REMINDER: CO2 climate crisis was not sustainability or fossil fuels. It was a CO2 death threat to billions of children and thankfully a criminal exaggeration fueled by political correctness on steroids. So don’t ride the back of responsible environmentalism and call it climate change.
Regards,
A Long Time Former Believer who is sick of spreading needlss fear like a neocon.

This isn’t even true. In fact it’s a blatant falsehood. I find it remarkable that this kind of assertion is made with a straight face. There is absolutely no discernible correlation at all, through the C20th, between global temperature (which fluctuated quite wildly) and atmospheric CO2.

There is an observed ~0.6 degree average increase in global mean temperature during the C20th. There is not even agreement among climate scientists which year in the C20th was warmer, 1998 or 1934. Yes! 1934 could possibly have been warmer than the most warm year in the latter half of the century! But there are no climate scientists arguing that the temperature in 1934 was caused by anthropogenic influences.

Climate science is an immature field of science, more astrology than astronomy, with far too many pseudo-scientific overtones, not enough scientific discipline or adherence to the Scientific Method. Accordingly, it is simply not safe to base economic policy upon its grossly suspect conclusions, model projections or sub-standard scientific practices.

That being said, I also attended a screening of “Dive” which is about a family who dumpster-dives in Pasadena, surviving on perfectly consumable food (pre-expiration date) disposed of by various supermarket chains. They reclaimed so much product, they began a holiday food drive to feed the various food shelters and stock the food banks in their neighborhood. Point being, America wastes one half of all the food it produces. Can we, as a nation, produce less and waste less? Or have our farm subsidies become too expensive to sustain our country? If we produce less, we transport less, we preserve Mother Earth.

Anyways, that was my week. Cheers Sarah!

I thought you made your point very well, and I really like the analogy with economics (something most of us like to think we understand) as a model for data points vs data collection and trending.

Climate science is difficult. Like economics, there are a million variables, and it’s damn near impossible to predict with any real accuracy. That said, it is possible to draw trends and predict outcomes from various inputs. It’s also possible to look at historical data and draw trends. Who here would advocate a “command” style economy like the USSR? We’ve seen what that does, so it’s a demonstrably bad economic system. We can see the pattern over the past 100+ years of CO2 increasing and temperature increasing at a corresponding rate. Study after study, model after model all show this. Anyone who understands the first thing about science can see the trend and correlation; and knows damn well that if anyone could disprove the conventional wisdom they would do it in a heartbeat, and probably win a Nobel Prize.

In short: don’t let the comments get you down. There is always going to be a slice of the population who know for certain that we never landed on the moon, we found WMD in Iraq, and that Paul McCartney died in 1966. As Mark Twain once said: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you caught up, it’s what you know for certain that just ain’t so.”

There is no tested science in support of the claim of increased likelihood of severe weather. There are only hypotheses, and those hypotheses are juxtaposed by no less likely alternative hypotheses that suggest that there is nothing significant to expect from climate sensitivity to a single degree of warming.

The IPCC’s concepted 3 degree warming is not supported in physical science, it is based on the existence of positive feedbacks and tipping points, neither of which have ever been observed. In real science, Sarah, we rely on observational evidence rather than human-programmed, computer manufactured data as evidence.

In real science, these theories are testable, reproducible, experiments replicable. Definitively that is what real science is. Definitively, therefore, climate science is somewhere between unscientific and anti-scientific. This is what you are promoting, Sarah. Unreproducible, non-replicable, pseudo-scientific guff.

And, having pointed this out, I no longer feel the need to respond with an equivalent to your immature broad-brush “denier” insult.

Oh, and one last point, Sarah. Those states suffering the worst drought in 60 years? It was worse 60 years ago, Sarah. That’s what it means when they say “worst drought in 60 years”. If climatology were are hard science, it would be burdened with a requirement to show both how and why, this time, the cause of the drought is anthropogenic while last time, 60 years ago, it wasn’t. But it isn’t a hard science, which is why there is only supposition with no observational evidence to support it.

It is hardly the ‘deniers’ as you call them, but the alarmists (hey, if you are going to be derogatory I guess I can be too) who are citing weather rather than climate.

After 16 years of either stable or for much of that time cooling worldwide temperatures, one really does have to consider the trend, and not local weather events.

What is the trend? 16 years of stable or cooling temps worldwide… All the ‘alarmists’ (to continue with the tone you set) have to grasp onto is local weather events, like a short term drought in a restricted area.