Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby DrEvil » Fri Dec 26, 2025 5:16 pm

Grove is looking at historical impacts of El Nino events, a natural cycle that's been happening for far longer than industrial civilization has been around. He even wrote a couple of books on it. Not sure how this in any way disproves man made climate change.

Btw, the way you formatted it it looks like the whole thing is from Nature, when most of it appears to be from a tweet by Ryan Maue, a meteorologist. Only the last paragraph is from the (paywalled) Nature piece.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4185
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Jan 04, 2026 5:29 pm

Coddled Affluent Professional
@feelsdesperate

Climate hysteria disappearing overnight makes me feel slightly insane.

One minute they were screaming hysterically that it was an existential emergency and throwing soup on things and then the next moment complete silence.

Who is flipping these switches and why?

11:01 PM · Jan 3, 2026

....
Re:
brainsturbator
@brainsturbator
·
"Email lists where NGOs and journalists coordinate narratives"

...
Hispanic Nomad
@hispanicnomad
·
USAid pulled the plug on international funding
...
Hollywoodland
@SiliconSeductio
·
Imo, the notion of an "existential crisis" was overblown all along. But, practically speaking, the moment the AI gurus realized how much energy and water is needed to scale GenAI, the writing was on the wall for the climate. Not even Bill Gates could maintain that level of hypocrisy, and I think all the paid protestors moved on to Mamdani's ill-advised campaign.

...
Ball Intelligence, CPA
@GigaBrainFFB

The reality is that there are NGOs and political organizations that are highly coordinated and work to push narratives that they think will work on the population and thus help them achieve political power

They tried to push climate hysteria as a political identity, and it failed. The next course of acting is to just try something else, whatever sticks.

1:03 AM · Jan 4, 2026

https://x.com/brainsturbator/status/2007906656638935546?s=20
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5612
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby DrEvil » Mon Jan 05, 2026 3:10 pm

Not to mention covid happened and kinda distracted people a bit, and general fatigue. There's a limit to how much you can hear about something before you get tired of it, especially on something where you won't see any results of your actions for a generation, and especially when half the world seems to be fighting you tooth and nail the whole way. People get tired having to deal with the idiot brigade popping out of the woodwork with their endless supply of stupid fucking shit. "Oh, but it was really hot a hundred million years ago!"

Plus, the mainstream media doesn't care about important things, they care about what makes them and their owners money.

Also plus, who gives a fuck what the media says? They're just parroting (and getting it wrong half the time) what the climate scientists have been saying consistently for fifty fucking years now.

It is very much an existential problem for a lot of people, but they're mostly brown and/or poor, so no one cares. Some rich fuck in Hollywood losing his house is more important than a thousand brown children starving to death.

Anyway, you didn't answer my question: what does the historical impacts of El Nino have to do with what's going on today? They had weather and climate in the olden days too. Late medieval people were concerned about climate change caused by deforestation for example.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4185
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Jan 06, 2026 2:11 pm

.
My position on the prevailing/dominant characterization of "climate change" has evolved over the years, but more recently-- over the last 5-7 years or so, it's been largely the same/unchanged; actually, my position has further solidified, particularly since "covid". My postings on this thread over the past several years should provide ample clarity on this position, which can briefly/generally be summarized as:

"Climate change" as presented to the masses is largely a scam, an egregious combination of misinfo & disinfo. The drivers behind this are myriad, but in essence consist of pervasive efforts to instil fear and doom in an effort to further erode essential human rights & agency while in turn increasingly control measures over populations.

There may well be a cyclical shift occurring in global weather patterns (which may or may not cause some harms to humans over time, though years of mitigation measures have helped reduce such harms to date), but any climate variations are not driven by anthropogenic factors. As such, any large-scale govt funded or imposed regulation or legislation ('net zero'/CO2 reductions, 'carbon taxes', etc.) will never resolve any purported harms. To the contrary, at the top levels these 'solutions'/impositions are implemented only to cause harms to populations, per my prior paragraph.

You may (and will) disagree, of course, but my position remains as it has been of late.
Last edited by Belligerent Savant on Tue Jan 06, 2026 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5612
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby stickdog99 » Tue Jan 06, 2026 3:27 pm

And my position is that we can't and don't know for sure how well equipped Gaia's regulatory negative feedback temperature control systems are to handle the bad case of dandruff that human activity amounts to from Gaia's perspective.

It is the height of human hubris to imagine that Gaia hasn't handled worse threats, but it is the also the height of human shortsightedness to continually threaten and attack Gaia just to further enrich billionaires.

Personally, I would like to see more humility and understanding and less hysteria and recrimination on both sides of this debate.

Almost all regular people would like to leave Gaia in as good or else even slightly better shape than they found it. There is no reason why that basic environmental ethic should not guide our future decision making. On the other hand, claims that science has proven beyond a doubt that humanity has already completely or almost completely destroyed Gaia only promote both nihilism and panic, both of which we all know will be exploited to further centralize wealth and power in the hands of sociopaths.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6754
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Jan 06, 2026 5:46 pm

.
I believe it's important to distinguish between harms to the environment due to human actions (predominantly undertaken by conglomerates/corporations and/or other highly influential, powerful entities rather than average humans, though certain Asian regions are exceptions in that they contribute more than a negligible share of pollution/environmental harms), and "climate change" due to human actions.

(I've always been and will continue to be an advocate for many environmentalist/preservationist/conservationist causes)

Let's not conflate these two, distinct issues.

The former consists mostly of various forms of pollution/waste caused by humans (mostly via a subset of entities as described above), and the latter-- "climate change" as commonly defined by dominant media -- is NOT due to anthropogenic factors.

I do not believe 'Gaia' -- or whatever descriptor one preferrs to utilize -- will be materially impacted by human activities associated with pollution/environmentalist issues. A segment of the human population may well be (and has been) detrimentally impacted, sure. But the Earth will be just fine over the course of time.

Since anthropogenic factors are NOT drivers of "climate change", the above point Re: harms caused by humans doesn't apply.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5612
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby DrEvil » Wed Jan 07, 2026 5:36 pm

Of course the Earth will be fine, that was never the issue. The issue is whether humanity will be fine.

I have yet to see you come up with a plausible explanation for the observed warming. If it's natural variability, which cycles exactly are you talking about? If you're going to keep categorically ruling out anthropogenic sources then at the very least you should have something equally compelling in your corner, right?

So: which natural sources are causing the warming? How long will it last? how much warming will there be? What research can you point to that supports that position?

If your answer is you don't know or you aren't sure, then maybe reconsider your categorical denial of anthropogenic sources, because whether you like it or not, right now it's the best explanation we have.

And you still haven't explained how CO2, a greenhouse gas, has no greenhouse effect when humans release it. I'm pretty sure you've mentioned volcanoes previously (a small fraction of human emissions), so unless you've changed your mind you're onboard with the idea that volcanic CO2 emissions can have an impact, so why not human CO2 emissions?
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4185
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Jan 08, 2026 10:08 pm

OK. Dr. Evil.

But you are just speculating, as is every god damn "climate scientist" on all sides of this debate.

Yes, temperatures seem to be rising. But they have risen far further in the past. And we actually have no idea whether the current swiftness of the rise is historic other than over the last 100 or so years (or at most over the last 2000 years or so), during which we have been in a historically cool cycle.

Frankly, I am more concerned about the steady diet of plastic that we have started feeding Gaia from the ocean subduction zones than I am about the so-called existential crisis of global warming that supposedly requires a full scale War on Humans to abate. At least we have good reason to believe that Gaia's plastic diet is actually historically unique.

What we have so far with climate change is a bunch of bullshit models that we have no reason to believe are any more accurate than those that "necessitated" the COVID lockdowns. The next time any climate model makes a series of accurate predictions decades into the future will be the first time, at least as far as I can tell.

Note that I am not against this speculation in any way, shape, or form. We should keep trying our best to figure out the actual causes of elevating temperatures while trying our best to limit the most likely human-activity linked culprits.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6754
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Jan 08, 2026 10:22 pm

stickdog99
 
Posts: 6754
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Jan 08, 2026 11:24 pm

The need for high-resolution paleoclimate research

Abstract

Comparing recent warming against past temperature changes is crucial for understanding the importance of greenhouse gas emissions for the global climate system. Although tree ring-based temperature and hydroclimate reconstructions form the backbone of high-resolution paleoclimatology, the data used, methods applied, and concepts proposed are far from perfect. Here, we open dialogue on challenges of dendroclimatology and scientific collaboration. We emphasize that temperature signals in tree-ring chronologies are restricted to extra-tropical growing seasons, and that far too little such data exist for the Southern Hemisphere and the Common Era. We notice that the preservation of both, high- and low-frequency information is prone to uncertainties, that investigations of growth-climate relations are hindered by short and spatially inconsistent meteorological measurements, and that geopolitical tension increasingly constrains data accessibility. Finally, we highlight the need for paleoclimate research and funding, with a focus on annually resolved and absolutely dated timeseries for the Holocene.

...

The limitations of tree ring-based temperature reconstructions

Despite their frequent utilisation in archaeology, climatology and ecology for more than a century (Cook and Kairiukstis, 1990; Douglass, 1914: Fritts, 1976; Kapteyn, 1914; Schulman, 1956; Schweingruber, 1996), information extracted from different tree-ring parameters, including ring width, wood density and anatomy, as well as stable carbon and oxygen isotopic ratios, is typically restricted to the plants’ growing season. The length of disjunct growing seasons varies dramatically from only a few weeks between the end of June and early August towards the most northern treelines at around 70° North, where dormancy accounts for more than ten months per year, up to several months across much of the boreal and temperate forest biomes, where the majority of tree-ring chronologies has been developed. Distinct annual growth layers are typically missing in the tropics where trees grow all-year-round.

Dendrochronologists therefore develop warm-season temperature (hydroclimate) reconstructions from sites near species-specific cold (arid) distribution limits. The longest of these records allow recent anthropogenically-induced temperature extremes to be placed into the context of Common Era climate variability (Figure 1B). Reconstructed June-August surface air temperatures identify 2023 as the warmest Northern Hemisphere extra-tropical summer over the past 2000 years (Esper et al., 2024b), exceeding the 95% confidence range of pre-industrial changes by more than 0.5 °C. Comparison of the 2023 warmth against the coldest reconstructed summer in 536 CE at the onset of the Late Antique Little Ice Age (LALIA; Büntgen et al., 2016; Büntgen et al., 2022) reveals a maximum temperature amplitude of 3.93 °C. The warmest pre-industrial summer was in 246 CE towards the end of the Roman Warm Period. Intriguingly, only nine chronologies reach back to the year 1 CE and have been reported to contain a warm season temperature signal (Figure 1A). For the western Mediterranean region, a distinct ‘climate change hotspot’ (Büntgen et al., 2024), both the consecutive summers of 2022 and 2023 exceeded pre-industrial temperature variability since medieval times and reached unprecedented anomalies of 3.6 and 2.9 °C (Tejedor et al., 2024), respectively.

Importantly, though frequently ignored (Anchukaitis and Smerdon, 2022; Esper et al., 2024c), tree ring-based temperature reconstructions are not only seasonally constrained, which may be advantageous and disadvantageous depending on the research question, but also absent for most parts of the Southern Hemisphere, where efforts and resources to conduct large-scale temperature reconstructions are generally sparse (Neukom et al., 2014). Year-to-year and longer-term variability in global annual mean surface temperatures therefore cannot be reconstructed with confidence, nor can information about inter-annual winter climate be extracted reliably (Büntgen and Esper, 2024). This is an important caveat, because the variance of annual mean temperatures is dominated by the much more variable winter conditions, and an empirical lack of the latter biases any whole-year estimate. While the various tree-ring parameters are the only source to empirically place single climate events into long-term context at larger spatial scales, doubt has been raised about the ability of formerly temperature sensitive tree-ring width and density chronologies to track the rapidly rising temperature trend since the 1970s (Briffa et al., 1998). This so-called ‘Divergence Problem’ additionally questions the skill of dendro records to accurately display earlier warm periods and thus capture the full range of past natural temperature variability (Esper et al., 2012). These uncertainties, plus additional error arising from methodological decision processes are still to be resolved (Büntgen et al., 2021a).

One way to compensate for seasonal, spatial and temporal limitations in the tree-ring record are multi-proxy reconstructions (Luterbacher et al., 2016), which combine archives of different resolution and climate sensitivity. Consideration of low-resolution proxy records with dating uncertainty in large-scale network approaches, however, makes it difficult to contextualise the most recent warming extremes against methodologically smoothed trajectories of past temperature ranges (PAGES2K Consortium, 2013), and quantify the role of natural versus anthropogenic climate forcing factors (Hegerl et al., 2006; Schurer et al., 2013). Statements such as “The latest decade was warmer than any multi-century period after the Last Interglacial, around 125,000 years ago” included in the last IPCC report are scientifically incorrect because the mean and variance of intervals of different lengths should not be evaluated and compared statistically (Esper et al., 2024a), and the underlaying data are characterised by declining resolution and variance back in time (Marcott et al., 2013). To avoid confusion within and beyond academia, it is important to communicate the range of limitations and uncertainties in proxy-based reconstructions to a wide audience increasingly concerned with the environment.

The need for better understanding Holocene climates

The Holocene interglacial, beginning approximately 11,700 years ago at the end of the last Ice Age, is the natural benchmark for the Anthropocene. Further to the lack of annually resolved and absolutely dated proxy data, our understanding of Holocene climates is challenged by limited insights into forcing factors and feedback mechanisms that may, or may not, operate on different spatiotemporal scales (Figure 2A). To preserve the full spectrum of naturally forced, inter-annual to multi-millennial variability needed to compare recent anthropogenic changes against past Holocene ranges, Essell et al. (2023) isolated and recombined archive-specific temperature signals to generate a frequency-optimised record of temperature changes for the past 12,000 years (Figure 2B). Average temperature estimates before approximately 8000 years BP and after approximately 4000 years BP were 0.26 °C (±2.84 °C) and 0.07 °C (±2.11 °C) cooler than the long-term mean, whereas the Holocene Climate Optimum from approximately 7000 to 4000 years BP was 0.40 °C (±1.86 °C) warmer. The large uncertainties of these estimates result from a lack of high-resolution proxy data back in time. Similar to the available large-scale, multi-proxy, temperature reconstructions for the Common Era, the Holocene trajectory is biased towards mid- to high-latitude Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures.

Image

Figure 2. Holocene climate forcing and temperature changes. (A) Comparison of annual mean insolation changes estimated for the northern latitudes above 45° North (solid grey line). Temperature estimates from the summation of annual mean insolation changes estimated for the northern latitudes (red line) and global mean (dashed yellow line) with greenhouse gases (Köhler et al., 2017) and global albedo changes (Marcott et al., 2013), together with the Temp12K-based temperature reconstruction (Kaufman et al., 2020) (blue line). All timeseries are expressed as anomalies relative to the preindustrial last 2 millennia (0–1850 CE). (B) A frequency-optimised temperature reconstruction for the Holocene (Essell et al., 2023), together with uncertainty based on the sum of 95% confidence intervals of 814 temperature trajectories (Kaufman et al., 2020), from which the inter-annual to multi-millennial record was derived back to 7450 years BP, followed by standard deviations from the mean of the simulated high-frequency variability when confidence intervals were absent.

A key to improve temperature reconstructions for the Holocene is to re-visit the longest tree-ring datasets for which ring widths have been obtained so far (Figure 3). Despite the complex infrastructure and high costs needed for measuring wood anatomical features and stable isotopic ratios, doing so for the Holocene would be worth the effort, because these parameters will add new and more nuanced climate and environmental evidence to those classical ring width measurements offer. While quantitative wood anatomy has the potential to increase the strength and temporal resolution of climate and other environmental signals (Björklund et al., 2023; Büntgen et al., 2022; Carrer et al., 2023), carbon and oxygen isotopic ratios from tree-ring cellulose may possibly capture abiotic information well beyond the age of individual trees (Büntgen, 2022). Conceptual re-thinking of the predictive power of different tree-ring parameters for climate reconstruction has been provoked by independent studies that revealed long-term drying trends over the past two and seven millennia in central Europe and monsoon Asia (Büntgen et al., 2021b; Yang et al., 2021), respectively.

...

Advanced high-resolution paleoclimate reconstructions are needed to improve detection and attribution studies and inform policymakers. Nevertheless, caution is advised when using sophisticated statistical techniques to combine all available proxy data regardless of their spatiotemporal resolution and seasonal signal. Though useful in some respect, large and unspecific proxy compilations bear the risk of inappropriate comparison between high-frequency measurements of anthropogenically-forced temperature extremes against smoothed trajectories of natural low-frequency variability.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6754
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Jan 08, 2026 11:25 pm

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 24GL109099

Reconstructed Late Summer Maximum Temperatures for the Southeastern United States From Tree-Ring Blue Intensity

...

* Compared to the last 260 years, regional 20th-century maximum late summer temperatures are not characterized by unprecedented positive trend

...
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6754
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby DrEvil » Fri Jan 09, 2026 4:44 pm

Stickdog wrote:

What we have so far with climate change is a bunch of bullshit models that we have no reason to believe are any more accurate than those that "necessitated" the COVID lockdowns. The next time any climate model makes a series of accurate predictions decades into the future will be the first time, at least as far as I can tell.


This isn't correct. We've been making climate models for decades, and you can check their accuracy with historical data. Say you have a new model today. You feed it historical data, then pretend it's 1980 and model the climate up to 2025 and see how it compares to actual records.

Besides, they're not making accurate predictions, they're predicting broad trends (example: with current emissions temperatures will rise by X degrees (+/- 0.2C, see appendix Z for methodology) by year Y, and we're 95% sure about it), then looking at the potential consequences.

But of course, all the thousands of people who study this for a living could be completely wrong, and all the naysayers who don't could be right, but that's a really bad bet to make. Even if there was only a five percent chance of man-made climate change being real we should act as if it was, because the consequences of getting it wrong are potentially really bad.

Besides, moving away from fossil fuels is a good thing in itself. They kill, or contribute to the deaths, of millions of people every year through air pollution.

And once again, it's not so much the warming that's a problem, it's the speed at which it's happening, which in geological terms is abrupt and potentially catastrophic. Ecosystems don't have time to adjust. If it was happening over thousands of years no one would care, but it's not.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4185
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby Elihu » Wed Jan 14, 2026 11:47 am

i think it's high time to put this "problem" to bed. the authorities appealed to have a morality problem. they're dishonest. if you were to pull aside a single mom and try to explain to her why she must accept higher taxes in order to reduce parts per billion co2 in order to save humanity because she's the cause of co2, i think she would say "%^@% you! i've gotta be at work by 9 and i've got kids to feed!" and the sick part about it is, the un-discerning have no "solution" other than more taxes, surveillance and threats toward said single mom. it's such a travesty that dilantets have so utterly failed to do any pausing and reflecting: how did it get this way? the same amount of brain exercise should have been put into that question as has been put into the geo-physics of gas concentrations. and hence your solution is no solution other than to keep people alive so they can suffer. it's not a science problem, it's a political problem and always has been. notice where it came from: so called government and related academia. fits perfectly with the theory of democracy. the mob has no opinions other than those given to it by the government.
But take heart, because I have overcome the world.” John 16:33
Elihu
 
Posts: 1544
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby Elihu » Wed Jan 14, 2026 11:47 am

dbl post
But take heart, because I have overcome the world.” John 16:33
Elihu
 
Posts: 1544
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby DrEvil » Thu Jan 15, 2026 2:28 pm

The government problem here is their refusal to do anything for decades because the oil companies were paying them handsomely not to (with the subsidies your taxes paid for). The US is still the largest oil producer in the world.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4185
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests