Climate Change Scientific Studies

[Luvnit2]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-scientist-left-out-full-truth-climate-change-wildfire-study-published

California scientist says he ‘left out the full truth’ to get climate change wildfire study published

Patrick Brown said he "narrowly focused" his study because of the pressure scientists face to be published in prestigious articles

This article expresses a scientist left out anything contradicting climate change. His reason is his study would not be published thus costing him money. I always say follow the money. I hope we all want to believe every scientific study we come across, but in this case this scientist left out key information.

Is the more of the norm than we realize? In the case of wildfires, my belief are either man made through arson or poor attention paid to the brush. We saw democrats come out immediately after the Maui disaster blaming climate change. Now we know they were 100% wrong. 1st they were wrong to rush to an unverified cause of the fire and also to not support the people of Maui versus a climate agenda .

2nd, they were wrong because climate change had no impact on the Maui fire. It started due to negligence of a power company maintaining the areas beneath their power lines. It spread due to the grasses were known to be highly flammable, it continued to spread because the electric was not immediately cut off and some generous did not release water to put the fire out.

I know everyone wants to believe every scientist does a comprehensive study, but sadly money can dictate the results. If scientist concluded climate change was not as impactful as we are led to believe, the money to fund these studies would stop. So, it is a scientist's best interest to come to certain conclusions so the money continues to flow.

[NATI BENGALS]

Strange story. Guy lied and used fake data to get something published then tries to play the hero against evil scientists? Really doesn't prove anything other than what we all know, scumbags exist.

[JustWinBaby]

(09-09-2023, 07:08 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Strange story. Guy lied and used fake data to get something published then tries to play the hero against evil scientists? Really doesn't prove anything other than what we all know, scumbags exist.

I don't believe he lied or faked anything.  He seemed to deliberately ignore like a dozen other factors in their study, which could very well overstate the human influence (it could go the other direction, as well, as excluding possible offsetting factors in the other direction could cause it to be understated). There's been plenty written about corruption of the peer review process, studies that can't be replicated, and researchers outright faking data.  And it's endemic - widespread beyond Climate science.  But the politics around Climate Change do seem to make that field unique in terms of rejecting and blackballing researchers that dare to challenge the narrative.

Either way, an AI black box spitting out a result sounds like the best-est science ever.  I actually don't know how they used AI, but interested to read on it one day.  Otherwise, same as I've always said - you can data mine until you get a result that works all day, but it's virtually 99.9999% certain to be spurious if the model isn't validated.  My guess is AI is data mining on super steroids, but again I haven't read how they used it.

Otherwise, while this is a local CA study that could be very sound, it's interesting that climate change is causing wildfires to get worse when actual empirical evidence, at least globally, has shown no increase in frequency or severity of fires.  Even in the US, the frequency of wildfires has actually declined over the past 40 years.  The acreage burned (in the US) has increased significantly, but that is not true globally (despite uninformed media reports to the contrary).

[GMDino]

Ron Johns citing a FOX report on a FOX program is why so many believe climate change is a hoax and/or not man made/influenced.

Johnson: All this climate alarmism is based on bad science completely ignoring the impact of clouds… These windmills are killing the whales pic.twitter.com/uTEGtAyEMB

— Acyn (@Acyn) September 10, 2023

 

[basballguy]

I'm surprised global warming hasn't been credited with the morocco quake yet.

[*pally*]

Whether or not one agrees that climate change is man-made or driven by normal cycles, we still have to deal with the outcomes.

Ocean temps are rising
planet temperature is rising
coasts are flooding more and more often
Storms are stronger and more damaging
longer more dangerous and more widespread droughts
Hot places are getting hotter, cold places are getting hotter and at the same time cold cycles are becoming more extreme as well.
forests are being cut down removing nature's air filter

All this is impacting the worldwide food and water supply. Tropical diseases are being found in the non-tropics. Non-indigenous species are thriving and overtaking native plants and animals (talk about illegal immigrants...these are really out of control) which is impacting the overall environment.

[Goalpost]

So when I grew up, we were heading toward another ice age.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-10-2023, 12:56 PM)Goalpost Wrote: So when I grew up, we were heading toward another ice age.

I'm pushing 50.  Not sure how many times we were all supposed to be dead by warming or cooling at this point.  Weren't coasts suppposed to be under water by now?  

Meanwhile, in reality, where I live is just as beautiful as it was 50 years ago.

[LSUfaninTN]

(09-09-2023, 07:42 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't believe he lied or faked anything.  He seemed to deliberately ignore like a dozen other factors in their study, which could very well overstate the human influence (it could go the other direction, as well, as excluding possible offsetting factors in the other direction could cause it to be understated).

It may be overstated, it may be understated. The fact is, we really don’t know the extent. That should alone be reason to be cautious of shutting down pipelines and suspending leases on federal land for drilling. Even if we did all that and went 100% green (which is literally, not theoretically, impossible without nuclear), the US contributes what, 25% of carbon emissions? China and Russia do half. They will never stop using oil. Ever. Crippling our energy system just screws over the US and may not even do anything for climate change, even if we went 100% clean tomorrow, for the rest of eternity. China, Russia, and a lot of the east, with different values from the west and IMO harmful ones, will continue to kick our asses until China becomes the new US. We’re a country running on fumes from the benefits of winning World War 2 primarily because of oil and pipelines, and we’re STILL reaping those benefits. Oil would keep us (and democracy) on top. But the democrats want to throw that away because they have no idea how energy works, and they take their cues on our future from freaking Greta Thunberg.

[Luvnit2]

(09-10-2023, 12:48 PM)pally Wrote: Whether or not one agrees that climate change is man-made or driven by normal cycles, we still have to deal with the outcomes.  

Ocean temps are rising
planet temperature is rising
coasts are flooding more and more often
Storms are stronger and more damaging
longer more dangerous and more widespread droughts
Hot places are getting hotter, cold places are getting hotter and at the same time cold cycles are becoming more extreme as well.
forests are being cut down removing nature's air filter

All this is impacting the worldwide food and water supply. Tropical diseases are being found in the non-tropics.  Non-indigenous species are thriving and overtaking native plants and animals (talk about illegal immigrants...these are really out of control) which is impacting the overall environment.

Assuming all of this 100% accurate, how much is a result of poor results to help the environment by China and India? How has US done the past 10 years versus other countries? How will climate ever be fixed if the biggest offenders in the world do not agree and fix their issues. Again assuming you are correct about the items above, how much has China and India contributed to these issues versus the US?

It is my understanding the US has had major improvements, yet according to your analysis the US climate is being impacted more than problem countries? Why?

I think there is reason for many to doubt major climate change scientific studies. This article says in last 50 years, they are o% accurate.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-eco-pocalyptic-predictions-the-so-called-experts-are-0-50/

Below are the 41 failed doomsday, eco-pocalyptic predictions (with links):


1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life (data and graph)
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes (additional link)
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend (additional link)
13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 (additional link)
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
37. 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
41. 1970s: Killer Bees!

Update: I’ve added 9 additional failed predictions (via Real Climate Science) below to make it an even 50 for the number of failed eco-pocalyptic doomsday predictions over the last 50 years.

42. 1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production
43. 1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century
44. 1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
45. 1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980
46. 1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018
47. 2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020
48. 2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past
49.1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming
50. 2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter

But somehow this time will be different, and the ‘experts’ and 16-year olds of today will suddenly be correct in their new predictions of eco-doom and eco-disaster? Not.

[*pally*]

If we wait until the future is here to plan for it, we will be decades to late. Fossil fuels aren't going away in our lifetimes. But not moving forward with research and development into cheaper, safer, and more environmentally friendly forms of energy would be irresponsible to our future generations. Some of this experimentation will fail and some will ultimately succeed beyond our wildest imagination

[Mickeypoo]

(09-11-2023, 06:57 PM)pally Wrote: If we wait until the future is here to plan for it, we will be decades to late.  Fossil fuels aren't going away in our lifetimes.  But not moving forward with research and development into cheaper, safer, and more environmentally friendly forms of energy would be irresponsible to our future generations.  Some of this experimentation will fail and some will ultimately succeed beyond our wildest imagination

If 50 predicted climate disasters over 55 years have never materialized, don't you think that maybe, just maybe, you might be being scammed?

[hollodero]

(09-12-2023, 09:30 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: If 50 predicted climate disasters over 55 years have never materialized, don't you think that maybe, just maybe, you might be being scammed?

Who predicted them? There's quite a list of articles from several decades, that do not meet the criteria of a scientific consensus, but probably were used by sensationalist jourrnalists who cherry-picked and interpreted certain studies.

It makes little sense to dismiss climate change because there was a killer bee trope spooking around in the media once or because someone predicted in 1966 that the ice age is coming or the oil is getting sparse.

On the opposite side of this, there's a plethora of predictions that did come true, a list easily surpassing 50 issues. Global temperature reaches modern-day records, the oceans rise, the glaciers melt, deserts and animals seize new territories. But some outlet said something inaccurate about acid rain in the year 1980 so all is good? Wanna bet the next generation's well-being on that logic?

[basballguy]

(09-11-2023, 06:57 PM)pally Wrote: If we wait until the future is here to plan for it, we will be decades to late.  Fossil fuels aren't going away in our lifetimes.  But not moving forward with research and development into cheaper, safer, and more environmentally friendly forms of energy would be irresponsible to our future generations.  Some of this experimentation will fail and some will ultimately succeed beyond our wildest imagination

All the research in the world isn't going to matter when it's not our side of the hemisphere causing the bulk of problems.  

I'm all for reducing dependencies but why make 370M people pay the price (literally) when majority of the world isn't doing the same?  All they're doing is advancing their economic standings while we get reamed.  

[SunsetBengal]

(09-12-2023, 09:51 AM)hollodero Wrote: Who predicted them? There's quite a list of articles from several decades, that do not meet the criteria of a scientific consensus, but probably were used by sensationalist jourrnalists who cherry-picked and interpreted certain studies.

You mean like Science Journals and publications are doing now, by refusing to publish anything that offers any other explanation that simply "human caused climate change"?

[Mickeypoo]

(09-12-2023, 09:51 AM)hollodero Wrote: Who predicted them? There's quite a list of articles from several decades, that do not meet the criteria of a scientific consensus, but probably were used by sensationalist jourrnalists who cherry-picked and interpreted certain studies.

It makes little sense to dismiss climate change because there was a killer bee trope spooking around in the media once or because someone predicten in 1966 that the ice age is coming or the oil is getting sparse.

On the opposite side of this, there's a plethora of predictions that did come true, a list easily surpassing 50 issues. Global temperature reaches modern-day records, the oceans rise, the glaciers melt, deserts and animals seize new territories. But some outlet said something inaccurate about acid rain in the year 1980 so all is good? Wanna bet the next generation's well-being on that logic?

Yes. There is no climate crisis.  It's a scam.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-12-2023, 10:06 AM)basballguy Wrote: All the research in the world isn't going to matter when it's not our side of the hemisphere causing the bulk of problems.  

I'm all for reducing dependencies but why make 370M people pay the price (literally) when majority of the world isn't doing the same?  All they're doing is advancing their economic standings while we get reamed.  

Exactly.

[hollodero]

(09-12-2023, 10:45 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: You mean like Science Journals and publications are doing now, by refusing to publish anything that offers any other explanation that simply "human caused climate change"?

That may be, I don't know. Climate change doesn't care about questionable publication rules in scientific journals though.

PS I have seen some climate chage refusals in my day, that got handed around. They usually are bogus that don't deserve publication, on the "Greenland was totally green in medieval times" or "volcanoes have more influence than humans ever could have"-level.

[hollodero]

(09-12-2023, 10:45 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Yes. There is no climate crisis.  It's a scam.

A scam. I find this hard to believe really. It would involve bribing almost all climate cientists around the world, that are usually scientists with all their heart (no one is into science for the money in the first place). All of them would need to betray the very first principles of science to take part in a scam that helps whom exactly? Even putting the most visible signs of climate change and the sound thery behind it aside, that is incredibly hard to imagine.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-12-2023, 10:56 AM)hollodero Wrote: A scam. I find this hard to believe really. It would involve bribing almost all climate cientists around the world, that are usually scientists with all their heart (no one is into science for the money in the first place). All of them would need to betray the very first principles of science to take part in a scam that helps whom exactly? Even putting the most visible signs of climate change and the sound thery behind it aside, that is incredibly hard to imagine.

It doesn't have to be a scam like that.  I think some people genuinely believe their is a climate crisis, the media goes along, people see money to be made and it slowly perpetuates.

That coupled with scientists relying on funding for climate research and the fact that it is not very well received, or people are even silenced if they have a different theory/opinion.

It doesn't have to be some big, crazy conspiracy.

John Kerry, huge footprint, telling everyone else to lower their footprint.  Enormous hypocrite or con artist?