As far as who is incentivized to promote their version of "facts":

• Oil and Gas Market: Estimated at $8.34 trillion in 2025 and projected to reach $8.75 trillion in 2026.
• Renewable Energy Market: Estimated at approximately $1.18 trillion in 2025 and projected to reach $1.29 trillion in 2026.

Cite for energy market estimates:

https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/renewable-energy-global-market-report#:~:text=The%20renewable%20energy%20market%20size%20has%20grown%20strongly%20in%20recent,demand%2C%20early%20grid%20modernization%20initiatives.

swan said:

---

From Berkeley (Earth)
https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2025/

---

one grab from the above, encouraging maybe round the first few decades of estimates..

literal industrial strength warming keeps on keeping on (in slow motion)

plan b: our descendants are forced to curse god and die-hard
signed, child-less old fort

swan said:

---

Cite for energy market estimates:

https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/renewable-energy-global-market-report

---

Assuming that you are correct and CO2 from human activity is leading to a disaster, the management of climate change is a moot point, because the world is going to shift to alternative sources of energy, mainly solar and nuclear, with EVs supplanting ICE vehicles due to market forces alone as battery tech improves.

wifeisafurd said:

---

why is this not on the OT board?

---

This thread was originally started before the OT board became a recognized place to discuss off-topic issues. Then "somebody" dredged it up for some reason.

Interesting topic and a fun trip down memory lane (some of the posters are no longer with us), but it should probably get moved to the forum where it now belongs.

kal kommie said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

swan said:

---

Cite for energy market estimates:

https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/renewable-energy-global-market-report

---

Assuming that you are correct and CO2 from human activity is leading to a disaster, the management of climate change is a moot point, because the world is going to shift to alternative sources of energy, mainly solar and nuclear, with EVs supplanting ICE vehicles due to market forces alone as battery tech improves.

---

Even if the world does eventually fully shift to alternative energy sources, management of climate change is not moot because the shift is not happening fast enough, at least not according to the IPCC. It sounds great that carbon emissions growth has plateaued over the past few years until you realize that according to the IPCC we need an emissions trajectory which hits -25% by 2030, -35/40% by 2035 and net-zero by 2070 just to limit warming to 2C by 2100. Current IEA projections estimate emissions decrease of only about 0-5% by 2030, consistent with a trajectory that leads to a very bad 2.5 to 3C warming scenario.

But I understand this is just your backup position. The real bottom line is that you reject the overwhelming consensus within climate science regarding anthropogenic climate change. I don't begrudge you an opinion of your own but I would like to know what if anything would change your mind.

---

The "Warming" argument has been compromised ever since the 70's/80's when we were to believe that Global Cooling was caused by increases in atmospheric CO2 being released in increasing amounts through the use of fossil fuels. Then, atmospheric warming was proclaimed. What happened? Atmospheric scientists fell victim to the almighty dollar, in the form of mutual back-scratching, corrupted grant and salary sources, collusion with private, self-interested sources of wealth, and all the ancillary crimes that go with them (most having to do with theft of global assets). At its most basic, here are some of the sources and warning signs of the process:

- Fossil fuels have been in control of big business, which the Left hates.

- The vast, vast majority of the world population, especially the "educated", have no earthly clue about statistics and how they can be manipulated.

- This mass media principle works: when you want the population to believe a lie, keep repeating it consistently and often, and don't respond to counter arguments, no matter how cogent. Just change the subject.

- In response to a statement with which you disagree, silence equals consent.

- The collection of temperature data is unscientific, for example:

• The Stevenson Screen - that contraption you've seen in white, wooden, shutter enclosures around parking lots and airports - could not be programmed and was, in effect, a simple mercury thermometer. It was replaced with a hi tech platinum-based device which could be programmed (e.g. don't record temps under a certain level).
  
• In the early years, there were about 16,000 Stevenson screens distributed globally. They have been replaced by about 8,500 of those platinum devices. They have never been placed at scientific random, but often in areas called "urban heat islands."
• About 2/3 of temperature sensing devices, both the old and the new, are placed in the northern hemisphere. Why is that, if we're trying to record global temps?
• About 1,000 thermometers are placed on buoys in the oceans. About half of those are secured to the oceans' floors. The rest are free to float with ocean currents and congregate together in protected places.
• Climate scientists try to bolster their claims by insisting that satellite data confirms data collected on the surface, but this is false. Satellite data are not collected directly from the earth's surface, but are derived from mathematical models which attempt to correlate the surface data with indirect, derived statistics.

It appears that the Global Warming argument is losing steam, as more scientists and thinking people stop the music and look hard at these and many other arguments. Even Bill Gates is looking elsewhere.

Rushinbear said:

---

.. It appears that the Global Warming argument is losing steam, as more scientists and thinking people stop the music and look hard at these and many other arguments. Even Bill Gates is looking elsewhere.

---

no sir, i say NO, and so that's the end of that, Shirley
signed, alzheimer bear's futile growling

It's not an issue because all countries of the world reject any curbs on growth. On the plus side, replacement population is not happening in most of the industrialized world.

kal kommie said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

swan said:

---

Cite for energy market estimates:

https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/renewable-energy-global-market-report

---

Assuming that you are correct and CO2 from human activity is leading to a disaster, the management of climate change is a moot point, because the world is going to shift to alternative sources of energy, mainly solar and nuclear, with EVs supplanting ICE vehicles due to market forces alone as battery tech improves.

---

Even if the world does eventually fully shift to alternative energy sources, management of climate change is not moot because the shift is not happening fast enough, at least not according to the IPCC. It sounds great that carbon emissions growth has plateaued over the past few years until you realize that according to the IPCC we need an emissions trajectory which hits -25% by 2030, -35/40% by 2035 and net-zero by 2070 just to limit warming to 2C by 2100. Current IEA projections estimate emissions decrease of only about 0-5% by 2030, consistent with a trajectory that leads to a very bad 2.5 to 3C warming scenario.

But I understand this is just your backup position. The real bottom line is that you reject the overwhelming consensus within climate science regarding anthropogenic climate change. I don't begrudge you an opinion of your own but I would like to know what if anything would change your mind.

---

The "Warming" argument has been compromised ever since the 70's/80's when we were to believe that Global Cooling was caused by increases in atmospheric CO2 being released in increasing amounts through the use of fossil fuels. Then, atmospheric warming was proclaimed. What happened? Atmospheric scientists fell victim to the almighty dollar, in the form of mutual back-scratching, corrupted grant and salary sources, collusion with private, self-interested sources of wealth, and all the ancillary crimes that go with them (most having to do with theft of global assets). At its most basic, here are some of the sources and warning signs of the process:

- Fossil fuels have been in control of big business, which the Left hates.

- The vast, vast majority of the world population, especially the "educated", have no earthly clue about statistics and how they can be manipulated.

- This mass media principle works: when you want the population to believe a lie, keep repeating it consistently and often, and don't respond to counter arguments, no matter how cogent. Just change the subject.

- In response to a statement with which you disagree, silence equals consent.

- The collection of temperature data is unscientific, for example:

• The Stevenson Screen - that contraption you've seen in white, wooden, shutter enclosures around parking lots and airports - could not be programmed and was, in effect, a simple mercury thermometer. It was replaced with a hi tech platinum-based device which could be programmed (e.g. don't record temps under a certain level).
  
• In the early years, there were about 16,000 Stevenson screens distributed globally. They have been replaced by about 8,500 of those platinum devices. They have never been placed at scientific random, but often in areas called "urban heat islands."
• About 2/3 of temperature sensing devices, both the old and the new, are placed in the northern hemisphere. Why is that, if we're trying to record global temps?
• About 1,000 thermometers are placed on buoys in the oceans. About half of those are secured to the oceans' floors. The rest are free to float with ocean currents and congregate together in protected places.
• Climate scientists try to bolster their claims by insisting that satellite data confirms data collected on the surface, but this is false. Satellite data are not collected directly from the earth's surface, but are derived from mathematical models which attempt to correlate the surface data with indirect, derived statistics.

It appears that the Global Warming argument is losing steam, as more scientists and thinking people stop the music and look hard at these and many other arguments. Even Bill Gates is looking elsewhere.

---

If you want to believe that the overwhelming consensus within the field of climate science regarding climate change is the product of an absurd conspiracy spanning two generations and involving God knows how many people from every major country on Earth for ridiculously uncompelling motives, then trying to argue you out of it is an order of magnitude more pointless than even the average internet argument.

---

$$$$$$ and power, as they always have. Just a different pretext.

stivo said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Ahem. A Duke study of 1,000 years of observed climate data and not climate models concluded temperature variance due to "natural variability" and that temperature shifts are because of "ocean-atmosphere interaction and other natural factors."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/global-warming-duke-warming-temperature/2015/04/24/id/640540/

---

I come here because I love Cal sports. I have no interest in reading lunatic, anti-scientific, ultra right-wing political nonsense linked to an article from newsmax designed to radicalize the stupidest people in our society into supporting the destruction of our planet so that billionaires can make more money.

Yes, it's off topic, so get rid of it!

---

Send this thread to OT.

Growls is for left wing nut jobs who watched the 2021 Cal football team play while coaches had masks on due to a lab virus.

Favorite game was a 3-10 loss at Arizona.

kal kommie said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

CNHTH said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Climate change as an issue has taken a backseat the last few years, it is not nearly as present in the media as it was a few years ago. I think the reason for this is that the decarbonization agenda is completely incompatible with the AI agenda, which consumes a tremendous amount of energy, and accounts today for nearly all the economic growth, in addition to being a very strategic technology.

This being said, the EV revolution and renewables getting cheaper and more accessible (solar and nuclear) mean that we may have already reached peak fossil fuel consumption just through technology and market forces alone (with subsidies as an assist).

Global warming alarmism is becoming a niche cultural/political issue, superseded by the highly turbulent current geopolitical context.

---

What exactly are you arguing?
That the second and third laws of thermodynamics are invalid?

Good luck with that!

1.)
-earth was 30C in the carbiniforous period due to millions of years of heavy volcanic activity

-those temps allowed planktons to proliferate in warm oceans and remove co2 from the atmosphere

-over 10s of millions of years those planktons formed oil as they were partially subducted.

2.) we're re-releasing that co2 that took tens of millions of years to sequester in a geologic millisecond.

---

There is a reason the Carboniferous Period is called the Carboniferous Period. The other factor was plant life moving to the land ahead of animal life that could consume them. Giant tree ferns, etc. produced so much oxygen that insects could grow to huge size and when the plants died and were buried under successive growth they captured huge amounts of carbon that has only been released in the last 150 years by digging up and burning those fossil fuels.

It is amazing that we have a pretty good understanding of the atmospheres of other planets and moons in our solar system, now even planets in far distant solar systems, but there are people who discount our FAR greater understanding of our own atmosphere and geologic history.

---

The issue here is you haven't heard the scientific argument putting the current situation in context, such as:

• the effect of higher CO2 levels on global agricultural output and the ongoing greening of the earth
• the logarithmic, not linear relationship between increased CO2 concentration and temperature increase from the greenhouse effect
• the observed lack of acceleration of sea level rise from dozens of tidal gauges across the world, directly contradicting alarmist predictions of accelerating sea level rise
• the current CO2 levels are, on a geological scale, close to the lowest they have been in the last billion year.

---

1. The uncertain extent of enhanced agricultural output from higher C02 levels and the greening of some northern latitude regions doesn't offset the more certain loss of agricultural output and habitability in adversely affected regions. It doesn't reassure the billions of people who live in areas threatened by drought and desertification in subtropical regions that Greenland, Siberia and the Yukon may become much more habitable.

---

There is nothing uncertain about the relationship between CO2 levels and agricultural output. It is a most elementary aspect of photosynthesis. Yield curves for every plant class have been established. The first thing a commercial greenhouse plant operator will do is to pump CO2 to 2-4 times atmospheric levels, boosting output by as much as 100%.
https://www.hortidaily.com/article/9674492/co2-enrichment-can-lead-to-increased-yields-from-40-to-100-in-plants-like-tomatoes/

As well plants respond much more to higher CO2 levels in arid climates, as plants need less water to grow the higher the CO2 levels, because they will have fewer stomata and will exhale less water in the process of capturing atmospheric CO2.

Quote:

---

CO2 boosts plant productivity

Plants use sunlight, carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and water for photosynthesis to produce oxygen and carbohydrates that plants use for energy and growth.
Rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere drive an increase in plant photosynthesisan effect known as the carbon fertilization effect. New research has found that between 1982 and 2020, global plant photosynthesis grew 12 percent, tracking CO2 levels in the atmosphere as they rose 17 percent. The vast majority of this increase in photosynthesis was due to carbon dioxide fertilization.

Increased photosynthesis results in more growth in some plants. Scientists have found that in response to elevated CO2 levels, above-ground plant growth increased an average of 21 percent, while below-ground growth increased 28 percent. As a result, some crops such as wheat, rice and soybeans are expected to benefit from increased CO2 with an increase in yields from 12 to 14 percent.

Under elevated CO2 concentrations, plants use less water during photosynthesis. Plants have openings called stomata that allow CO2 to be absorbed and moisture to be released into the atmosphere. When CO2 levels rise, plants can maintain a high rate of photosynthesis and partially close their stomata, which can decrease a plant's water loss between 5 and 20 percent. Scientists have speculated that this could result in plants releasing less water to the atmosphere, thus keeping more on land, in the soil and streams.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants

---

Contrary to your post above, it is not just northern latitudes that are most benefitting from increased CO2, but arid regions like the African Sahel. Over the last several decades, the Sahara Desert has shrunk by over 10%, an area the size of France and Germany combined, largely due to CO2 fertilizing effect greening. As I have described above, the drier the conditions, the more powerful is the CO2 fertilizing effect.

https://theweek.com/environment/sahara-desert-turning-green
https://e360.yale.edu/features/greening-drylands-carbon-dioxide-climate-change


Green areas saw a growth in foliage from 2000 to 2017, while brown areas saw a drop. Joshua Stevens / NASA Earth Observatory

Quote:

---

2. The logarithmic effect of radiative forcing is already accounted for in IPCC models.

---

I don't think you understand that part. The amount of heat trapped from going from 100ppm CO2 to 200ppm is the same as that going from 200ppm to 400ppm, and the same as from 400ppm to 800ppm. The alarmist models claim that the heat generated is many multiples that of the heat trapped by the greenhouse effect, and that aspect is debated in academic circles.

Quote:

---

3. According to the IPCC, both tide gauges and satellites show an accelerating rise in global sea level since 1993. Skeptics cherry pick local gauges which show no acceleration due to natural local variability to support claims of no global acceleration.

---

This is the part that really doesn't stand scrutiny. Fact is, sea water rise levels are universal and uniform. The oceans rise due to two factors, thermal expansion of water, and ice from the polar caps (mostly antarctic) melting. The tidal gauge measurement are the combined effect of that universal sea water rise coupled with land movements, and while these vary from place to place, land movements are very linear. So if there was an acceleration in sea level rise, that acceleration will be visible on most tidal gauge measurements. The data however clearly contradicts that notion of accelerating sea level rise.







These data sets are powerful and reliable, because they span the last two centuries, and have been built with a very consistent methodology, unlike nearly every other temperature measurement used to justify the alarmist case. They clearly show that there has been no drastic acceleration in the rate of sea level rise over the last several decades.

Quote:

---

4. It is irrelevant that CO2 levels or even global temperatures have been higher at many points in the last billion years. It is the temporally local increase that is important because it is causing the changes in living conditions that people today and in the coming generations are going to have to reckon with.

---

The single most important impact of climate change on the human race is in the effect of climate on agricultural output, by a wide margin. In that aspect, higher CO2 levels have ironically been demonstrably beneficial.

The only mass starvation events we see in the modern era are from political factors (wars etc) and very limited geographically. In the 20th century when CO2 levels were lower you had several mass starvation events due to global crop failures (ironically enough, mostly from bad weather), and this despite the fact that the world population was a lot smaller.
IHowever we were still at CO2 levels from 50 years ago, one billion plus would have been threatened by starvation, and the price of cereals and other staples would have been higher.

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

why is this not on the OT board?

---

This thread was originally started before the OT board became a recognized place to discuss off-topic issues. Then "somebody" dredged it up for some reason.

Interesting topic and a fun trip down memory lane (some of the posters are no longer with us), but it should probably get moved to the forum where it now belongs.

---

I'm glad this thread is still around, because it's got those great bits where Cal88 gets caught posting fake magazine covers about global cooling.

---

One of the main reasons the OT board has been a mess is that people resort to this kind of slander, largely due to a lack of emotional maturity.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

why is this not on the OT board?

---

This thread was originally started before the OT board became a recognized place to discuss off-topic issues. Then "somebody" dredged it up for some reason.

Interesting topic and a fun trip down memory lane (some of the posters are no longer with us), but it should probably get moved to the forum where it now belongs.

---

I'm glad this thread is still around, because it's got those great bits where Cal88 gets caught posting fake magazine covers about global cooling.

---

One of the main reasons the OT board has been a mess is that people resort to this kind of slander, largely due to a lack of emotional maturity.

---

Ain't slander if it's true.

Also:

It's false and you know it, but I do appreciate the vocabulary lesson.

calumnus said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

stivo said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Ahem. A Duke study of 1,000 years of observed climate data and not climate models concluded temperature variance due to "natural variability" and that temperature shifts are because of "ocean-atmosphere interaction and other natural factors."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/global-warming-duke-warming-temperature/2015/04/24/id/640540/

---

I come here because I love Cal sports. I have no interest in reading lunatic, anti-scientific, ultra right-wing political nonsense linked to an article from newsmax designed to radicalize the stupidest people in our society into supporting the destruction of our planet so that billionaires can make more money.

Yes, it's off topic, so get rid of it!

---

Send this thread to OT.

Growls is for left wing nut jobs who watched the 2021 Cal football team play while coaches had masks on due to a lab virus.

Favorite game was a 3-10 loss at Arizona.

---

I have ten friends and family members that died of COVID in 2020 and 2021, all in their 40s and 50s, including a former Cal football player and my brother-in-law, a former Stanford basketball player. 1.2 million Americans died of COVID, Far more than any other country and more Americans killed than were killed in all the wars in history combined. Don't give me any nonsense about your opposition to mask wearing. Your and others opposition to mask wearing and other basic, long proven, public health measures caused hundreds of thousands of Americans to die needlessly. But yes, it was a test of our ability to deal with the impact we are having on the planet we will leave to our children and our grandchildren. So far we are failing thanks to the greed of the mukti-$trillion fossil fuel industry, the politicians they buy, and the idiots that believe their propaganda because it is packaged with hating minorities, especially LGBTQ.

---

No one on the Cal football team that I'm aware of died of Covid, even the LGBTQ ones.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

why is this not on the OT board?

---

This thread was originally started before the OT board became a recognized place to discuss off-topic issues. Then "somebody" dredged it up for some reason.

Interesting topic and a fun trip down memory lane (some of the posters are no longer with us), but it should probably get moved to the forum where it now belongs.

---

I'm glad this thread is still around, because it's got those great bits where Cal88 gets caught posting fake magazine covers about global cooling.

---

One of the main reasons the OT board has been a mess is that people resort to this kind of slander, largely due to a lack of emotional maturity.

---

No, it's that this is a football board that suffers off-topic discussions until they go too far, at which time the admins shift it over to the ot forum, where they die. Occasionally, they take a little too long to do it.

Some of us get tired of the drumbeat of OT opinions and answer back, but most simply ignore them.

Cal88 said:

---

It's false and you know it,

---

As I mentioned, the receipts are in this thread, so anyone can verify if they like.

A good example of swiftboating.

In the words of a former Cal QB:
That, is the only song you know,
it's boring and it's slow...

Cal88 said:

---

A good example of swiftboating.

In the words of a former Cal QB:
That, is the only song you know,
it's boring and it's slow...

---

https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/66429/replies/1380521

https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/66429/replies/1380719

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Cal88;842851510 said:

---

"Air pollution" was also the cause advanced to explain the global cooling from the 1960s-70s.









Back then, there was a scientific consensus that we were going to enter a new ice age, and that humanity should be mobilized to avoid man-made climate armageddon, with the usual assortment of global taxes and drastic global industrial curbs. Plus a change...


Prior to the 1990s, data showed that the 1930s-40s temperatures were about as high as today's. I would refer you to the chart for US temperature records I've posted above. Datasets like NASA's were "adjusted" by Hansen. Here's a good documentation of the evolution of NASA's history of tampering with its data:

https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/

---

That Time magazine cover is a fake. Here's Time's comments about that photoshopped forgery:

http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming

So, if that was faked, what can we believe of the rest of it? We're not dealing with honest people.

---

The Time Magazine cover was a prop to illustrate the quote next to it, which is very real, and a prime example of the scientific consensus in the 1970s for global cooling:

Quote:

---

"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialisation, mechanisation, urbanisation and exploding population."
- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", 1971

---

Your disingenuous swiftboating exercice here consist of discrediting my whole argument, supported by literally dozens of proven quotes and published studies, because one magazine cover happened to be photoshopped.

It's both dishonest and lame.

nice post, TofGB. my climate education was founded on an elective class (wanna say in '72) by the outstanding late geology Prof DB Lutten, starting with "the tragedy of the commons"

Quote:

---

2003-01-24 04:00:00 PDT Berkeley -- Daniel B. Luten, a research chemist who found his true calling in his early 50s -- teaching students about complex environmental issues at UC Berkeley -- died Jan. 18 in Berkeley following an earlier stroke.

He was 94.

Mr. Luten joined the faculty of UC Berkeley's geography department in 1962 after spending 26 years working for Shell Development Co. in Emeryville. He developed 50 patents on chemical processes while working for the oil company.

David Larson, a former student who is now dean of the College of Arts, Letters and Social Sciences at California State University at Hayward, described Mr. Luten as a pioneer who raised red flags about environmental issues long before they became topics of public discussion.

"When I was in his class in the 1970s, he was already talking about the connection between fossil fuels and national security," Larson said. "He was 30 years ahead of his time in calling attention to such matters as global warming, California's overuse of the Colorado River water, the invasion of national parks by snowmobiles and other off-road vehicles, the irreversible loss of plant and animal species, and especially the threat of continued population growth, which he saw as the root of all environmental problems."

David Hooson, a retired UC Berkeley professor of geography, described Mr. Luten as "remarkably quick on his feet, witty and popular in the best sense of the word" in the classroom.
"In other words, he was not dry as toast," he said.

Hooson said Mr. Luten was an entertaining lecturer, who, in the days before computers, always kept his slide rule up his sleeve and used it to make spur- of-the-moment calculations.

"Give him a couple of numbers to start with and he'd be able in 15 seconds to estimate the number of piranhas in the Amazon Basin and their rate of reproduction," remembered Theodore Oberlander, another UC Berkeley colleague.

Mr. Luten was born in Indianapolis in 1908. He received a bachelor's degree from Dartmouth College in New Hampshire in 1929 and received his doctorate in chemistry from UC Berkeley -- where he played on the rugby team -- in 1933.

His concern with the problems created by population growth took hold in the period of 1948 to 1950, when Mr. Luten served as resources adviser in the civil administration of occupied Japan.
Mr. Luten helped prepare a 1950 report demonstrating that Japan's growing population was excessive in relation to its limited natural resources. The report reached the front pages of the Japanese newspaper and set off a firestorm of controversy.

Pressure from U.S. interest groups caused Gen. Douglas MacArthur to suppress the report. After the public commotion, the birthrate in Japan began to drop sharply and within eight years had fallen by 50 percent -- a voluntary decline unprecedented in history.

Harold Gilliam, a former Chronicle environmental columnist, described Mr. Luten as an "environmental Socrates" in a 1987 article, noting that he had a tendency to end statements with a question.

In his 1986 book, "Progress Against Growth: Essays on the American Landscape," an edited collection of his writings, Mr. Luten warned about the potentially catastrophic consequences of global population growth: "We all of us, must know one thing. The growth in numbers, so familiar to us, cannot continue; some day it must cease -- it will cease either by a decrease in birth rates or an increase in death rates."

In later years, Mr. Luten often called attention to California's own failure to confront the reality of exponential growth. A continued doubling and redoubling of the state's population, he pointed out in a 1997 Chronicle interview, would inevitably result in a diminishing quality of life.

Mr. Luten was also an environmental activist who served as an official with the Sierra Club. David Brower, the club's former executive director, called Mr. Luten his "coach on population." Mr. Luten later served as president of Friends of the Earth.

---

TummyoftheGB said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

swan said:

---

Cite for energy market estimates:

https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/renewable-energy-global-market-report

---

Assuming that you are correct and CO2 from human activity is leading to a disaster, the management of climate change is a moot point, because the world is going to shift to alternative sources of energy, mainly solar and nuclear, with EVs supplanting ICE vehicles due to market forces alone as battery tech improves.

---

Even if the world does eventually fully shift to alternative energy sources, management of climate change is not moot because the shift is not happening fast enough, at least not according to the IPCC. It sounds great that carbon emissions growth has plateaued over the past few years until you realize that according to the IPCC we need an emissions trajectory which hits -25% by 2030, -35/40% by 2035 and net-zero by 2070 just to limit warming to 2C by 2100. Current IEA projections estimate emissions decrease of only about 0-5% by 2030, consistent with a trajectory that leads to a very bad 2.5 to 3C warming scenario.

But I understand this is just your backup position. The real bottom line is that you reject the overwhelming consensus within climate science regarding anthropogenic climate change. I don't begrudge you an opinion of your own but I would like to know what if anything would change your mind.

---

The "Warming" argument has been compromised ever since the 70's/80's when we were to believe that Global Cooling was caused by increases in atmospheric CO2 being released in increasing amounts through the use of fossil fuels. Then, atmospheric warming was proclaimed. What happened? Atmospheric scientists fell victim to the almighty dollar, in the form of mutual back-scratching, corrupted grant and salary sources, collusion with private, self-interested sources of wealth, and all the ancillary crimes that go with them (most having to do with theft of global assets). At its most basic, here are some of the sources and warning signs of the process:

- Fossil fuels have been in control of big business, which the Left hates.

- The vast, vast majority of the world population, especially the "educated", have no earthly clue about statistics and how they can be manipulated.

- This mass media principle works: when you want the population to believe a lie, keep repeating it consistently and often, and don't respond to counter arguments, no matter how cogent. Just change the subject.

- In response to a statement with which you disagree, silence equals consent.

- The collection of temperature data is unscientific, for example:

• The Stevenson Screen - that contraption you've seen in white, wooden, shutter enclosures around parking lots and airports - could not be programmed and was, in effect, a simple mercury thermometer. It was replaced with a hi tech platinum-based device which could be programmed (e.g. don't record temps under a certain level).
  
• In the early years, there were about 16,000 Stevenson screens distributed globally. They have been replaced by about 8,500 of those platinum devices. They have never been placed at scientific random, but often in areas called "urban heat islands."
• About 2/3 of temperature sensing devices, both the old and the new, are placed in the northern hemisphere. Why is that, if we're trying to record global temps?
• About 1,000 thermometers are placed on buoys in the oceans. About half of those are secured to the oceans' floors. The rest are free to float with ocean currents and congregate together in protected places.
• Climate scientists try to bolster their claims by insisting that satellite data confirms data collected on the surface, but this is false. Satellite data are not collected directly from the earth's surface, but are derived from mathematical models which attempt to correlate the surface data with indirect, derived statistics.

It appears that the Global Warming argument is losing steam, as more scientists and thinking people stop the music and look hard at these and many other arguments. Even Bill Gates is looking elsewhere.

---

If you want to believe that the overwhelming consensus within the field of climate science regarding climate change is the product of an absurd conspiracy spanning two generations and involving God knows how many people from every major country on Earth for ridiculously uncompelling motives, then trying to argue you out of it is an order of magnitude more pointless than even the average internet argument.

---

$$$$$$ and power, as they always have. Just a different pretext.

---

Ok, I've resisted chiming in until now, but this latest bit of rage baiting has drawn me in! I'm a climate scientist, and yes, I know every single scientist mentioned in this thread personally (it's still a relatively small community.) The insinuation that we're corrupted by $$ and power, or otherwise acting in bad faith, is so patently absurd that I have to wonder how you arrived at your opinion, and what your source of such disinformation might be. Most of the falsehoods that you've cited bear the hallmark of the Heartland propaganda machine: 1.) no one was ever talking about global cooling in the 70's and 80's (this was when I was starting grad school); 2.) there are well-known changes to manner/distribution/technology of temperature observations over the 20th century and any global compilation MUST account for those changes statistically (in other words, it's not suspicious or corrupt statistical manipulation--the adjustments made are simply what has to be done to compile a meaningful and consistent global index); 3.) the number of ARGO floats in the global oceans that have been taking consistent temperature and salinity measurements at all depths of the ocean down to 3 km is well over 4000, and, while it's true that they passively ride the ocean currents, they don't congregate in protected areas--in fact, these floats provide the best and least biased way to understand how/where/when heat has gone in the ocean in the 21st century and provide unequivocal proof of net heat gain of the upper ocean (i.e. global warming) 4.) sea level in most coastal areas is the product of both geological and climate processes; for example, there are places like Canadian seaboard, where the coastline is coming up out of the ocean, despite the warming of the ocean and loss of polar ice, because the Earth is still responding to the loss of the load of the former Laurentide Ice Sheet; these are well-known effects, and, at least in North America, have been extensively-monitored by geodetic arrays. But as a result of the complexity of processes involved locally, sea level is easiest to cherry pick; however, for what it's worth, my colleagues who do the detailed satellite-based monitoring of polar ice sheets are, privately, even MORE worried about catastrophic ice loss than what they may let on through popular media channels (so these media statements are actually much less alarmist than they could be).
Anyway, if I'm correct that you've been indoctrinated by Heartland Institute gaslighting, I'm not going to convince you of anything. But I would at least request that you reconsider your perspective on scientists (like me) and the motivation for our work. Go Bears.

---

Hockey Stick. Phil Jones. I do my own research, thank you very much, and I agree that there is misleading/biased data out there on both sides. Good science enables the discovery and rejection of both. I've seen corrupt science with my own eyes, and left the ivied halls for that reason - I wanted no part of it.

Cal88 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Cal88;842851510 said:

---

"Air pollution" was also the cause advanced to explain the global cooling from the 1960s-70s.









Back then, there was a scientific consensus that we were going to enter a new ice age, and that humanity should be mobilized to avoid man-made climate armageddon, with the usual assortment of global taxes and drastic global industrial curbs. Plus a change...


Prior to the 1990s, data showed that the 1930s-40s temperatures were about as high as today's. I would refer you to the chart for US temperature records I've posted above. Datasets like NASA's were "adjusted" by Hansen. Here's a good documentation of the evolution of NASA's history of tampering with its data:

https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/

---

That Time magazine cover is a fake. Here's Time's comments about that photoshopped forgery:

http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming

So, if that was faked, what can we believe of the rest of it? We're not dealing with honest people.

---

The Time Magazine cover was a prop to illustrate the quote next to it, which is very real, and a prime example of the scientific consensus in the 1970s for global cooling:

Quote:

---

"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialisation, mechanisation, urbanisation and exploding population."
- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", 1971

---

Your disingenuous swiftboating exercice here consist of discrediting my whole argument, supported by literally dozens of proven quotes and published studies, because one magazine cover happened to be photoshopped.

It's both dishonest and lame.

---

I can't believe you felt the need to rant about a post I made in 2017. That's a long time to hold a grudge. I hope calling me names helped you feel better about yourself.

I decided a few years ago that it wasn't worth my time to debate issues with you as I don't think I've ever seen you change your mind about anything. I see no need to start debating you again. I stand behind what I said, but you can't respond to everyone that's wrong on the internet.

TummyoftheGB said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

swan said:

---

Cite for energy market estimates:

https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/renewable-energy-global-market-report

---

Assuming that you are correct and CO2 from human activity is leading to a disaster, the management of climate change is a moot point, because the world is going to shift to alternative sources of energy, mainly solar and nuclear, with EVs supplanting ICE vehicles due to market forces alone as battery tech improves.

---

Even if the world does eventually fully shift to alternative energy sources, management of climate change is not moot because the shift is not happening fast enough, at least not according to the IPCC. It sounds great that carbon emissions growth has plateaued over the past few years until you realize that according to the IPCC we need an emissions trajectory which hits -25% by 2030, -35/40% by 2035 and net-zero by 2070 just to limit warming to 2C by 2100. Current IEA projections estimate emissions decrease of only about 0-5% by 2030, consistent with a trajectory that leads to a very bad 2.5 to 3C warming scenario.

But I understand this is just your backup position. The real bottom line is that you reject the overwhelming consensus within climate science regarding anthropogenic climate change. I don't begrudge you an opinion of your own but I would like to know what if anything would change your mind.

---

The "Warming" argument has been compromised ever since the 70's/80's when we were to believe that Global Cooling was caused by increases in atmospheric CO2 being released in increasing amounts through the use of fossil fuels. Then, atmospheric warming was proclaimed. What happened? Atmospheric scientists fell victim to the almighty dollar, in the form of mutual back-scratching, corrupted grant and salary sources, collusion with private, self-interested sources of wealth, and all the ancillary crimes that go with them (most having to do with theft of global assets). At its most basic, here are some of the sources and warning signs of the process:

- Fossil fuels have been in control of big business, which the Left hates.

- The vast, vast majority of the world population, especially the "educated", have no earthly clue about statistics and how they can be manipulated.

- This mass media principle works: when you want the population to believe a lie, keep repeating it consistently and often, and don't respond to counter arguments, no matter how cogent. Just change the subject.

- In response to a statement with which you disagree, silence equals consent.

- The collection of temperature data is unscientific, for example:

• The Stevenson Screen - that contraption you've seen in white, wooden, shutter enclosures around parking lots and airports - could not be programmed and was, in effect, a simple mercury thermometer. It was replaced with a hi tech platinum-based device which could be programmed (e.g. don't record temps under a certain level).
  
• In the early years, there were about 16,000 Stevenson screens distributed globally. They have been replaced by about 8,500 of those platinum devices. They have never been placed at scientific random, but often in areas called "urban heat islands."
• About 2/3 of temperature sensing devices, both the old and the new, are placed in the northern hemisphere. Why is that, if we're trying to record global temps?
• About 1,000 thermometers are placed on buoys in the oceans. About half of those are secured to the oceans' floors. The rest are free to float with ocean currents and congregate together in protected places.
• Climate scientists try to bolster their claims by insisting that satellite data confirms data collected on the surface, but this is false. Satellite data are not collected directly from the earth's surface, but are derived from mathematical models which attempt to correlate the surface data with indirect, derived statistics.

It appears that the Global Warming argument is losing steam, as more scientists and thinking people stop the music and look hard at these and many other arguments. Even Bill Gates is looking elsewhere.

---

If you want to believe that the overwhelming consensus within the field of climate science regarding climate change is the product of an absurd conspiracy spanning two generations and involving God knows how many people from every major country on Earth for ridiculously uncompelling motives, then trying to argue you out of it is an order of magnitude more pointless than even the average internet argument.

---

$$$$$$ and power, as they always have. Just a different pretext.

---

Ok, I've resisted chiming in until now, but this latest bit of rage baiting has drawn me in! I'm a climate scientist, and yes, I know every single scientist mentioned in this thread personally (it's still a relatively small community.) The insinuation that we're corrupted by $$ and power, or otherwise acting in bad faith, is so patently absurd that I have to wonder how you arrived at your opinion, and what your source of such disinformation might be. Most of the falsehoods that you've cited bear the hallmark of the Heartland propaganda machine: 1.) no one was ever talking about global cooling in the 70's and 80's (this was when I was starting grad school); 2.) there are well-known changes to manner/distribution/technology of temperature observations over the 20th century and any global compilation MUST account for those changes statistically (in other words, it's not suspicious or corrupt statistical manipulation--the adjustments made are simply what has to be done to compile a meaningful and consistent global index); 3.) the number of ARGO floats in the global oceans that have been taking consistent temperature and salinity measurements at all depths of the ocean down to 3 km is well over 4000, and, while it's true that they passively ride the ocean currents, they don't congregate in protected areas--in fact, these floats provide the best and least biased way to understand how/where/when heat has gone in the ocean in the 21st century and provide unequivocal proof of net heat gain of the upper ocean (i.e. global warming) 4.) sea level in most coastal areas is the product of both geological and climate processes; for example, there are places like Canadian seaboard, where the coastline is coming up out of the ocean, despite the warming of the ocean and loss of polar ice, because the Earth is still responding to the loss of the load of the former Laurentide Ice Sheet; these are well-known effects, and, at least in North America, have been extensively-monitored by geodetic arrays. But as a result of the complexity of processes involved locally, sea level is easiest to cherry pick; however, for what it's worth, my colleagues who do the detailed satellite-based monitoring of polar ice sheets are, privately, even MORE worried about catastrophic ice loss than what they may let on through popular media channels (so these media statements are actually much less alarmist than they could be).
Anyway, if I'm correct that you've been indoctrinated by Heartland Institute gaslighting, I'm not going to convince you of anything. But I would at least request that you reconsider your perspective on scientists (like me) and the motivation for our work. Go Bears.

---

Good post, well stated. I've made many of your points with him in the past, but it generally leads to him posting a torrent of other dubious conspiracy theory posts. I've pointed out several times that his sea level plots would look different (a significantly faster rise) if you put a trend line through the last 20 years instead of 100-150 years. He won't acknowledge that. I wouldn't spend much time countering his arguments as he is firm in his beliefs (FACTS in his mind) and he won't be swayed. I expect you won't be swayed either. So, nothing will be accomplished.

You sound better versed on the subject than I am as climate is not my field, though my work is strongly influenced by it so I have studied it some. I did work as a grad student at Lawrence Livermore Labs in the 1990s and knew a few of the climate scientists down the hall. One was fairly prominent later on. We may have some mutual acquaintances.

concordtom said:

---

The pace of change in global warming is increasing. It's getting hotter faster.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/earth-warming-faster-previously-estimated-001444614.html

---

Couldn't you have posted this in a new thread in Off Topic rather than reignite culture wars of the past in Growls?