Fundamental disagreement about climate change

Posted: May 31, 2018 by oldbrew in climate

One for the communication specialists.

Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

How can the fundamental disagreement about the causes of climate change be most effectively communicated?

View original post 66 more words

  1. tallbloke says:


    “They’re wrong”

  2. oldbrew says:

    OK, but it’s not much of a presentation :/

    JC: My specific motivation for this post is to encapsulate this disagreement in a single .ppt slide.

  3. Phoenix44 says:

    The problem is people – we simply hate there not being a cause, and in particular a cause we cannot affect.

    And then people with pre-existing beliefs leap on science if it appears to support that belief. Swathes of the Left “believe” in global warming because it proves capitalism is evil, not because they have thoroughly examined the science.No doubt we sceptics have the same problem.

    Until the warming goes away, the world will split into two or more camps.

  4. tallbloke says:

    “Until the warming goes away”

    Be careful what you wish for…

  5. Paul Vaughan says:

    Peace by Piece

    A principled division of unity is based mathematically on both irrational and imaginary numbers.

    √(Φ-φ) = √(-φΦ) = i
    √(φ-Φ) = √(φΦ) = 1

    Stability trumps both reckless fracture and forced unity.

    ΦΦ-1 = -Φ = (Φ-1)(Φ+1)
    ΦΦ+1 = Φ√5 = (Φ-i)(Φ+i)
    φφ+1 = φ√5 = (φ-i)(φ+i)
    φφ-1 = φ = (φ-1)(φ+1)

    The Stability Blessing

    Stablest: Polarize stable eyes.
    Stay blessed polar eyes: Stabilize.

  6. B Lynch says:

    Came crawling from Munich
    With one piece of paper
    He waved at the camera
    Peace in our time
    Oh thank you Herr Hitler
    Tell that to the Polish
    Tell that to the Jews

    – Robyn Hitchcock

  7. tom0mason says:

    The way I see it….
    The bottom line is that at the end of the LIA CO2 levels were very low compared to what is needed for life to flourish. CO2 level for this period were an anomaly! Why should we wish to return to it?

    As the planet has warmed out of the LIA due to increase solar radiance, CO2 levels quite naturally rose. As the oceans warmed and land defrosted CO2 was released, and the planet began to re-green those previously frozen area. This re-greening was nature playing catch-up with the warming and rising CO2 level. (IMO The greening lagged the CO2 increase.)
    For more than a hundred years this re-greening sucked-up the increasing CO2, resulting in a maintaining, or very slightly increasing, global CO2 levels. As vegetative growth reaches saturation levels globally (and we’re not there yet) then the CO2 levels rise a little faster than the biosphere can use it, hence the current minor uplift in CO2.
    All that humans have done is add a minuscule amount to the CO2 levels, and thus, in a minor way, added to accelerated the re-greening of the planet.

    IMO CO2 level at 280ppm is not the place to be, this planet should be 600 to 1000ppm to make life so much easier, and (probably) kill-off all UN funded hunger relief programs.

  8. Gamecock says:

    First: define climate change.

  9. tom0mason says:

    Further to my comment above (which is a broad generality of my thinking) is this quote from your page.


    Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models, surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs.
    […] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from the sun alone.

    The warming is natural and solar driven, the CO2 rise is just a consequence of it and not manmade.

  10. Richard111 says:

    CO2 is absolutely essential to keeping humanity alive. Plants take up CO2 and emit O2. Humans breath in O2 and breath out CO2.