Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Thursday, July 14. 2022

Scientist update


2 genius scientists: AS CAREER PHYSICISTS, SCIENCE DEMONSTRATES THERE IS NO CLIMATE RELATED RISK CAUSED BY FOSSIL FUELS AND CO2, THUS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR THE PROPOSED RULE,  AND, IF ADOPTED, DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES FOR PEOPLE WORLDWIDE AND THE U. S. BECAUSE  IT WOULD REDUCE CO2 AND THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS


Not an easy read...but current CO2 levels are at historic lows. 


Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 12:48 | Comments (18) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Certainly that's true to date.

I keep reviewing the data, in case things change. But I haven't seen a plausible explanation for an expected change.

I'm all in favor of finding safe, alternate fuels. Cheap energy has been a key factor for advancement of economies, technology, science/medicine, and I think there's a strong argument for liberty too.

So, the drive to find better (affordable, abundant, safe, less pollution) energy sources is great. You shouldn't have to exaggerate and fear monger to push this forward.
#1 DrTorch (Link) on 2022-07-14 13:24 (Reply)
Science.

This is the way.
#2 JLawson (Link) on 2022-07-14 13:25 (Reply)
A lot of people have understood this intuitively for years. First it is obvious that the entire agenda here is a scam. Second the scam was first warming, then cooling then warming and when the warming ended it was "climate change". If it smeels like a dead fish maybe it's a dead fish...
#3 OneGuy on 2022-07-14 13:44 (Reply)
I can't help but notice both of these guys are professors emeritus - IOW, both of them are retired and, like most people who are safely retired, feel free to speak the truth. Virtually every other single climate scientist on the planet depends, in one way or another, on government grants for their paycheck and, since he who pays the piper calls the tune, it's no surprise they're all singing the same tune as the government demands. Kinda like every medical professional on the planet either agreed with the government's COVID response or kept their mouth shut.
#4 Jerryskids on 2022-07-14 14:20 (Reply)
QUOTE:
2 genius scientists: AS CAREER PHYSICISTS, SCIENCE DEMONSTRATES THERE IS NO CLIMATE RELATED RISK

It's not research, but just a rehash of previous claims that have been address repeatedly by other scientists.

QUOTE:
As noted, consensus has no value as reliable scientific evidence

No, but scientific consensus is properly used for making policy or decisions. For instance, if scientists agree that the fingerprints found on the smoking gun belonged to the defendant, then that is evidence that the jury can and should evaluate. The jury can't[ be expected to study the science to determine whether scientists have reached a reasonable conclusion about fingerprints.

Lindzen has yet to publish anything in scientific journals that significantly undermine the consensus view on anthropogenic global warming. He could be right, but he doesn't have the evidence, and just repeats well-worn arguments.
#5 Zachriel on 2022-07-14 14:57 (Reply)
The consensus IS the scam.
#5.1 John Fisher on 2022-07-14 17:33 (Reply)
John Fisher: The consensus IS the scam.

The consensus crosses multiple disciplines, includes scientists from many different countries and cultures and political systems, and consists of many different types of evidence. The basic physics of greenhouse warming has been known for over a century. For instance, see Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.

The more parsimonious explanation is that scientists have reached a reasoned conclusion rather than that they are engaging in a vast conspiracy.
#5.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-07-14 17:57 (Reply)
I've shown you wrong about this repeatedly.

You're a lying POS. Your analogies are flawed, but that's hard to know if it's from your ignorance or dishonesty. Even your explanation of a "greenhouse" is moronic.

There is no consensus on this topic, that myth was squelched long ago. There is a consensus among a few who have found a way to get money from the issue. But plenty of others disagree.

Most importantly, the data have yet to support this hypothesis.
#5.1.1.1 DrTorch (Link) on 2022-07-15 09:31 (Reply)
Happer is to physics what Thomas Sowell is to economics: brilliant, articulate, winsome, at once common sensical and contrarian, indispensable. Long may he wave. Same goes for Sowell.
#6 Slow Learner on 2022-07-14 16:26 (Reply)
The climate change scam is not about climate but instead about the same old political grifting to warrant more control, more money and more power. None of them ever point to the perfect temperature or the perfect CO2 level. There isn't a perfect level of either but a band of temperature ranges and CO2 levels that change over tens of thousands of years.
A demand to maintain temperatures and CO2 plus the new "toxic" nitrogen at static levels is simply "Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds". (A tip to Charles Mackay)
#7 indyjonesouthere on 2022-07-14 17:12 (Reply)
indyjonesouthere: None of them ever point to the perfect temperature or the perfect CO2 level.

It has nothing to do with "perfect," but volatility. Human civilization and their vast infrastructure was built over a period of relative climate stability. Rapid and avoidable global warming represents a threat to human society with disruptions to agriculture, coastal cities, drinking water, and the political problems entailed in human migration.

indyjonesouthere: There isn't a perfect level of either but a band of temperature ranges and CO2 levels that change over tens of thousands of years.

Gee. What will those climate scientists come up with next. Turns out you can't explain Earth's climate without considering the effect of greenhouse gases, and the positive and negative feedbacks involved.

indyjonesouthere: A demand to maintain temperatures and CO2 plus the new "toxic" nitrogen at static levels

Are you referring to nitrogen oxides? That mostly concerns local pollution problems such as acid rain, respiratory illnesses, and coastal pollution from runoff.
#7.1 Zachriel on 2022-07-14 18:06 (Reply)
...but with volatility. You're a statist that can't deal with change in weather or climate. The climate is neither rapid nor its pace avoidable, but government grants are the driving force saying otherwise. There are nearly endless hands, palm up, hoping for the redistribution of political climate money from those on the outside looking in at our authoritarian climate policy. The sun is the driving force but that doesn't suit the power, control, and money political freaks that can't look up.
#7.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-07-14 19:06 (Reply)
indyjonesouthere: The climate is neither rapid

Osman et al., Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum, Nature 2021: "When compared with recent temperature changes, our reanalysis indicates that both the rate and magnitude of modern warming are unusual relative to the changes of the past 24 thousand years."
#7.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-07-14 20:44 (Reply)
Nice narrative that was bought and paid for through the magic of taxpayer money.
#7.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2022-07-14 21:10 (Reply)
indyjonesouthere: Nice narrative that was bought and paid for through the magic of taxpayer money.

Sure. And man didn't land on the Moon. Nor did Columbus sail the ocean blue. (Genetic fallacy.)

See also Marcott & Shakun, Global temperature changes mapped across the past 24,000 years, Nature 2021.
#7.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2022-07-15 07:55 (Reply)
These scientists may be right (and there is little reason to believe them less than others). But, there is now too much money and too many careers tied to the climate change orthodoxy. They are whistling in a hurricane.
#8 Kevin in WI on 2022-07-14 17:22 (Reply)
I'm sure that these clowns think they're looking at the Big Picture, so why don't they talk about how more life on earth is dependent on CO2 than Oxygen- a known poison?
#9 bilejones on 2022-07-15 09:13 (Reply)
bilejones: how more life on earth is dependent on CO2 than Oxygen

Most life on Earth requires both carbon dioxide and oxygen. While plants produce oxygen during photosynthesis, at night most plants need atmospheric oxygen to respire. And, yes, scientists are aware of respiration.
#9.1 Zachriel on 2022-07-15 10:51 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.