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

[pbelter]

And if we have a genuine crisis, environmental or otherwise, what on level of evidence or expertise is considered enough to validate the crisis as real?

No expertise is required. Proof is sufficient.
To give you couple of examples:
Asteroid hits earth causing global winter. The crater is sufficient evidence.
Sun gets warmer (or cooler). Measurements of the spectrum of the Sun.
Solar system sailing in or out of a dust clout. Satellite measurements of global dimming.

AGW that says human produced CO2 causes warming is a hypothesis that cannot be practically proved in the positive but its predictions can be validated.

Here is how:

Level of warming proportional to CO2 production - FAIL. Temperatures stay leveled since 1998 and CO2 levels in atmosphere increased by roughly 30%. Similar about post WWII period when scientists predicted ice age coming while CO2 was increasing.

CO2 having the same effect on both poles. If hypothesis is true they will be both melting - FAIL. Arctic is melting while Antarctica is growing at record levels.

Temperatures on other planets in Solar system, especially Mars not following the same pattern as Earth. FAIL to deliver.

Sea level raising - real estate crashing in coastal areas. None observed.

Speaking about the "catastrophe" . If AGW was real it wold be definitely beneficial. Before the entire science area was heavily politicized the medieval warming was called the Medieval Climate OPTIMUM. It could get way warmer and still be fine. There were times when hippos lived in England. Actually AGW postulates that the warming will be greatest at the poles. If so then the temperature gradient between poles and equator that drives extreme weather would be reduced, reducing the occurrence of extreme weather events.

The increased CO2 in atmosphere is definitely beneficial as it increases crop harvest levels and causes global greening since plants can get enough CO2 sooner allowing them to close its stomata and conserve water therefore surviving better in dryer weather or expending to areas that were too dry before.

[Maui]

Strawman is a way to discredit someone by pretending they hold positions which they do not. Like saying that people who believe AGW is fallacy are conspiracy theory nuts. Sounds familiar?

Umm:

I have no difficulty believing in massive global conspiracies

Besides, what else do you call the idea that AGW was invented for the purpose of installing dictatorships in North America, if not a conspiracy theory?

Maybe you should try Googling conspiracy theory

[pbelter]

Strawman is a way to discredit someone by pretending they hold positions which they do not. Like saying that people who believe AGW is fallacy are conspiracy theory nuts. Sounds familiar?

Umm:

I have no difficulty believing in massive global conspiracies

Besides, what else do you call the idea that AGW was invented for the purpose of installing dictatorships in North America, if not a conspiracy theory?

Maybe you should try Googling conspiracy theory

I see you are still into conspiracies... I hope that serves you well.
Unfortunately I can offer no opinion. The conspiracies may be true or not, but if they are simpler ways of explaining what is happening then they are more likely to be true. The simplest explanation for social dynamics is that people care utmost about their personal interest.

AGW was not "invented for the purpose of installing dictatorships in North America". This is a classic strawman.
On top of that it is like saying that WWI was started to install socialism in Russia. WWI did install socialism in Russia but that was completely opportunistic.

There are people who use AGW to grow government incrementally, and yes ultimately to a totalitarian regime where you cannot have soda or a burger because it is not good for you or for the planet, but is it is totally opportunistic. AGW was invented by people that thought it might be true. I thought it was true before I started looking at the closely. After it got politicized and hijacked by special interest groups it didn't matter if there was any truth in it. What mattered is that "we have to act now" .

Was there a popular fallacy that the nuclear waste is sinking into Earth's core heating up the planet and causing earthquakes it would be a good excuse to create a global oversight as well with number of agencies where you could appoint your supporters and where they would work diligently to prove they are needed. They of course would have "solid data" to support their positions such as the "2004 Indian Ocean tsunami" and Fukushima. Especially Fukushima. Whatever works to expand bureaucracy will be used to expand bureaucracy. AGW is an excellent excuse. Just think about all the government sponsored conferences in Cancun or Paris. My bet is that if the fallacy does not die soon enough, there will be a conference in Hawaii.

There is nobody working to install dictatorship in United States. There are people working to install a totalitarian regime but they don't know it. They all have good intentions but are taking our freedoms away one piece at a time to advance their self-interest. You can't build here, you can't build that, you can't say that, you can't eat that and ultimately if we let that progress we will wake up in a totalitarian regime without even knowing when it happened. And of course it will be well intentioned and "for our benefit". That is why there is a saying that hell is paved with good intentions.

The end game is that instead "building in Space" we will be focusing on "building Safe Space". Just so everyone stays safe of course.

Why dream of fusion power and space conquest? It is not safe and may be disastrous.

[choff]

In another 20 years when the ozone hole is the exact same size as now, will you finally admit the whole scare was complete nonsense. Maybe if your young enough will it take you 40 years. I say this because according to Big Al our kids shouldn't know what snow looks like anymore, that and the sea level should have washed away his new beachfront property.

It's going to be fun watching Trump run roughshod over the EPA while the temperature stays flat or falls over the next 8 years. At some point when there's no disaster we have to call Bull $hit.

Did you know that a lot of people believe Das Kapital was written by Helene Demuth, Marx's house maid. They think he was too darn drunk to put pen to paper.

[Maui]

AGW was not "invented for the purpose of installing dictatorships in North America". This is a classic strawman.

If the Cultural Marxists succeed in making N.America and Europe into dictatorships they'll turn off the anti warming crusade like a light switch, won't need it anymore.

Arg! So confused!

[pbelter]

AGW was not "invented for the purpose of installing dictatorships in North America". This is a classic strawman.

If the Cultural Marxists succeed in making N.America and Europe into dictatorships they'll turn off the anti warming crusade like a light switch, won't need it anymore.

Arg! So confused!

Well choff believes AGW is conspiracy while I believe it is just regular fallacy, with no need to involve complex and improbable schemes. Regular greed, properly applied will do. Fallacy and conspiracy theories are two very different things. Sorry to confuse you.
Not sure about your position. Do you believe oil companies are hoarding or falsifying data to prevent admitting that they know AGW is real, while secretly they do know it is real? Or maybe that they no longer do but did so in the past?
Sorry you confused me with choff, that in turn confused me too.

[Maui]

Thanks for clarifying pbelter... I didn't confuse the two of you; it's just that you jumped to his defense with the strawman thing. Choff built that scarecrow all by himself.

About oil companies, let's be clear-- they are not denying it, calling it a hoax or calling it a fallacy. In fact, they have some of the most reasonable positions on the issue I've seen from either side. But they weren't necessarily quick to admit it and many, particularly Exxon, have none-the-less payed "experts" (surrogates) to say those very things.

The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.
http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/curr ... r-position

Shell has long recognised the climate challenge and the role of energy in enabling a decent quality of life. We believe that, while technological developments will emerge, effective policy and cultural change is essential to drive low-carbon business and consumer choices and opportunities. The transition to low-carbon solutions is best underpinned by meaningful government-led carbon “pricing” mechanisms.
We welcome the efforts made by governments to cooperatively reach the global climate agreement and support long-term climate goals that balance environmental pressures with development opportunities. The Paris Agreement of December 12, 2015, could provide greater certainty about how the world can provide more energy with much less CO2.
http://www.shell.com/sustainability/env ... hange.html

BP is one of many businesses that support action on climate change. It acknowledges that the expected increase of 25% in carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from fossil fuels by 2035 is above what experts say is needed to limit the worst impacts, by keeping the long-term average global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius (2°C). This is not what BP wants to see, but what it currently believes is likely.
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/b ... lenge.html

Chevron shares the concerns of governments and the public about climate change risks and recognizes that the use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs contributes to the rising concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in Earth’s atmosphere. GHGs contribute to increases in global temperatures.
https://www.chevron.com/corporate-respo ... ate-change

Do you believe oil companies are hoarding or falsifying data to prevent admitting that they know AGW is real, while secretly they do know it is real? Or maybe that they no longer do but did so in the past?

That certainly has been alleged.
Honestly, why wouldn't they? I don't think corporations are evil, but we have to remember, they also don't have a conscience. They are a collection of contracts designed to make shareholders as much money as possible. Corporations are great, just like tigers are great-- properly restricted. "Natural" economics are great like a tiger is great in the wild, but can be terrible in the wrong circumstances, like a tiger in a schoolhouse.

Let's not treat corporations like they hold public welfare above all else-- they're not supposed to!

Not sure about your position

Are there people out there that profit from AGW fear-mongering? Surely. But the motivation is much more clear cut and the profit much better documented when it comes to oil (mainly Exxon) funding of skepticism.

[NotAPhysicist]

Level of warming proportional to CO2 production - FAIL.

I can't directly speak to this but I would imagine a non-linear relationship, the atmosphere and energy budgets are complex. You would see a warming trend, probably. We are seeing that with a high degree of certainty...

Temperatures stay leveled since 1998 and CO2 levels in atmosphere increased by roughly 30%.

Why do you continue to believe this? Is it that you simply disbelieve the trend data? If there was an anomalously warm year in 1998 that doesn't invalidate the overall trend, it just shows that data is noisy and the climate complex.
There is a huge amount written about this.

Similar about post WWII period when scientists predicted ice age coming while CO2 was increasing.

They never thought this, at least not with any degree of confidence and not many of them, they were still getting started..

CO2 having the same effect on both poles. If hypothesis is true they will be both melting - FAIL. Arctic is melting while Antarctica is growing at record levels.

Yes, a simple interpretation would suggest that. But that's the problem with simple interpretations they can be wrong and it turns out with investigation that conditions in the Antarctic currently promote ice build up despite the temperature increase. The temperature increase is there you just aren't seeing ice reduction (yet).
I personally found this anomaly quite fascinating.

Temperatures on other planets in Solar system, especially Mars not following the same pattern as Earth. FAIL to deliver.

Again, this is an untrue statement. Cherry picking a couple of Mars temperature data points to provide a trend you want doesn't make it true..

Sea level raising - real estate crashing in coastal areas. None observed.

Sea levels are rising, this is observable. The fact everything hasn't flooded is that the rise isn't great enough yet for it to be a huge persistent problem. Or, at least, a huge persistent problems for people in Western nations to care enough - there are plenty of other people being effected already, but hey, they are poor and far away right?...

But then I've addressed all of these points before.
If lots of data from multiple sources and investigation and analysis from lots of experts doesn't sway you then there is really nothing I can add.
I'm at least trying to look at all the counter claims but I come from a position of trust that the whole science community isn't corrupt, if you take the opposite view then it is pretty well impossible to have a conversation about anything.

[KitemanSA]

That's why we never hear the Greens talking about the ozone hole anymore, it did it's job, services no longer required.

Yes, because fortunately we actually got regulation to shut down production of CFCs (and other things) and now the ozone layer is recovering nicely.

No, we just replaced them with still patented HCFCs.

[RERT]

Check this out: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/14/ ... tampa-bay/

Willis seems diligent and level-headed, not prone to wilder flights of skepticism. Here we have a government science body causing real economic damage by predicting the utterly implausible, on the basis of precisely zero historic evidence. Now, one might argue that it is reasonable CYA for the NOAA to over- rather than under- estimate sea level rise. But (opinion) that isn't what is going on here: models (assumptions of CAGW) all the way down.

[NotAPhysicist]

No, we just replaced them with still patented HCFCs.

Which, depending on what you are doing, have been illegal to use in the EU for 2 to 7 years and are being phased out (more slowly) in the US.
They also have a lower ozone depleting effect than the CFCs that were previously banned..
So progress there.
Which is great
Regulation doing its job, it certainly doesn't always.
There are bigger fish to fry now - though we certainly ought to keep an eye on that one.

I'd be curious to know what the patent status on the HCFC processes are though. DuPont (have I got that right?) were certainly pretty awful in defending CFCs then immediately switching tac once they had an alternative. That doesn't mean the problem isn't real, just that companies can be awful.

[Maui]

Check this out: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/14/ ... tampa-bay/

Willis seems diligent and level-headed, not prone to wilder flights of skepticism. Here we have a government science body causing real economic damage by predicting the utterly implausible, on the basis of precisely zero historic evidence. Now, one might argue that it is reasonable CYA for the NOAA to over- rather than under- estimate sea level rise. But (opinion) that isn't what is going on here: models (assumptions of CAGW) all the way down.

There has certainly been too many stories where the worst-case scenario of one particular study has been reported on and made to sound as if that is the scientific consensus. While climate change is "settled fact", many of the reputed impacts certainly are not.

The IPCC currently projects sea level rise of 9 inches to 3 feet by 2100 (with virtual certainty they would continue to rise for centuries beyond). This is somewhat less than what I could find as far as the NOAA's projections 1.6 - 3.9 feet medium confidence range. It is even further below the numbers attributed to NOAA in your linked article ~2ft to ~4.3ft. (Is this due to a regional adjustment for St. Petersburg? I didn't dig too deeply...)

As for whether the IPCC or NOAA has a better projection? I would be satisfied with using IPCC for discussion. Either way, not wildly different numbers. But I think the point of the article (and it is a fair one) is the inclusion and emphasis on the high end of the low-confidence range (IPCC emphasizes only the medium confidence range). I agree that reporting only on on this worst-case, low probability scenario is not responsible.

[choff]

AGW was not "invented for the purpose of installing dictatorships in North America". This is a classic strawman.

If the Cultural Marxists succeed in making N.America and Europe into dictatorships they'll turn off the anti warming crusade like a light switch, won't need it anymore.

Arg! So confused!

Well choff believes AGW is conspiracy while I believe it is just regular fallacy, with no need to involve complex and improbable schemes. Regular greed, properly applied will do. Fallacy and conspiracy theories are two very different things. Sorry to confuse you.
Not sure about your position. Do you believe oil companies are hoarding or falsifying data to prevent admitting that they know AGW is real, while secretly they do know it is real? Or maybe that they no longer do but did so in the past?
Sorry you confused me with choff, that in turn confused me too.

If I was deep into complex and improbable schemes I would be working on climate models for the IPCC. The AGW conspiracy isn't hard to figure out, like any other crime, all you need to do is follow the money.

[choff]

Thanks for clarifying pbelter... I didn't confuse the two of you; it's just that you jumped to his defense with the strawman thing. Choff built that scarecrow all by himself.

About oil companies, let's be clear-- they are not denying it, calling it a hoax or calling it a fallacy. In fact, they have some of the most reasonable positions on the issue I've seen from either side. But they weren't necessarily quick to admit it and many, particularly Exxon, have none-the-less payed "experts" (surrogates) to say those very things.

The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.
http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/curr ... r-position

Shell has long recognised the climate challenge and the role of energy in enabling a decent quality of life. We believe that, while technological developments will emerge, effective policy and cultural change is essential to drive low-carbon business and consumer choices and opportunities. The transition to low-carbon solutions is best underpinned by meaningful government-led carbon “pricing” mechanisms.
We welcome the efforts made by governments to cooperatively reach the global climate agreement and support long-term climate goals that balance environmental pressures with development opportunities. The Paris Agreement of December 12, 2015, could provide greater certainty about how the world can provide more energy with much less CO2.
http://www.shell.com/sustainability/env ... hange.html

BP is one of many businesses that support action on climate change. It acknowledges that the expected increase of 25% in carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from fossil fuels by 2035 is above what experts say is needed to limit the worst impacts, by keeping the long-term average global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius (2°C). This is not what BP wants to see, but what it currently believes is likely.
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/b ... lenge.html

Chevron shares the concerns of governments and the public about climate change risks and recognizes that the use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs contributes to the rising concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in Earth’s atmosphere. GHGs contribute to increases in global temperatures.
https://www.chevron.com/corporate-respo ... ate-change

Do you believe oil companies are hoarding or falsifying data to prevent admitting that they know AGW is real, while secretly they do know it is real? Or maybe that they no longer do but did so in the past?

That certainly has been alleged.
Honestly, why wouldn't they? I don't think corporations are evil, but we have to remember, they also don't have a conscience. They are a collection of contracts designed to make shareholders as much money as possible. Corporations are great, just like tigers are great-- properly restricted. "Natural" economics are great like a tiger is great in the wild, but can be terrible in the wrong circumstances, like a tiger in a schoolhouse.

Let's not treat corporations like they hold public welfare above all else-- they're not supposed to!

Not sure about your position

Are there people out there that profit from AGW fear-mongering? Surely. But the motivation is much more clear cut and the profit much better documented when it comes to oil (mainly Exxon) funding of skepticism.

I'm happy to see you agree with me that the Alarmists are taking money in large sums from big oil. This after accusing the Deniers of the same thing(message to Shell an BP, my check still hasn't arrived in the mail!). Remember the 73 oil crisis, or better yet, 'The Road Warrior'. These are the guys pushing the world running out of oil, on and off for a century.

[choff]

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/bil ... li=AAggNb9

In partnership with several world leaders, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has launched a coalition to prevent pandemics through the development of new vaccines.

The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) was announced at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on January 18.

This would be the same Davos Forum in total meltdown over Trump and Brexit.