Climate change is the LEAST of anyones' REAL problems.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Climate change is the LEAST of anyones' REAL problems.

The REAL problem is the accumulation of deep piles of Snowflakes, who believe climate change is caused by mankind.

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Climate change is the LEAST of anyones' REAL problems.

Only for those who are sure divine intervention will fix it for them.

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The REAL problem is the accumulation of deep piles of Snowflakes

Clever-ish. There are people who push a specific agenda because of the science, and there are those who push a specific agenda because they think it gives them a political edge. And then there are millions of non-experts/non-scientists who fall for whatever the agenda-pushers are saying on their side of the ideology barrier.

My impression is that the people most afraid that their position will melt (if they look at the REAL science) are those who deny man-made climate change. So most of the Snowflakes are science deniers.

If someone believes that 2 + 2 = 5 you can pretty much guarantee they are not a mathematician.

If someone believes that the current Climate Change issues are not at least 95 percent certain to be man-made, then you can pretty much guarantee that they are not a climate science expert.

Even taking into account all that is known about external cycles, water vapor, volcanoes, natural methane, natural CO₂ and sun's variability, etc., we still have no better explanation for the increase in trapped heat other than the effects of greenhouse gas increases by man.

The effects are measurable and predictable based on modeling that uses data available from both before and after the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1800's. In fact, models now correctly show that coal burning, and volcano eruptions, due to the release of particulates, will have a cooling effect. There are additional sets of data that the best models will continually need to be updated with, because the effects of loss of oxygen-producing oceanic life, and melting snow over tundra (releasing natural methane), soil fertilization, deforestation, and other such factors, can have non-linear effects or crossover effects (a problem in one area exacerbating a linked problem in another area).

Here's NASA's take. It's not rocket science.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

[TrueTomHarley]

23 hours ago, JW Insider said:

My impression is that the people most afraid that their position will melt 

Et tu, Brutus?

Joining the pork chop at his own game for his play on snowflakes.

[JW Insider]

16 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Et tu, Brutus?

Brutus is in the nominative case (Latin). The vocative case (when addressing someone) is Brute (broo-tay').

Else . . . excuse your French!

[TrueTomHarley]

43 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Brutus is in the nominative case (Latin). The vocative case (when addressing someone) is Brute (broo-tay').

Else . . . excuse your French!

You know, I actually did see that point when I looked it up, and deliberately overrode it for the sake of more easy understanding.

I know that this is not your mission, but you can credit yourself with causing me to back down from my 80% probability rating that global warming is a hoax. It is now more like 50-50.

Whenever I follow the mainstream, I also follow that which would be its opposite. In the case of climate change, there are many in the opposite camp and they are often very well informed persons who present data persuasively. The long-term respected, even loved, TV weatherman in my area (who has been replaced for the last few years, so that he is now independent) is among them—I mean, it is not that the other side is all dodos, as they are typically presented. This man is a lifelong student of climatology.

And you have caused me to look at matters anew. It is a significant achievement, for I, too, am as stubborn as the day is long.

I even think you capable of convincing me completely, were I too devote more energy to the problem. But of course, I cannot. I must devote my energy to kicking in the teeth (verbally) of those who would malign sacred things, trusting that my absence from the climate change field will not alter the game.

[TrueTomHarley]

On 8/4/2019 at 11:19 AM, JW Insider said:

If someone believes that the current Climate Change issues are not at least 95 percent certain to be man-made, then you can pretty much guarantee that they are not a climate science expert.

I have not found it to be this way. (See previous comment)  Moreover, it is exactly the type of sweeping statement that argues that the prime reason such climate change science people do not exist to you is that you do not frequent where they hang out.

It is seen in many venues. The majority team gets hold of the playing field and seeks to ban the minority team—even declaring that they are not really atheletes.

[Space Merchant]

Also confusion and willful misinformation pushes those who dwell on anything false and or untruth to reap profits. In a sense, some profit off of fear of the world somehow ending by means of climate change.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Also confusion and willful misinformation pushes those who dwell on anything false and or untruth to reap profits.

This is very true. As JTR often says: "Follow the Money." In spite of the past controversy, ExxonMobil now runs a Climate Change page on their site that admits: "We believe that climate change risks warrant action and it’s going to take all of us — business, governments and consumers — to make meaningful progress."

The following is the first page that is returned when I Googled "Exxon Mobil Climate Science Special Report."

ExxonMobil climate change controversy - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy

The ExxonMobil climate change controversy concerns ExxonMobil's activities related to climate ... In July 1977, a senior scientist of Exxon James Black reported to company's executives that ...... What links here · Related changes · Upload file · Special pages · Permanent link · Page information · Wikidata item · Cite this page ...

 

Exxon Continued Paying Millions To Climate-Change Deniers Under ...

https://www.huffpost.com/.../tillerson-exxon-climate-donations_n_5873a3f4e4b043ad...

Jan 9, 2017 - Exxon Continued Paying Millions To Climate-Change Deniers ... President-elect Donald Trump has nominated outgoing Exxon Mobil ... In October, reports from InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles .... Special Projects.

Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago - Scientific ...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/.../exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-...

Oct 26, 2015 - Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it ... This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world's .... and work with everyone else to cut out emissions and pay for some of the cost ... independence in reporting developments in science to our readers.

 

ExxonMobil and Climate Change: A Story of Denial, Delay, and ...

www.climatesciencewatch.org/.../exxonmobil-and-climate-change-a-story-of-denial-d...

May 25, 2016 - Each of three working groups issued its own voluminous report: I) The ..... 2005: Given the rich variety of attention paid to climate change over the .... One might argue that ExxonMobil's specific mention of hurricanes as a risk ...

Climate change | ExxonMobil

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/energy...environment/environmental.../climate-cha...

We believe that climate change risks warrant action and it's going to take all of ... have placed “pay to play” news stories, released flawed academic reports and ...

 

Understanding the #ExxonKnew controversy | ExxonMobil

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/...environment/environmental.../climate-change/un...

Jun 14, 2019 - The investigation was widely founded on claims that scientists and researchers ... claim their effort is based on investigative reporting by InsideClimate News (ICN) and the ... those stories were bought and paid for by many of the organizations listed above. ExxonMobil's continuous action on climate change.

Why is ExxonMobil Still Funding Climate Science Denier Groups ...

https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott.../exxonmobil-still-funding-climate-science-denier-grou...

Aug 31, 2018 - Why is ExxonMobil Still Funding Climate Science Denier Groups? ... a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists revealed that it had spent at ...

 

Yes, ExxonMobil and Chevron are Still Distorting Climate Science ...

https://blog.ucsusa.org/brenda-ekwurzel/exxonmobil-chevron-distort-climate-science

Oct 23, 2018 - Yes, ExxonMobil and Chevron are Still Distorting Climate Science ... *(Earlier this month, this group released a special report detailing the impacts .... writing reports about it to company executives, the company was paying for ...

 

Inside an investigation into Exxon Mobil's climate change - The Verge

https://www.theverge.com/.../exxon-mobil-knew-climate-change-misinformation-harv...

Aug 23, 2017 - For decades, the oil and gas company Exxon Mobil has waged a ... How Exxon sowed doubt about climate change, according to an author of a new study ... But Exxon's communications with the public through paid editorials, ... doubt about the reality of global warming,” Inside Climate News reported.

 

ExxonMobil gave millions to climate-denying lawmakers despite ...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/.../exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-den...

Jul 15, 2015 - Alec has for decades worked to block action on climate change, by drafting ... Keil did not respond to specific questions about Exxon's financial ...

[JW Insider]

18 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I know that this is not your mission, but you can credit yourself with causing me to back down from my 80% probability rating that global warming is a hoax. It is now more like 50-50.

In our generation, I think that most former "global warming" deniers have already begun accepting global warming as a fact, and have repositioned themselves as only denying that it's man-made. I think that some have held onto that original position, because one of the reasons for the original position was political: not wanting to see taxpayers overburdened, enormous national debt , not wanting China to be able to rise to the world's most powerful economy, etc. And Exxon confuses them by saying we should all be ready to pay up anyway, because it's happening, no matter whose fault it is.

I know this isn't a JW portion of the forum, but Sunday afternoon, most of our service group was already using the door-to-door sermon about whether people might be blaming God, with all the bad things happening in the world, such as all these recent gun killings we're seeing on TV. (Then reading Job 34:10-12.) One householder held that both of these mass shootings were going to be proven to be hoaxes. What do you do with a person like that? (The obvious answer is that we these same people will never deny that there have been thousands of acts of gun violence in Chicago, for example. This agreement will get us to nearly the same place about desiring change in the world.) 

18 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

there are many in the opposite camp and they are often very well informed persons who present data persuasively. The long-term respected, even loved, TV weatherman in my area (who has been replaced for the last few years, so that he is now independent) is among them—I mean, it is not that the other side is all dodos, as they are typically presented. This man is a lifelong student of climatology.

I just watched Kevin Williams do his 2010 Tea Party speech, claiming no statistical global warming since 1995, and that in the 135-year thermometer history, that 1930's was the hottest decade. He gets expected applause over his claims that there is no warming, sea levels are barely rising, that hurricanes are not strengthening, and that global ice masses are actually starting to increase. Turns out he is absolutely wrong on all counts. This particular weatherman (meteorologist not climatologist) does NOT present data, he just makes false, agenda-driven claims like any politician:

In fact if you do a search on the heat waves of the 1930's, you'll find that this particular issue is some of the first major evidence of man-made global warming. https://www.climatecentral.org/news/scientists-trace-climate-heat-link-to-1930s-20115

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I just watched Kevin Williams do his 2010 Tea Party speech, claiming no statistical global warming since 1995, and that in the 135-year

You did more than I. I knew nothing of this. He is not really a self-promoter. I have exchanged A few comments with him via Twitter, but when I asked if he had been forced from his job for his views, he stayed silent. He mostly hangs out with other local weather people. 

It turns out that we have a Cornell connection, because my grandpa and great grandpa went there, and that is also his alma mater. I’ve run some old photos by him & he likes that. He has confirmed that an absurd tangle of roads at the west end of Ithaca is indeed known as “the octopus,” less so now as some have been straightened out, but it is still a mess and terrain dictates it will never be straightened out completely.

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/10/in-search-of-the-ithaca-octopus.html

There is a climate zealot on Twitter called @JWspry (no, not one of our JWs—I don’t think) who makes Kevin look like very small potatoes indeed. When i ran my former post past him, “Weather on Steroids,” he said it that the perception was mostly due to what was reported and what was not. Emphasize something disproportionately and you plant inaccurate ideas into people. 

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2012/02/weather-on-steroids.html

This is more easily illustrated for me with the spate of white on black police shootings, and media nearly conveyed the idea that the very purpose of police was to shoot black people. However, a study of the Philadelphia police force during the Obama administration, concluded that there was no overall racial component—every race shot every other race, and their own—and to the extent there was, it was actually a little more likely that black officers would experience “threat misperception” and shoot black suspects than did white officers.

Is a similar biased agenda at work in climate reporting? I would have guessed yes, however you have made me regress to a dunno.

 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

However, a study of the Philadelphia police force during the Obama administration, concluded that there was no overall racial component—every race shot every other race, and their own—and to the extent there was, it was actually a little more likely that black officers would experience “threat misperception” and shoot black suspects than did white officers.

Yep. I've heard this and was not surprised. It's been on those "TED Radio Hour" type of public radio shows. The next episode I listened to was about how a few widely published sommeliers agreed to a blind test comparing some of their highest rated wines with a few cheap $10 bottles thrown into the mix. I think the tests were set up with three bottles at a time, two highly rated and one cheap wine. The results actually showed that these nationally known experts would often confuse the $10 bottle with $200 bottles. Again, not surprising. Self-made expertise is often not science.

I think the climate change situation is more like those old pictures of military "experts" sending improperly protected military personnel into nuclear testing sites soon after a blast to take measurements. It took a while for data to become overwhelming enough to shame the experts. Similarly, we still have people denying the cancerous effects of cigarettes, and part of the reason was that real doctors were once employed by tobacco companies as experts to make statements to this effect. So I'm also not surprised that big oil companies have been caught paying scientists to promote anti-global-warming papers over the years. But I'm also not surprised that a small percentage of climate scientists fake their data in order to gain credit for work they didn't really do. Even though this happens, it does not discount the actual work of the majority of scientists who did not fake their data.

This "experts" argument can cut both ways, of course, but if you listen closely (even to the weatherman's video) you can see that there really is no money to follow in predicting doom and gloom. At best the claim is who can make "future" money off carbon taxes, and there surely will be some abuse and mishandling wherever money is involved. But so far the "follow the money" argument argues much more strongly for fraud on the part of the "experts" who deny climate change. 

[TheWorldNewsOrg]

He is the co-founder of the Weather Channel.... interesting take.