Climate Change and Conservatism

[one.opinion]

6 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Would anyone like to see the evidence?

Yes, please!

[ARGOSY]

On 10/21/2019 at 8:30 PM, The Barbarian said:

It's pretty easy to understand.   About thirty years ago, a NASA climatologist, James Hansen, using atmospheric carbon dioxide as a guide, prepared a model  predicting future global temperatures.  He had three scenarios. 1. do nothing about carbon emissions   2. do a little about carbon emissions.   3. drastically cut carbon emissions.

He predicted rapid warming, while deniers predicted cooling.

We did scenario 2.   And Hansen's predictions were very close to the actual warming trend.     So that's where we are, today.   

Oh, and energy companies were, using Hansen's model, secretly preparing to manage in a warmer climate, even as they were telling everyone that there was no warming trend.

Would anyone like to see the evidence?

 

Yes. Not that a prediction of a trend means anything. Anyone could have predicted warming in 1750, it had been steadily warming for 50 years and carried on for another 50 years. 

Humans are affecting the planet, no doubt, due to sheer overpopulation. I just wish they would present the info properly and convincingly. I would be the first to embrace it. 

No one wants a future world of 20 billion, even if our carbon footprint is low, we just don't leave enough space for large animal populations like in the past. 

[dhchristian]

On 9/29/2019 at 7:41 PM, ChessPlayer said:

Hello all. I discussed this briefly in the US politics section of the forum but I feel like it has more of a home here where we discuss the intersection of science and faith. I have become deeply concerned of late with Christian (mostly conservative) voices railing against the science of climate change. Things became especially toxic in recent weeks due to the most recent round of UN talks where Greta Thunberg spoke passionately on the subject demanding nations take action. As a result, I thought we may like to discuss climate change and the role Christians should play in trying to limit the impact upon our planet. 

For me, it is sad to see such an issue become so partisan in the United States when even the previous presidential candidates for the GOP noted the real threat posed by climate change. I also fail to grasp why people are opposed to plans like the Green New Deal or other radical changes in infrastructure and energy consumption in order to preserve the planet. I am even more distraught that many who self-identify as Christian are opposed to taking action to protect our environment. To me, this is part of our stewardship of creation. However, I am always curious and on the look out for differing views. This forum (by and large) tends to have more conservative leanings than the average member of the public and I was wondering why people are objecting to the scientific data. 

CP,

growing up in the 70's the cry was global cooling and a coming ice age, then in the 90's it became global warming and carbon emissions. Now it is "man made" climate change. And that is where my problem lies with this. As You can see the scientists do not have a clue what to call it so they are now in the "climate change camp" which is like saying, the climate is changing but we have no idea which way it will change. 

What in fact is the case if you extend all those graphs back to the mini ice age, you will find that earth in general is in a warming trend which began long before the industrial revolution and has little or nothing to do with being "man made". Within that warming cycle there are ebbs and flows in the warming and cooling direction. Before the mini ice age, this general direction was heading in the global cooling direction. 

Here is the kicker for me, why I as a Christian cannot support the legislation proposed to alter the warming, Because ultimately the cause of the Warming is not man made. By blaming man for the warming, they are in fact saying that human life is to blame and that in order to control this warming Human life must be snuffed out via population control, Euthanasia, Abortion, and in the end genocide of people's based on their value to society. That is the end result of all of this legislation, because when restrictions on carbon emissions have no effect (because global warming is not man made), then eventually this will be used to justify genocide and population control. I as a Christian see this outcome, in this false agenda driven narrative, and if you do not believe this to be the case then go look up the facts on these global ventures such as the Gates foundation, and others who are even now promoting population controls to augment the reduction of CO2 emissions. 

What this Global governance also does is take incentive and sovereignty out of the nations and individuals, and grants it to unelected bureaucrats thus making an unaccountable and dictatorial hierarchy in charge of the lives of the People. What is the next step in that process, when tyrants rule and people have no power? Sad to say, but History is repeating itself, Only now instead of Hitler we have unelected Global oligarchs who rule, and give all of our sovereignty as people to the "beast" system. Instead of racial genocide, we will have merit based genocide, and courts that will determine your worth to the world, and if they deem you unessential, Then they will be justified in killing you, and you know that if anyone disagrees with these oligarchs, they will be among the first to Go. 

The Word of God does speak of "climate chaos", But this is the doing of God to bring plagues upon mankind to bring repentance. It will also serve as evidence that false messiah is not who claims to be (declaring himself to be god), and this climate chaos will be used by the two witnesses to prophesy against the Antichrist. But when Christ Jesus he will restore His creation to the created order and rule and reign for  a thousand years on earth doing so.

So as you can see, My conviction and resolve against "man made climate change" is based on the MEANS by which global government is going to accomplish their ends.... The ends DO NOT justify the means. I Also have faith that God will restore the creation in his time, and all will be beneficiaries of this mercy. There is no need to tax the very air we breath (out), But The true solution comes from the quelling the desires of the wealthy and the powerful from acquiring more wealth and power. When Christ Jesus Rules this ambition will be gone. Or as Ronald Reagan used to say "In this present crisis, Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem". Meaning the number one culprit in the climate chaos of our day is the centralization of the power in government. all one has to do is look at China, and Russia with their environmental catastrophes under communism to see what going in the direction of Globalist governance will do to the environment. it will only accelerate the problems, because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

I Do not know if this will change your Opinion or not? But this is why I do not support globalist solutions to solve this problem such as the Green new deal, and the Paris climate accords. They are the wrong approach to solving a problem that is biblically unavoidable and unsolvable until the Lord Jesus Returns, and are being used to Justify tyranny.  

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Yes. Not that a prediction of a trend means anything.

 

It means Hansen got it precisely right, when deniers were predicting cooling.

 

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, dhchristian said:

growing up in the 70's the cry was global cooling and a coming ice age

No.  Even then, climatologists were predicting warming. Would you like to see thast?

4 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Here is the kicker for me, why I as a Christian cannot support the legislation proposed to alter the warming, Because ultimately the cause of the Warming is not man made.

That's wrong, too.   The  huge increase in carbon dioxide, that's driving  the warming, is man-made.    The question of warming, is not affected by what, if anything we should do about it.  Reality is not obliged to fit our desires.

 

 

[ARGOSY]

14 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

It means Hansen got it precisely right, when deniers were predicting cooling.

 

If a guy in 1750 guessed that the heating trend would carry on a bit, does this prove climate change? 

Yes, the climate is always changing.  One has to prove that we are definitely the major source of co2, and that additional co2 is definitely the cause of the climate change. And co2 seems to be good for plants, apparently there's a pollen spike now. We eat the nutrition from plants, what is the best balance? 

Don't get me wrong, I'm open to facts, I just having seen anything convincing yet. 

Edited October 24, 2019 by ARGOSY

[ARGOSY]

Life thrived in the Carboniferous, huge insects, massive trees. I think we could do with CO2 above 2000 ppm. Declines in CO2 preceded the End Permian mass extinction when co2 was really low like today. 

Edited October 24, 2019 by ARGOSY

[dhchristian]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No.  Even then, climatologists were predicting warming. Would you like to see thast?

https://i1.wp.com/gregladen.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Facebook_meme_Global_Cooling_11.gif?resize=509%2C340

https://thetruthpeddler.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/big-freeze.jpg

https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/screenshot-2015-12-30-at-01-57-11-am.png?w=640&h=768

There Are forces at work trying to rewrite history and until you wake up to the fact that this is nothing more than a power struggle, You will continue to be duped into believing the Lie of man made global warming. The Fact is that what has been shown to have the greatest impact on weather is not CO2, but dust particles in the atmosphere, and cloud cover. So for example, when there is a large volcanic eruption that places particles into the upper atmosphere there is cooling, and when we go through a cycle of less volcanic activity, we go through a cycle of warming. The same can be said of dust via dust storms, and as a matter of fact the cloud cover that is created by Con trails of jet flight result in cooler temperatures, because these clouds block the suns radiation from reaching earth. So Jet flight is causing global cooling if any thing, as is the particulate pollution in general. Although none of these things are good for our health. 

http://www.climate4you.com/images/LowCloudCoverVersusGlobalSurfaceAirTemperature.gif

https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Kauppinen-and-Malmi-2019-cloud-temperature-correlation.jpg

This last chart is an older one from 2008, after 2008 there was an increase in volcanic activity around the world, though not all eruptions place particulates high into the atmosphere like Pinatubo did in that chart, But what we saw was a period of global cooling from about 2010-2016 from that increase in volcanic activity. which led to that great movie known as the "Day after tomorrow" which promoted a global ice age. 

Basically, It is all just Hype to get you scared so you give up your sovereignty and power to global governance so that they can tax the very air you breath (out), and to enslave the population to the new Elite hierarchy of Bureaucrats and oligarchs. 

As you can see here, cloud cover has a direct influence on the global temperatures globally, reducing man made pollutants thus will result in global warming, not global cooling. So the solution will make the problem worse, and the snowball will roll until all human life is viewed as a burden to mother nature and must be exterminated. I as a Christian cannot accept this sort of conclusion, and I as a man with common sense, cannot accept this kind of false claims that says that man is the direct cause of global warming. It is nothing more than a lie driven by greed and the lust for power. CO2 is the Lifeblood of the plant world, the more CO2 the more the plant world thrives, and the greater the yield agriculturally. This is how God created the earth to sustain an increasing population. Global periods of warming lead to drought, and the increase in particulates in the atmosphere via dust storms which in turn leads to global cooling and the restore equilibrium. There is some suggestion that volcanic activity is also correlated to periods of global warming as well, https://newatlas.com/climate-volcanic-activity-link/25520/

All that being said, Is this not a marvelous world God has created for us? 

[The Barbarian]

 

Apparently the hoax cover has been floating around the Internet for at least a few years. I’m not sure who created it, and it doesn’t seem to have gotten a whole lot of traction, even among climate-science deniers. Though kudos to whoever initially put the fake cover together. That’s some pretty good photoshopping.

But the hoax does touch on an important part of climate science — and one that’s often misunderstood by skeptics. Call it the Ice Age Fallacy. Skeptics argue that back in the 1970s both popular media and some scientists were far more worried about global cooling than they were about global warming. For some reason a Newsweek article on the next ice age, published back in 1975, gets a lot of the attention, though TIME did a version of the story, as did a number of other media outlets. The rationale goes this way: the fact that scientists were once supposedly so concerned about global cooling, which didn’t come true, just shows that we shouldn’t worry about the new fears of climate change.

But as John Cook points out over at Skeptical Science, global cooling was much more an invention of the media than it was a real scientific concern. A survey of peer-reviewed scientific papers published between 1965 and 1979 shows that the large majority of research at the time predicted that the earth would warm as carbon-dioxide levels rose — as indeed it has. And some of those global-cooling projections were based on the idea that aerosol levels in the atmosphere — which are a product of air pollution from sources like coal burning and which contribute to cooling by deflecting sunlight in the atmosphere — would keep rising. But thanks to environmental legislation like the Clean Air Acts, global air-pollution levels — not including greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide — peaked in the 1970s and began declining.

The reality is that scientists in the 1970s were just beginning to understand how climate change and aerosol pollution might impact global temperatures. Add in the media-hype cycle — which was true then as it is now — and you have some coverage that turned out to be wrong. But thanks to the Internet, those stories stay undead, recycled by notorious climate skeptics like George Will. Pay no attention to the Photoshop. It’s the science we should heed — and the science says man-made climate change is real and very, very worrying.

https://time.com/5670942/time-magazine-ice-age-cover-hoax/

BAMS September 2008

THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina

There Are forces at work trying to rewrite history and until you wake up to the fact that this is nothing more than a power struggle, You will continue to be duped into believing the  lies you've been fed, like the ones you just showed us.   A man is a slave to the lies of others, only so long as he refuses to think for himself.

 

 

Figure 1. The number of papers classified as predicting, implying, or providing supporting evidence for future global cooling, warming, and neutral categories. During the period from 1965 through 1979, the PCF08 literature survey found 7 cooling, 20 neutral, and 44 warming papers. (Peterson 2008)

Edited October 24, 2019 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

If a guy in 1750 guessed that the heating trend would carry on a bit, does this prove climate change? [/quote]

If he produced a model that got the climate change precisely right thirty years in advance, he'd be a world famous scientist.  That's what they do.

5 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Yes, the climate is always changing.  One has to prove that we are definitely the major source of co2, and that additional co2 is definitely the cause of the climate change.

That's no longer questionable.   Scientists first realized that rises in carbon dioxide would warm up the climate, back in the 1800s.   And then we conducted a massive experiment by dumping huge quantities of it, causing CO2 to rise.    And as predicted, temps rose along with it.   The reason it has such an effect is that it absorbs infrared radiation at wavelengths other greenhouse gases do not.   Would you like to see that?

 

5 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

And co2 seems to be good for plants, apparently there's a pollen spike now. We eat the nutrition from plants, what is the best balance? 

Turns out, that's not so good either, although we might be able to alleviate the worst effects by breeding plants able to cope with it:

Plant quality declines as CO₂ levels rise

Hans-Joachim Weigel

eLife. 2014; 3: e03233.

There are less data available for edible parts of major food crops, and a general lack of data for other important food crops, such as maize, banana and cassava. Nevertheless, Loladze could show diminished mineral concentrations in edible parts of food crop plants from existing information. Further, he argues that the observed changes to the mineral content of food crops might exacerbate the problem of ‘hidden hunger’; that is, a person's diet can be deficient in minerals even if they consume enough calories. This type of malnutrition is common, particularly in developing countries, as many people eat only a limited number of staple crops, and do not eat enough mineral-rich foods—such as fruits, vegetables, dairy and meats. Loladze also speculates that the changes in the carbohydrate to protein ratio caused by elevated CO₂ might contribute to the obesity epidemic.

In independent work, Samuel Myers of Harvard and co-workers have studied the effects of elevated CO₂ on six food crops (Myers et al., 2014). They found that zinc and iron levels were diminished in the grains of wheat, rice and soybean that were grown in atmospheres containing the levels of CO₂ that may be reached by the middle of this century.

 

There's a lot of research on this now, and none of it is good news.   Plants grown in higher CO2 atmospheres have lower nutritional value.