Commentary #6: Global Warming

[Mark Rippetoe]

Doncha know, Rip; global warming causes more snow and colder temperatures?

(This is indeed what these psychopaths say.)

Yes, the language breaks down at some point.

[Jason Donaldson]

Doncha know, Rip; global warming causes more snow and colder temperatures?

(This is indeed what these psychopaths say.)

Yes, the language breaks down at some point.

I had a co-worker about ten years ago angrily respond to another co-worker who was joking about "where's the global warming?" during a brutally cold winter with "It's NEVER been 'global warming', it's ALWAYS been 'climate change'."

My one regret was that I was literally too shocked too laugh derisively, much less point out that, in the 70's and 80's, it was actually "global ice age".

[golftdibrad]

Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases | ScienceDirect

This paper suggests that the radiative forcing of c02 in the atmosphere is already saturated and therefore can't be having an effect on temperature.

[golftdibrad]

But then we have UCLA wasting precious electrons on this. This is not to mention what is also probably vast sums of tax dollars.

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e...T-Apr-2024.pdf

LGBT people in same-sex couples are at greater risk of exposure to the negative effects of climate
change compared to straight couples.

Last I checked no matter what each individual choose to do (or not do) with their private bits we all live on the same planet.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases | ScienceDirect

This paper suggests that the radiative forcing of c02 in the atmosphere is already saturated and therefore can't be having an effect on temperature.

This is a very important paper which explains many things. It will of course be ignored, because "Climate Change" itself is not really the point.

[Cascadian]

Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases | ScienceDirect

This paper suggests that the radiative forcing of c02 in the atmosphere is already saturated and therefore can't be having an effect on temperature.

Here is a pretty picture of this.

It shows that doubling CO2 from the current level (400ppm) to 800ppm would increase the atmospheric absorption of solar radiation by the area between the jagged black and red curves (assuming you can even find the red one) ... a whopping 3 W/m2, which is a power density barely sufficient to melt snowflakes.

[Mark Rippetoe]

The Importance of Distinguishing Climate Science From Climate Activism – HotAir

[Stump]

Not even going to quote anything from it.

The drama...

It is so pathetic anymore. Yet a scary majority believes this shit. And even if they don't believe or understand it they're taking it to the bank.

‘Hopeless and broken’: why the world’s top climate scientists are in despair | Climate crisis | The Guardian

[Cascadian]

Mark's article hits the nail on the head. Climate science died about three decades ago. Prior to that, it wasn't even called "climate science". There was just a web of scientists each laboring in his or her highly specialized area across the vast sweeps of physics, chemistry, geology, geophysics, astrophysics, paleo-biology, ... basically all of the physical sciences. The concert of these efforts, piecing together disparate obscure findings from hither and yon, could be seen as climate science if you squinted hard enough.

Now soy-latte addled young people get their two-year "climate science" degrees from some expensive little paper mill, yet most can't even solve x=1 for x. And logic? What, and play into patriarchal systems of oppression? Please.

In science, whenever a theory is in front of you, such as "anthropogenic CO2 is heating the atmosphere and oceans (apparently they skipped the lectures on heat capacity), which will unleash the Hounds of Hell, aka. "tipping points", and destroy all life on the planet if we don't all drive a Prius," you must look at the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that the theory ISN'T true. That is the starting assumption, much like the presumption of innocence. A skeptic, who is taking the proper stance - only begins to get more comfortable with rejecting the null hypothesis if there is an avalanche of data contradicting it. If there is an avalanche, then perhaps ... perhaps ... the theory might be correct. But it certainly is not proof. Correlation is not causality, and causality is very difficult to prove.

Climate activism masquerading as climate science inverts the scientific method. It ignores the null hypothesis, assumes their pet theory is an indisputable given, bashes the skeptics as eco-terrorists, and shifts the burden of proof onto these Nazis v2.0. No-nothings deride Nobel Prize winning physicists. Fools who can't even count the two genders ridicule mathematicians. In fact, they are certain climate change is causing a rapid increase in climate change denial. And why not? Climate change is driving EVERYTHING that is bad, and causing NOTHING that is good.

This mind-bending stupidity would be amusing if it weren't so pernicious. But I do have to hand it to the psyops planners. If you had told me decades ago that carbon - you know ... all of organic chemistry - would be deemed a poison, and that CO2, the molecule of life, would be taxed, I would have thought you were insane. Joke's on me.

[golftdibrad]

The scientist activist problem - by Gary Taubes

Gary Taubes (author of "the case against sugar" and "good calories, bad calories" among others) briefly discusses the parallels in nutrition science and climate science. When I read his books a few years back, I had the exact same thought.