Walt In Seattle
2017-07-16 07:29:02 UTC
Admittedly, content below will require far more than a few minutes to view and digest. However, you don't have to view it all at once. If you're not familiar with climate science, you'll learn quite a lot!
This material gets deep into the weeds of climate science. Some of this content is more controversial than other videos in the group below. Much of what you'll view below is dependent on projections or an expectation based on developing trends of more severe and more frequently occurring extremes in weather (e.g.. prolonged drought in Africa or the Middle-East in particular which plays a role in burgeoning World famine, large hail that damages crops, record-setting typhoons such as Haiyan in 2013 or hurricanes such as Sandy in 2012 and Patricia in 2015 along with the recent spate of flash-flooding in some regions of the U.S. while other areas of the U.S. often bake in periods of record-breaking heat or extended drought with periods of extreme heat impacting crop yields as was the case in 2012 and 2016) then over-arching climate as we move toward the 22nd century. This only scratches the surface of climate change issues along with the questionable climate policy of President Trump. (see: https://groups.google.com/forum/?authuser=0#! topic/talk.politics.misc/i86BGjZuNMQ for more details)
Climate change deniers will often contend, as has President Trump at least implied in the past, that the prospect of harmful climate change is a "hoax". Despite many years of supporting scientific research, some of them will offer paranoid conspiracy theories which assert climate change is used as the justification to slowly introduce a "New World Order" promulgating a single government that would rule the World. Ergo, they have nothing but suspicion for whatever comes out of the U.N. and particularly the IPCC on climate change.
Then there are the skeptics who reject peer review, saying "group think" or scientist's greed for grant money colors scientific research and ensures the bulk of research will be biased as contrasting research will be blocked from publication or grant money. Yet, (1) there's no credible evidence peer review has failed as a process or that scientists are being systematically blocked from publication by a cabal of climate scientists who previously towed a government line while (2) somehow, they look beyond private sector funding for research and options to publish independently. (e.g. from websites initiated for the purpose if not directly or indirectly supported by the fossil fuel industry in general or the Koch brothers and/or Heartland in particular.
There are scientists, or at least those using a scientific approach, who support skeptics while having gained some prominence. (e.g. Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Roger Pielke Sr., William Happer and others) Then there's Heartland, the mother of all climate skeptic organizations supporting skeptics in much the same way as Heartland supported the tobacco industry in he last century. It's not like there's zero representation of the skeptic's point of view, even if you erased political support in Congress or the White House and even if you could erase the existence of like-minded organizations and their associated websites or BLOGs.
But are the skeptics deluded, some of them maybe being misled and played by those who pander? (i.e. pandered to by those interests who take advantage of skeptics believing in government plots to take their money and property to fight a "hoax" cause) Do they understand what is real as opposed to whatever may or may not be propaganda from some people? Do they really get what Breitbart.com, WUWT, NO TRICKS ZONE, Climate Depot, The GWPF and so many others are doing?
The significant threat of climate change is real! Although the evidence is not absolute -- climate change deniers and minimalists apparently arguing, more often than not, that nothing less than absolute, 100% accuracy in climate models and 100% proof of the threat is acceptable -- but more in the realm of PROBABLE, it's valid to have concern for that which is demonstrated to be PROBABLE. We pass laws on the basis of that which is PROBABLE rather than requiring there be 100%, irrefutable proof that something will happen as a result of some previous action or lackthereof. For severe weather or the potential for same, and despite there's no absolute proof of a personal threat, we take action to protect ourselves when a watch or warning is issued. When the bulk of climate scientists are warning us we may have a problem -- potentially a BIG problem -- if we don't TRANSITION away from burning fossil fuels, why shouldn't we heed and act on that warning, even though the consequences, or what PROBABLY could happen, might not be undeniable for several more years to several decades? Why take the chance that what we don't do could result in devastation and/or death for future generations, even that's generations 80 or 100 years from now?
And now, here is reality -- a reality of probabilistic outcome. It's up to us whether we respond and to what extent.