Migration no longer worth it + 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change

[Syne]

In Science peer consensus is an important step in establishing new theories. The theory of human-caused climate change is apparently one of the best established theories in science right now.

The word you're looking for is "peer review." Appeal to consensus is always a fallacy. Peer review ideally involves a good degree of skepticism, but we're not getting that from major journals, hence the replication crisis. Establishing a theory requires actual evidence, not a bunch of climate "scientists" doing a circle-jerk around a computer model.

[confused2]

Starting in 1880,
Global average temperature fell until 1910
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/un...emperature
Sea level has risen fairly steadily,
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/un...-sea-level
CO2 levels have increased rapidly in recent years.
https://www.co2levels.org/

The curves don't lie nicely on top of each other.
Clearly there's a lot going on here and,for example, the guys that know about volcanos may not know much about ocean currents, Sun spots and so on. So do the small number of climate change deniers have the same range of expertise as the 88,000 who seem to agree that CO2 is to blame? Personally I think probably not. It isn't so much the number that sways the argument as the range of expertise.

[confused2]

The range of mutually sympathetic agendas, you mean. The term is "careerist."

So you would suggest business as usual?
Either now or at some point in the future - what (if anything) would convince you that this wasn't a good plan?

[Syne]

What plan? The plan to ruin the world economy and quality of life, especially for the poorest, over hysteria and speculation masking leftist agendas?

Remember, even though the global average temperature only consistently fell until 1910, it was the sporadic dips in the global average temp, since the 1940s, that led to the "ice age" alarmism.

The world had been cooling since the 1940s and by the 1970s the consensus of climate scientists was that we were about to enter another “ice age” or at least to return to the cold of the “little ice age” (the period from about 1300 to 1870).

Dire predictions appeared in the popular press; see here for a sampling of story headlines.

“During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age. Extreme weather events were hyped as signs of the coming apocalypse and man-made pollution was blamed as the cause. Environmental extremists called for everything from outlawing the internal combustion engine to communist style population controls.”

Does that sound familiar?

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2016...l-cooling/

Same agenda, different justifications.

[Zinjanthropos]

No one denying the Little Ice Age period so it only stands to reason that when it ends, as it presumably has, it will get warmer. They were farming in Greenland a thousand years ago and perhaps soon they can start again. If so then it only stands to reason it is going to get even warmer than present. This is not climate change denial by any stretch.

Edit: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/...9D8DF0D433

[confused2]

Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

[C C]

Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Or more specifically at the bottom in terms of intended applicability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_coo...ge_fallacy

"The ice age fallacy. A common argument used to dismiss the significance of human-caused climate change is to allege that scientists showed concerns about global cooling which did not materialise, and there is therefore no need to heed current scientific concerns about global warming. In a 1998 article promoting the Oregon Petition, Fred Singer argued that expert concerns about global warming should be dismissed on the basis that what he called "the same hysterical fears" had supposedly been expressed earlier about global cooling..."

[Zinjanthropos]

Maybe coincidentally, natural & man made global warming are happening at same time. Anyone ever think of that? If Earth was cooling when Industrial Age began then our influence is greater than anyone thought.

[confused2]

No one denying the Little Ice Age period so it only stands to reason that when it ends, as it presumably has, it will get warmer. They were farming in Greenland a thousand years ago and perhaps soon they can start again. If so then it only stands to reason it is going to get even warmer than present. This is not climate change denial by any stretch.

Edit: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/...9D8DF0D433

The Little Ice Age was a period of regional cooling, particularly pronounced in the North Atlantic region - a local climate change. Globally - if one place gets colder and another gets hotter the global temperature stays the same. In fact the global temperature was about 0.2C lower during the 'little ice age' than during the preceding 'warm period' (see graph below) so globally not much of an ice age.. The North Atlantic could yet have another (local) 'little ice age' after the planet (globally) warms by 1 degree or more.  It is highly unlikely that the warming is going to be evenly distributed - more likely that some places get a lot warmer, some places get a bit warmer and some places may even get colder.

[Image: 800px-2000%2B_year_global_temperature_in...ns.svg.png]

Image and some text from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

[Syne]

Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Citing the same article I just did:

This previous cooling consensus, and attempts to erase it, are the subject of an article by Kenneth Richard writing in the NoTricksZone blog (link to article). The article is titled: “Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus.’”

At the end of the article, Richard gives links to and abstracts of many papers from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s which predict global cooling to come.

The first part of Richard’s article concerns the coverup of the existence these papers:

Beginning in 2003, software engineer William Connolley quietly removed the highly inconvenient references to the global cooling scare of the 1970s from Wikipedia, the world’s most influential and accessed informational source.

It had to be done. Too many skeptics were (correctly) pointing out that the scientific “consensus” during the 1960s and 1970s was that the Earth had been cooling for decades, and that nascent theorizing regarding the potential for a CO2-induced global warming were still questionable and uncertain.
https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2016...l-cooling/

There was a consensus of global cooling, just smaller in number, because "climate scientist" wasn't yet a thing. The agenda-driven who pivoted to global warming and then climate change have also tried to obfuscate the actual history of the past scientific consensus. And citing a scrubbed wiki page means nothing.

---

[Image: 800px-2000%2B_year_global_temperature_in...ns.svg.png]

Another trick they play is to pick time ranges that dwarf the time since the industrial revolution so much that it makes the upswing look exaggerated. A reasonable time range, that's sufficient to show the significant temperature change after a long period of relatively stable temperatures, shows the upswing is relatively mild.

[Image: Comparisons-of-simulated-and-reconstruct...ges-v2.jpg]