Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters

Joe Gwinn snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I had a NASA LaserDisc decades ago that showed where a very early space shuttle crew observed a huge Ozone hole over Antarctica. We helped to stop it by banning CFCs in the US but much of the rest of the world still uses tons of it (Mexico).

All of which has almost *nothing* to do with climate change.

I have more reason than most to care about UV and the ozone hole, having lived my childhood under the strong southern sunshine, but pray tell why it is relevant to this discussion, please?

Clifford Heath

From the Amazon reviews

"As more scientists look at Koonin's work, it is not faring well. Global fire decreasing? Apparently he is using figures that mostly measure man-made fires set by farmers, which are decreasing. Wildfire is increasing. Greenland not melting faster than 80 years ago? Well it is melting faster than 60, 70, 90 or 100 years ago. But there was a brief heat wave 80 years ago, making the statement true but irrelevant. It goes on an on like that. His claims are a mish mash of untruths, cherry-picked facts, misrepresentative claims and some actual truth mixed in. But it should not be taken as an honest review of climate science. "

It looks as if he has been got at by the climate change denial propaganda machine. They do seem willing to pay well.

You are actually making Koonin's point.

While it's true that some of the one-star reviews made these kinds of points, some material context has been omitted:

There are 2,533 ratings so far, with 82% of them being five-star, and

Joe Gwinn

Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago.

More climate change denial propaganda,

John Larkin is a sucker for climate chance denial propaganda.

No climate scientist has ever said anything of the sort. The climate change denial industry trawls old newspapers for reporters mis-understandings of what scientist have said which they can tout as false predictions.

Clifford Heath snipped-for-privacy@please.net wrote in news:16bc2c1d1c6cae61$1$3588101$ snipped-for-privacy@news.thecubenet.com:

You are an idiot.

Did you get birthed through the same decending colon as John Larkin did?

So, in other words, you did not even watch the videos. Pathetic.

You're a real piece of...

snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

You were certainly brain dead that long ago or more even.

Larkin science tell us... f****ng nothing... ever.

No, it doesn't. Lots of folk, however, WERE dead 20 years ago; maybe you've just mistaken which group 'we' are in?

The great thing about climatology is that you can be all wrong but still have a lucrative career for 20 years or so, sometimes a lot more.

Has anyone driven the west side highway in Manhattan lately? In a boat?

What's different from 30 years ago, and from 100 years ago, is pervasive 24/7 instrumentation everywhere. Of course we set records.

Not since Hurricane Sandy (when it did get submerged). This does seem to be the sort of thing that Hansen has predicted (in broad terms) back in 1988 and some reporting clown had misunderstood to be a prediction of a persistent state. The climate change denial propaganda machine does seem to have latched onto this misrepresentation ( and others).

John Larkin is much too vain to admit that he has been conned.

Hey SNIPPERMAN, Hansen wasn't talking about a brief flooding, he was talking PERMANENT.

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Thu, 2 Dec 2021 05:20:49 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <so9l3g$ve9$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me.

gHxlyeyWQOEW

Lucrative? In Earth sciences, other than prospecting, nothing of the sort is seen on this planet. Where are you from?

Strictly speaking, CO2 emissions aren't pollution - CO2 is a perfectly normal components of the atmosphere, though the current level is higher than we'd like

Sadly for creeps like John Doe, climate change is real and progressing inconveniently rapidly. There are politicians who exploit it - like every other issue, but that doesn't alter the facts of the matter. Right wing lunatics do see m to be easily duped by climate change denial - their basic idea is that change is bad, which makes it difficult for them to deal with real change which is actually happening, and sympathetic to all those people who have made a lot of money out of digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel, and want to keep on doing for as long as possible despite the unfortunate consequences.

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 3 Dec 2021 23:33:13 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <soe9fp$rv6$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me.

kg99FjHm0Be5

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 3 Dec 2021 23:53:13 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <soeal9$rv6$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even follow it's own rules that it uses to troll other posters.

LKcEjgCejT6j

Oh, yeah, that'll fly on a newsgroup that isn't followed by California politicians. You could have filled in Newfoundland fishers, or Mississippi Baptists, or Detroit beer-drinkers, with just as little thought.

The 'such garbage' is equally generic, vague, dismissive.

Scorn for others is a sentiment that has many expressions, but no positive value.