You know the one thing that tends to be missing from screeds like this? Facts
Climate change: Not a leap of faith but fact
If you don’t believe in climate change, know now that it is not a leap of faith but clearly a leap of fact. Truly the time has come to jump on board.
Our globe is warming in palpable ways. Our wonderful southwest homeland, once summered in thermometer readings rarely above 105 degrees, now regularly sees heat upward of 110, 112 and 117. Our capitol city baked to 107degrees in what we often consider a fall month, September. In climate related disasters, cars are turned away from the road home, cars are melted in fires that currently rage in our near neighbor state of California and are drowned in floods in the South. And of course, more disturbing, and much sadder, it’s not just cars, people too are meeting their fates in the ravages of climate change both nearby, such as the recent death in our beloved Zion National Park and around the world.
Looking a bit further away, yet still here in the southwest, a drying up Lake Mead, the world’s largest reservoir, and a less than a 90-minute drive from St. George, has grimly revealed the human remains of individuals who have lost their lives recreating in this popular recreation site. Climate change and our historic drought have also impacted Lake Powell. Spanning areas in both Utah and Arizona, it has touched the lives of so many in southwest Utah. Now having reached its lowest level since its initial filling, it’s receding to reveal buried arches and the full magnitude of the iconic Lone Rock. Many who fondly remember boating and fishing around this iconic landmark will now find it’s open again to hikers.
None of that proves anthropogenic causation, just warming, as happens on and off during the Holocene. Heck, a lot is incompetence and land use. Personal experiences, including ones you’ve read about in far left outlets, are not proof of anthropogenic causation
With the leap of factual climate change must come human change. We must begin learning and practicing new everyday habits, implementing modifications, and acknowledging limitations to demonstrate a new understanding and alertness to our climate. Furthermore, we must begin advocating for these modifications.
So, what can we do? The ideas and steps are not new. Humanity must work toward the reduction of climate warming gases, like carbon dioxide and at the same time remove excess carbon from our atmosphere. We must commit to the reality that water in the southwest and elsewhere is a resource to be protected and stewarded in a manner that preserves it for clearly necessary use and the preservation of all life. Unwarranted, recreational, and ornamental uses must be carefully weighed against the heavy risks and toll they may very well inflict upon the dangerously uncertain supply.
Hmm, that sounds less like science and more like politics. A faith in their climate cult. Who is going to force those limitations? What if we do not want those limitations and modifications? What will you and the government do?
Ronald Reagan was the first American political to warn us of the danger of global warming . That was 35 years ago.
Teach can you point to any other reason that the Earth might be warming? In the past this was attributed to changes in orbit or volcanic activity neither of which can explain this warming
Oddly enough, Regan was much more known for warning American about the danger of communists taking over American institutions and the dangers of government over-reach.
Can you explain any other reason the earth is warming a miniscule amount? Or is Chinese coal plants the only answer?
In the past they blamed weather events on witches, gods, curses, bad mojo and karma. We think the climate scare is just your version of the same.
CarolAnn,
Personally I blame the Sun. If it can move the temperature 40 degrees in a single say, EVERY day, and swing seasonal temperatures by 100 degrees, I find it laughable that anyone should be looking at any other cause for a 1.5 degree shift over 50-100 years.
Nice try, Johnny. You’ve been shown these many times in the past. Apparently your ability to remember recent events is suffering, too. https://phzoe.com/2022/06/24/7-decades-of-net-solar-radiation/
Will you explain for us scientific illiterates what Ms Phin is ‘explaining’ to us?
And can you tell us where her paper was publishe?
Thanks.
Sure. 7 decades of increased solar radiation overwhelms any increase from CO2. “Where’s her paper published”? Her data, all readily available and sourced, plus the computer code to download it, is right there on her blog. Same information that would be in a paper. In fact, publishing in a blog allows more to view it, and/or criticize it. Plus, no wait, no paywall. Are you actually trying to say that something can’t be peer-reviewed on a blog? Guess what? It can. I love when you guys ask that stupid question. If any of her peers can come up with why the data or methodology were wrong, then it wouldn’t matter where it was or wasn’t published, correct?
So John, how long will it be till you ask the same question for which you’ve been given answers to many times?https://notrickszone.com/2021/10/18/2001-2019-warming-driven-by-increases-in-absorbed-solar-radiation-not-human-emissions/
Climate scientists have explained for years that the role of clouds in global warming was largely unknown, and clouds could have a negative or positive effect on warming. Now with better satellite coverage and models they are able to refine their models.
All or none propagandists like Gosselin find that 1% of warming from clouds falsifies the theory of greenhouse gas warming.
Note too, that is the atmosphere warms it can hold more water vapor.
Mr Gosselin should write and publish a scientific review article and subject his important ‘findings’ to scientific review!!
Good one-falsifies the theory of greenhouse gas warming”. First of all, irrelevant because the “theory of gh gas warming” has never been demonstrated verifiably as a cause -effect event in any experiment, or in any peer- reviewed paper that you guys love. One can’t disprove a negative.
“Note, too, that as the atmosphere warms it holds more water”. So is that why the warmies blame droughts on global warming?
“And none of the propagandists…” . When j can’t explain something, he he immediately goes to the non-sequitur. Please prove their “propagandists”. Good luck. If you could prove their papers wrong, you wouldn’t have to label and name-call. You’d just show where they’re wrong. You go the non-sequitur way because you can’t
Same request, can you explain, in laymen’s terms what you believe this means (not what Pierre Gosselin believes) but what YOU believe.
But what do YOU think?
From Gosselin’s first citation:
Pierre wants his hapless readers to believe that this proves that greenhouse gases have no effect on warming!! The paper makes no such claim.
And Pierre missed this:
“We attribute..” Attribution science isn’t evidence. You do understand this, correct? “I attribute my team losing the game to…..”
Whatever I say would not be known, just an educated guess. And by the way, Gosselin didn’t write the papers, the authors listed did.
It’s that pesky evidence thing, again
“Humanity must work toward the reduction of climate warming gases, like carbon dioxide and at the same time remove excess carbon from our atmosphere. ”
Why do they hate plants?
I went to the US Festival in September of ’82, over 40 years ago, 3 days straight over 110 degrees and absolutely none of the locals mentioned anything about it being unusual, in fact, quite the opposite, they all said that it was normal and told us that we were lucky the concert wasn’t held in July or August.
The cars are melting!!! Be Afraid!!
A common trick of Jeff and foehn, harry, is to demand you come up with an alternative explanation for global warming or climate change. That is the antithesis of science. If a person presents a hypothesis, then they must explain their issue fully, not ask for alternatives. You are not required to answer such an ignorant response, only point out it’s stupidity.
There are many reasons for the earth to warm exclusive of the influence of a trace gas. Note that peer review is broken in most fields. So in order to get an article published you must acknowledge carbon. The last scientific article that I saw indicated mchanges in magnetic influences in our relation to the sun. Also, we have been experiencing climate change for over 20,000 years, it is an inherent process of the earth and we only know a small amount about the rock we live on.
Finally, the one and only answer to climate change is carbon credits and/ or global communism. That sums up the so called science, power and control.