is in line with the scientific truth about climate change. It is serious but manageable and the projections of doom are a sad, dishonest joke.
But that’s what the kids believe: existential threat.
It is a cult.
Google the video titled: “Bill Gates debunking wind and solar as a Climate Change solution.” For people who Believe in Science, pretty funny.
For all the Cult Members on this thread: oh so sad. (Better not look.)
Thank you for sharing, Mr. Struss. I certainly appreciate what your class is discussing.
#pray4Craig
Another thought-free post. The streak is alive!
MAY 23, 2018 AT 11:41 AM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Boring. Nothing but Insults. No insights whatsoever. Just Boring.
You must not be very smart. Sorry. (Have you heard of MIT?)
I agree with your students
Then maybe you can answer the questions I posed, since none of the “believers” are willing to give it a shot. . .
You sound like the type of person that believes vaccines cause autism. We have actual facts proving that the climate is changing, and people like you are the reason that we haven’t fixed it yet.
Actually, liars like you are the problem. Go back and read “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”. Al Gore said we only had 10 years to address Global Warming/Climate Change back in 2009.
AOC said we only have 12 years left today. People who actually read about Climate Change were appalled. And liberals like you said nothing to shut her up or dispute her. The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Who believes you clowns? Nobody. And it is your fault for not telling the truth about the science.
“AOC said we only have 12 years left today. People who actually read about Climate Change were appalled.”
Ummm….no. AOC is just repeating the conclusions of the last report of the IPCC, which did indeed say we have about a decade left to reduce the worst effects of climate change (though the effects will still be bad).
“Who believes you clowns? Nobody. And it is your fault for not telling the truth about the science.”
Really? So the 75% of Americans who “believe you clowns” are nobody? How long have you inhabited an alternate universe?
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/americans-who-accept-climate-change-outnumber-those-who-dont-5-to-1
Let me correct myself: “What thinking, rational people free of the influence of the Cult of Doom actually believes you people. None”
There. Fixed it.
oh, you mean you, as opposed to the reality based community that makes decisions and informs beliefs based on the actual science. It’s truly odd that someone who simply parrots Koch funded propaganda, completely unencumbered by the thought process, considers themselves a “free thinker.”
Craig you are an uneducated nerd neck. Get your facts straight. The fact that you can reply and be so empty-minded is pretty hilarious. If you want to see who is smarter 1v1 me on fortnite
FUNNIEST Clown Quote ever on Insurance Journal! Awesome. (“You dumb. Me smart.”) Terrific. Still laughing.
I agree Bill, if you are anymore uneducated you could take us both in becuase we all know you are a default and no matter what you couldn’t take any of us on you uncultured swine of a person. HOW COULD YOU!!!
No need simple answer: China and India……………
Every one of these climate change articles bring out the deniers in force, along with their flat-out false assertions based on nothing. The evidence for climate change is overwhelming. The evidence that current warming is entirely caused by human activity is overwhelming. You folks are beginning to resemble flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers and moon-landing deniers, and are equally immune to evidence.
It is simply amazing to me that people can deny the obvious evidence right in front of their face. Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt.
Five hottest years on record were the last five years. Nine of the last ten years were also the hottest years on record. Somehow, those “hoaxers” have managed to warm an entire planet. Pretty clever…
https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-10-hottest-global-years-on-record
Such an easy and fun game, refuting the Religious Cult:
“Nine of the past 10 years . . . blah, blah, blah.”
1. Weather records are only about 140 years old. The Earth is billions of years old, and it has been hotter than this many times in the distant past. And did life shrivel and die then? Nope. Life thrived when it was warmer. In fact, honest climate scientists agree that if the present warming only increases by another 1 centigrade or so, it will be very good for life on Earth. More plants, food, less cold. All good.
2. When the zombies in the news media (redundant, I know) repeat “another warmest years on record” they ignore the fact that usually, the increase is actually very minor, within the margin of error. It could be stated just as accurately that each year is “about the same as the year before”. But that wouldn’t juice up the Climate Cult.
3. The predictions of warming over the past 30 years have been wildly overstated by the computer models. Despite the screaming “warmest on record” nonsense, the actual warming over the past 30 years has been far less than the models predicted, based on the amount of added CO2 to the atmosphere.
Bottom line on the “10 hottest years” terror: yawn. (I mean for thinking people.)
Care to try again? What else you got?
Wow, everything you just stated is entirely false or, at a minimum, either irrelevant and/or misleading. Let me take it one uninformed assertion at a time:
“Weather records are only about 140 years old. The Earth is billions of years old, and it has been hotter than this many times in the distant past. And did life shrivel and die then? Nope. Life thrived when it was warmer. In fact, honest climate scientists agree that if the present warming only increases by another 1 centigrade or so, it will be very good for life on Earth. More plants, food, less cold. All good.”
Actually, the earth has experienced six mass extinctions. The largest of these, the Permian mass extinction, was caused by global warming which massively acidified the oceans. 97% of all species on the planet went extinct. So yes, life did “shrivel and die,” on a massive scale. There is strong evidence that we are currently in the midst of a seventh mass extinction. See https://phys.org/news/2018-12-biggest-mass-extinction-global-ocean.html
“When the zombies in the news media (redundant, I know) repeat “another warmest years on record” they ignore the fact that usually, the increase is actually very minor, within the margin of error. It could be stated just as accurately that each year is “about the same as the year before”. But that wouldn’t juice up the Climate Cult.”
Another extremely vacuous and uninformed comment. Increases are within the margin of error (error bars are always published with the data in reputable scientific journals). They are far outside of the margin of error. What does just a 2C increase mean? Try reading actual science at the following link. And some projections place increases significantly above that. The end of the last ice age was caused by only a 7C increase.
https://www.popsci.com/what-happens-if-earth-gets-2-degrees-warmer#page-2
“The predictions of warming over the past 30 years have been wildly overstated by the computer models. Despite the screaming “warmest on record” nonsense, the actual warming over the past 30 years has been far less than the models predicted, based on the amount of added CO2 to the atmosphere.”
This is just flat-out false. I already posted above links the clearly show the models have been remarkably accurate. I honestly don’t understand how someone could possibly so misinformed. I mean, it must take a lot of work to be that willfully ignorant.
Integrity test: were the models you referred to revised after the fact to create the impression of accuracy? (Trick question. Yes they were.)
Hey Craig,
Do you have proof of this, if so can you please show us the link?
If you don’t, stop spouting these unsubstantiated that you are trying to push just your narrative.
You are embarrassing yourself and showing a lack of knowledge that transfers to other topics you attempt to debate with studies.
I just want to apologize for leaving this out of my original response, but I meant *unsubstantiated claims*.
PS Look at the last link I post, the one defending the IPCC’s inaccurate predictions. It is unintentionally hilarious:
“We are really good at long term forecasts, not short term, even though we made short term forecasts before for some reason.”
“Oh yeah! Well our crappy forecasts were more accurate than the skeptics crappy forecasts! So there!” (Right. Tied for last place. You should be proud. While you admit no one can predict this nonsense.)
Let me ask you:
Since “Reality” (HA) made the claim that predictions were accurate, shouldn’t HE be the one to link those predictions?
Answer: Yes. He made the claim first. And guess what? When he does (as if), you will see the projections were revised after the original projections proved faulty. (More accurate computers now, don’t you know.)
Oh, what the heck. Here you go:
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/climate-change/climate-alarm-failed-prognostications/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty-years-on-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442
https://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-projections.htm
Hey Craig,
I will request it from you since you were the one who said that the studies were falsified after.
The first one does point to how studies are falsified, but it is an organization that is funded by the Koch brothers (he helped start the company, and they still gave a donation to IER in 2015 and 2016). There does not discuss studies that highlight the revised after the original conclusion that you are referring to.
The second piece I am going to disregard because it was in the opinion section.
The 3rd one does have a little bit more merits, because it does discuss cherry picking data, and I always enjoy reading that. Most studies you refer here have cherry picked data so it is interesting you do know what it is. My biggest issue discussing the cherry picking is that both models that they presented between the difference are cherry picking points, it is just the converse points. the IPPC picked a year where it was below the model average by a good portion, the model Tamino chose was also cherry picked by choosing a higher year. Overall the best one you posted, but still slightly skewed with bias! My other issue is that it only talks about one model and how there are infinite possibilities, studies are trying to fit a best model, of course there are anomalies, but that is a normal thing in most complex statistics.
I am still not certain that what you said is factual though Craig. You asserted they revised the model, and I really do not see that examined with your credible posts. Where did you get the information that the models were revised to prove for the appearance of more accuracy? I ask you, due to the fact you were the one who made that statement.
You live in Bizarro World, where anything true can be discarded if only you can claim it is from a right-of-center source.
Do your own work. There are tons of reputable sources that admit the predictions of warming haven’t panned out, and ALWAYS the predictions were too high.
Here is the reality: the lying is on the Left. Conservatives like me who read alot about Climate Change admit it is a problem, but also admit it is not the end of the world. Even NOAA predicted that if we do nothing between now and the end of the century, the cost would be – worst case – only 10% of the economy.
And the reality is that between now and then, science will find lots of solutions that don’t require us to all live in a cave and walk to work.
I claim it does not matter because that institute was funded by the oil industry. The political sides do not really matter, but the Koch brother was only one source, another was Exon in 2016,
You keep playing on the political stances Craig. That should not matter. Anyone who disagrees with you must be a liberal. It is not true and you need to wake up to that fact.
You made an assertion, you should be able to back it up. You have failed to do so, and you have either lied or misrepresented facts on this thread multiple times. Unless you provide a real source I will continue with the current logic that you are not reading real credible sources.
I can’t tell if you are dishonest or just not very smart.
The article I posted from the Institute of Energy Research had over 20 links to the actual predictions made by many, many people about the doom to come that never actually arrived.
Click the links and learn something new. It is actually quite a funny article, especially the end when all the Climate Change believers bemoaned the predictions of doom that caused so many rational people (no, not you) to become skeptics.
My god your level of ignorance is actually stunning. Pretty much everything you just said is wrong. Let me take it one at a time.
“The Earth is billions of years old, and it has been hotter than this many times in the distant past. And did life shrivel and die then? Nope. Life thrived when it was warmer. ”
There have been six mass extinctions in earth’s history. The largest of these, the Permian extinction, was cause by rapid planetary warming. Nearly 97% of all species on earth went extinct. There is strong evidence that we are in the midst of a 7th mass extinction, much of it caused by warming. So yes, life did “shrivel and die.”
[[[” When the zombies in the news media (redundant, I know) repeat “another warmest years on record” they ignore the fact that usually, the increase is actually very minor, within the margin of error. It could be stated just as accurately that each year is “about the same as the year before”. But that wouldn’t juice up the Climate Cult.”]]]
The level of ignorance in this statement is pretty astounding. Just a 2C warming will have huge impacts on life on the planet. 3C will be devastating, according to all of the science. These increases aren’t “within the margin of error (assuming you even know what the term means). They are well outside of it, by huge amounts. A tip of just 6C-7C represented the end of the last ice age. I’ll post links below.
{{{The predictions of warming over the past 30 years have been wildly overstated by the computer models. Despite the screaming “warmest on record” nonsense, the actual warming over the past 30 years has been far less than the models predicted, based on the amount of added CO2 to the atmosphere.}}}}
And again, more disinformation. As I already posted, the models have proven remarkably accurate. Even Jame Hansen’s models from the 80s, which are primitive by today’s standards, were spot on and got it exactly right. So you just don’t know what you’re talking about. Perhaps stop simply parroting climate denial talking points and do some actual research into the actual science?
Name calling and conflating one issue (current temperature increases) with another (future temperature increases). Stop now. You are embarrassing yourself and you can’t keep up and you know it. I know more about the Scary Monster than you do.
Craig, you are way way way out of your depth. I just fully rebutted every single false assertion you made. You’re wrong. You don’t have a clue as to what you’re on about.
A classic example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
What you’re forgetting to say is that while there have been hotter years, there haven’t been any sudden changes of this magnitude outside of major events such as volcanic eruptions or other such disasters. You want to be special and unique, living in a delusion of exceptionalism, while you sit in a corner with everyone laughing at you. You are the type of person who is easily manipulated if they can fulfill the childish delusion of being different or the one person who thinks differently. You desperately want to believe you’re living among idiots who can’t understand you.
However, you end up as a laughing stock to everyone else who didn’t peak in middle school. You believe you aren’t controlled by corporate or big pharma or whatever common charicture of a generic conspiracy enemy that comes next, but you only become an easily manipulated plague infecting those without the capacity for critical thought and evidence.
If you want evidence for my first claim before I started insulting you, I am happy to provide many sources. Or you could just look it up, after all, humans pay a lot of attention to extremes by nature, so massive, rare changes documented for concrete reasons are common through earths vast history.
Man. Lots of words for no facts. Good job.
4. The Earth has been warming since the last mini Ice Age. The fact that it is still warming since then is called “natural”.
On the Permian mass extinction and link to climate change.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/07/science/climate-change-mass-extinction.html
The Permian mass extinction resulted from an 18 degree warming of the oceans. No Climate Scientist alive today is predicting anywhere near an 18 degree warming; in fact, the worst predictions are a small fraction of that amount.
How do you sleep at night, after convincing yourself we are all going to die? I hope you keep your Scary Monster fear mongering to yourself and allow you friends and family to live happy lives in the Land of Truth.
Again, not true.
From the piece I cited:
“”Under a business-as-usual emissions scenarios, by 2100 warming in the upper ocean will have approached 20 percent of warming in the late Permian, and by the year 2300 it will reach between 35 and 50 percent,” Penn said. “This study highlights the potential for a mass extinction arising from a similar mechanism under anthropogenic climate change.””
I sleep at night just fine, and thanks for asking. How do you sleep at night spreading lies and disinformation?
The Permian extinction resulted from an 18 degree warming of the oceans, as stated in your own NY Times article. And 20% is not 100%, is it? Now who is the liar? You.
What happens if the earth warms by just 2 degrees? (and 2 degrees is a rather optimistic scenario. It’s likely to be significantly more than that).
https://www.popsci.com/what-happens-if-earth-gets-2-degrees-warmer#page-2
I thought it was all “settled science”, according to you and Obama and Al Gore and AOC.
You ask me “what IF the earth warms by just 2 degrees”?!?
You mean you aren’t certain what is going to happen!
Now you sound like me. Pray tell, what will be the global cost to address climate change in 60 years if we do nothing to address it now? (Warning: trick question that has been answered by climate scientists already. And you won’t like the answer: 2-3% of GDP. In other words, yawn.)
Obviously nobody is certain what will happen. the peoples of the earth could regain their senses and decide to drastically reduce carbon emissions thereby avoiding the worst case scenario. I don’t think that’s very likely though.
Also, do you have a cite for the 2-3% of GDP figure? Or did you just make that up. If civilization collapses, which is well within the realm of possibility, the impact will be rather larger than 2-3% of GDP.
And remember the key words: “worst case scenario” and “if we do nothing”.
Clearly, science will find solutions between now and then. In fact, we have one now that you Climate Chickens refuse to use: nuclear power.
Craig you are a poopy head if you think your so smart try making a red stone trap in Minecraft that can actually kill me you are a nerd I will steal your diamonds
Wrong thread.
You can look it up. NOAA predicted the worst case scenario of a 10% GDP cost at the end of this century if we do nothing.
Consider that most economists predict the global economy will grow by 2 to 3 times in conservative estimates. So 10% then equates to about 3% now. Yawn.
“You can look it up. NOAA predicted the worst case scenario of a 10% GDP cost at the end of this century if we do nothing.”
I attempted to look it up, and found nada. Given your record in just this conversation of massive disinformation, I’m not inclined to just take your word for it. So you don’t have a cite?
And all this while you were pretending to have insight into Climate Change that I don’t have!
And you can’t find NOAA on the internet?!?!!? Try Google: “NOAA predicts 10% GDP cost at end of century.” I did and guess what! It came right up. (Run. Hide. Truth stalking you.)
Craig, I just clearly demonstrated that everything you previously said is dead wrong. Somehow, you are unphased, and have the nerve to call others liars even as you spread the most absurd misinformation. Give it up. Go join the flat-earthers. They have a little more credibility than you climate change deniers.
Name calling with zero factual information. You must be proud of yourself. (And no, you clearly did NOT demonstrate that “everything you previously said is dead wrong”. Hence: you are a liar.
The deniers on here are clearly not conversant with the science. they are just repeating and parroting right-wing talking points that just are not grounded in the science. In fact, the entire GOP is largely become the anti-science party, given their denial of fundamental science such as climate change, evolution, cosmology, geology, etc etc. It’s really rather said and kind of pathetic. And they spew all of this with the false confidence that arises from living in the right-wing bubble. But none of their nonsense can be found in the actual annals of science.
NICE! You finish with a fact-free collection of name calling. You must be proud of yourself.
Who said I’m finished? Also, there is a difference between an accurate description of a thing and “name calling.”
test
Andrew: what is your policy towards someone using someone else’s on-line name and posting comments falsely. Someone is doing that on this thread with my name.
Sorry to hear that, Craig. It is a violation of this comment section policy to use someone else’s user name or otherwise pretend to be them. Comments will be removed. Second time violators will be banned.