It's Good News Friday! (CLIMATE CHANGE)

You know, I might just start eating french fries again, all things considered.

Six of nine planetary boundaries now exceeded

Source: https://phys.org/news/2023-09-planetary-boundaries-exceeded.html

I never stopped

Recorded being the key word.

You really are aggressively stupid.

Looks like some scientists are pushing back against the cultists. I guess there isn't a consensus after all. Over 1,600 scientists declare that there is no climate emergency.

Here are the key takeaways.

Lots more at the link.
https://www.realclearinvestigations...fled_by_societys_top_institutions_978511.html

Here's a link to the declaration.
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WCD-version-081423.pdf
Here's the one I like best. Of course there's warming, the mini ice age ended in 1850, which is when we started measuring temperatures.

So a skeptical person goes into that nonsense and finds this in the first couple of sentences. Steven Koonin, author of “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters" was also chief scientist for British Petroleum. Trump appointed him to recruit people for an adversarial committee against climate science, but that fell apart. Here's Scientific American's review of his book:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-book-manages-to-get-climate-science-badly-wrong/

John Clauser just recently joined the CO2 coalition, who were in turn run by a former COO of the American Petroleum Institute, William O'Keefe.

Jeez, I wonder why people incredibly high up in the hierarchy of fossil fuel corporations would think that switching to renewables was a bad idea.

What reason could they possibly have for that? LOL.

Great, now with the net for who are relevant scientists cast that wide across disciplines, compare the number saying there is a problem.

Again:

Do you dispute any of the following?

1. Human activity is taking sequestered carbon (wood, coal, oil, gas) and emitting it into the atmosphere.
2. These emissions have contributed to raising atmospheric CO2 levels to levels not seen for several million years.
3. Increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere are scientifically demonstrated to have an insulation effect, resulting in the Earth retaining more of the sun's energy than it would have otherwise.

No.

In that case human emissions are warming the Earth more than we would expect from and outside of natural cycles, and the degree to which we limit those emissions will literally translate to degrees of global temperature change

Yet a thousand years ago there was a warming period where temperatures were hotter than they are now and we weren’t releasing carbon into the atmosphere.. Three million years ago our ancestors were climbing out of the trees and beginning our journey, the world wasn’t on fire.

If they had a bit more cents I'm sure it'd all work out...

1. We already established that we are talking about change in addition to and beyond the natural cycles.

2. Please cite your evidence that average global temperatures were higher 1000 years ago. There was certainly a warming period, which also translated into some higher temperatures in localized weather, but not that the average global temperatures were higher.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Nope.

Source: the first paragraph of your own link

Once again I must ask, are you actively lying, or intellectually lazy?

Intellectually lazy is a nice way of saying, 'stupid.' Hard to believe anyone could have actually read their source when they claim that the Earth was hotter in the Medieval Warm Period than now, when this is the graph in their source that shows that data.

That adds a third option. Stupid assumes that FF read the information and completely misunderstood what it's showing, rather than just mashing the cut and paste button on the first Google result url that looked like it was vaguely related to a point he wanted to make.

But also from the graph you can see the bottom of the grey range circa 2000AD just touches the top of the grey range circa 1000AD, which is the evidence he has tried to present in the past.

Fucking dinosaurs never writing a god damned thing down ....

You already know the answer to this. Everyone here has attempted to request more info than the headline he's regurgitating and he can't provide. He doesn't read articles. He reads headlines. He's obviously a lazy fuck and he's the perfect target for propagandists.

How about you stop changing the subject and address what I posted?

This is what you posted:

So back up your claim.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2003/04/global-warming-is-not-so-hot-2/

What do you want addressing there? We're looking at overall global climate, not localized weather patterns.

And we got onto this because you posted another anthropogenic climate change isn't real/we can't do anything about it even if it is piece, then your answer to the response to it revealed you actually do believe it is real.

What would you call centuries of warming and cooling periods all over the world?

The Earths natural cycles, which as we have both already agreed the anthropogenic climate change is in addition to.

And there is no agreement as to how much man has contributed.

Just looking at the source that you provided as authoritative evidence, surely you would agree that there is part of this that looks to be outside the natural cycles?

If that's the famous hockey stick graph, it's cherry picked data that's been proven wrong.

Ok, I assumed you endorsed it since it was part of the evidence that you presented.

Happy to put it aside though if you want to provide an alternate chart showing global average temperatures you think is more reliable.