Some Warmists will tell us that the Cult of Climastrology is not prognosticating total doom from ‘climate change’. Strange how it is easy to find articles which have Warmists telling us we are doomed, and I wasn’t even looking for it. Here’s Rhonda Seifert, a “Nurse, researcher, writer, activist, mother, seeker of answers to the “Big Questions—…wait, a mother? Doesn’t she know that rugrats are Bad for ‘climate change’?
Ignoring Climate Change Symptoms Will Lead to Terminal Diagnosis
As a nurse, I can tell you how hard it is to be present when someone is getting the news of a terminal diagnosis. Worse yet is when there were signs, many of them, that were ignored. Signs that, had they acted, would have likely resulted in a very different outcome. What is it that causes one person to ignore the signs until it is too late, while another seeks help and gets a cure?
Recently, I have had some well-meaning friends and family tell me that I worry too much about climate change. That I can’t do anything about it, so I need to stop worrying. Every part of me that is a mother and every part that is a nurse wants to yell back, “No! Don’t you say that.â€
Ignoring symptoms of climate change, or denying that it is happening, does not help us any more than it helps someone with early signs of cancer. Telling each other to stop worrying about it is not going to save us. It is not going to save our children. The only way that we can save ourselves is if we face this difficult and scary diagnosis. Climate change is happening. It’s happening right now. And if we keep ignoring this problem, it will become a terminal diagnosis.
Uh huh
You probably know some of the early cancer signs. Do you know what some of the signs of climate change are? These are 10 common signs: 1) Higher Temperatures, 2) Changing Rain and Snow Patterns, 3) Rising Sea Levels, 4) Increase in Droughts, 5) Warmer Oceans, 5) Extreme Weather, 7) Increased Ocean Acidity, 8) Shrinking Sea Ice and Melting Glaciers, 9) More Severe Fire Seasons, and 10) Less Snowpack.
None of which proves anthropogenic causation. Let’s quickly note that seas are rising less than expected during a Holocene warm period. Extreme weather is not happening, in fact, it seems to be less extreme. Fire seasons are not worse. Ocean acidity is not happening, and corals actually evolved during a time of higher seas with higher temperatures. There are other points, but, you’ve read them all before. No rock solid proof of Mankind-induced causation.
Of course, Ms. Seifert offers 7 things you can do. Most are simply spreading awareness, such as #7, which advocates annoying your friends and family with non-stop yammering. And
4. Find out what you can do personally to reduce your carbon footprint at Carbon Fund.
Interestingly, the ideas at the link do not include giving up your fossil fueled travel and making your life carbon neutral. They just have little ideas to do things, which are really more of being environmentally friendly, which is separate from the ‘climate change’ doomathon. The do have ideas how to ruin your wedding, though. We also get
5. Even better, support legislation that will correctly price the cost of carbon such as CCL’s Carbon Fee and Dividend (CFD).
Is anyone shocked that a Warmist would push a carbon tax? This seems to be a favorite method. This one is cute in that it advocates “Use a border adjustment to discourage business relocation.” It’s like they want to control everything with Big Government.
“It’s like they want to control everything with Big Government”
Well, as we’ve seen in comments here, some think we can regulate ourselves into prosperity.
“Oceans becoming more acidic.” To become more acidic, wouldn’t they have to be acidic in the first place? From what I’ve seen, they’re basically alkaline. So if the above is true, then the correct, less scary phrase would be “they’re becoming less alkaline”.
seas are rising less than expected during a Holocene warm period. False.
Extreme weather is not happening, in fact, it seems to be less extreme. False
Ocean acidity is not happening. False.
and corals actually evolved during a time of higher seas with higher temperatures. Yet the corals are dying now.
No rock solid proof of Mankind-induced causation. You refuse to tell us specifically what proof you are looking for?
Try again.
The most direct evidence of greenhouse warming is the warming surface and cooling stratosphere. Now, we just have to determine why the greenhouse effect is increasing.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png
You’ve made an assertion. Prove it using the scientific method, where you place blame mostly/solely on the output of greenhouse gases by Mankind. Hint: the oceans put out 16 times more CO2 than mankind does. You’re confusing correlation with causation. It’s the fallacy that all Warmists make. All while refusing to give up their own use of fossil fuels and make their lives carbon neutral.
Nice try. The burden of proof is solely on you, and it doesn’t include computer models susceptible to politicized scientists.
I try to explain to my ̶f̶r̶i̶e̶n̶d̶s̶ acquaintances that are true believers and members of the grand and glorious church of global warming that they can quite easily reduce the carbon in the atmosphere, stop global warming and make the whole world safe for butterflys.
That all they have to do is take a deep breath… and hold it…. and keen on holding it… don’t stop holding it.
Alas, they ignore my excellent advice and sooner or later exhale.
If the lower atmosphere absorbs more infrared, then there will be less infrared in the stratosphere. Another way to think of it is that the Earth is in a rough graybody radiative balance, so if the radiative temperature of the lower atmosphere is warmer, then the radiative temperature of the stratosphere must be cooler to compensate.
Now, we just have to look at the atmosphere to determine how and why the composition of the atmosphere has changed.
You’re rather making my point, Zachriel, that we do not know, hence, why should we institute all sorta of taxes and limits on our lives when we do not have rock solid evidence?
Changed?
From what?
The atmosphere’s greenhouse effect has changed. We might look at the composition of greenhouse gases to see if they have been changing, then try to determine why they changed. Hmm…
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_10000_years.gif
Really? We don’t know why the composition of the atmosphere has changed in the last several decades?
Hmm…Skeptical Science?
Really?
Are you saying the chart is in error? The sources are provided. Or are you just waving your hands hoping the pesky facts will go away?
I see two ice core proxies (out of how many?) with actual instrumental measurements grafted onto the end of the graph just like Michael Mann did and he was proven wrong.
zachriel,
Your assumptions on the atmosphere are beyond belief in their assumptions. Are you aware of the significant change to the atmosphere in 2002 as a result of a large magnetic wave? Likely not. Now explain how increased taxes in the US will effect the CO2. I just returned from the orient and can assure you that we do not have a monopoly on cars and pollution and can assure you that those people are not giving up their well earned luxury items.
Ice cores capture air bubbles, which allow scientists to determine CO2 at different periods of time. What in their methodology do you find problematic?
We’d be happy to look at any scientific research that analyzes the effect of the magnetic wave on Earth’s greenhouse effect.
Of course not. People in the developing world have every right to enjoy the fruits of industrialization. Any long-term solution will require economic growth and technological innovation.
Are you thinking of the coronal mass ejection in 2000?
Might want to read up about ‘diffusion’ of CO2 molecules in ice core samples over time.
The only ‘problem’ with that graph is splicing two (only two) proxies with recent real time instrumental measurements and coming to the conclusion that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than anytime in the last 10k years.
Zachriel,
NO.
Are you saying that scientists ignore diffusion? Where did you learn about diffusion if not from the scientists studying ice cores? Diffusion can be measured because of the fractionation of air and the relationship with isotopes of nitrogen and argon.
Seriously? You’re arguing that CO2 levels aren’t rising? We can observe the levels rising year-by-year.
Uh, seriously, no.
All you’ve done is wave your hands. Scientists who study ice cores have determined that CO2 levels have been relatively stable (between 200-300 ppm) for the last several hundred thousand years.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/800k-year-co2-concentration.gif
If you think you know more than experts, then you need to explain why they are wrong, not merely assert they are wrong.
Oh, really?
This guy already explained it.
http://nov79.com/gbwm/fakery.html
zachriel,
I will argue that “experts” don’t have a clue. I have given a parallel situation involving blood fats and cholesterol in causing disease. For 60 years we have had it hammered into us that the experts thought that cholesterol caused disease. Then it was found that the problem causing CAD was inflammation and had nothing to do with blood fats (yes, you will still find the propaganda on the web). Now, consider all the damage that this has done. Consider that eating fats is actually good for you and that the concept has caused health issues. The same, exact same, thing is going on with the climate religion. Here is a good experiment. Go to a swimming pool and obtain the gallons of water in the pool. Measure the temp. Then get the ratio of 400 parts per million and pour warm water into the pool as determined, measure the temp. No change. End of discussion.
The first link is to a paper by Tom V. Segalstad. It’s a laughable article that conflates the gas exchange of CO2 with the oceans with the net change in CO2.
Jaworowski, on the other hand, raises a few actual issues, however, those issues have been studied and accounted for over the last generation. Many problems, such as shear, are due to local conditions, and can be detected by comparing ice cores from different locations. Also, detection of artificial chemicals is consistent with their introduction into the environment.
Bad example. Cholesterol is still considered a significant risk factor in coronary artery disease.
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/hd/atrisk
They are not incompatible with one another. It’s thought that plaque is recognized by the body as abnormal, which leads to inflammation.
However, science is always provisional, and if science was never wrong, then we wouldn’t need to continue to scientifically study problems. Saying that science was wrong about something else isn’t an argument that science is wrong in this case.
That’s silly. Ingest 5 ppm by body weight of cyanide, and tell us why you shouldn’t worry.
Don’t actually do that.
Well if you say so.
No you are wrong on tulle cholesterol issue, take it from an expert. The your association with cyanide is fairly stupid. Are you out of grade school?
We cited the U.S. National Institutes of Health. You cited yourself, David7134.
Zachriel,
I sited myself as I went into Federal court, to defend VA doctors, and proved to the satisfaction of the Federal Government that the governments analysis was wrong. I did that by actually reading the articles sited by the so called doctors working for the NIH. That is the exact same as the climate issue. You on the other hand are obviously a very, very ignorant little man.
Zachriel,
Do the swimming pool experiment and see the effect of small amounts of heat into a large body, don’t give stupid talking points that do not have relevance.
Didn’t know that medical science was determined by courts. Be happy to read your precedent setting court case. For whatever reason, you keep repeating your “authority” rather than the papers you said you read.
Meanwhile, we responded to the claim concerning inflammation. Inflammation is an effect, not a cause.
We responded substantively — which you ignored.
Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s surface would be a chilly -18°C rather than the balmy +15°C that it is. Only a small percentage of gases in the atmosphere interact with infrared radiation and can, therefore, cause the greenhouse effect; primarily water vapor, CO2, nitrous oxide, and methane. To explain this difference in temperature, we can ignore that vast majority of atmospheric molecules; primarily nitrogen and oxygen. In other words, your argument is mixing apples and oranges.
Zachriel,
Yes, inflammation is an effect. Thanks to the cholesterol idiots, that cause is not known. Much like your climate religion. You stated that the inflammation is in response to the plaque. Dumb. The inflammation starts in the arterial wall. That is why you get a substantial amount of calcium in the wall of the artery with only a small amount in the plaque. You miss-spoke in saying that the response was to the plaque. The idiots who cling to the cholesterol model actually say that it is to cholesterol in the tissues. Cholesterol being one of the main building blocks of the body. The cause also seems tied into dental disease, suggesting a bacterial or enzyme response. In the end, dietary cholesterol is not involved and lowering the cholesterol in the serum does nothing. You could easily look this up, but I don’t think you have the intelligence. So, go to the Jupiter trial. This trial destroyed the government position. Also, as you can’t read, I said I simply read the original reports, something the government folks didn’t. Otherwise, they would not hold the position that they do. That means, you have to go to the library to get the reports, not the web. I really don’t think you are capable.
Your response to my swimming pool model was to suggest I take a poison, I won the argument. Now, you come forward with word spaghetti. I realize the multiple effects on the atmosphere, however, you don’t. That is because you only concentrate on CO2. So we go to a simple model which destroys your position.
You ain’t that bright.
Zachriel,
OH, I forgot you naïve statement about who determines medical treatment. The court determines the standard of care, or at least validates it. Various medical organizations and local doctors will have input, but in the end the court determines the standard via malpractice. Don’t comment unless you have knowledge.
You forgot to provide citations to the scientific literature you said you read. There are a number of studies that show a correlation between cholesterol-lowering drugs and a reduced incidence of cardiovascular disease.
In any case, saying that science was wrong about something else isn’t an argument that science is wrong in a different case.
No. The courts rely upon expert witnesses to determine what is appropriate care.
Z,
And there you have it we came full circle. I am an expert witness. So I can tell you how things are. Remember the expert scientist that you go on about? Well that is me.
Z,
As to citations. I have you a trial look it up, dumbass.
Fantastic! So what are your qualifications, and what research are you relying upon?
An appeal to authority is valid when
* The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
* The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
* The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
* There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
* There is no evidence of undue bias.
The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.