In Perspective, Planet: Loss of Billions of Birds in North America!

[James Lemon]

James,

The one person, Dr Morber, you have chosen, is one of the principal driving figures in climate change denial.

Just describe instruments: make models and information on the technical problems but without reference to inferences about the data supporting any conclusions.

You have leaped ahead beyond any ability to grasp the multitude of extra claims your scientist delivers.

Go back to basics.

Just the instruments as if we were about to purchase them!

Can you limit yourself to that?

....but I do admit that you chosen champion is a colorful fellow indeed!

Asher

Asher

I cant grasp the term "Climate Change Denier" who claims that the climate does not change? There are numerous scientists that reject the claims of the IPCC, and for good reason.

Ok I would like to purchase some of those new sail-drones, they look like great fun and a practical for weather information. They can get off course and barnacles will eventually slow down travel speed but I am in no hurry. They will also provide great pictures of huge fish, birds and who knows what else, this would be reason enough!

James

 

[Asher Kelman]

Well James,

Here is a video on the topic of sea level rise by the U.S. government Scientists consensus on measurements, causes, history and projections of water level changes, globally and in various locations and the nature and causes of varistions.

We now know that mean sea level rise , (relative to the center of the earth), is not even and there could be a myriad of reasons why someone’s favorite spot is higher or lower than the global mean. The East Coast of the USA has higher levels than we find here in California where we have tectonic plate movement and far less rise.

The video explains that very well. The optimistic news from this video is that we have a number of new advanced instrument-loaded satellites in orbit which, over the next decade, will be able to define far more accurately

1. The rate of melting of Greenland and Antarctica Glacier ice

2. The actual changes in sea levels (that are the subject of such heated debate by those for and against various enterprises or policies).

To me, just being able to look past various industry and environmental lobbies and have long term careful measurements is a wonderful relief in itself!

I have seen, so far, no evidence presented that removes our strong confidence in the NOAA conclusions on sea level rise to date.

But I will study further and seek to determine the accuracy of the satellite measurements beyond by current finding of +/- 3cm. When I find more will post it.

Asher

 

[James Lemon]

Well James,

Here is a video on the topic of sea level rise by the U.S. government Scientists consensus on measurements, causes, history and projections of water level changes, globally and in various locations and the nature and causes of varistions.

We now know that mean sea level rise , (relative to the center of the earth), is not even and there could be a myriad of reasons why someone’s favorite spot is higher or lower than the global mean. The East Coast of the USA has higher levels than we find here in California where we have tectonic plate movement and far less rise.

The video explains that very well. The optimistic news from this video is that we have a number of new advanced instrument-loaded satellites in orbit which, over the next decade, will be able to define far more accurately

1. The rate of melting of Greenland and Antarctica Glacier ice

2. The actual changes in sea levels (that are the subject of such heated debate by those for and against various enterprises or policies).

To me, just being able to look past various industry and environmental lobbies and have long term careful measurements is a wonderful relief in itself!

I have seen, so far, no evidence presented that removes our strong confidence in the NOAA conclusions on sea level rise to date.

But I will study further and seek to determine the accuracy of the satellite measurements beyond by current finding of +/- 3cm. When I find more will post it.

Asher

Asher

I do not have much confidence on any type of computer generated models based on estimates. I certainty don't believe in any doomsday events. Maybe I will take a trip to the Columbia Ice Fields and have a look for myself. I am sure there are still there.

Known as a hydrological apex, water from the Columbia Icefield flows to three different oceans. On the British Columbia side, meltwater flows into the Columbia River and to the Pacific Ocean. On the Alberta side, the North Saskatchewan and Athabasca rivers feed into the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, respectively.

These rivers support Canada’s diverse and unique ecological communities and are the fresh water source for millions of North Americans as they flow to the three oceans.

James

 

[Asher Kelman]

James,

You complain about “estimates”! That means you didn’t follow the video with an open mind.

The video doesn’t depend on a
estimates, just the current data graphed as shown. The narrator takes great pains, herself to emphasize the hazards of predictions. So your comments and dismissal are redundant and out of place!

Ignore estimates! We don’t need them. We have enough instruments up there in orbiting satellites and so we will know soon enough with accurate numbers.

Look at the video only for what is already measured.

You visiting any place of your choice? That’s funny!!

It means zero because of local variations due to tides, tectonics, land sinking or rising and numerous other strictly local events.

The measurements shown in the video are either deviations from mean global or local levels or measured from the center of the earth.

Asher

 

[James Lemon]

James,

No one asked you to address estimates, just the current data graphed as shown. The narrator takes great pains, herself to emphasize the hazards of predictions. So your comments are redundant here!

Ignore estimates! We don’t need them. We have enough instruments up there in orbiting satellites and so we will know soon enough with accurate numbers.

Look at the video only for what is already measured.

You visiting any place of your choice? That’s funny!!

It means zero because of local variations due to tides, tectonics, land sinking or rising and numerous other strictly local events.

The measurements shown in the video are either deviations from mean global or local levels or measured from the center of the earth.

Asher

Well Asher the glaciers up there have been meting for three hundred years and I am reasonably sure they will be there for another three hundred. The planet has obliviously been warming for a long time.

Ignore estimates! We don’t need them. We have enough instruments up there in orbiting satellites and so we will know soon enough with accurate numbers.

The weather is too complex to predict and correcting errors will require a horrendous amount of new calculations or stop the waves! What effects will the solar system have on the planet in the not too distant future?

The narrator takes great pains, herself to emphasize the hazards of predictions.

The video was very poor quality I could not get audio. What about the predictions from thirty years ago regarding the Maldives and surrounding islands?

Where is the next emergency and when? She will not stop nature regardless of calculations.

James

 

[James Lemon]

Uranium–thorium dating has an upper age limit of about half a million years, so that method only goes back so much in time while the carboniferous era was 350 millions years ago.

Jerome

This is remarkable! Do you have any idea of the C02 levels back then? Can you compare it to anything like a submarine @ 5000-ppm or aircraft @ 7000-ppm ?

James

 

[Asher Kelman]

James,

Re-read your statements in post #125.

The video reports mainly on scientific data. The scientists are well trained, expert and authorities in qualifying and understanding data.

The report is comprehensive, deals with the entire planet. Water height in any one place, such as the Maldives, is not the point, as explained.

Your remarks are not responses to this brilliantly clear video, just your standard and flippant “disaster denial” political stance, as if you heard and saw nothing of the video.

Then, shocker, you say the video was of poor quality and with no sound! What were you witching?

Try again. It’s a very well made beautifully presented video depends, (in all likelihood), on sound data. It’s a reasonable summary of the state of our knowledge and avoids dependence on predictions.

“Predictions”? Yes the latter are indeed discussed, they are, however, clearly shown as not being fact and areas of doubt and need for research.

 

[Asher Kelman]

James,

I have now looked at this NAOO climate change video on 4 computer and it’s always pristine imagery with the best sound one can imagine.

sea level rise

So try again.

Anyone else finds the video poor quality and with no sound, Post your findings!

To me, this video is a sufficiently solid and authoritarian report, to suspend this part the matter, for just now*** as current serious and consequential sea level rise is clearly shown. So, that’s that!

We need to return to the original topic on bird populations.

Thanks,

Asher


*** and with the assurances that a number of separate satellites are continuing recording data, we will be able to begin to confirm or reject competing hypotheses to discover what trajectory sea level is most likely on

 

[James Lemon]

James,

I have now looked at this NAOO video on 4 computer and it’s always pristine imagery with the best sound one can imagine.

sea level rise

So try again.

Anyone else finds the video poor quality and with no sound, Post your findings!

To me, this, for now is a sufficiently solid authoritarian report and with the assurances that a number of separate satellites are continuing recording data, we will be able to confirm or reject competing hypotheses to explain what trajectory sea level is on.

For sea level rise, then, that’s that for now!

We need to return to the original topic on bird populations.

Thanks,

Asher

Why Asher? The category heading reads Gobal warming effects on life forms.

A single 2015 study by H. Jay Zwally et al. found instead that the net change in ice mass is slightly positive at approximately 82 gigatonnes per year (with significant regional variation) which would result in Antarctic activity reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm per year.[148] However, one critic, Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, states that this outlying study's findings "are at odds with all other independent methods: re-analysis, gravity measurements, mass budget method, and other groups using the same data" and appears to arrive at more precise values than current technology and mathematical approaches would permit.[149]

A satellite record revealed that the overall increase in Antarctic sea ice extents reversed in 2014, with rapid rates of decrease in 2014–2017 reducing the Antarctic sea ice extents to their lowest values in the 40-y record.[150]

East Antarctica is a cold region with a ground base above sea level and occupies most of the continent. This area is dominated by small accumulations of snowfall which becomes ice and thus eventually seaward glacial flows. The mass balance of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet as a whole is thought to be slightly positive (lowering sea level) or near to balance.[151][152][153] However, increased ice outflow has been suggested in some regions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica

James

 

[Asher Kelman]

Exactly, James. The part, (just on sea level, that we we needed to establish), is already adequately covered in the NAOO video you have yet to study and digest!

The video sufficiently addresses and aces that topic until we get updated data.

I see you have new topic, questioning glacier ice loss.

Well, first look at the video you were not able to see or hear! That’s a must!

Meanwhile, I will look at your entirely new topic on “What’s indeed happening to glacier ice”.

🙏

 

[Jerome Marot]

This is remarkable! Do you have any idea of the C02 levels back then?

It should be obvious enough that the carbon we now use and burn and which was formed during the carboniferous era had to be somewhere in the atmosphere at that time.

Source: https://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html​

 

[James Lemon]

It should be obvious enough that the carbon we now use and burn and which was formed during the carboniferous era had to be somewhere in the atmosphere at that time.

Source: https://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html​

Thank you for this valuable link Jerome!

The last few paragraphs of the article sum up my position on the issue of man-made global warming nicely.

It is puzzling how a seemingly enlightened civilization of the early 21st century could arrive at the conclusion that C02 is a pollutant.

James

 

[Asher Kelman]

Jerome and James,

I didn’t know that carbon was the culprit just a marker for

• polluting chemicals.
• excess heat caused by fossil fuel use
• leaching industrial waste in waters

Asher

 

[James Lemon]

Jerome and James,

I didn’t know that carbon was the culprit just a marker for

• polluting chemicals.
• excess heat caused by fossil fuel use
• leaching industrial waste in waters

Asher

Asher

You should face the music and admit that the past IPCC climate predictions based on computer models it totally false. Real scientific weather observations of the recent past have already proven this.

James

 

[Tom dinning]

Hi james.



theses not a lot of facts around this global warming thing. There is data from present and recently passed observations and measurement. There’s a few hypothesise on what might happen in the future. There are some theories on what happened in the distant past.



when we are faced with so much to discuss, we need to keep a level head. That’s not to say we disregard and suggestion or deny any possibility.



here’s a few things that might help us understand what we face in terms of making decisions.

I don’t know what your background is, james, so some of the stuff I say might be old news.



I’m not here to prove or disprove anything. Like most of us, we need to be quite knowledgeable and intelligent to figure it out. Like most, we know a little about lots of things and rely on others to inform us. This is where we can run into problems.

My lecturers would always ask: “what is your authority?”. I always thought I was good enough an authority on most things. What a sorry state that put me in. I soon leaned that an authority is someone who is generally accepted as correct and knowledgeable in a specific and often narrow field who has been thoroughly reviewed by their peers and is considered most accurate with current data analysis.

That’s a hefty requirement and it sure rules out a lot of people.

I don’t know if I can rule you out of the equation as to your expertise so you would need to provide authority when you speak so definitely on any matter. Then it’s up to me if I accept that authority as valid.

Someone like Patrick Moore, fro example, might be intelligent and well educated but his peer review accreditation is poor. He also has vested interest in matters pertaining to the subject under scrutiny. That’s not a good position to be in when speaking to a crowd of sceptics like you and I and any expert in the field of climate.



Then there’s the facts to consider. I noticed you refer to ‘observations’ quite a lot, many of which are along the lines of good take a look’.

Observations are an important starting point for any investigation but they are not the end point; they are merely the beginning of a long haul of investigation.

How long? Well, that depends on the timeline and the availability of measurement. And that’s another issue. How accurate are the measurements.

If I went outside right now I say it’s fucking hot. Was it hotter than yesterday? Doesn’t feel like it. How do I know? I measure both temperatures. Did I measure in the same way? Can I predict any future weather conditions on that information that is reliable? I’ll say it seems to be getting cooler. Based on what? My instincts? My observations? My measurements? I’ll ask someone else. They say it’s no different than last week, lest year, 20 years ago. How far do we go back to get an answer? Let’s contact the experts. They’ve been measuring for 120 years. It wasn’t as hot last year. There you go. Wait! It was 10 years ago. 120 years ago it was cooler. Is there a pattern? That might help.

There might be one. Can we get more information? We could have a look at fossils and glaciers and shit. Who is an expert on those things? What about astronomers? They seem to know what’s going on with the planet.

Then there’s the masses. They seem to know everything. In my day it was The Bomb. Then it was fluorocarbons and holes in the ozone layer. Armageddon got a mention from time to time. Preachers howled at the Moon and blamed the gays and atheists. Now it’s CO2 and farting cows.



So, who do we put our money on? Who can we trust? Is it the smartest, the loudest, the richest, the most powerful, your mate at the pub, the media, your local politician?



If it was a horse race what would you bet on? Colour, number, past performance, past statistics?



You can never be sure. Bet on everything. Not enough resources to do that.

Choose the most likely. That’s a hard one. Spread your resources thinly.

Wait. Ignore.



Continue the search for the answer.

This is a difficult one because we need to go back to square one and decide what questions to ask.

And there’s the key, james. Questions. Question everything; even your own ideas and beliefs. Ask more questions, demanding others to believe you is no different to them asking you to believe them.

But there is hope (although I dislike that word because it implies sitting still and doing fuck all.

Science and it’s processes allow us doubt. In that, there will be continuous investigation, measurement, analysis, formulation, testing, verification, justification, theorising and finally acceptance. And if anything changes well,be ready to adjust based on new evidence.

So how does this apply to Climate?

We are somewhere in the testing and formulation stage. We wait impatiently for verification. Final acceptance will come when science says “I told you so”.



So, place your bets ladies and gentlemen. The race is on. Will it be #1 with the high temps and flooding oceans? What about cooler and drier at #2. Then there’s the beige #3 with not a cloud in the sky and sunny days ahead. Coming as a long shot is #4 who thinks it’s all a communist plot and would prefer to be eating hay. There’s a few loose runners of catastrophists, economists, industrialists and Scientologists but most are lame and will be scratched before the real race starts.



I’m betting on the favourite. Who wouldn’t? But there’s still a chance I might lose my cash so I’ll keep the books open until I get more information.



You see, James, I’m a Knower not a Believer. I’d always go with the 95% chances than the lesser. Mind you, I’ll always keep an eye on the outsider just in case it finds some wind and makes a difference to the outcome of the race.



It’s not so much how much I know about the horses. It’s more about who I can trust from legitimate information about the horses. So far you’ve done a fare bit of shouting but there’s not a lot of substance in it. You haven’t shifted the % either way. I’m still betting on the favourite.

What have I got to lose? A life? That’s already done I’m afraid. I came here not knowing what it would be like. It’s been OK up to now. Seems like the air conditioner is breaking down but no one seems to be able to fix it fast enough or even wants to. That’s OK. I’ll put up with the heat for a couple more years and that will see me out.

They say the temp is constant 2 m down.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher

You should face the music and admit that the past IPCC climate predictions based on computer models it totally false. Real scientific weather observations of the recent past have already proven this.

James

I have not asked you to give attention to IPCC prediction models, so why do you create a straw man?

I only and looking at the obvious rises in global sea level measured from the earth’s center and the various predictions for the future are given but none are accepted as proven or the most likely as we are still accumulating data. As we do, we will see where the data falls.


Here again is the sea level rise video!

During that time you will find some areas, like the Western coast of the USA where tectonic plates are pushing up and in Greenland, where glaciers have melted the land rises and see levels appear to fall relative to the land. On the East cost of the USA, sea levels may appear high because of Atlantic water current surges.

Still, the levels we are referring to are not these but rather either:


1. Mean “relative to land mass”, sea levels in various locations

2. Mean sea levels from center of the earth

Please look at the NAOO video with the clearest pictures and the best sound and logical consequential flow of facts with hypotheses clearly announced as merely that.

Asher

 

[James Lemon]

I have not asked you to give attention to IPCC prediction models, so why do you create a straw man?

I only and looking at the obvious rises in global sea level measured from the earth’s center and the various predictions for the future are given but none are accepted as proven or the most likely as we are still accumulating data. As we do, we will see where the data falls.


Here again is the sea level rise video!

During that time you will find some areas, like the Western coast of the USA where tectonic plates are pushing up and in Greenland, where glaciers have melted the land rises and see levels appear to fall relative to the land. On the East cost of the USA, sea levels may appear high because of Atlantic water current surges.

Still, the levels we are referring to are not these but rather either:


1. Mean “relative to land mass”, sea levels in various locations

2. Mean sea levels from center of the earth

Please look at the NAOO video with the clearest pictures and the best sound and logical consequential flow of facts with hypotheses clearly announced as merely that.

Asher

Asher

I have viewed your video in a large as life format. It looks to be embedded with more straw-man predictions from the IPCC. Just like Al Gore said the summer Arctic could be ice-free by 2013 due to CO2 emissions. Given the past performance based on their predictions they might as well be predicting the future sale of U.S postage stamps.

The point is that their models are junk. I can only conclude two things? One is that they are really bad at arithmetic but according to you, they are going to get better at it. Two is that they are are purposefully falsifying the info to support their climate crusade.

James

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher

I have viewed your video in a large as life format. It looks to be embedded with more straw-man predictions from the IPCC. Just like Al Gore said the summer Arctic could be ice-free by 2013 due to CO2 emissions. Given the past performance based on their predictions they might as well be predicting the future sale of U.S postage stamps.

The point is that their models are junk. I can only conclude two things? One is that they are really bad at arithmetic but according to you, they are going to get better at it. Two is that they are are purposefully falsifying the info to support their climate crusade.

James

You can say “it looks like”, but you are not any authority or expert to make those judgements. This Trumps Agency, remember, and no way his right wing crew would tolerate any bias or sloppiness here.

At this time, it’s quite clear that NAOO has declared its assessment. You are not qualified by “opinions” and guesses to dismiss that.

They do not presume any predictive model is correct. So you cannot associate them with your nemesis Al Gore! That claim is utterly without merit.

We are going to have to wait for me new data and see whichbof the various models it conforms to if any. They make no suggestions of which is the likely true trajectory so you shouldn’t either.

All we know is what has happened.

Asher

 

[Peter Dexter]

Here are a couple of charts posted by IDEAM which is the government entity in Colombia that monitors changing environmental conditions in the country. They are in Spanish but so many posters here are multilingual should be no problem. The "nevados" in Colombia are the very high mountains where snow accumulates over time producing glaciers. These glaciers and their melt provide the water for the capitol city of Bogotá and other principal cities in Colombia. Overall Colombia has lost 58% of it's glacier acerage between 1980 and 2019.

 

[James Lemon]

You can say “it looks like”, but you are not any authority or expert to make those judgements. This Trumps Agency, remember, and no way his right wing crew would tolerate any bias or sloppiness here.

At this time, it’s quite clear that NAOO has declared its assessment. You are not qualified by “opinions” and guesses to dismiss that.

They do not presume any predictive model is correct. So you cannot associate them with your nemesis Al Gore! That claim is utterly without merit.

We are going to have to wait for me new data and see whichbof the various models it conforms to if any. They make no suggestions of which is the likely true trajectory so you shouldn’t either.

All we know is what has happened.

Asher

Asher

All we know is what has happened. Yes this correct and it proves that many of the models have been exaggerated to create more bogeymen.

James

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher

All we know is what has happened. Yes this correct and it proves that many of the models have been exaggerated to create more bogeymen.

James

But we are not scared of bogeymen, you and I.

Let different folk predict what they like. With 3-5 satellites taking measurements the truth will be obvious in 5-10 years for sure!

Asher

 

[James Lemon]

But we are not scared of bogeymen, you and I.

Let different folk predict what they like. With 3-5 satellites taking measurements the truth will be obvious in 5-10 years for sure!

Asher

I am interested in see what the effects might be during the next upcoming solar cycle. But if you like to look at the most recent satellite data go to the following link.

http://www.climate4you.com/

James

 

[Jerome Marot]

The last few paragraphs of the article sum up my position on the issue of man-made global warming nicely.

I suppose you refer to the paragraph: "What will our climate be like in the future? That is the question scientists are asking and seeking answers to currently. The causes of "global warming" and climate change are today being popularly described in terms of human activities. However, climate change is something that happens constantly on its own. If humans are in fact altering Earth's climate with our cars, electrical powerplants, and factories these changes must be larger than the natural climate variability in order to be measurable. So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise."

You may have not noticed that the article was written 10 years ago and in these past 10 years climate changes have become considerably more noticeable. That is the reason for the present political landscape: people are starting to notice that summers are becoming much hotter than they remember, etc... which motivates them to take political action. In the past 10 years, changes have been larger than the natural climate variability and came to be measurable.

There is also the problem of time scale. The article describes changes that took a long time. The time scale is geological eras. The planet can absorb excess carbon without catastrophic consequences if it takes, say, 100 thousands years. It will be hotter and oceans will be higher, though. But we are burning carbon in mere decades.

 

[Jerome Marot]

My lecturers would always ask: “what is your authority?”. I always thought I was good enough an authority on most things. What a sorry state that put me in. I soon leaned that an authority is someone who is generally accepted as correct and knowledgeable in a specific and often narrow field who has been thoroughly reviewed by their peers and is considered most accurate with current data analysis.

While I generally agree with your post, I would like to point out that the notion of "authority" comes with a complete set of problems that would need their own thread. We, humans, tend to poorly chose people we trust with "authority".

 

[Tom dinning]

While I generally agree with your post, I would like to point out that the notion of "authority" comes with a complete set of problems that would need their own thread. We, humans, tend to poorly chose people we trust with "authority".

I agree, Jerome.
It’s too easy for us to quote something we find on the internet and assume it’s authoritative.
it’s also difficult for those who have little training in objective authorisation and identification of legitimate, unbiased information.
There’s also a tendency for some to suggest that if a smart person said it, it must be true.
Relevance is also important.
So is the directness of the experience. I remember some years back when writing a paper for a publication and needing to verify a piece of information. I found a text which contained the relevant information but it seemed a bit watered down.
So I called the author who is a friend of mine. Over the phone, she gave me her personal experiences in the matter. I included that in the paper. Before it was published the editor called me. She wanted to know I I really did get a personal statement from the person in question. I needed to verify that I had.
whenwe read something in a forum like this we don’t have time to consider all that.
Nor do we believe we need to be that particular.
We don’t, of course. That’s why forums ar just a distribution of ideas, experiences, scattered and random comments and misdirected ideas form which we can only gleam a modicum of truth, if that.
I read this forum with my tongue firmly attached to my inner cheek, a sense of humour, scepticism that would skin a cat live, and absolutely no interest in learning anything, especially in regard to climate and possibly changes.
not to say that there are some things which appear informative. The first thing I’ll do then is to head for the source and test it as I would with a student paper or my own.
that is, if I ,could be bothered, which I’m usually not.
James and Asher are no more authorities on climate that’s I’m am; possibly less so. They take each other far to seriously. Both are fishing for something that will alter the others thinking. Trouble is they are doing it as hoc. It’s a poorly written assignment that would gain no ground under scrutiny, especially mine.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Tom wrote:

“James and Asher are no more authorities on climate that’s I’m am; possibly less so. They take each other far to seriously. Both are fishing for something that will alter the others thinking. Trouble is they are doing it as hoc. It’s a poorly written assignment that would gain no ground under scrutiny, especially mine.”

That’s both unfair and imprudent and even impudent, (given he knows me far better than to say that)! Where did I claim to be a climate expert?

What an absurd statement!

Not only that, the presumption that I advocate for a particular prediction is plainly false! I merely seek to understand a body of scientific data and am open to learning of authoritative analyses to shed light on the subject.

What Tom did in school classes only works as a proof of expertise for his job to his and the school authority’s satisfaction.

I only claim expertise for my own needs and for science I have done, the 1500 physicians and a handful of Ph.D. Student trained under my direction! I have no expertise at all on the academic analysis disciplines studying climate change. I just claim nearly sufficient training to hopefully appreciate the direction of past and current study.

But I do have a small modicum of influence and in that very modest way I wish to add my voice to the proposition that Grasping the risk to humanity is a worthwhile endeavor.

I do hope vehemently that we all have better understanding, as for sure, climate change, man made or not, has more than likely, serious current consequence of existential risk for millions of species.

That should sufficient to allow this debate, as inexpert as we are.

Asher

 

[James Lemon]

As for consensus in science, no one could be more eloquent than Michael Crichton in his lecture, “Aliens Cause Global Warming” at the California Institute of Technology in 2003:


There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it

isn’t consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of.

Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six

died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were

infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver

Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence.

The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually

eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew,

ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever

until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five

years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the

world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of

women."
By Michael Crichton





http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/GW-Aliens-Crichton.htm



Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, Semmelweis supposedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was treacherously committed to an asylum by his colleague, where he died, a mere 14 days later, at the age of 47, after being beaten by the guards, from a gangrenous wound, due to an infection on his right hand which might have been caused by the beating (officially of pyaemia). Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory, and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist's research, practised and operated, using hygienic methods, with great success.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

Consensus supporters don’t like to admit it, but the situation is getting perilously close to Lysenkoism. Lysenko was a poorly educated agricultural extension agent from Ukraine who gained complete control over biology in the USSR, with the full backing of the Politburo and the personal support of both Stalin and Khrushchev.

Lysenko maintained that the genetic theory of inheritance was a lie, supported by evil western industrialists. He insisted that acquired characteristics of living creatures could be passed on to their progeny…. and we’re not talking about the interesting phenomenon of epigenetics, but something much cruder. He apparently believed in the spontaneous generation of life. He blocked the introduction of hybrid crops to the Soviet Union. Scientists who expressed any doubt about Lysenko’s dogmas were lucky if they were only fired from their jobs. Many were sent to concentration camps in Siberia, and some were sentenced to death. Photos of Lysenko and one of his most prominent opponents, Nicolai Vavilov, are shown below. (See Valery N. Soyfer, Lysenko and the Tragedy of Soviet Science [Rutgers University Press, 1994].)

Here is a major statement on the effects of C02 By William Happer you can label him a climate denier too if you choose.

https://thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/happer-major-statement/

 

[Asher Kelman]

M

As for consensus in science, no one could be more eloquent than Michael Crichton in his lecture, “Aliens Cause Global Warming” at the California Institute of Technology in 2003:


There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it

isn’t consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of.

Let’s review a few cases.......

James,

You excel in diversionary tactics. This one is HUGE, LOL. But it's entertaining.

You have delivered a flash of arm-waving of a fabulously decorated straw man!

Kudos for the showmanship, but who cares her about consensus. If I expected you to believe in that concept, you would be required to become Muslim, as that must be the largest “certain” consensus on the planet by its adherents!

We only look for authoritative analyses by non-industry biased academically trained experts in climate, atmospheric and oceanographic science.

I check each link you give to learn more and be able to connect to well examined data.

My goals are modest, I am a scientist and in doing so, I constantly alter the angle from which I view data and analyses to try to discern which conclusion appear to withstand critical review.

I do not advocate anything more than paying attention to the subject and acting, (where prudent), results of confirmed-data accumulated to this point in time.

At this time there is already sufficient evidence of continued global sea level rise and cyclic climate change for which we are unnecessarily adding our own contributions by burning fossil fuels.

....and no I don’t believe in Moses, Jesus or Trump as my saviors nor Gore as an authority on anything except his increasing girth!

 

[James Lemon]

M


James,

You excel in diversionary tactics. This one is HUGE, LOL. But it's entertaining.

You have delivered a flash of arm-waving of a fabulously decorated straw man!

Kudos for the showmanship, but who cares her about consensus. If I expected you to believe in that concept, you would be required to become Muslim, as that must be the largest “certain” consensus on the planet by its adherents!

We only look for authoritative analyses by non-industry biased academically trained experts in climate, atmospheric and oceanographic science.

I check each link you give to learn more and be able to connect to well examined data.

My goals are modest, I am a scientist and in doing so, I constantly alter the angle from which I view data and analyses to try to discern which conclusion appear to withstand critical review.

I do not advocate anything more than paying attention to the subject and acting, (where prudent), results of confirmed-data accumulated to this point in time.

At this time there is already sufficient evidence of continued global sea level rise and cyclic climate change for which we are unnecessarily adding our own contributions by burning fossil fuels.

....and no I don’t believe in Moses, Jesus or Trump as my saviors nor Gore as an authority on anything except his increasing girth!

Oh but of course Asher. You can dismiss William Happer as a shill for the oil industry or whatever but you would be foolish to dismiss his knowledge about C02.

Sea levels have been rising for 12,000 years. Government policy will not stop the ocean currents, clouds, sun, or the rotation of earth.

James

 

[Jerome Marot]

Here is a major statement on the effects of C02 By William Happer you can label him a climate denier too if you choose.

https://thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/happer-major-statement/

It seems that Wikipedia is of that opinion indeed. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer:

In 2018, Happer, who is not a climate scientist and who rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, joined the National Security Council of the Trump Administration to counter evidence linking carbon dioxide emissions to global warming.

Happer disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change, stating that "Some small fraction of the 1 °C warming during the past two centuries must have been due to increasing CO2, which is indeed a greenhouse gas", but argues that "most of the warming has probably been due to natural causes." Michael Oppenheimer said that Happer’s claims are "simply not true" and that the preponderance of evidence and majority of expert opinion points to a strong anthropogenic influence on rising global temperatures. Climate Science Watch published a point-by-point rebuttal to one of Happer’s articles. A petition that he coauthored to change the official position of the American Physical Society to a version that raised doubts about global warming was overwhelmingly rejected by the APS Council. Happer has no formal training as a climate scientist.

In May 2013, Happer and Harrison Schmitt published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, "In Defense of Carbon Dioxide," in which they termed elevated atmospheric CO2 "a boon to plant life." It was described by Ryan Chittum, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, in the Columbia Journalism Review as "shameful, even for the dismal standards" of the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

As to the article from "The best schools .org", it is disingenuous. Which brings us back to the discussion about "authoritative figures" started by Tom: Harper was chosen because he is perceived as an authoritative figure" by the public, because of is experience as a physicist, but his opinions on climate change make little scientific sense, as the article you cited illustrates. Chances are, however, that readers attach authority to the writer and forget to exercise their common sense when reading the article.