Lots of hot air

[Jacob]

It depends to whom it is affordable. Do you care more about peoples lives in the hypothetical future or peoples lives now?

Yes soddem. Live fast die young!

 

[Jacob]

A picture paints a thousand words:

Hopefully that isn't too contentious

Doesn't take long to track down.
TNs graph is from here Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. to 2040 A.D. a well known climate sceptic site produced by a pair of amateurs with no qualifications

Comment from elsewhere:

"Unsurprisingly, Cliff Harris is NOT a credible Climatologist. His only educational qualification for ANYTHING is that he studied insurance law (somewhere) and now runs a website that has no credibility whatsoever.
Not only that, but he runs Harris-Mann Climatology, a website alongside another guy named Randy Mann, who is a “News Personality” (according to his Facebook page) and whose knowledge of meteorology/climatology stems only from to being a weatherman for a small-town, local news station that he worked at since he was 15. Hardly a justification for a self-proclaimed mastery in the subject.
You know what great research they’ve published? A quick google search has shown me their awe-inspiring research that has lead to the publication of a book called the “Weather and Bible Prophecy” back in 2015. Here’s the description for it:
“ Climatologist Cliff Harris presents a new book on the scientific and spiritual approach on how the WEATHER played a MAJOR ROLE in the BIBLE.
Some topics include:
• How God is using the weather to get our attention.
• When are the major climate and cultural cycles colliding?
• What are the futures prophecies based on the Bible?
• How did the weather influence major events in the Bible?
• How the weather could play a role in the "End Times."
• What will the "New Jerusalem" be like?”
So I guess they’re religious scholars as well, too, huh? What’s next? They gonna re-invent the wheel? These guys are absolute jabronies, so please stop using idiots as sources for an argument for a very serious topic."

And another-

"So I just googled for "global temperature history" and this page, with this chart, was in the first page of results: Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. to 2040 A.D. On that page, they wrote a lot about their rationale: "We, Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann, believe in rather frequent climate changes in our global weather patterns." Also interesting to note that the cite claims: "Climatologist Cliff Harris has been often rated as one of the top ten climatologists in the world for nearly 4 decades." ...except, Cliff Harris doesn't seem to have a degree in climatology, or to have published any papers. So they are not making me any less suspicious of their claims. Maybe he's rated one of the top climatologists by, like, his dentist. idk.
They do cite sources for their graph, so that's nice of them:
• "Climate and the Affairs of Men" by Dr. Iben Browing.
• "Climate...The Key to Understanding Business Cycles...The Raymond H. Wheeler Papers. By Michael Zahorchak
• Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois.
I'll be honest, I am not going to look into those... but given that they're books and not, you know, actual scientific papers that present raw data, it seems like at best their graph is compiled from indirect and imprecise claims in books by even more "climatologists" without credentials who likely are pushing their own agenda. Maybe that's why there's no scale on the graph, they don't even have real numbers to work from!
If you'd like a real graph covering roughly this same time period, you can go right to the scientists who study it and look at charts like this that compare various different, legitimate, methods of determining historical temperatures: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
The fact that those models agree very well with each other, and all dramatically disagree with the "longrangeweather.com" "model" give us pretty strong evidence that the scientists are doing actual science, and Mr Harris is doing something else. They've presented sloppy info and I'd say outright lies dressed up as real science: ie, pseudoscience. It really makes me mad to see this kinda thing; it makes it harder for your average person to discern what is and isn't real science.

Finally, I should say that the idea that the Earth goes through huge climate swings is not in itself wrong - nature definitely has caused larger changes throughout history than humans have (so far). But if you look at other real charts https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/EPICA_temperature_plot.svg you can see that those swings take place over hundreds of thousands of years and are fairly predictable. What nature can do in 100,000 years, we've done in 100, and that's what's scary."

Possibly too much information for our Viz comic readers

The conclusions are (in case you have missed them):
1 "What nature can do in 100,000 years, we've done in 100, and that's what's scary."
2 "These guys are absolute jabronies, so please stop using idiots as sources for an argument for a very serious topic."

PS EPICA is European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica - Wikipedia
For JABRONI read ‘Jabroni’ is now in the dictionary, and it’s all thanks to The Rock

 

[RobinBHM]

Not dishonest just confused IMHO. CC is a complicated issue and not simply either/or, which is not good enough for many. It's also hypothetical, until the evidence rolls in, as it is doing.

It’s deliberate.

it’s one logical fallacy after another

 

[RobinBHM]

I didn't know that but had my suspicions. There was something so very cautious in the article, no direct untruths just claims of over reaction and persuasion not to worry etc. Soft soap propaganda.

Soft soap propaganda is a great expression,

it’s how these conspiracy theories work…take some real data to make it plausible, then mislead by attributing the data incorrectly to something else.

So you get:

Roman period warm, compare with this period, also warm = can’t be no climate change it’s all natural gov.

 

[TominDales]

A picture paints a thousand words:

Hopefully that isn't too contentious

It looks spurious. This NOAA publication from 2013 is the generally accepted picture for global temperature variation over the past 10,000 years and based on the best data available.

It was generally believed the globe was slowly heading into a cooler period until the later 20th century when temperatures have spiked to the highest levels in the past 10,000 years. The highest temperature until recently was roughly 7000 years ago at about 0.4c above the mid 20c average (could by as high as 0.6 within the estimate).

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what’s-hottest-earth-has-been-“lately”

The roman warm period seems to have been a localised European phenomenon and probably not a global phenomenon looking at this series the purple line would indicate the globe was warmer than average for the past 2000 years by about 0.5 c until the late 20century.
The rise of 0.8c in 2013 was troubling because the predictions were for this to continue to rise. As of 2021 the average is ca 1c. The IPCC are now calling to limit the rise to 1.5c, that seems sensible give the current state of knowledge.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Doesn't take long to track down.
TNs graph is from here Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. to 2040 A.D. a well known climate sceptic site produced by a pair of amateurs with no qualifications

Comment from elsewhere:

"Unsurprisingly, Cliff Harris is NOT a credible Climatologist. His only educational qualification for ANYTHING is that he studied insurance law (somewhere) and now runs a website that has no credibility whatsoever.
Not only that, but he runs Harris-Mann Climatology, a website alongside another guy named Randy Mann, who is a “News Personality” (according to his Facebook page) and whose knowledge of meteorology/climatology stems only from to being a weatherman for a small-town, local news station that he worked at since he was 15. Hardly a justification for a self-proclaimed mastery in the subject.
You know what great research they’ve published? A quick google search has shown me their awe-inspiring research that has lead to the publication of a book called the “Weather and Bible Prophecy” back in 2015. Here’s the description for it:
“ Climatologist Cliff Harris presents a new book on the scientific and spiritual approach on how the WEATHER played a MAJOR ROLE in the BIBLE.
Some topics include:
• How God is using the weather to get our attention.
• When are the major climate and cultural cycles colliding?
• What are the futures prophecies based on the Bible?
• How did the weather influence major events in the Bible?
• How the weather could play a role in the "End Times."
• What will the "New Jerusalem" be like?”
So I guess they’re religious scholars as well, too, huh? What’s next? They gonna re-invent the wheel? These guys are absolute jabronies, so please stop using idiots as sources for an argument for a very serious topic."

And another-

"So I just googled for "global temperature history" and this page, with this chart, was in the first page of results: Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. to 2040 A.D. On that page, they wrote a lot about their rationale: "We, Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann, believe in rather frequent climate changes in our global weather patterns." Also interesting to note that the cite claims: "Climatologist Cliff Harris has been often rated as one of the top ten climatologists in the world for nearly 4 decades." ...except, Cliff Harris doesn't seem to have a degree in climatology, or to have published any papers. So they are not making me any less suspicious of their claims. Maybe he's rated one of the top climatologists by, like, his dentist. idk.
They do cite sources for their graph, so that's nice of them:
• "Climate and the Affairs of Men" by Dr. Iben Browing.
• "Climate...The Key to Understanding Business Cycles...The Raymond H. Wheeler Papers. By Michael Zahorchak
• Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois.
I'll be honest, I am not going to look into those... but given that they're books and not, you know, actual scientific papers that present raw data, it seems like at best their graph is compiled from indirect and imprecise claims in books by even more "climatologists" without credentials who likely are pushing their own agenda. Maybe that's why there's no scale on the graph, they don't even have real numbers to work from!
If you'd like a real graph covering roughly this same time period, you can go right to the scientists who study it and look at charts like this that compare various different, legitimate, methods of determining historical temperatures: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
The fact that those models agree very well with each other, and all dramatically disagree with the "longrangeweather.com" "model" give us pretty strong evidence that the scientists are doing actual science, and Mr Harris is doing something else. They've presented sloppy info and I'd say outright lies dressed up as real science: ie, pseudoscience. It really makes me mad to see this kinda thing; it makes it harder for your average person to discern what is and isn't real science.

Finally, I should say that the idea that the Earth goes through huge climate swings is not in itself wrong - nature definitely has caused larger changes throughout history than humans have (so far). But if you look at other real charts https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/EPICA_temperature_plot.svg you can see that those swings take place over hundreds of thousands of years and are fairly predictable. What nature can do in 100,000 years, we've done in 100, and that's what's scary."

Possibly too much information for our Viz comic readers

The conclusions are (in case you have missed them):
1 "What nature can do in 100,000 years, we've done in 100, and that's what's scary."
2 "These guys are absolute jabronies, so please stop using idiots as sources for an argument for a very serious topic."

PS EPICA is European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica - Wikipedia
For JABRONI read ‘Jabroni’ is now in the dictionary, and it’s all thanks to The Rock

Your gleeful outing of an unbeliever is engertainingly pythonesque:



And who could forget this:



You all appear to be members of some weird death cult. "We are all going to die, but who can come up with the most appalling, cataclysmic, catastrophic world - ending scenario?"

The cost of laying the pipes aournd the sports field will mean the scheme costs £400k

I would be intrigued to learn what the carbon saving will be for that scheme - that's an awfully big hole, dug by diesel powered machinery, I presume. And then you have the manufacturing of the system itself- a great deal of petrochemicals seem to go into making these modern heating systems. If the financial payback will take 400 years, I certainly hope the carbon saving will be astonishing, so you can offset some of the system costs by spending less on flood prevention or similar. Imagine if it takes 400 years of green electricity running the system to cover the carbon burned installing it - that would be embarrassing. Especially as the chances of getting "green" electricity aren't all that good.

As I am so obviously wrong about everything, I should probably bow out gracefully and leave you all to your end - is - nigh catastrophe cult. Have fun. Perhaps (if the planet hasn't burned to a crisp by then) we can come back in 2030 and see who was right. My £1 is on it being cooler than now. We could have a sweepstake if you like. But don't forget; predictions are difficult, especially about the future.

 

[Hallelujahal]

‘leave you all to your end - is - nigh catastrophe cult’
Couldn’t agree more…Scientism is the new world religion, their devotees are the evangelical missionaries, priests and preachers of this high control movement. Where to doubt or question is to be labelled a heretic and condemned to eternal damnation.
My rather simplistic approach is to look at how pathetic these prophets of doom have been even during my lifetime. I can remember being scared as a child by the new ice age that was about to hit planet earth…wrong.
I can remember being assured that everyone should get vaccinated against swine flu because if we don’t then everyone’s going to die. Funnily enough when more people started dying as a result of the vaccine the whole thing magically disappeared…including the flippin vaccine…I could go on and on. I am sick of religious zealots trying to convince me of one thing now and the polar opposite next and having the temerity to exert control over me in the name of ‘science’ or any other false god you care to mention. My rant is over, but I doubt that will make a spit of difference to the characters who want to pull all our strings!

 

[Jacob]

.........
As I am so obviously wrong about everything,

Yes

I should probably bow out gracefully and leave you all to your end - is - nigh catastrophe cult......

No you should make more effort to understand what is going on around you and get your head out of Viz/Daily Mail or whatever your source for all that nonsense.
I don't see the point of choosing to stay in the dark.

 

[Hallelujahal]

Yes No you should make more effort to understand what is going on around you and get your head out of Viz/Daily Mail or whatever your source for all that nonsense.
I don't see the point of choosing to stay in the dark.

This is supercilious nonsense, you know nothing about the op but simply assume that your knowledge is right and that those with different opinions are not only wrong but ignorant and or stupid. To which I say get off your high horse and recognise that many of us who have a different opinion to you are often experienced and highly educated…my own DPhil notwithstanding!

 

[Jacob]

........
My rather simplistic approach is to look at how pathetic these prophets of doom have been even during my lifetime. I can remember being scared as a child by the new ice age that was about to hit planet earth…wrong.

It was a hypothesis in the 70s but not a "forecast". It is explained here Global cooling - Wikipedia
One idea was that it would cancel out global warming with cooler air and water emanating from the melting poles and creating the "albedo" effect whereby snow and ice in lower latitudes would reflect solar heat back . Unfortunately it hasn't happened.

I can remember being assured that everyone should get vaccinated against swine flu because if we don’t then everyone’s going to die. Funnily enough when more people started dying as a result of the vaccine the whole thing magically disappeared…including the flippin vaccine

The vaccine worked and was discontinued when no longer needed. 2009 swine flu pandemic vaccine - Wikipedia There was a hysterical anti vaxx movement just like todays. There were side effects but this was offset by the success of the vaccine.

I could go on and on. I am sick of religious zealots......

Religious zealots are telling you to ignore the science

 

[Jacob]

This is supercilious nonsense, you know nothing about the op but simply assume that your knowledge is right and that those with different opinions are not only wrong but ignorant and or stupid. To which I say get off your high horse and recognise that many of us who have a different opinion to you are often experienced and highly educated…my own DPhil notwithstanding!

It's not about opinions it's about observable facts. You can choose opinions you can't choose facts.
It's OK to be a sceptic, to ask questions and have doubts but it's not easy to see why they are so hysterical and angry.

 

[planesleuth]

omg.....zzzzzzz..... it's the Jacob show again! Bony mouse fingers on form again eh Jacob?

 

[Rorschach]

It's not about opinions it's about observable facts. You can choose opinions you can't choose facts.

Except everyone here is also choosing their facts, you do it all the time, as does Robin, as do I and every other member. We all see facts laid before us, we then have to grade those facts according to their veracity and many other factors, based on that grading we then form our opinion. Those opinions are of course clouded by bias. Unfortunately we only find out if our grading is correct after it is too late so some us end up being right, some of us end up being wrong but most of us end up being somewhere in the middle.

This of course totally ignores the even more complex subject of how long are facts, facts? Evidence, research going on all the time, facts are revised, ignored, debunked. What is right today can be wrong tomorrow, the Covid debates are a great example there, the "accepted" facts now are totally different to the facts a year or more ago.

This is what makes the debate fun though, I love it when I'm right, I don't really like it when I'm wrong. Luckily for me I am more often than not proved right in the long term, but by the time that happens nobody cares anymore

 

[Jacob]

....... Unfortunately we only find out if our grading is correct after it is too late so some us end up being right, some of us end up being wrong ......

So how do you feel about being wrong about climate change?
Or are you choosing not believe what is happening all around you now, widely reported, forecast from a long way back, backed up by masses of research by intelligent people?
Are you saying that these things are not happening, won't happen, have another cause?
Do you think Eunice Newton Foote - Wikipedia and John Tyndall were wrong about the greenhouse effect and can you point to flaws in the research?
Do you really think you know more about the subject than the many thousands of highly educated experts in the field who have been researching it for years?
Is this fake news? This decade broke all kinds of climate records—and not in a good way This is from Jan last year, records have been broken since then.

 

[Hallelujahal]

Funny how Wikipedia has become the go to source for all the ‘fact-mongers’

 

[Jacob]

Funny how Wikipedia has become the go to source for all the ‘fact-mongers’

Better than just plucking them from out of the air.
We really need some serious fact-mongering and yes Wikipedia is very handy if you want to know something.
No use to people who would rather keep their heads under the blankets, or deal with things by huffing and puffing!

 

[Selwyn]

Yes soddem. Live fast die young!

I'm asking if you are showing the same concern for people today as people tomorrow.

 

[Jacob]

I'm asking if you are showing the same concern for people today as people tomorrow.

Not sure what you mean. Climate change is affecting people now and anything we do which might change it will also benefit people in the future. There are short term selfish things one could do such as stocking up with guns and tins of beans, but they wouldn't do much for anybody for very long!

 

[Selwyn]

Better than just plucking them from out of the air.
We really need some serious fact-mongering and yes Wikipedia is very handy if you want to know something.
No use to people who would rather keep their heads under the blankets, or deal with things by huffing and puffing!

With climate change stuff none of the forecasts can be argued as facts. So we have to go with the evidence so far. Your evidence thus far has been a fire in Greece, cold in Texas, flood in London etc etc all automatically lead to climate change and the doomesday scenario but a lot of the time these events have other actions that make them significant.


The IPCC don't even predict doomsday scenarios like you are doing they just present them as one of just one of a range of scenarios. As the guy in the interview posted said. You are claiming the IPCC is one voice purporting climate chaos and they are not.

 

[Selwyn]

Not sure what you mean. Climate change is affecting people now and anything we do which might change it will also benefit people in the future. There are short term selfish things one could do such as stocking up with guns and tins of beans, but they wouldn't do much for anybody for very long!

Lots of things are affecting people now. Don't make out there was no war, famine, pestilence. immigration/ emigration etc etc before we invented the climate change concept.