I wouldn’t mind be informed on this topic .
Any suggestions for good reading for both sides?

Brett

PS Hi all

Climate Process and Change

Edward Bryant

This is the first major textbook to encompass the true complexity of climate change. Whilst ‘greenhouse’ warming dominates most of the literature, Ted Bryant presents numerous reasons for the observed climate change of the past century. He argues that changes in climate, more dramatic than those of the last 150 years, have been a predominant aspect of the Earth’s climate over the past two million years. Bryant highlights human impacts on climate other than ‘greenhouse’ gases, including sulphate air pollutants, dust and urban heat islands. He also explains the natural components forcing climate change. Bryant presents, in simple terms, the processes that drive the Earth’s present climate system. He outlines the nature and reasons for temperature fluctuations over millennia, including recent human-induced climate change. Finally, he discusses the impact of climate change upon human health and the world’s ecosystems.

Thomo said:

I wouldn’t mind be informed on this topic .
Any suggestions for good reading for both sides?

Brett

PS Hi all

Try an EdX course like this one:

https://www.edx.org/course/climate-change-science-ubcx-climate1×-3

Free and up to date.

Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know by Joseph Romm
Somewhat America-centric but gives a decent, easy to understand coverage of the important information.

“Merchants of Doubt” by Oreskes and Conway
Is more about the way the information has been used and misused but at the same time you can pick up a bit of knowledge.

Obviously, the peak body on the topic is the IPCC, and its regular assessments are the world’s best evidence-based summaries by actual experts in the relevant fields.
These reports are technical, detailed, and of course long, but the “Synthesis Reports” are somewhat easier to get through. Here’s the most recent one, from 2014.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

What the Bible says about catastrophic climate change – WND.com
www.wnd.com/2017/01/what-the-bible-says-about-catastrophic-climate-change/

Jan 30, 2017 – Editor’s note: This is the first of a two-part series on the history of climate change on Earth from a biblical perspective by Joseph Farah

Peak Warming Man said:

This is the first of a two-part series

Seems a bit unfair to make us wait.

“Sure, they get you in … then they jack up the prices!”

The_observer said:

Climate Process and Change

Edward Bryant

Should be noted that a) Bryant is a sedimentologist, without relevant credentials on this topic and b) this piece is 20 years old now.

It is often stated that 97% of scientists accept the truth of dangerous anthropogenic climate change, but in reality most of the 3% are people with a BSc whose specialty is dental hygiene or currency fluctuations and whatnot.

But there are, in all fairness, some fraction of a percent of bona fide climatologists whose views on the topic differ significantly from the IPCC findings.

These include

John Christy from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who does accept that anthropogenic climate change has occurred but do not accept that it will be catastrophic and has lower estimates of temperature increase than the IPCC consensus position

Craig Idso, whose view is that the effects of climate change will be net positive for humanity.

dv said:

It is often stated that 97% of scientists accept the truth of dangerous anthropogenic climate change, but in reality most of the 3% are people with a BSc whose specialty is dental hygiene or currency fluctuations and whatnot.

But there are, in all fairness, some fraction of a percent of bona fide climatologists whose views on the topic differ significantly from the IPCC findings.

These include

John Christy from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who does accept that anthropogenic climate change has occurred but do not accept that it will be catastrophic and has lower estimates of temperature increase than the IPCC consensus position

Craig Idso, whose view is that the effects of climate change will be net positive for humanity.

I wonder how hard it would be to collect fresh water from melt ice/icebergs and redistribute it worldwide, economically probably not viable but a significant percentage of fresh water is locked up in ice and would be useful considering we will probably have water shortages eventually.

Cymek said:

dv said:

It is often stated that 97% of scientists accept the truth of dangerous anthropogenic climate change, but in reality most of the 3% are people with a BSc whose specialty is dental hygiene or currency fluctuations and whatnot.

But there are, in all fairness, some fraction of a percent of bona fide climatologists whose views on the topic differ significantly from the IPCC findings.

These include

John Christy from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who does accept that anthropogenic climate change has occurred but do not accept that it will be catastrophic and has lower estimates of temperature increase than the IPCC consensus position

Craig Idso, whose view is that the effects of climate change will be net positive for humanity.

I wonder how hard it would be to collect fresh water from melt ice/icebergs and redistribute it worldwide, economically probably not viable but a significant percentage of fresh water is locked up in ice and would be useful considering we will probably have water shortages eventually.

Yeah but you have to weight the cost of transporting it to the cost of desalination.

Thomo said:

I wouldn’t mind be informed on this topic .
Any suggestions for good reading for both sides?

Brett

PS Hi all

I think if at this stage you know nothing about global warming, it might be better to remain that way.

dv said:

The_observer said:

Climate Process and Change

Edward Bryant

Should be noted that a) Bryant is a sedimentologist, without relevant credentials on this topic and b) this piece is 20 years old now.

Once again you grossly exaggerate dv. It is only 19 years and 6 months old.

I’m sure that everyone will value this sceptics review of the book:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1017/S1350482798010603/pdf

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The_observer said:

Climate Process and Change

Edward Bryant

Should be noted that a) Bryant is a sedimentologist, without relevant credentials on this topic and b) this piece is 20 years old now.

Once again you grossly exaggerate dv. It is only 19 years and 6 months old.

I’m sure that everyone will value this sceptics review of the book:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1017/S1350482798010603/pdf

“It is difficult to know where to start with a critical assessment. Every section of every chapter has flaws and inconsistencies.”

Sure, focus on the negative aspects.

dv said:

It is often stated that 97% of scientists accept the truth of dangerous anthropogenic climate change, but in reality most of the 3% are people with a BSc whose specialty is dental hygiene or currency fluctuations and whatnot.

But there are, in all fairness, some fraction of a percent of bona fide climatologists whose views on the topic differ significantly from the IPCC findings.

These include

John Christy from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who does accept that anthropogenic climate change has occurred but do not accept that it will be catastrophic and has lower estimates of temperature increase than the IPCC consensus position

Craig Idso, whose view is that the effects of climate change will be net positive for humanity.

Presumably those climatologists who accept that the science of climate change is a good deal less certain than the majority seem to suppose, also accept that the variation in actual climate behaviour might go either way. As true sceptics they could not dismiss this possibility, could they?

dv said:

*

“Merchants of Doubt” by Oreskes and Conway
Is more about the way the information has been used and misused but at the same time you can pick up a bit of knowledge.

Should be noted that a) Oreskes is a left wing historian & her pulp has been shown to be corrupt, she is without relevant credentials on this topic and b) this piece is 7 years old now

The_observer said:

dv said:

*

“Merchants of Doubt” by Oreskes and Conway
Is more about the way the information has been used and misused but at the same time you can pick up a bit of knowledge.

Should be noted that a) Oreskes is a left wing historian & her pulp has been shown to be corrupt, she is without relevant credentials on this topic and b) this piece is 7 years old now

Fair.

Probably just best to read the IPCC synthesis, to get a balanced median view from genuine experts.

I believe Trump is writing a book on climate change, has pop up pictures and everything

Cymek said:

I believe Trump is writing a book on climate change, has pop up pictures and everything

and only 140 characters per page?

Now the shit has hit the fan here Brett, I’ll point out a few facts, & some issues you can consider.

Keep in mind the agenda of ‘Create a concept & reality leaves the room.

The concept? Exaggerate the equilibrium increase in warming expected resulting from a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
And dictate that we live in a Goldie Locks climate where-by any increase in warming (or cooling) will cause a climate catastrophe.

The models that hold up this global warming crisis industry show that their projections are too sensitive to increases in CO2 when compared to real temperature data. This is precisely because the models are built on the disproved hypothesis of positive water vapour feedback, & hence, net positive feedback to a forcing, from CO2, at the least. The scientific practice where-by a hypothesis is cast adrift after it has been shown to be incorrect has been ignored in the case of climate science, because there a just too many hangers-on to let it die a natural death. 1C of warming from a doubling just isn’t scary & doesn’t warrant action.

The 97% is a contrived figure promoted by environmentalists, who use it to justify their existence so they can continue to collect billions of dollars through donations from tax payers, both directly & indirectly, & from wealthy individuals & other organisations.

The term ‘scientific consensus’ in regards to this issue was contrived by the UN IPCC, an unelected body of well payed socialist bureaucrats to create a climate of fear, via the Summary for Policy makers which was a falsification of the full IPCC report, which clearly showed a consensus demonstrating a great lack of knowledge in regards to how the climate works, & unable to attribute any warming to anything other than natural forces.

The most recent IPCC reports DO NOT attribute CO2 to be the cause of any warming prior to the late twentieth century warming. This leaves all the warming that occurred since the beginning of the end of the Little Ice Age, some 300 odd years ago, up to the warming during the period 1910 to 1945. They attribute most of the warming during the period from 1978 to 1998 to CO2, but there is no evidence other than correlation.

Why has this apparent climate crisis hypothesis continued despite evidence showing that warming from a doubling of CO2 will be mild?

Consider; Vegans & animal rights groups push for there to be an end to cattle farming because methane is a by-produced of this industry. Do vegans & animal rights people really care if the climate catastrophe hypothesis is true?

Consider; Environmental activist organisations, of which there are many, rely on there being an environmental crisis to justify their existence so they can continue collecting billions of dollars in donations. Do all environmental organisation members’ especially those in the upper echelon, really care if the climate catastrophe hypothesis is true?

Consider; Do the unelected bureaucrats, both in the UN IPCC, & drizzling all the way down to government departments at most levels in all countries, whose income relies on the climate crisis really care if the hypothesis is true?

Consider; Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist, has commented on how many good scientists were lost to other industries, such as banking & the legal fraternity, directly due to NASA funding cuts. Because like all other people wanting to eat, pay for their kid education, pay a mortgage, the scientists chased the money.

Climate science yearly funding in the US, around the time of the Bush Senior administration, & prior to the climate scare was around 170 million a year. A figure described as quite reasonable for the size of the field. After the climate scare gained traction in the US, climate science funding jumped to over 2 billion a year. Suddenly everyone in science was a climate scientist, but with an interest only in global warming. By the end of the Obama administration, the US had spent over 80 billion on climate science & related issues.

So consider; would the thousands of scientists who took advantage of this funding, even for no other reason than to advance knowledge in there’re respective fields, really care if the climate crisis hypothesis was true?

The_observer said:

Now the shit has hit the fan here Brett, I’ll point out a few facts, & some issues you can consider.

Keep in mind the agenda of ‘Create a concept & reality leaves the room.

The concept? Exaggerate the equilibrium increase in warming expected resulting from a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
And dictate that we live in a Goldie Locks climate where-by any increase in warming (or cooling) will cause a climate catastrophe.

The models that hold up this global warming crisis industry show that their projections are too sensitive to increases in CO2 when compared to real temperature data. This is precisely because the models are built on the disproved hypothesis of positive water vapour feedback, & hence, net positive feedback to a forcing, from CO2, at the least. The scientific practice where-by a hypothesis is cast adrift after it has been shown to be incorrect has been ignored in the case of climate science, because there a just too many hangers-on to let it die a natural death. 1C of warming from a doubling just isn’t scary & doesn’t warrant action.

The 97% is a contrived figure promoted by environmentalists, who use it to justify their existence so they can continue to collect billions of dollars through donations from tax payers, both directly & indirectly, & from wealthy individuals & other organisations.

The term ‘scientific consensus’ in regards to this issue was contrived by the UN IPCC, an unelected body of well payed socialist bureaucrats to create a climate of fear, via the Summary for Policy makers which was a falsification of the full IPCC report, which clearly showed a consensus demonstrating a great lack of knowledge in regards to how the climate works, & unable to attribute any warming to anything other than natural forces.

The most recent IPCC reports DO NOT attribute CO2 to be the cause of any warming prior to the late twentieth century warming. This leaves all the warming that occurred since the beginning of the end of the Little Ice Age, some 300 odd years ago, up to the warming during the period 1910 to 1945. They attribute most of the warming during the period from 1978 to 1998 to CO2, but there is no evidence other than correlation.

Why has this apparent climate crisis hypothesis continued despite evidence showing that warming from a doubling of CO2 will be mild?

Consider; Vegans & animal rights groups push for there to be an end to cattle farming because methane is a by-produced of this industry. Do vegans & animal rights people really care if the climate catastrophe hypothesis is true?

Consider; Environmental activist organisations, of which there are many, rely on there being an environmental crisis to justify their existence so they can continue collecting billions of dollars in donations. Do all environmental organisation members’ especially those in the upper echelon, really care if the climate catastrophe hypothesis is true?

Consider; Do the unelected bureaucrats, both in the UN IPCC, & drizzling all the way down to government departments at most levels in all countries, whose income relies on the climate crisis really care if the hypothesis is true?

Consider; Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist, has commented on how many good scientists were lost to other industries, such as banking & the legal fraternity, directly due to NASA funding cuts. Because like all other people wanting to eat, pay for their kid education, pay a mortgage, the scientists chased the money.

Climate science yearly funding in the US, around the time of the Bush Senior administration, & prior to the climate scare was around 170 million a year. A figure described as quite reasonable for the size of the field. After the climate scare gained traction in the US, climate science funding jumped to over 2 billion a year. Suddenly everyone in science was a climate scientist, but with an interest only in global warming. By the end of the Obama administration, the US had spent over 80 billion on climate science & related issues.

So consider; would the thousands of scientists who took advantage of this funding, even for no other reason than to advance knowledge in there’re respective fields, really care if the climate crisis hypothesis was true?