65 Comments
User's avatar
тна Return to thread
Jeff Biss's avatar

It's hard to debate facts with people who can't accept facts, like yourself. Anthropogenic climate change is real, it is negatively affecting life on earth and if we don't stop using fossil fuels and reduce the human load, we will cause an extinction event. The fossil record proves this. Also, PETA is spot on as the lives that you take are not yours.

Expand full comment
P. Winter's avatar

Anthropogenic influence on climate change is real, no doubt. But you're overstating your case in these comments by claiming that the science is completely settled. There is no such a thing. Climate science, as it was called before it was changed to climate change science (an interesting fact that's not without consequences), is comprised of so many disciplines whose members can barely find a common language to talk to each other. A physicist who does research on the dynamics of clouds knows absolutely nothing about oceanography, the effects of ocean currents and temperatures, and those two can barely follow someone who analyzes fossil records. The collection of temperature data is anothrr subject that is complicated and full of problems historically and methodically. While you're quick to insult people for not agreeing with you the vast majority of the environmental movement disagrees with you on the nuclear power, don't they? You will be called a lunatic if you propose more nuclear power plants. I agree with you on nuclear power. Over 350,000 people die every year with illnesses related to air pollution. How many people have died from all nuclear accidents and radiation (nuclear bombs not included)? A couple of thousand? I think pumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere is a gamble but find the widespread rhetoric of CO2 output being described like a thermostat dial that we can simply reverse ludicrous and unscientific. And as one commenter pointed out somewhere below: global cooling could be more devastating than global warming. For the environmental movement to be successful and credible it has to rid itself from the depressed apocslypse now types like Greta who are screaming indiscriminate confused nonsense and are used by spineless politicians and bureaucrats who have to intentions of changing anything.

Expand full comment
Art Costa's avatar

Anthropogenic influence is estimated to be about 4% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere; hardly a game changer. Eliminate that, if you can, and nothing really changes. After the 12 years (bought and paid for deadline for climate Armageddon) are up (more like 10 and counting) just like the 2k. The real problems are ignored while the deep pockets market climate change. Why?

Expand full comment
Mr. Haze.'s avatar

This is a facetious argument. Nobody is claiming carbon dioxide wasn't in the atmosphere before people. The exact percentage added by humans is not relevant - what's relevant is that the increase in greenhouse gasses caused by human emissions is throwing the planets climate system out of wack and increasing temperatures. There is myriad data to show this - you're using bullshit late 90s talking points

Expand full comment
Art Costa's avatar

That's not my argument. I think the claim that CO2 causes "climate change" has no such study to prove it. Professor Ole Humlum demonstrated that increased CO2 apparently had no causal relationship to global temperature at all. Climate scientist Piers Corbyn challenged the BBC, leading advocates of anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, and the UK climate scientists at the U of E. Anglia to cite just one peer reviewed paper which proves CO2 is the driver of climate change. To date no one has cited any such paper. It appears anthropogenic climate change barely qualifies as a hypothesis under the rigors of empirical investigation. It's model driven - "meta-science".

Doubt is the basis of scientific inquiry. Without it there is no science...it becomes SWAG at best. I will concede that there's vast amounts of data and empirical evidence that here, on planet Earth, human interventions have been most assuredly catastrophic. 5G, pesticides, air, water, and soil contamination are avoided while deep pockets pay for CO2 climate change that doesn't even have a basis for causing warming, or change. And almost all of it is in the atmosphere, and has been for eons.

Expand full comment
Art Costa's avatar

Pure theory (at best). But I'll refrain from calling it "baseless bullshit".

Expand full comment
Mr. Haze.'s avatar

Recorded data is not theory, but nice try.

Expand full comment
Art Costa's avatar

It's not a cause. And yes a theories do consist of data. But where's the peer reviewed study that CO2 actually causes global warming?

Carbon dioxide (CO2) (not тАШcarbonтАЩ) is not a pollutant. ItтАЩs a trace gas and essential for life. Only 5 per cent of CO2 is man-made and largely through burning fossil fuels; the other 95 per cent is natural from sources such as oceans or volcanoes. More than 450million years ago (long before mankind arrived) it was 5,000 parts per million (ppm). ItтАЩs currently about 420 ppm with the anthropogenic share at 20 ppm, in other words minuscule! There is no known harm from CO2.

Next time you meet Greta Thunberg, ask her two questions: тАШWhat percentage of CO2 is anthropogenic?тАЩ and тАШHow do we tame Mother NatureтАЩs 95 per cent?тАЩ This should finish the fairy tale.

Expand full comment
Mr. Haze.'s avatar

I literally posted a link for you explaining how co2 drives temperature changes despite being a small overall percentage of the atmosphere from Columbia university. Stop.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/30/co2-drives-global-warming/

Expand full comment
Art Costa's avatar

Yes. First, I've never said that warming (and cooling) doesn't and isn't happening.

Much of what the researcher presents requires many experiments and these must all be repeated and results analyzed to demonstrate that what he is saying can be proven to be the case. We have no idea what is behind all he's postulating. We don't know what happens in a lab happens in the atmosphere, and how it interacts with countless other elements.

Nothing stated has reference to any such experiments...and even if it did it would not be settled science. Certainly not to the extent that we should make radical changes to "combat" it.

What this researcher likely knows is that most people don't understand science, certainly have no basis of questioning what he purports is happening in the atmosphere. He's the expert and he should just listen.

That's not science. We are not experiencing never before temperature rises for extended periods of time. Data does exist that this has occurred in the early 20th C. I'm not trying to refute the hypothesis, but to demand that other researchers do that without concern for losing their income, and to be ostracized by the "consensus". We know very little about the human genome and we exist within our bodies every second of our lives let alone the dynamics and complexities of the Earth's atmosphere.

We should be much more modest before screaming that human's are going to go extinct in several years if we don't stop emitting fossil. That is a hugely significant claim. Who pays for such "movements" such as Greta's and the Extinction group? These are not grass-root but have huge money behind them. Fear is the greatest weapon. It stops critical thinking which is our best means of combating it. (I'm not proposing that they're are issues with fossil, just that there's no simple replacements.)

Expand full comment
Mr. Haze.'s avatar

Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of interdisciplinarity. It's worth a Google. Everything you posted here is bullshit I used to see in garbage early 00's chain emails.

Expand full comment
P. Winter's avatar

Interdisciplinarity? Wow! Yeah, never heard of it. Lol You've heard it all, ay? 1990, 2000s...who are you trying to impress here? In the aerosol research they still haven't even figured out the net effects of the feedback dynamics on cloud building and surface temperatures and you're playing master historian! Not even the methodology is settled science. The models used are super simplified and have been so far way off the mark. Your self- important babble doesn't intimate anyone. You're light on facts and heavy on insults. Go yell at your dog!

Expand full comment
Mr. Haze.'s avatar

Way off the mark? Afraid not.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

What's funny is people like you want to talk shit and condescend to people are supported by the science (coincidentally the same people who hate PC society!), Then you piss and moan about your fucking feelings when the facts are put in your face. Nobody cares how you feel. Recorded data is what it is. You accuse alarmists of being emotional and here you are whining about people being mean?

PS, I don't yell at my dog, I'm very fond of her. She's smart.

Expand full comment
P. Winter's avatar

"talk shit and condescend" and "being emotional"...are you talking to your mirror? Looks like we're witnessing your personal "turning point". You're projecting. I'm not interested in your solipsistic ramblings. No need to "respond", you're on your own either way.

P.S. I suggest to read the whole article... "The authors say that while the relative simplicity of the models analyzed makes their climate projections functionally obsolete, they can still be useful for verifying methods..." yes, sounds like the science is settled, not.

Expand full comment
Mr. Haze.'s avatar

This post is diarrhea of the fingertips.

Expand full comment
Gordon Freeman's avatar

Calling it an extinction event is beyond brain-deadтАж

Expand full comment
Mr. Haze.'s avatar

The only one brain dead here is you. Google Holocene extinction.

Expand full comment
Jeff Biss's avatar

I'm spot on. You really need to read some of the links that I provided. We're on target for a Permian level extinction event if we don't stop what we're doing and reverse wildlife population declines and prevent the extinctions that we're currently causing.

Expand full comment
William Taylor's avatar

"...we will cause an extinction event."

"The fossil record proves this."

"Almost no one who has fervent ideas has a good epistemic basis for the level of certainty they hold. There is a disconnect between the amount of certainty they have, and the amount of certainty they SHOULD have, through right process."

-Daniel Schmactenberger

Expand full comment
Mr. Haze.'s avatar

A mass extinction event is already occuring. Have you read the latest IPCC report?

Expand full comment
William Taylor's avatar

We were discussing climate. Somehow the discussion veered into die-off of species and human extinction.

Expand full comment
Mr. Haze.'s avatar

The two are not mutually exclusive and are in fact intertwined.

Expand full comment
Jeff Biss's avatar

I am discussing climate. Read through my posts and you'll see that. Look for "Permian Extinction" and it will make sense. I will summarize: AGW is but one more human caused stressor on wildlife that is experiencing population declines that will reach a tipping point of functional extinction that will result in an extinction event like the Permian Extinction.

Expand full comment
Jeff Biss's avatar

No, I was too depressed. I've been fighting this battle since the American people chose Reagan's entitlement over Carter's sustainability and have limited my intake of bad news.

Expand full comment
Jeff Biss's avatar

These idiots aren't skeptics, it takes some competency to be a skeptic. They are deniers through and through. What I find interesting is just how many clueless people read Matt's stuff. They don't seem to get his point, protest correctly, appropriately.

Expand full comment
Mr. Haze.'s avatar

Frankly at this point in the crisis, I don't really give a shit if people protest "incorrectly". The seriousness of the crisis justifies it. What's the worst that will happen - zero action from Washington? Are we really supposed to believe that a bipartisan climate package of appropriate scale is just around the corner, if only these protestors would stop blocking the road and dividing people? I say fuck em, good on the protestors. The reality is that fools like the person cited in the piece screaming about his unborn kid have far more inconvenience and misery baked in from climate chaos than they do from some people blocking a highway.

Expand full comment
Jeff Biss's avatar

I agree 100%. These deniers are THE problem. They have always been THE problem. The problem is human nature, people don't give a shit until it's too late, they live on the side of active volcanoes! They care only about their material well being and believe that the earth was created for them, that it can't fail, and that they can do whatever they want to whatever they want because they were made in god's image. Most people are truly fucked up.

Expand full comment
Gordon Freeman's avatar

Why don't quit worrying about everybody else, Lumpy? You've got enough on your plate just getting dressed in the morning...

Expand full comment
Jeff Biss's avatar

I'm not worried about you, I hope that you suffer because of what you've done, I worry about the good people and nonhuman animals. You don't matter, you're human garbage.

Expand full comment
Gordon Freeman's avatar

IтАЩm sure youтАЩre never surprised when people routinely tune you outтАж

Expand full comment
Jeff Biss's avatar

You're the enemy. People like you are unreachable, I post to fight you and your ilk. good people pay attention, garbage like you are to be marginalized.

Expand full comment
Gordon Freeman's avatar

Psychotic crazy is really not a good lookтАж

Expand full comment
Mr. Haze.'s avatar

Some of us would like to retire on a non hothouse earth and leave a planet that future generations can prosper upon.

Expand full comment
Mr. Haze.'s avatar

Preach! ЁЯЩП ЁЯЩМЁЯЩМ

Expand full comment
Jeff Biss's avatar

LOL! Facts are facts. Only an ideologue would continue to question the effects of sudden climate change on life. No one is skeptical, they are deniers, as you are.

The fossil record indicates that the Permian Extinction took 60,000 +- 40,000 years (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-long-mass-extinction-180949711/) and we're causing a decline in wildlife populations far faster from everything that humans do. That we will cause a mass extinction is certain unless we change now, as in now.

Expand full comment
William Taylor's avatar

Like many true believers, your alarm regarding climate/atmospheric sciences (chaotic, dynamic and non-linear) gets conflated with loss of species, pollution, and depletion of resources, which are easily measureable and rarely disputed.

Getting back on topic, the latest satellite data shows that the actual warming is approximately one third that of the model projections, from which most of the fear is based. If the science is so settled regarding climate, then why do they have to lie about it? Because they're herding sheep, that's why.

Expand full comment
William Taylor's avatar

You and Jeff reference NASA and the Smithsonian? The IPCC? They've become activist political organizations. Where have you been?

https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Expand full comment
Mr. Haze.'s avatar

That's fucking hilarious that you're shitting on nasa, Smithsonian and IPCC for being political institutions and instead choosing to cite a meteorologist (not a climate scientist) funded by the heartland institute aka oil and gas.

Expand full comment
Mr. Haze.'s avatar

Oh wow, a scientist funded by the heartland institute, the same folks who funded doctors who claimed there's no link between tobacco and cancer. What a fucking amazing and reliable source.

Expand full comment
William Taylor's avatar

I knew that was coming.

Here we are, reading Matt Taibbi's newsletter, and one of the recurring themes is the loss of integrity of our institutions, but when it comes to climate, suddenly our institutions are on the level, so anything government-funded is beyond reproach. Okay, got it.

Expand full comment
Jeff Biss's avatar

LOL! Did you even read Matt's article? He says nothing about the integrity of the science behind proving global warming. That's not his issue. Science has proven that humans have caused this climate change event through our use of fossil fuels. It's settled.

You can't find any research, no paper that refutes this absolute fact. A blog post discussing high atmospheric sensing is not such refutation! But you're not competent to understand that. You paid no attention in science class. You took no relevant science courses. Yet you post your really stupid opinion.

Expand full comment
William Taylor's avatar

"Almost no one who has fervent ideas has a good epistemic basis for the level of certainty they hold. There is a disconnect, between the amount of certainty they have, and the amount of certainty they should have, through right process."

Expand full comment
Jeff Biss's avatar

Your delusional if you do not think that the data indicates that global warming is happening and that wildlife population have been in decline for decades. Unlike your ideology, this is based on evidence and data. Your disconnect is between what you believe and reality.

Expand full comment
Mr. Haze.'s avatar

Says the guy posting research funded by oil and gas money. Yeah. Right.

Expand full comment
William Taylor's avatar

Ultimately, it comes down to who you trust. I have a much higher opinion of Spencer, Christy, Curry, and Lindzen, than I do Mann or Schmidt.

Expand full comment
Jeff Biss's avatar

No, it comes down to the data and the data shows that our use of fossil fuels has caused this climate change event. Who you trust is dependent on your ideology and that ideology compels you to reject reality because you are an ideologue. It is that simple.

Expand full comment
Mr. Haze.'s avatar

Yes, I'm sure you have much higher faith in data funded by heartland institute and API, you've been very clear about that.

Expand full comment
Mr. Haze.'s avatar

Jeepers, another study from heartland institute funded Roy Spencer using cherry picked data in a 10 year old piece. How convincing!

Expand full comment
Jeff Biss's avatar

LOL! You're the true believer, someone who denies facts. The problem for you is that all the research and evidence prove that we are the cause of this climate change event and that it adds to all of the other human caused catastrophes due to our overpopulation, extractive economy and callousness. It isn't a conflation, it is but one human caused problem of many.

Getting back on topic, AGW has already caused weather pattern changes that is negatively affecting not only human communities, but wildlife and AGW is happening faster than evolution can accommodate and so wildlife must cope with another human caused stressor that adds to the others that is causing population declines and thus threatens an extinction event. Models be damned, we have actual data, population declines and the fossil record to indicate that we're doing will not end well. Keep your head up your ass.

Expand full comment
William Taylor's avatar

I'm certain of little. You're an emotional train wreck.

Expand full comment
Gordon Freeman's avatar

True, datтАж

Expand full comment
Jeff Biss's avatar

You don't know what you're trying to talk about.

Expand full comment
Mr. Haze.'s avatar

We are already living through a mass extinction event.

Expand full comment
Jeff Biss's avatar

I agree, but the fact is that we can prevent it reaching the tipping point. While most wildlife populations are in decline, there are many that have not reached the functional extinction limit, but we need to act now, as in immediately.

Expand full comment
Mr. Haze.'s avatar

Agreed, but cold hard reality is that we've known about this problem for a half century and done next to nothing. Even now, as dire as the situation and IPCC reports are, we see no tangible action from the US in particular and almost nobody is meeting their Paris targets.

These people blocking the street are annoying fucks, but given the gravity and hopelessness of the situation, I don't blame them. Not only that, I don't believe they will hurt the cause - that's not possible given our inaction.

Expand full comment