Environmental alarmism 101

[BacktoCricaddict]

On 7/22/2023 at 2:03 AM, rkt.india said:

This is a BS comparison without proper context. The top map could have been showing high temperatures for the day, and the bottom could be showing low temperatures for the day. And that the daily lows are the highest on record.

 

There is strong evidence that overall temperature rises are real. There is good evidence that fossil-fuel burning is contributing to it. But to prove or disprove it using single-day snapshots is unscientific.

 

What I am opposed to is attributing everything out there to climate change. Climate change is probably real, but its effects are extrapolated to phenomena for which there is no evidence of effect. Moreover, the solutions being proposed (solar, wind) have a very small chance to succeed in doing what they are supposed to do.

 

[rkt.india]

On 7/24/2023 at 3:38 AM, BacktoCricaddict said:

This is a BS comparison without proper context. The top map could have been showing high temperatures for the day, and the bottom could be showing low temperatures for the day. And that the daily lows are the highest on record.

 

There is strong evidence that overall temperature rises are real. There is good evidence that fossil-fuel burning is contributing to it. But to prove or disprove it using single-day snapshots is unscientific.

 

What I am opposed to is attributing everything out there to climate change. Climate change is probably real, but its effects are extrapolated to phenomena for which there is no evidence of effect. Moreover, the solutions being proposed (solar, wind) have a very small chance to succeed in doing what they are supposed to do.

 

you did not get the picture.  one is from 2017 the say day, the other one is from 2022 the same date. in 2017 map is green and 2022, but the red one is showing lower temperatures than green one.

[BacktoCricaddict]

On 7/25/2023 at 11:03 AM, rkt.india said:

you did not get the picture.  one is from 2017 the say day, the other one is from 2022 the same date. in 2017 map is green and 2022, but the red one is showing lower temperatures than green one.

Oh yes I did.  It could be apples to mangoes comparison. 

 

In 2017, they could represent lower-than-normal daytime temps and hence are in green, but for for 2022, they could represent higher-than-normal nighttime temps and hence are in red.  As much as I am sensitive to environmental alarmism (heck, I started this thread), I need more context on what the temps in the 2 pictures represent before I critique how they are represented.

[rkt.india]

On 7/26/2023 at 8:48 PM, BacktoCricaddict said:

Oh yes I did.  It could be apples to mangoes comparison. 

 

In 2017, they could represent lower-than-normal daytime temps and hence are in green, but for for 2022, they could represent higher-than-normal nighttime temps and hence are in red.  As much as I am sensitive to environmental alarmism (heck, I started this thread), I need more context on what the temps in the 2 pictures represent before I critique how they are represented.

average high for berlin in June is 22 degrees and minimums 12 degrees.  So the above temp of 25 seems to be max temperature of that day.  

[BacktoCricaddict]

On 7/28/2023 at 12:27 PM, rkt.india said:

average high for berlin in June is 22 degrees and minimums 12 degrees.  So the above temp of 25 seems to be max temperature of that day.  

Good catch. My needle is moving.

[BacktoCricaddict]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts out excellent, thorough analyses of climate data, and their reports are the gold standard of climate change science. As seen below, their conclusions do not support the apocalyptic messages regarding climate we see coming from environmental dogmatists, for whom extrapolation without evidence is par for the course. They associate every weather anomaly with climate change even when real scientists show that it is not the case. Great for fundraising, I suppose.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-the-ipcc-actually-says-about

 

"The IPCC has concluded that a signal of climate change has not yet emerged beyond natural variability for the following phenomena:

• River floods

• Heavy precipitation and pluvial floods

• Landslides

• Drought (all types)

• Severe wind storms

• Tropical cyclones

• Sand and dust storms

• Heavy snowfall and ice storms

• Hail

• Snow avalanche

• Coastal flooding

• Marine heat waves

Clearly, with the exception perhaps of only extreme heat, the IPCC is badly out of step with today’s apocalyptic zeitgeist. Maybe that is why no one mentions what the IPCC actually says on extreme events. It may also help to explain why a recent paper that arrives at conclusions perfectly consistent with the IPCC is now being retracted with no claims of error or misconduct."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

[Vijy]

On 8/2/2023 at 9:27 AM, BacktoCricaddict said:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts out excellent, thorough analyses of climate data, and their reports are the gold standard of climate change science. As seen below, their conclusions do not support the apocalyptic messages regarding climate we see coming from environmental dogmatists, for whom extrapolation without evidence is par for the course. They associate every weather anomaly with climate change even when real scientists show that it is not the case. Great for fundraising, I suppose.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-the-ipcc-actually-says-about

 

"The IPCC has concluded that a signal of climate change has not yet emerged beyond natural variability for the following phenomena:

• River floods

• Heavy precipitation and pluvial floods

• Landslides

• Drought (all types)

• Severe wind storms

• Tropical cyclones

• Sand and dust storms

• Heavy snowfall and ice storms

• Hail

• Snow avalanche

• Coastal flooding

• Marine heat waves

Clearly, with the exception perhaps of only extreme heat, the IPCC is badly out of step with today’s apocalyptic zeitgeist. Maybe that is why no one mentions what the IPCC actually says on extreme events. It may also help to explain why a recent paper that arrives at conclusions perfectly consistent with the IPCC is now being retracted with no claims of error or misconduct."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

IPCC has a big tent, i.e., it involves many diff experts so it has a lower risk of getting things completely wrong

[BacktoCricaddict]

It's becoming more and more evident that environmental activism has become a religious cult rather than a scientific movement.

 

Disaster happens.

Blame it on climate change even though IPCC models indicate otherwise. 

Scare everyone. Shame everyone. Collect donations. Rinse. Repeat.

 

https://open.substack.com/pub/rogerpielkejr/p/signal-and-noise?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

 

So far, climate advocates have sought to shape perceptions of science to support a climate-change-is-everything agenda. We will have a lot more success if we instead shape policy to align with what science actually says.

 

Edited August 19, 2023 by BacktoCricaddict

[Prakat]

It's a dilemma when the masses - whose focus on the issue is needed to form a political consensus - are consuming content on social media and not long-form sources that are fundamentally sound. Eventually the message ends up adapting to the medium.

[BacktoCricaddict]

https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published

 

So in my recent Nature paper, which I authored with seven others, I focused narrowly on the influence of climate change on extreme wildfire behavior. Make no mistake: that influence is very real. But there are also other factors that can be just as or more important, such as poor forest management and the increasing number of people who start wildfires either accidentally or purposely. (A startling fact: over 80 percent of wildfires in the US are ignited by humans.)

In my paper, we didn’t bother to study the influence of these other obviously relevant factors. Did I know that including them would make for a more realistic and useful analysis? I did. But I also knew that it would detract from the clean narrative centered on the negative impact of climate change and thus decrease the odds that the paper would pass muster with Nature’s editors and reviewers.

This type of framing, with the influence of climate change unrealistically considered in isolation, is the norm for high-profile research papers. For example, in another recent influential Nature paper, scientists calculated that the two largest climate change impacts on society are deaths related to extreme heat and damage to agriculture. However, the authors never mention that climate change is not the dominant driver for either one of these impacts: heat-related deaths have been declining, and crop yields have been increasing for decades despite climate change. To acknowledge this would imply that the world has succeeded in some areas despite climate change—which, the thinking goes, would undermine the motivation for emissions reductions. 

[BacktoCricaddict]