Comments on: Climate Scientist responds to Sabine Hossenfelder on Climate Sensitivity

By: @yf1177

@yf1177 — Sat, 10 Feb 2024 21:05:21 +0000

If you want the most accurate predictions on Global Warming (otherwise known as Hell on Earth), look no further than the scientific modeling conducted by Exxon Mobil beginning decades ago, before they went on their massive Big Tobacco-like Lie and Deny campaign to ensure that the $$$$$ kept flowing into their trousers.

By: @ahhotep1833

@ahhotep1833 — Sat, 10 Feb 2024 20:46:22 +0000

Hmmm...
Suppose I can't blame you too awfully much for attempting to bump up your subscription base on Sabine Hossenfelder's coattails, so to speak. Pretty sure she wouldn't mind, either.

By: @ibusiness

@ibusiness — Sat, 10 Feb 2024 20:31:03 +0000

she is worth listening to, this twit just loves the sound of his own voice

By: @merlinaeron3326

@merlinaeron3326 — Sat, 10 Feb 2024 19:42:23 +0000

Good job dismissing all her major points and editing out their context. Also, compiling all the evidence we have is obviously not the best course of action if some of that evidence has been gathered through erroneous processes, which is the central proposition of Sabine's video.

By: @DanseLuve3r

@DanseLuve3r — Sat, 10 Feb 2024 18:38:14 +0000

Right or wrong, no conclusion should be arrived at to stop or reduce efforts for further research for more equitable resolutions. Unfortunately that will require planet-wide cooperation… Is that possible/impossible? Nevertheless, it is obvious to me, after 73 years of living in Earth's embrace, that it is definitely changing. And either Humanity will accept that there are changes, and adjust to those changes, INSTEAD of forcing the Earth to adjust to our demands. (Fat chance, I know.) 🙁

By: @frew01

@frew01 — Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:45:26 +0000

There's too much fudging in the paleoclimate data. CO2 sensitivity from the past 150 years is pretty low, about 0.8 degrees C, probably because the data is too hard to hide. Also, those models are completely crammed full of fudge factors.

While I respect ClimateAdam's attempt at being reasonable, it's a little like averaging Astrology and Astronomy together to find out what is most likely true. Those sources of information do not have equivalent credibility! Data obtained by direct measurement of physical quantities like temperature deserves the most respect.

By: @agreen449

@agreen449 — Sat, 10 Feb 2024 07:42:48 +0000

Brilliant! Thank you so much for putting this together and explaining it so well.

By: @dqrant

@dqrant — Sat, 10 Feb 2024 07:27:46 +0000

I find it extremly arrogant to think that we as a species and civilisation that exists for like, what? 5000 years? And in general since like 200,000 years? And our POTENTIAL impact on the climate of the Earth since what? 200 years? How old is the earth? 4.54 billion years? 200 years not even a blink of an eye worth of time compared to the lifetime of Earth. Lets say we have an negative impact on climate since 2000 years, besides the fact that we as a species exist, which cant be changed somehow.

2000 years = 0,00004405% of the Earths lifetime…. let that sink in first, before you people cry about that WE destroy the planet or whatever. Planet Earth will still exist when we will be long gone as a species. Also, to think that Earth wouldnt have these climate changes without us, is extremly arrogant in my eyes.

By: @paulbyerlee2529

@paulbyerlee2529 — Sat, 10 Feb 2024 04:41:37 +0000

Regardless of the model you choose to trust do you really want to play with Pascal's wager. If the hot model is wrong and we still act as if it's right the outcome is still better than the other way around.

By: @MrMichaelFire

@MrMichaelFire — Sat, 10 Feb 2024 04:08:46 +0000

Charlatans and gaslighters like Michael Mann have been totally exposed, their deception and lies exposed by their own emails being released.. instead of answering the questions these emails raised they took the absurd position that they would not dignify stolen emails? So Mann goes about his climate alarmist charade, writes copious articles that are published in mainstream magazines and trade journals (I stopped reading Scientific American after the umpteenth time they featured this outright deceiver's articles) he does so as if he has never been unmasked and his motivations exposed.