AGW denial is anti-science

[Esceptico]

Kawasicki said:

Do you accept their is a difference between CAGW and AGW?

No but I do see a difference between predictions of future temperature rises and the impact of the increases. For a given increase in greenhouse gases the increase in global temperature can be estimated quite well. However, there is uncertainty about how that impacts local weather, sea level rises, frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, etc.

[jet_noise]

Esceptico said:

<snip> For a given increase in greenhouse gases the increase in global temperature can be estimated quite well.

I don't call a "likely" range of ECS of 3:1 (1.5-4.5°C per doubling of CO2 concentration acc. IPCC) "quite well". And it could be 6:1 (acc. IPCC again). Others have suggested even smaller and larger values.

And we're spaffing trillions because of it?
In any other subject you'd be laughed out of the room for suggesting such a thing.

[Kawasicki]

Esceptico said:

Kawasicki said:

Do you accept their is a difference between CAGW and AGW?

No but I do see a difference between predictions of future temperature rises and the impact of the increases. For a given increase in greenhouse gases the increase in global temperature can be estimated quite well. However, there is uncertainty about how that impacts local weather, sea level rises, frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, etc.

So you think that The increase in CO2 from 280 to 400+ ppm have had catastrophic consequences?

[Gadgetmac]

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

Kawasicki said:

Esceptico said:

mondeoman said:

Very simply the science isn't settled, by any stretch.
How do the models explain the medieval warm period and the cooling in the forties?
Why are there 102 models that have such a spread of results? and only 1 (IIRC) is anything close to current observations.
CAGW skeptics dont have to have a rebutting theory, the only requirement is to indicate that alarmist CAGW theory is invalid.

Edited by mondeoman on Wednesday 1st January 12:13

These sorts of posts confirm my point. Creationists tell you that the science of evolution isn’t settled, despite the fact there are no biology departments at any reputable universities that don’t accept evolution. Same for climate change. Unless one of you deniers can provide evidence to the contrary (I’ve asked before and been ignored), all climate change/geography/earth science departments at all reputable universities accept AGW.

Do you accept their is a difference between CAGW and AGW?

Who are the CAGW scientists? And what exactly do you classify as coming under that label?

Footnote 6 give many catastrophic quotes from many climate scientists.

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/footno...

C means catastrophic...

But they are all politicians, not scientists.

I'm not seeing many published papers employing the term catastrophic. And I don't mean just the odd paper I mean out of the thousands published each year a good few hundred.

[Kawasicki]

Gadgetmac said:

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

Kawasicki said:

Esceptico said:

mondeoman said:

Very simply the science isn't settled, by any stretch.
How do the models explain the medieval warm period and the cooling in the forties?
Why are there 102 models that have such a spread of results? and only 1 (IIRC) is anything close to current observations.
CAGW skeptics dont have to have a rebutting theory, the only requirement is to indicate that alarmist CAGW theory is invalid.

Edited by mondeoman on Wednesday 1st January 12:13

These sorts of posts confirm my point. Creationists tell you that the science of evolution isn’t settled, despite the fact there are no biology departments at any reputable universities that don’t accept evolution. Same for climate change. Unless one of you deniers can provide evidence to the contrary (I’ve asked before and been ignored), all climate change/geography/earth science departments at all reputable universities accept AGW.

Do you accept their is a difference between CAGW and AGW?

Who are the CAGW scientists? And what exactly do you classify as coming under that label?

Footnote 6 give many catastrophic quotes from many climate scientists.

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/footno...

C means catastrophic...

But they are all politicians, not scientists.

I'm not seeing many published papers employing the term catastrophic. And I don't mean just the odd paper I mean out of the thousands published each year a good few hundred.

Nope, scientists not politicians, though it’s easy to get confused!

Here are some quotes (source is Andy West www.wearenarrative.wordpress.com) from prominent CAGW scientists...


a) [ANDREW GLIKSON] Earth and Paleo-climate Scientist, Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University, Research School of Earth Science, the School of Archaeology and Anthropology, and the Planetary Science Institute, and a member of the ANU Climate Change Institute. i] Article at LA Progressive (2016): “It follows that, where and when the majority of authoritative scientific institutions (NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, Hadley-Met, Tyndale, Potsdam, CSIRO, World Academy of Science, IPCC and so on), based on the bulk of the evidence, indicate beyond reasonable doubt that open-ended emissions of greenhouse gases inevitably lead to a major shift in the terrestrial climate, and thereby the demise of humans and of species, a toleration and/or condoning of continuing emissions by governments contravenes at the very least the spirit of international laws... ...The deleterious alteration of the climate over populations and nations constitutes an assault against humanity and nature and yet, to date, while spending about $2 trillion dollars each year on so-called “defense”, it appears human laws and institutions are paralyzed, unable to avert the portents of a climate catastrophe. While humans are in many circumstances able to negotiate, no negotiation is possible with the basic laws of physics which dominate the climate system.” ii] via The Conversation (Jan 2018): “Good planets are hard to come by.” iii] Via Global Research: “Rarely has the full extent of the climate catastrophe been conveyed by the mainstream media, including the ABC, as contrasted with the proliferation of pseudo-science infotainment programs, where attractive celebrities promote space travel. ...Given a 2 to 3-fold rise in extreme weather events, signs of the impending global climate tipping points are everywhere, from hurricane-hit Caribbean islands and southeast US, to cyclone-ravaged and sea level rise-affected southwest Pacific islands, to flooded south Asian regions such as Kerala and Pakistan, to fire-devastated regions in southern Europe and California, to the Australian and east African droughts. ...Should there be a future investigation of those who have been, continue to, promote and preside over the rise in carbon emissions, with the consequent climate calamity, this would be recorded by survivors as the greatest crime ever perpetrated by the Homo ‘sapiens’.”
b) [ANDREW WEAVER] Lansdowne Professor and ex Canada Research Chair in climate modelling and analysis in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria. i] Regarding evidence ‘now’ that humans are the main cause of Global Warming. Via NBC News (Jan 2007): “The smoking gun is definitely lying on the table as we speak,” added U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who reviewed all 1,600 pages of the first segment of the giant four-part {IPCC} report. “The evidence ... is compelling.” Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and chapter co-author, went even further: “This isn’t a smoking gun; climate is a battalion of intergalactic smoking missiles.” ii] And writing in the Huffington Post, also about proof of human causation for global warming (Sept 2012): ‘So here we now have a {Canadian} government willingly and knowingly committing future generations to ecological collapse and untold climate-related catastrophes. It's fully “knowing” since they have read, and selectively quoted from, our study on the warming potential of coal. It's “willing” because despite this, they are introducing policies that will ensure we have coal-fired electricity plants spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for decades to come. Will future generations hold these ideologues in Ottawa accountable for their actions? I certainly hope so.’
c) [DAVID KAROLY] via The Australian (April 2013): ‘Eminent Australian climate scientist David Karoly has warned that by driving global warming we are “unleashing hell” on our country. Our coal exports are by far Australia's greatest contribution to climate change at about 140 per cent of domestic emissions in 2011-12.’
d) [ERIC RIGNOT] Glaciologist and professor of Earth system science at the University of California, Irvine, and Senior Research Scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. From Climate Change: The Elevator Pitch, a video at climatecrocks.com (February 2015): “The science is looking at the impact of that [warming] on the climate, the impact on humans, the impact on sea-level, the impact on precipitation. It’s gonna be the impact on food production, it’s gonna be the impact on where people live; pretty serious impacts. It’s gonna be impact on bio-diversity, which in my opinion is even bigger than sea-level rise, right, the... the decay of species. In the end, what we’re saying, what most of the science is saying, is these changes are occurring very fast. We’re on a very fast train heading for the wall, and that’s not good. So we have to change, we have to change the way we live. And I often say, it’s er... it’s common sense. We didn’t leave the stone age because we ran out of stone. We have... we have to leave the oil age, because burning oil is not good for the climate, it’s not good for us. Er... but it’s a huge shift in our society, it’s a... it’s a huge shift in the way we live.”
e) [HANS JOACHIM SCHELLNHUBER] Theoretical physicist. Chief (German) government advisor on climate and related issues during Germany’s EU Council Presidency and G8 Presidency. Director, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. i] In an interview with the German newspaper Saarbruecker Zeitung, via Deutsche Welle (2008): ‘Schellnhuber warns that previous predictions about climate change and its catastrophic effects were too cautious and optimistic. “In nearly all areas, the developments are occurring more quickly than it has been assumed up until now ... We are on our way to a destabilization of the world climate that has advanced much further than most people or their governments realize... When only one side fails to act, industrial countries or developing countries, than [sic] a disastrous climate change will be inevitable”.’ ii] Personal observation by David Spratt in the work he prepared for a Senate Inquiry, ‘IMPLICATIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE FOR AUSTRALIA’S NATIONAL SECURITY’, in his role within the National Centre for Climate Restoration (Aug 2017): ‘Asked at a 2011 conference in Melbourne about the difference between a 2°C world and a 4°C world, EU and German government advisor, Prof. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, replied in two words: “Human civilisation”.’
f) [HAROLD WANLESS] Professor and chair of the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Miami's College of Arts and Sciences, communicating about climate change and sea-level rise for over three decades. Climatologist. In addition to geology, research on glacial melting and sea- level rise, plus hurricane effects on coastal environments, evolution of mangrove coastal wetlands and anthropogenic effects on coastal and shallow marine environments. Via Counterpunch (published early Feb 2017, but most seems sourced from late 2016): “So there you have it my fellow humans: it's at least possible that we could be looking at an epic extinction event, caused by ourselves, which could include exterminating our own species, or at least what we call ‘civilization,’ in as little as nine years.
What is particularly galling, in thinking about this, is the prospect that eight of those last years might find us living in a country led by Donald Trump, a climate-change denier who seems hell-bent on promoting measures, like extracting more oil from the Canadian tar sands, the North Dakota Bakkan shale fields and the Arctic sea floor, as well as re-opening coal mines, that will just make such a dystopian future even more likely than it already is.
The only ‘bright side’ to this picture is that it may not matter that much what Trump does, because we've already, during the last eight Obama years and the last eight Bush years before that, dithered away so much time that the carbon already in the atmosphere -- about 405 ppm -- has long since passed the 380 ppm level at which, during the last warming period of the earth, sea levels were 100 feet higher than they are today.
That is to say, we're already past the point of no return and it's just the lag being caused by the time it takes for ice sheets to melt and for the huge ocean heat sinks to warm in response to the higher carbon levels in the atmosphere that is saving us from facing this disaster right now.
It is at this stage of the game either too late to stop, or we should be embarking on a global crash program to reduce carbon emissions the likes of which humanity has never known or contemplated.”
g) [JASON BOX] Professor in Glaciology, and Greenland ice climatologist, based at The Geologic Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS). Via the Daily Mail (Aug 2014): ‘The leaking gas from the seafloor may have its origins in collapsing clusters of methane trapped in frozen water due to high pressure and low temperature. Scientists at Stockholm University called the discovery ‘somewhat of a surprise,’ which, according to Dr Box, is an understatement. “We're on a trajectory to an unmanageable heating scenario, and we need to get off it,” Dr Box told Brian Merchant at Motherboard. “We're f**ked at a certain point, right? It just becomes unmanageable. The climate dragon is being poked, and eventually the dragon becomes pissed off enough to trash the place.” Same article: ...“I may escape a lot of this,” Dr Box told Motherboard, “but my daughter might not. She’s three years old.”
h) [JAMES HANSEN] Up to 2013, head of NASA GISS. i] In Guardian article (Feb 2009): “Only in the last few years did the science crystallize, revealing the urgency - our planet really is in peril. If we do not change course soon, we will hand our children a situation that is out of their control.” From his book Storms of My Grandchildren (2011): “Planet Earth, creation, the world in which civilization developed, the world with climate patterns that we know and stable shorelines, is in imminent peril.” ii] In a National Public Radio interview with Guy Raz (April 2017): “Imagine a giant asteroid on a direct collision course with Earth. That is the equivalent of what we face now, yet we dither taking no action to divert the asteroid.”
i) [KEVIN ANDERSON] Deputy Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. In The Scotsman, via his wiki entry (2009): ‘Current Met Office projections reveal that the lack of action in the intervening 17 years – in which emissions of climate changing gases such as carbon dioxide have soared – has set the world on a path towards potential 4C rises as early as 2060, and 6C rises by the end of the century. Anderson, who advises the government on climate change, said the consequences were “terrifying”. “For humanity it's a matter of life or death,” he said. “We will not make all human beings extinct as a few people with the right sort of resources may put themselves in the right parts of the world and survive. But I think it's extremely unlikely that we wouldn't have mass death at 4C. If you have got a population of nine billion by 2050 and you hit 4C, 5C or 6C, you might have half a billion people surviving”.’
j) [MICHAEL MacCRACKEN] Chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington. Until 2001, he coordinated the US government’s studies of the consequences of global warming. Via CBS News (Mar 2007): “We’re on a path to exceeding levels of global warming that will cause catastrophic consequences, and we really need to be seriously reducing emissions, not just reducing the growth rate as the president is doing.”
k) [MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER] Professor of geo-sciences, Princeton (and has taken a leading role in various environmental and science policy related activities, especially with regard to acid rain). Via Reuters: ‘Scorching heat, high winds and bone-dry conditions are fueling catastrophic wildfires in the U.S. West that offer a preview of the kind of disasters that human-caused climate change could bring, a trio of scientists said on Thursday. “What we’re seeing is a window into what global warming really looks like,” Princeton University’s Michael Oppenheimer said during a telephone press briefing. “It looks like heat, it looks like fires, it looks like this kind of environmental disaster... This provides vivid images of what we can expect to see more of in the future.”
l) [PAUL BECKWITH and JOHN NISSEN] Paul: Physicist and part-time Professor of geography at the University of Ottawa and Climate System scientist. John: Chair of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG). AMEG press conference at COP20 in Lima (Dec 2014): Paul – “...We feel in AMEG that we carry a burden, erm of knowledge about... that, that scares us regarding the, the er, how the climate change, how, how, the climate system, how quickly it can respond, how quickly it can change, and we feel this two degrees Celsius message that is, we hear all the time from the IPCC is not really the benchmark that is important. So, I’d like to introduce er, John Nissen the chairman of AMEG, and he will go into the details of, of what, what we’ve just determined.”
John – “...Climate change is happening now, it’s the weird weather, er that you’ve, er been exhibited all over the northern hemisphere. Erm, and, and it’s about to get far worse. The abrupt climate change the world has been observing recently is, is, due to Arctic warming. The Arctic has been warming much faster than the rest er, of the planet. If the Arctic continues to warm, things will get worse and worse, and we’ll end up with that situation described in the New York Times, here when the planet will become uninhabitable I’m afraid. So... that’s, and that’s happening now. And we’ve got to stop it. So, what’s going on? Well, er the Arctic has started a vicious cycle of warming and melting. This is the start of a runaway meltdown of the, of, of the whole of the Arctic icecap. It has to be stopped. AMEG believes that it can be stopped by cooling the Arctic quickly, an’ we have some top engineers advising us how that can be done. The public is not being told the truth about Arctic meltdown. Governments are doing nothing to stop Arctic meltdown. This is why I’m giving this press conference, we need action.”
m) [PETER WADHAMS] Professor of Ocean Physics, and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge. President of the International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Oceans Commission on Sea Ice. Via the Cambridge Independent (Oct 2016): ‘Professor Wadhams is not convinced reducing carbon emissions, planting forests or even expensive geo-engineer projects to reflect sunlight away from the earth will be enough to save the planet. The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is already too great. But he has not given up hope. “What is needed is new technology, a method of large scale filtering of the air to take the carbon dioxide out. This is a system not yet invented but not beyond the ingenuity of scientists if we spend the money on research. We need to do this if we are to save the planet from catastrophic consequences,” he said.’
n) [VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN] Victor Alderson Professor of Applied Ocean Sciences and director of the Center for Atmospheric Sciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California. Via The Hill, (May 2018): “As a co-chair of this report I can state that it was excruciating to arrive at the existential threat conclusion. But the massive data we reviewed left us with no other option. The very conditions on which human civilization has depended for the last 12,000 years are threatened by human ideologies, actions and systems that perpetuate climate change. Unchecked climate change can expose 70 percent of the population to lethal heat stress in addition to record-breaking storms, floods, extreme droughts and fires, exacerbating socioeconomic inequalities, and marginalizing the vulnerable from participation in society. But, the report left out something crucial that here I would like to address. It is not that nothing can be done to avert such a global catastrophe; far from it. As shown by numerous reports there are many scalable solutions to reduce the warming almost by half within 30 years and stabilize the warming below dangerous levels. We have about 10 years to deploy these solutions. If such solutions are available, why are they not already being implemented? Because knowing is never enough! Something beyond knowledge must move the will to take actions. What is that something? Today, untruth competes with truth to muddy the issue of climate change. The faith community can transcend divisions and bring together people of different perspectives to seek the truth and work for a moral revolution urgently needed for a sustainable relationship with nature: One where humankind challenges notions of domination over nature and sees itself as part of nature... ...Climate change is an existential threat that will require unprecedented cooperation between divergent sectors and members of society. As a climate scientist, I know that the faith community is critical to the process. I therefore urge persons of all faiths to prophetically help lead the nation towards a world of climate stability that safeguards the common home we all share.”
o) [WARREN WASHINGTON] A senior scientist at NCAR. Via Scientific American (April 2009): ‘Drastic, economy-changing cuts to greenhouse gas emissions will spare the planet half the trauma expected over the next century as the Earth warms. And that’s the good news. Because failure to significantly curb these planet-warming gases will truly transform our world in less than 100 years. A new study to be published by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research finds that a 70 percent cut in emissions should stabilize temperatures at a mark not too much higher than today. Such a cut, most experts agree, would require vast retooling of a fossil-fuel-based economy and an unprecedented level of global cooperation. But that major effort to slash emissions, the scientists warn, won't stop global warming. The question confronting politicians throughout the world, in other words, is not whether they want the planet to warm: It is to what degree. “We can no longer avoid significant warming during this century,” NCAR scientist Warren Washington, the lead author, said in a statement. But “we could stabilize the threat of climate change and avoid catastrophe.”’
p) [ANTHONY RICHARDSON] Professor at University of Queensland. Research interests: impacts of climate change, marine ecology, and analyses of large datasets using modern statistical techniques. Via ‘Is this is how you feel’ (2015):
“How climate change makes me feel.
I feel a maelstrom of emotions
I am exasperated. Exasperated no one is listening.
I am frustrated. Frustrated we are not solving the problem.
I am anxious. Anxious that we start acting now.
I am perplexed. Perplexed that the urgency is not appreciated.
I am dumbfounded. Dumbfounded by our inaction.
I am distressed. Distressed we are changing our planet.
I am upset. Upset for what our inaction will mean for all life.
I am annoyed. Annoyed with the media’s portrayal of the science.
I am angry. Angry that vested interests bias the debate.
I am infuriated. Infuriated we are destroying our planet.
But most of all I am apprehensive. Apprehensive about our children’s future.”
q) [DANA NUCCITELLI (Dana1981)] Environmental scientist, risk assessor, and climate
columnist at the Guardian. In a posting at Skeptical Science (Sept 2007): “If we continue forward on our current path, catastrophe is not just a possible outcome, it is the most probable outcome. And an intelligent risk management approach would involve taking steps to prevent a catastrophic scenario if it were a mere possibility, let alone the most probable outcome. Climate contrarians will often mock ‘CAGW’ (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming), but the sad reality is that CAGW is looking more and more likely every day. But it's critical that we don't give up, that we keep doing everything we can do to reduce our emissions as much as possible in order to avoid as many catastrophic consequences as possible, for the sake of future generations and all species on Earth.” Print version.
r) [DAVID PAGE] Dr. A terrestrial geologist researching the rocky planets of the inner Solar System, and the parallels of methane-clathrate destabilisation on Mars and Earth. Via Arctic News (April 2018): “Let us have no more ‘scientific reticence’ about Arctic methane. Earth at 1 AU is forever on the 0.97-0.99 AU margin of runaway warming (Kopparapu et al., 2013). To see what that's like, we need only look to our other nearest planetary neighbour {Venus} and carry on with 'Business-As-Usual'. For the $3- trillion that was spent a decade ago bailing-out the shareholders of two corrupt mortgage lenders and a failing bank we could have built enough offshore wind turbines to power the entire planet, fixing dangerous climate-change globally and permanently. If we're lucky, we may have a decade remaining to fix it now.” (some discussion of this theory on a RealClimate thread).
s) [JEFF MASTERS] Ex flight meteorologist for NOAA hurricane hunters. Phd in air pollution meteorology. Co-founder and Director of Meteorology for the Weather Underground company. Via private message to Joe Romm, quoted in Joe’s post Year of Living Dangerously, at the Think Progress blog (December 2010): ‘Here’s what Dr. Masters wrote me: In my thirty years as a meteorologist, I’ve never seen global weather patterns as strange as those we had in 2010. The stunning extremes we witnessed gives me concern that our climate is showing the early signs of instability. Natural variability probably did play a significant role in the wild weather of 2010, and 2011 will likely not be nearly as extreme. However, I suspect that crazy weather years like 2010 will become the norm a decade from now, as the climate continues to adjust to the steady build-up of heat-trapping gases we are pumping into the air. Forty years from now, the crazy weather of 2010 will seem pretty tame. We’ve bequeathed to our children a future with a radically changed climate that will regularly bring unprecedented weather events– many of them extremely destructive–to every corner of the globe. This year’s wild ride was just the beginning.’
t) [JOHN HOLDREN] Originally trained in aeronautics, astronautics and plasma physics. Science policy advisor. See in article for positions held; via the Belfer centre (2006): As President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science—the largest general science society in the world and the publisher of the journal SCIENCE—Holden’s focus is on strengthening efforts worldwide “to deploy science and technology more effectively in support of sustainable well-being for all of the Earth’s inhabitants.” An important part of this focus is addressing the challenge of climate change. “Global climate change is the most dangerous and the most difficult of all the environmental problems that humans have ever caused and probably will ever cause,” Holdren says in a AAAS video. “We are in the situation of driving an automobile with bad brakes toward a cliff . . . in the fog,” he says. “The auto is the world’s energy-economic system and the cliff is climate-change catastrophe. We don’t know exactly where the cliff is because of the uncertainties in climate science —the fog—but that is hardly a consolation, or a reason not to try to slow down.”
u) [JOHN SCALES AVERY] Lektor Emeritus, Associate Professor, at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen. Via Human Wrongs Watch (April 2016): “In an amazing display of collective schizophrenia, our media treat oil production and the global climate emergency as though they were totally disconnected. But the use of all fossil fuels, including oil, must stop almost immediately if the world is to have a chance of avoiding uncontrollable and catastrophic climate change.”
v) [GIDEON POLYA] Bio-chemist, author, activist. See Inquiry Submission to Australian Senate Select Committee on Climate Policy. Via MWC News (2015): “The world faces catastrophe unless global warming and this Arctic CH4 release can be stopped. Unaddressed man-made climate change is set to exacerbate an already worsening climate genocide and cause 10 billion avoidable deaths this century leaving a predicted only 0.5 billion of Humanity alive. Presently about 7 million people die annually from the effects of pollutants from carbon fuel burning and 0.4 million people die annually from the effects of climate change. 17 million people die avoidably each year from deprivation but if climate change is not requisitely addressed an average of 100 million people will die avoidably each year this century. This is state terrorism-sanctioned corporate terrorism, carbon terrorism and climate terrorism.”
w) [GUY McPHERSON], Professor Emeritus of Natural Resources and Ecology & Evolutionary Biology at the University of Arizona. Via his Nature Bats Last site, (2011): “About a decade ago I realized we were putting the finishing touches on our own extinction party, with the party probably over by 2030. During the intervening period I’ve seen nothing to sway this belief, and much evidence to reinforce it. Yet the protests, ridicule, and hate mail reach a fervent pitch when I speak or write about the potential for near-term extinction of Homo sapiens...
We’re headed for extinction via global climate change. It’s hotter than it used to be, but not as hot as it’s going to be. The political response to this now-obvious information is to suspend the scientist bearing the bad news. Which, of course, is no surprise at all: As Australian scientist Gideon Polya points out, the United States must cease production of greenhouse gases within 3.1 years if we are to avoid catastrophic runaway greenhouse. I think Polya is optimistic, and I don’t think Obama’s on-board with the attendant collapse of the U.S. industrial economy.”
x) [MAYER HILLMAN] Architect, town planner, social scientist, policy advisor. Senior Fellow Emeritus of the Policy Studies Institute (and former head of its Environment and Quality of Life Research Programme). Member of, among others: New Economics Foundation, Soil Association, UK Public Health Association, Scientists for Global Responsibility. Via the Guardian (2018): ‘“We’re doomed,” says Mayer Hillman with such a beaming smile that it takes a moment for the words to sink in. “The outcome is death, and it’s the end of most life on the planet because we’re so dependent on the burning of fossil fuels. There are no means of reversing the process which is melting the polar ice caps. And very few appear to be prepared to say so.” Hillman, an 86-year-old social scientist and senior fellow emeritus of the Policy Studies Institute, does say so. His bleak forecast of the consequence of runaway climate change, he says without fanfare, is his “last will and testament”. His last intervention in public life. “I’m not going to write anymore because there’s nothing more that can be said,” he says when I first hear him speak to a stunned audience at the University of East Anglia late last year.’
y) [ROBIN RUSSELL-JONES] Medical doctor, environmental scientist and Chair of Help Rescue the Planet, an educational charity dedicated to minimizing air pollution and mitigating climate change. Via The Ecologist (Jun 2016): “The problem is that no one knows exactly when this [major Arctic methane release] is likely to occur, so the IPCC describe it as a high impact, low probability event, and then exclude it from their models predicting likely temperature rises over this century. Other people take the view that such an event is inevitable and that we are playing Russian Roulette with the future survival of human civilisation as we know it. Furthermore our data indicates that this process has already started. It is one of the main reasons why the global warming target was lowered in Paris last year from 2 to 1.5 degrees Celsius. For that target to be met, we need to abandon fossil fuels in favour of renewables and energy conservation so that 100% of electricity is being generated from non-fossil fuel source by 2030. If we do nothing, we are looking at an environmental catastrophe that human civilization is unlikely to survive. And if we fail in this endeavor, I fear that future generations will never forgive us.”
z) [THOMAS GOREAU] Degrees in planetary physics (MIT) and planetary astronomy (CalTech), plus Phd in biogeochemistry (Havard). President of the Global Coral Reef Alliance and member of the Jamaican delegation to the UNCCC. Previously Senior Scientific Affairs Officer at the United Nations Centre for Science and Technology for Development, in charge of Global Climate Change and Biodiversity issues. Briefing ‘350 PPM is a death sentence’ to AOSIS at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference (Dec 2009): “The long-term sea level that corresponds to current CO2 concentration is about 23 meters above today’s levels, and the temperatures will be 6 degrees C or more higher. These estimates are based on real long term climate records, not on models. We have not yet felt the climate change impacts of the current excess of greenhouse gases produced by fossil fuels, and the data shows they will in the long run be many times higher than IPCC models project...
Current ‘targets’ for CO2 being discussed by UNCCC are way too high to prevent the extinction of coral reefs (which can take no further warming, since most corals have died in the last 20 years from heat shock) and the disappearance of all low lying islands and coastlines where billions of people live. Even a target of 350 ppm is UNACCEPTABLE if we are to avoid dangerous interference with the Earth climate system, causing inconceivable ecological, environmental, and economic disaster. Global warming must not be allowed to continue as would happen by stabilizing CO2 and temperature at present levels. Greenhouse gas buildup MUST BE REVERSED, and CO2 reduced to levels of around 260 ppm, below Pre-Industrial levels. The technologies to do so are proven, cost effective, and capable of being rapidly ramped up, but are not being used on the scale needed due to lack of serious policies and funding to reverse global warming and stabilize the climate system at safe levels. THAT IS WHAT AOSIS AND UNCCC MUST ACCOMPLISH IF WE ARE TO PRESERVE OUR PLANET?S LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. The solutions are already in hand. Let?s all get serious and stop stealing our children?s future!” (Capitalization is original).
7. Miscellaneous catastrophe narrative variants from individual climate / other scientists (24 sources, 26 quotes)
See the main post for context. See footnote 1 intro regarding equivalence to ‘catastrophe’, or worse. This footnote is similar to footnotes 3,4 and 5 (see intros there for more explanation of the variant categories), but specifically featuring narrative from scientists. Two more variants, merchants of doubt and irony, are added on the end. NOTE: These categories are not always discrete and can flow into each other or combine. Variants listed here include:
Emotively overwhelmed conditionals
See first the intro to footnote 3 for further context. Examples ac), ad) and ae) are pretty standard, but example ab) is much subtler and more interesting. Framed in terms of scientific curiosity, a laudable motive, this example nevertheless includes several emotively phrased story-lines which collectively overwhelm the presented conditionals (i.e. that the answers to ‘how hot will it get’ and other questions, are indeed not known). To highlight this construction the example is bolded differently to the others, emphasizing the emotive story lines. So, the ‘unknown’ in regards to temperature is not ‘just’ unknown, but terrifyingly unknown. This word will bias reader interpretation towards a pre-supposition of greater likelihood for being very hot, and also a greater likelihood of severe impacts from being hot. All of the industrial era temperature rise is also attributed to humans (this may or may not turn out to be true, but there are no caveats stated regarding the current uncertainties and possible natural contributions, hence giving a false impression of certainty). The temperature is not stated just to continue to rise, but to skyrocket. This word will be interpreted as meaning an abrupt very high vertical rise, yet even where significant acceleration is strongly anticipated according to the more severe IPCC scenarios (and ‘sure’ also implies there is no uncertainty whatsoever), this would not be the case. The ‘catastrophic for no-one’ option is omitted, yet in terms of ‘no more than current (natural) catastrophes’, albeit maybe different ones, this possibility exists within mainstream science, even absent severe emissions cuts in line with the push around SR15, say. Nor are any extra caveats assigned to ‘catastrophe for all’, despite in mainstream science all the hedging and uncertainty around same; plus ‘catastrophe for some’ from extreme weather has always occurred, and this alternative will continue anyhow whether or not man-made CC increases a general occurrence. In reader’s minds, all this will further weight some poorly bounded possibilities (of dramatically worse than now scenarios) towards greater likelihood within a well-bounded space, and this promotion is then further cemented by raising subtle questions about the future of civilization (i.e. an implication that it may not actually have one due largely to CC) and indeed the state of the planet itself. While by no means are these scenarios stated to be inevitable or even likely, and indeed the very question posed is whether they’ll occur, it’s also the case that the general nature of these scenarios, i.e. conjectural / not well bounded / possibilistic, is not emphasized either, which will thus lead to a reader assumption that such negative outcomes are more likely, where ‘likely’ itself will also be assumed to stem from well- bounded investigations (despite they are ongoing: ‘I want to find out’). This framing sets a very biased expectation about the likely answers to perfectly legitimate questions. The quote is in the vernacular, and despite being in a science-based magazine, indeed scientific language is not expected. But use of the vernacular does not preclude more balance in a similar fashion, and ‘terrifyingly’ plus ‘skyrocket’ owe more to emotion and narrative influence than to mainstream science. To her credit Marvel states that her text does not reflect the official view of those institutions for whom she works, but unfortunately then adds “although it damn well should”. This seeds a storyline that administrative sclerosis or incompetence or whatever is holding back true science, avoiding the possibility that a wider scientific perspective might actually challenge Marvel’s narrative. Indeed, the entire tenor of Marvel’s article is that the full weight of the authority of science backs everything within it, and hence in the reader’s mind, the emotive storylines too. The sign-off that ‘great certainty and great ignorance can coexist with each other’ appears to be having one’s cake and eating it. I.e. emotive certainty we’ll evolve to a Mad Max dystopia (see full text) if we don’t cut emissions, yet with some plausible deniability that science actually tells us this. Marvel manages to trump the above in another unusually pitched and emotive article in Scientific American, a Halloween Special that might in fact defy categorization. The first paragraph includes: ‘...trust me, as a climate scientist, I’m frightened every day. Watching our best projections of future climate is like watching a horror movie you can’t walk out of’. Then this movie is précised. Note: dishonesty is not implied in any such articles, merely the kinds of bias that accompanies a passionate belief in cultural narratives.
Example aa) holds some interest too, see especially the extension note on the end of this example. While conditionals such as may, might, could be, are overwhelmed by emotion and also spurious certainty elsewhere within the text (e.g. ‘totally hand over our fate’, and a fundamental re-orientation of society ‘is’ required) in the normal manner of this narrative variant, the form of aa) and its highly emphatic nature also achieve a morphed conditional. I.e. the aforementioned conditionals appear initially to represent scientific caveats, so to do with the state of knowledge of the climate system and the unknowns within its complexity (which albeit being overwhelmed is good re providing at least some balance to those who may be more perceptive). Yet later text such as: ‘We can avoid the hothouse scenario but it’s going to take a fundamental re-adjustment of our relationship with the planet’, alters the framing enough to imply that the prior conditionals are only expressing what will or won’t happen depending on the action of society, per the authors’ various recommendations. Albeit vague and contradictory (which assists with both author conscience and a maximum range of interpretation – which in turn assists with narrative propagation), the conditionals have morphed from looking like scientific ones into looking like policy ones. This narrative trick is not uncommon, yet its appearance does not imply any conscious deception or nefarious agenda, the narrative variant is simply emergent due to high selective value, and those who propagate it no doubt have full, genuine and honest belief in the high ideals and veracity of their words, which is why they are so energetically propagated.

Edited by Kawasicki on Thursday 2nd January 14:26

[Gadgetmac]

You've managed to select half a dozen or so from the thousands of scientists publishing papers related to climate change.

There will always be exceptions.

The vast majority of climate scientists are not claiming it's game over by 2030.

[Kawasicki]

Gadgetmac said:

You've managed to select half a dozen or so from the thousands of scientists publishing papers related to climate change.

There will always be exceptions.

The vast majority of climate scientists are not claiming it's game over by 2030.

So you’ve changed your mind?

I didn’t select anything...I found evidence in 1 minute of searching that there are many very influential scientists promoting CAGW.

In a minute of searching I can also find a list of many climate scientists considered deniers precisely because they call out CAGW as alarmist nonsense.

Most climate scientists prefer not to publicly take sides...it’s a very risky business.

[Gadgetmac]

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

You've managed to select half a dozen or so from the thousands of scientists publishing papers related to climate change.

There will always be exceptions.

The vast majority of climate scientists are not claiming it's game over by 2030.

So you’ve changed your mind?

I didn’t select anything...I found evidence in 1 minute of searching that there are many very influential scientists promoting CAGW.

In a minute of searching I can also find a list of many climate scientists considered deniers precisely because they call out CAGW as alarmist nonsense.

Most climate scientists prefer not to publicly take sides...it’s a very risky business.

These aren't the same lists that have been posted before are they?

All of the lists I've seen of apparent climate scientists denying AGW have turned out to be bogus. Ie the list of so called NASA "scientists".

[Kawasicki]

Gadgetmac said:

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

You've managed to select half a dozen or so from the thousands of scientists publishing papers related to climate change.

There will always be exceptions.

The vast majority of climate scientists are not claiming it's game over by 2030.

So you’ve changed your mind?

I didn’t select anything...I found evidence in 1 minute of searching that there are many very influential scientists promoting CAGW.

In a minute of searching I can also find a list of many climate scientists considered deniers precisely because they call out CAGW as alarmist nonsense.

Most climate scientists prefer not to publicly take sides...it’s a very risky business.

These aren't the same lists that have been posted before are they?

All of the lists I've seen of apparent climate scientists denying AGW have turned out to be bogus. Ie the list of so called NASA "scientists".

From another minutes search (this time copied from Judith Curry’s blog)

Judith Curry!
Roy Spencer
Richard Lindzen
John Christy
Roger Pielke Jr
Roger Pielke Sr
Richard Tol
Ross McKitrick
Nir Shaviv
Garth Paltridge
Nicola Scafetta
Craig Loehle
Scott Denning
Nils Axel Morner
William Cotton
Vincent Courtillot
Hendrik Tennekes

[Esceptico]

[quote=Kawasicki]

So you think that The increase in CO2 from 280 to 400+ ppm have had catastrophic consequences?
[/

No. That is a straw man argument because climate scientists are not saying that. But thanks for keep mentioning it.

To keep it simple, what is being said is that if we carry on as we are then almost certainly global temperatures will rise substantially (several degrees) above long term averages and such rises are expected to have a significant impact on the environment with corresponding impacts on fauna, flora and humans (that are difficult to estimate). Humans will no doubt survive but how we survive is the open question. The last couple of centuries have seen a huge leap forward for the majority of people in terms of material wealth, health, scientific progress, human rights and political rights. I think it is fair that if you consider population growth and environmental degradation then there are questions about whether we can maintain and improve upon our position. Throwing in climate change with its additional challenges and uncertainties could be the last straw. Why you are unable or unwilling to see that is beyond me.

[Gadgetmac]

Kawasicki said:

From another minutes search (this time copied from Judith Curry’s blog)

Judith Curry!
Roy Spencer
Richard Lindzen
John Christy
Roger Pielke Jr
Roger Pielke Sr
Richard Tol
Ross McKitrick
Nir Shaviv
Garth Paltridge
Nicola Scafetta
Craig Loehle
Scott Denning
Nils Axel Morner
William Cotton
Vincent Courtillot
Hendrik Tennekes

Yeah, thought so.

Big oil sponsored and regular go-to’s for climate deniers on these threads. To take just one example Richard Lindzen has been disowned by his own colleagues who wrote to the President of the USA to distance themselves from him.

Here’s “another minutes search” as well:

Lindzen has described ExxonMobil as “the only principled oil and gas company I know in the U.S.”

In addition to his position at the Cato Institute, Lindzen is listed as an “Expert” with the Heartland Institute, a member of the “Academic Advisory Council” of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), and an advisor to the CO2 Coalition, a group promoting the benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Fossil Fuel Funding

As part of a March 2018 legal case between the cities of San Francisco and Oakland and fossil fuel companies, Lindzen was asked by the judge to disclose any connections he had to connected parties.

In response, Lindzen reported that he had received $25,000 per year for his position at the Cato Institute since 2013. He also disclosed $1,500 from the Texas Public Policy Foundation for a “climate science lecture” in 2017, and approximately $30,000 from Peabody Coal in connection to testimony Lindzen gave at a proceeding of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissions in September 2015.

Dr Roy Spencer is a creationist. Yes, a Scientists who doesn’t believe the evidence for evolution.

Ross McKitrick isn’t even a Scientist he’s an economist!

William Cotton quote: “I am not exactly speaking out against global warming. But, I don’t think the science is as solid as many lead us to believe. Don’t get me wrong, the science of how greenhouse gases directly affect climate is strong.”

So not exactly a died in the wool AGW denier.

The others on your list are similarly flawed but it’s a small pool you have to choose from so hey-ho.

Judith Curry I’ll give you.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Thursday 2nd January 19:40

[Kawasicki]

Gadgetmac said:

Kawasicki said:

From another minutes search (this time copied from Judith Curry’s blog)

Judith Curry!
Roy Spencer
Richard Lindzen
John Christy
Roger Pielke Jr
Roger Pielke Sr
Richard Tol
Ross McKitrick
Nir Shaviv
Garth Paltridge
Nicola Scafetta
Craig Loehle
Scott Denning
Nils Axel Morner
William Cotton
Vincent Courtillot
Hendrik Tennekes

Yeah, thought so.

Big oil sponsored and regular go-to’s for climate deniers on these threads. To take just one example Richard Lindzen has been disowned by his own colleagues who wrote to the President of the USA to distance themselves from him.

Here’s “another minutes search” as well:

Lindzen has described ExxonMobil as “the only principled oil and gas company I know in the U.S.”

In addition to his position at the Cato Institute, Lindzen is listed as an “Expert” with the Heartland Institute, a member of the “Academic Advisory Council” of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), and an advisor to the CO2 Coalition, a group promoting the benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Fossil Fuel Funding

As part of a March 2018 legal case between the cities of San Francisco and Oakland and fossil fuel companies, Lindzen was asked by the judge to disclose any connections he had to connected parties.

In response, Lindzen reported that he had received $25,000 per year for his position at the Cato Institute since 2013. He also disclosed $1,500 from the Texas Public Policy Foundation for a “climate science lecture” in 2017, and approximately $30,000 from Peabody Coal in connection to testimony Lindzen gave at a proceeding of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissions in September 2015.

Dr Roy Spencer is a creationist. Yes, a Scientists who doesn’t believe the evidence for evolution.

Ross McKitrick isn’t even a Scientist he’s an economist!

William Cotton quote: “I am not exactly speaking out against global warming. But, I don’t think the science is as solid as many lead us to believe. Don’t get me wrong, the science of how greenhouse gases directly affect climate is strong.”

So not exactly a died in the wool AGW denier.

The others on your list are similarly flawed but it’s a small pool you have to choose from so hey-ho.

Judith Curry I’ll give you.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Thursday 2nd January 19:40

Yeah....what a bunch of discredited deniers...

Thanks for proving my point.

[Kawasicki]

Climate science is just hilarious.

Susan Hassol...

Compare the first minute of this video...
https://youtu.be/V-tEmE85QDE
...with the changes Susan made to this document...

(From https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/category/ad...



Is that honest? Is it even science?

[Gadgetmac]

Kawasicki said:

Yeah....what a bunch of discredited deniers...

Exactly. It takes a special kind of scientist to actually rile up his colleagues so much that they write to the President of the USA to denounce him. Still, as long as the petro dollars keep rolling in

Kawasicki said:

Thanks for proving my point.

The only point I’ve proven is that it’s the same old half a dozen tainted so-called “scientists” being rolled out again. in fact if you go to the politics thread there’s a list of these same old denier sources you can check your list against, thats how constrained you are when looking for legitimate sources to quote as a denier.

[HarryW]

A couple of quotes to ponder from one of the worlds greatest minds:


If we suppress all discussion, all criticism, proclaiming "This is the answer, my friends; man is saved!" we will doom humanity for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It has been done so many times before.

I particularly like this one;

I’d rather have questions I can’t answer than answers I can’t question.

One more for the politicising of GW;

The power of government should be limited; that governments ought not to be empowered to decide the validity of scientific theories, that that is a ridiculous thing for them to try to do.

Richard Feynman [1918 – 1988]

[Gadgetmac]

HarryW said:

A couple of quotes to ponder from one of the worlds greatest minds:


If we suppress all discussion, all criticism, proclaiming "This is the answer, my friends; man is saved!" we will doom humanity for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It has been done so many times before.

I particularly like this one;

I’d rather have questions I can’t answer than answers I can’t question.

One more for the politicising of GW;

The power of government should be limited; that governments ought not to be empowered to decide the validity of scientific theories, that that is a ridiculous thing for them to try to do.

Richard Feynman [1918 – 1988]

An even greater mind said

If Robots don't get us, Climate Change will.

Stephen Hawking [2018]

[Kenny Powers]

Fans of science by consensus would do well to remember that the guy who predicted the existence of the atom hanged himself because no one believed him.

[Esceptico]

HarryW said:

A couple of quotes to ponder from one of the worlds greatest minds:


If we suppress all discussion, all criticism, proclaiming "This is the answer, my friends; man is saved!" we will doom humanity for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It has been done so many times before.

I particularly like this one;

I’d rather have questions I can’t answer than answers I can’t question.

One more for the politicising of GW;

The power of government should be limited; that governments ought not to be empowered to decide the validity of scientific theories, that that is a ridiculous thing for them to try to do.

Richard Feynman [1918 – 1988]

Pathetic to take Feynman’s quotes to try to defend climate change denial. I would love to be able to bring Feynman back at let him lose on the deniers. He would be all over their BS arguments.

[Esceptico]

Kenny Powers said:

Fans of science by consensus would do well to remember that the guy who predicted the existence of the atom hanged himself because no one believed him.

The ancient Greeks were the first to predict the existence of atoms. Who are you talking about?

[Kawasicki]

Esceptico said:

HarryW said:

A couple of quotes to ponder from one of the worlds greatest minds:


If we suppress all discussion, all criticism, proclaiming "This is the answer, my friends; man is saved!" we will doom humanity for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It has been done so many times before.

I particularly like this one;

I’d rather have questions I can’t answer than answers I can’t question.

One more for the politicising of GW;

The power of government should be limited; that governments ought not to be empowered to decide the validity of scientific theories, that that is a ridiculous thing for them to try to do.

Richard Feynman [1918 – 1988]

Pathetic to take Feynman’s quotes to try to defend climate change denial. I would love to be able to bring Feynman back at let him lose on the deniers. He would be all over their BS arguments.

Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.