Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

[pbelter]

Without denying such historic facts of climate variation before the industrial age, including warmer than current temperatures, carbon climatists have NOTHING. They have to portray "Unprecedented" shifts in climate to induce the panic needed to advance their political agenda.

One would think they have nothing, but the have PBEM (Policy Based Evidence Making.).
It is institutionalized data falsification, that became official policy.

In case you missed it it was listed here:

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/1 ... tampering/

It wasn't a secret thy always cherry picked the data, but by making data falsification an official policy they have outdone themselves.
"It is getting warmer because the data says so and we are sure of it because we just made the data in accordance with our warming policy".

It would be very funny if they didn't try to use this as an excuse to increase regulations that technological progress, decrease growth rate for the improvement of standard of living. Things that unlike the promoted global warming, affect our everyday lives.

Fortunately we don't have to convince them, we just need to convince enough people that this is nonsense to win an election and PBEM definitely helps.

[pbelter]

Without denying such historic facts of climate variation before the industrial age, including warmer than current temperatures, carbon climatists have NOTHING. They have to portray "Unprecedented" shifts in climate to induce the panic needed to advance their political agenda.

One would think they have nothing, but the have PBEM (Policy Based Evidence Making.).
It is institutionalized data falsification, that became official policy.

In case you missed it it was listed here:

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/1 ... tampering/

It wasn't a secret they always cherry picked the data, but by making data falsification an official policy they have outdone themselves.
"It is getting warmer because the data says so and we are sure of it because we just made the data in accordance with our warming policy" they now could say.

It would be very funny if they didn't try to use this as an excuse to increase regulations that technological progress, decrease growth rate for the improvement of standard of living. Things that unlike the promoted global warming, affect our everyday lives.

Fortunately we don't have to convince them, we just need to convince enough people that this is nonsense to win an election and PBEM definitely helps.

[choff]

Choff, then it sounds like I'm even more in-line with Gates' concerns... as I said at the top of this thread, I think human overpopulation is a bigger problem than AGW. If AGW is an "inconvenient truth", overpopulation is even more so.

But Gates and UN are intentionally lacing vaccines with anti-ferility drugs? Come on choff... don't u tire of such garbage? As someone that purports to be "skeptical", why not apply at least a trivial amount for claims that just reek of garbage? I'd take responding to your arguments a lot more seriously if u didnt throw out stuff like this.

As per Greenland, I think I've been pretty clear that I have no disagreement with examining exactly how serious the potential consequences of AGW. It's a conversation that is difficult to have though, because it's rare to be able to get past whether AGW is happening.

You're right about overpopulation being another "inconvenient truth" a la Al Gore, just like global warming, only not the way you imagine. We're into the 3rd agricultural revolution, bordering on a 4th once meat is produced in vitro. The overpopulation eugenicists are quick to decry stems from a desire to concentrate wealth into their few culpable hands. They think it's their world and the rest of us are blocking the scenery. Don't think your brainwashed from birth by the rodeo clowns, take a good long look at Big Al's house.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=al+gore% ... B8sQsAQIHA

[hanelyp]

Without denying such historic facts of climate variation before the industrial age, including warmer than current temperatures, carbon climatists have NOTHING. They have to portray "Unprecedented" shifts in climate to induce the panic needed to advance their political agenda.

One would think they have nothing, but the have PBEM (Policy Based Evidence Making.).
It is institutionalized data falsification, that became official policy.

My point is that PBEM and other elements of the fraud collapse like a house of cards in on a windy day if such historic facts become well known and accepted.

[pbelter]

My point is that PBEM and other elements of the fraud collapse like a house of cards in on a windy day if such historic facts become well known and accepted.

It is already collapsing

Poll: 91% Of Americans Aren’t Worried About Global Warming
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/01/poll- ... l-warming/

30 years of scaremongering.
Then nothing happens.
People can't take it seriously anymore and it goes into oblivion.
AGW one day will become footnote in the history books, right next to Lysenkoism.

[Diogenes]

I find it interesting that people are even arguing about facts in order to justify their beliefs. Whether you like the implications or not, the planet is warming.


...


Glenn
I believe in global warming and that we humans are the cause of it

If I recall properly, Ivar Giaever says the temperature of the ocean has been rising .8 degrees every century for the last 300 years, according to Norwegian port measurements. Apparently the Norwegians have been measuring ocean temperatures every day for 300 years, and the .8 increase in temperature that we have seen in this last century also occurred in the previous two centuries.


If the temperature increase this last century is the same as the previous two centuries, why would you think this was caused by man? We weren't emitting all that carbon dioxide three centuries ago.


The extremely small increase in temperature (.8 degrees / century) that has so many people freaking out would seem to be a natural phenomena.


You should watch this. It would likely allay your fears.


Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax






https://youtu.be/TCy_UOjEir0

[Diogenes]

Regarding gates' causes, yes, I find it upsetting that people of the mindset of choff and pbelter take offense to him spending his own money to address problems he is worried about. Maybe you don't believe in AGW. Maybe you don't believe those at risk of disease should concern us (at least compared to our own prosperity) but how can you fault someone for spending their own money on solving the problem.

I have no issues with Bill Gates spending his own money to deal with his fears of global warming, provided his expenditures are intended to directly address what he sees as the problem. But if his money is being spent for the purposes of lobbying governmental powers to impose his position on everyone else by mandate, then I see it as a big problem.


Let Bill Gates fund alternative energy sources, (fusion would be good) and let him fund efforts to increase energy efficiency and reduce demand, but when he starts funding efforts to force his ideology on people through the government, then he becomes a problem.


So long as he stays away from government coercion, I'm perfectly happy to let him do whatever he wishes with his money.

[hanelyp]

Indeed, when people start lobbying for government muscle to be employed against our interests, which is exactly what so many climatists are doing, I get concerned and push back.

[pbelter]

I have no issues with Bill Gates spending his own money to deal with his fears of global warming, provided his expenditures are intended to directly address what he sees as the problem. But if his money is being spent for the purposes of lobbying governmental powers to impose his position on everyone else by mandate, then I see it as a big problem.

I fully agree. My take on it was (and is) that even Gates himself is not serious about AGW and there will be no money coming from this fund to fusion research. This is all only some kind of a PR stunt or he has some other motives.
Of course I hope I am wrong.

[pbelter]

Indeed, when people start lobbying for government muscle to be employed against our interests, which is exactly what so many climatists are doing, I get concerned and push back.

Exactly!
Give group of people serious funding to battle purple dragons, there will be serious research papers on the threat of purple dragons and maybe even some sightings. If there work for government, there will be calls for special jurisdiction over the sighting/breeding grounds. Special agencies and special programs would need to get funded.
The AGW proponents say that all the data falsification requires conspiracy theories to explain, while it is just about bureaucrats and their pupils getting paid and having their powers expanded. Any reason is a good reason, but one that implies government should control all industry is the best. After all that is where the money is. Carbon trading, permit issuing, all excellent opportunities for graft.

[NotAPhysicist]

I'll mostly ignore the ongoing belief in a giant global AGW conspiracy or the belief that it can all be managed automatically somehow. We really should harness all the self organisation for global good...

Anyway, Vikings!

So I had a bit of a look at this and it proves interesting. I'm not going to trawl through the whole thread again but I believe the argument was something along the lines of... Vikings were able to grow crops in Greenland, that isn't possible today (or wasn't until recently), which shows climate can vary a lot and so if we are seeing any variation now (which is denied but fine, we'll accept for the moment it is happening??) then that is probably just caused by whatever caused the Vikings to be able to grow crops so there is nothing to worry about...

So, interesting.

Yes, it seems Vikings may have been able to grow crops in Greenland during the Medieval Warming Period (MWP). During this time temperatures in Southern Greenland indeed went up, possibly by as much as we are seeing presently, and it would seem that this would have allowed some farming.
This is also known as the Medieval Anomaly (or something like that). This rise in temperature is seen against a gradually cooling prior to this and is followed up by the onset of the little ice-age (LIA).
Some notes, the Viking farms are still in dispute apparently, though it still seems possible.
If the Vikings were farming it was important but pretty small scale.
The temperatures are not in dispute - though I'm sure people will try and find further indicators to get things more accurate.
The Vikings (who were definitely there farming or not) were probably evicted by the onset of the LIA. The Inuit (do I rememebr that right, hmm) having previously give up on it prior to the onset of the MWP.
The MWP is a bit of a misnomer. While Southern Greenland and some other locations experienced warming other places didn't, other places globally saw different changes such as reduced or increased rainfall or a reduction in temperatures. The exact extent and effect is still being reconstructed.
The cause of the MWP is still being figured out, reduced volcanic activity, changes in ocean circulation and variations in solar output are all being considered.
Importantly the global average temperature wasn't much affected and certainly by no where near the large, rapid, upward swings we are now seeing.

So, Vikings may have been able to do some farming. They eventually couldn't but given the current trend they soon will be able to again (yay?). This doesn't affect anything much in relation to AGW since it is dealing with some important but ultimately local and variable effects - not the sort of global effect we are seeing now...

It isn't like climate scientists don't know about this stuff, they acquired this data and have been reconstructing what has happened as best as possible.

I for one wouldn't bother complicating things by doing that if I was busy trying to hoodwink everyone with a giant climate conspiracy.
But then again, not being part of a giant international conspiracy its difficult to judge. Maybe everyone gets bored with all the coercion, data manipulation and spending their oodles of spare cash on expensive items and just feel like having a laugh once in a while.

[NotAPhysicist]

Meanwhile I remember seeing someone saying something about over population.

This is an interesting issue, here is a short video on the topic (sponsored by the Gates foundation coincidentally): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348
So, possibly, don't worry?

For a sci-fi take with a different sort of outcome you might enjoy the book: https://www.amazon.com/Tuf-Voyaging-Geo ... 0345537998
Interestingly by the same George RR Martin of Game of Thrones fame - it has rather less sex and violence, more space ships and thoughts on ecology and ethics.

[choff]

400 years of farming in Greenland, and one account from the early 1300's stated that the summers in Greenland were more pleasant than in Norway or Iceland. They didn't just attempt to farm the place, they succeeded, otherwise they would have starved. The Greenland Inuit do have dairy cows, only all their fodder is imported, still can't grow it themselves. There's other Viking tales, a casual account of a guy who swims between two islands off the Greenland coast, try doing that in the now without a modern dry suit.

[pbelter]

And Greenland Ice sheet is growing above one standard deviation from mean.
It must be Global Warming, scratch that I meant Climate Change .

In fact, Greenland’s ice sheet has been gaining ice and snow at a rate not seen in years based on Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) data. DMI reports the Greenland ice sheet’s “mass surface budget” has been growing significantly since October.

Greenland’s “surface mass budget” for winter 2016-2017 is already more than two standard deviations higher than the northern ice sheet’s mean snow and ice accumulation over the last 24 years. DMI data shows the ice sheet added 8 gigatons of ice and snow Jan. 1, well above the standard deviation for that day.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/02/green ... -and-snow/

[NotAPhysicist]

They didn't just attempt to farm the place, they succeeded, otherwise they would have starved.

Yes and no. They were probably able to farm, still debated, but assuming they did they still got a lot of their food from other sources. As temperatures dropped again the ability to farm reduced until it became effectively impossible.

But that's arguing about the details of the MWP and Vikings in Southern Greenland, it doesn't effect the wider global temperature trends. It's not as bad as looking out the window and saying "it is snowing today therefore no global warming", it is a longer more complex variation, but it still needs to be looked at in relation to the global situation.