Mike likes words, especially playing with words. What’s happening within our global heat and moisture distribution is a real physical phenomenon, that can be ignored by petty self-serving minds, with an ax to grind and an agenda to drive.
This is here is the reality part:
WHAT FRAUD?
Where?
When?
Details?
Make any claim you want. Like we will reach the point of no return by the year 2000 if we don’t require everyone to lower their lifestyle and pay up. Then change the date a couple of times. If that isn’t fraud. Then what is it called?
Where are the facts? All that junk you post is just people that are not dealing with nature. Thinking they can change nature.
If any of the facts were true, then the insurance industry would be the first to change. The court system deals with facts, name court cases to back up any of the items you post.
Yawn. Now that AI has entered the source pool for science news, anyone interested in a given subject need only search and read. Demanding to be spoon fed for someone’s entertainment is boring. Perhaps the aggressiveness of those making the demands would be interesting to CFI psychologist members. I view it simply as our paleolithic genes in action. Not newsworthy.
Some don’t want to see ….
Yes, the world is warming. Technically we have entered the Ice Age. Humans do warm the earth, but so far not at a measurable or harmful rate. We are in the lag of the Milankovitch cycle. Which means we are at the warmest part of the 100,000 cycles. How long does the Lag last is an unanswered question. Lags follow the cycles just like earth heat does with our seasons.
Some scientists think because of human activity that the Lag may last up to 1,000 years longer. 10K years to reach our coolest point. 78K years to warm the earth back up. 12K years of climate that humans do well is called Holocene epoch.
As far as the condition of the reef. Of course we can blame it on Climate Change. Or blame it on the weather. The Biden Administration has changed the meaning of Climate Change to mean nothing more than weather. You could use the IPCC’s definition, but you will need several forty-year blocks of weather to meet their requirements.
Oh so using two-bit sensational news stories and calling it science.
That’s the problem, the arrogant peabrains and their sycophants, with their tons of money and nothing but greed for more, haven’t the slightest clue about the stakes they are gambling with, because much like you, they are incapable of looking beyond their own greed and glutonnery and don’t give a fart how much carnage they leave behind. Me, me, me, the battle cry of our Republic.
Highlights
Use a random walk with drift approach to study global warming and the earth’s temperature.
The average yearly temperature has increased by 0.0067 degrees Celsius over 172 years since 1850.
The trend has accelerated with yearly temperature increases of 0.0155 (since 1951) and 0.0198 (since 1971).
Project a global temperature anomaly of 1.5556 C (34.8001 F) for 2050, which exceeds the maximum allowable increase set by UNFCCC.
Emphasize the urgent need for more aggressive action to address the impacts of climate change.
Actually, given the choices we as a collective self-absorbed, self-serving society have made, and doubling down repeated, are taking their toil - even as you deny, deny, deny.
History will be required to show that we missed our opportunity to turn things around into **a more sustainable healthy world, meaning more generations could have enjoyed a wonderful standard of living - but instead we placed our bets on limitless growth (that is, cancer), too much is never enough, and me first. Meaning we only added fuel to an already troubling trend, in utter disregard for the realities of nature, nor the stakes we were gambling with.
Mar 25, 2024 - NASA Scientific Visualization Studio
Earth’s average surface temperature in 2023 was the warmest on record, according to an analysis by NASA. Global temperatures in 2023 were around 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) above the average for NASA’s baseline period (1951-1980), scientists from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York reported.In 2023, hundreds of millions of people around the world experienced extreme heat, and each month from June through December set a global record for the respective month. July was the hottest month ever recorded. Overall, Earth was about 2.45 degrees Fahrenheit (or about 1.36 degrees Celsius) warmer in 2023 than the late 19th-century average, when modern record-keeping began.
“The exceptional warming that we’re experiencing is not something we’ve seen before as a species,” said Gavin Schmidt, director of GISS. “It’s driven primarily by our fossil fuel emissions, and we’re seeing the impacts in heat waves, intense rainfall, and coastal flooding.” …
Trends in fresh drinking water supplies. Mike I appreciate you have all the water you can drink, so assume it’s irrelevant (I write that because I can’t think of any other reason you could lie about this stuff with such alacrity)
The 2024 edition of the State of Global Water Resources report documents an extraordinary year shaped by record heat, climate extremes, and widespread water-related impacts. With global surface temperatures reaching 1.55 °C above pre-industrial levels, 2024 was the hottest year in the 175-year observational record. Strong El Niño conditions at the start of the year amplified drought in South America and southern Africa, while other regions faced devastating floods.
Across the water cycle, extremes were evident: rivers, reservoirs, lakes, groundwater, and glaciers all showed significant departures from normal. While parts of Africa, Europe, and Asia were inundated by flooding, South America and southern Africa endured severe drought. Glaciers continued record ice loss, adding to sea level rise. These events brought widespread human and economic costs, underscoring the urgent need for better monitoring, early warning, and adaptive water management in the face of a warming climate.
The Report:
Human Verification
Climate change affects where, when, and how much water is available. These effects vary by region and can harm the health of people and ecosystems. For example, rising temperatures, drought, and reduced snowfall are putting more pressure on water supplies in the Southwest.1
In contrast, the Northeast and Southeast may experience more extreme storms and heavy rains, which can put aging water infrastructure (such as dams, sewers, and water treatment facilities) at risk.2
This is our Earthly reality!
Pretending, we should dismiss the voracity of science is insane, but that’s Mike Yohe’s spiel. He has no problem with his three-card monty stunt of shifting problems with big Pharma studies, and casually transferred them onto Earth Scientist studies, which is nothing less than fraud and lies that Mike has no problem sharing - free speech and all that. Not to mention, the supremacy of profits über alles. Notice, he rarely produces any reference to support his glib claims.
Our real physical Earth, with her many of complex-systems (but wait, there’s more), the thing we depend on.
I am a member of the last generation of traditional, uninfected human, approximately 12,000 generations worth. People who were brought up within a 100% biological reality world. I witness the birth of the personal computer revolution, and internet, and the microprocessor led transformation of society and people. At first it seemed wonderful, but given the driving greed, that couldn’t last. Now I’m witness to American society crossing over into genuine dystopian territory. Mike tells us nothing is wrong, Pinker tells us never mind, trust in progress, just look at all it’s achieve for us.
Problem is that too much of anything that’s good, turns into a very bad thing. Dynamic balance has always been the key to success on Earth - and we’ve destroyed that.
Yohe, you are not a stupid person, which raises your “dissertations” to enraging, rather than merely pathetic. How you manage to live with the cognitive dissonance I can’t imagine.
Maybe believing one has God in their back pocket, is the deciding factor. Blinds one to the reality of current real world trends and that it matters. Instead the God-fear’n are sure a magic door will open to provide an escape, or something like that.
Wish you’d write more about where you find your moral ethical justification for this consistent malicious spin focused on slandering climate sciences and scientists, and garbling their message, in any way you can dream up, and with a ruthless disregard for the reality unfolding in front of our eyes.
BINGO!
Case in point, of where Mike Yohe is out and out lying about what the science says - might be why he rarely shares his sources.
Nonsense we are not at the warmest part.
Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can’t Explain Earth’s Current Warming
So how do we know Milankovitch cycles aren’t to blame?
First, Milankovitch cycles operate on long time scales, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. In contrast, Earth’s current warming has taken place over time scales of decades to centuries. Over the last 150 years, Milankovitch cycles have not changed the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth very much. In fact, NASA satellite observations show that over the last 40 years, solar radiation has actually decreased somewhat.
Second, Milankovitch cycles are just one factor that may contribute to climate change, both past and present. Even for Ice Age cycles, changes in the extent of ice sheets and atmospheric carbon dioxide have played important roles in driving the degree of temperature fluctuations over the last several million years. ..
Dec 3, 2023 - Space Matters
Join us as we delve into the fascinating world of Milankovitch cycles and their profound impact on Earth’s climate. In this enlightening video, we explore the intricate astronomical cycles named after Milutin Milankovitch, which play a crucial role in shaping our planet’s long-term climate patterns.
Discover how changes in Earth’s orbit, axial tilt, and precession contribute to significant climate shifts over thousands of years, leading to the cyclical occurrence of Ice Ages and warmer interglacial periods.
We’ll examine the current phase of these cycles and discuss their implications for our understanding of past and future climate changes.
Whether you’re a science enthusiast or simply curious about the forces that have shaped Earth’s climate history, this video offers a compelling and accessible insight into one of nature’s most influential systems..
Why no awareness of ocean acidification?
What a malicious ruthless creep! Anthropogenic global warming is driving climate change, which get’s reflected in the increasingly chaotic & destructive weather events we experience.
Oh, and ocean acidification is also a big problem for coral reefs and other sea creatures.
Oh and check out this, hot off the presses, literally.
Climate tipping points are being crossed, scientists warn ahead of COP30
October 13, 2025 - By Alison Withers
The warning in the Global Tipping Points report by 160 researchers worldwide, which synthesizes groundbreaking science to estimate points of no return, comes just weeks ahead of this year’s COP30 climate summit being held at the edge of the Amazon rainforest in Brazil. …
… Scientists have been surprised by how quickly changes are unfolding in nature, with average global temperatures already having warmed by 1.3-1.4 degrees Celsius (2.3 to 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) above the preindustrial average, according to data from U.N. and EU science agencies. …
The last two years were Earth’s warmest on record, with marine heatwaves that stressed 84% of the world’s reefs to the point of bleaching and, in some cases, death. Coral reefs sustain about a quarter of marine life.
I applaud the motivation of CFI members who tune in on their forums to gain a sense of what it means to be a skeptic. I hope the number who believe they are learning about the nature of science is small. These forums are expressions of free speech. When claims are made, those who want to learn about the scientific support of the claims should go to reviews of them in the relevant scientific journals. A good review will address competing claims by comparing their relative data strengths. To get a feel of the nature of science, I would suggest attending a meeting of the society concerned with the specialty of interest. At the meeting, presentation of investigation results, summarized in the printed abstracts, is followed by questions, in the specialty sessions. With luck, some of the questions will challenge the conclusions of the speaker. The methods used in the investigation may be challenged; better ones may be suggested. If the speaker refuses to disclose a method that is proprietary, that is a red flag and must be challenged, because it prevents independent confirmation of the data. Panels are useful if the participants cover the full range of the issue being discussed. A consensus on the issue at hand may result from the panel discussion. Free speech is not a focus, because those present understand that irrelevant issues waste time, and attendees have to get to other sessions. The visitor walks away from the meeting with the realization that no one present knows any final answers, and there is disagreement about how to improve the ones they have so far. Traditionally, the speakers avoid demanding that the public or the government has to commit to a specific action. Unfortunately, a number of scientists have ignored that tradition. Their deviation from neutrality is easy to spot. They sound a lot like politicians. They are beyond the bounds of science.
Depends what you are talking about . Nothing wrong with demanding - the reduction of carbon emissions, public health programs, the control of invasive species, mitigating soil contamination etc when that problem has been identified and quantified.
Is the following to be ignored howard?
If the word “told” is an ultimatum, it is political. If it is a detailed statement of risk, easily linkable to the data, which are included, leading the readers up to the point of making the decision themselves, then it is apolitical. Traditionalists may insist that the panel continues on to the ultimate scientific level of presenting “problems with the theory” (title of one of Darwin’s sections in Origin of Species) that includes their model assumptions. There are even some who would claim that the panel should suggest ways the desired levels could be achieved. I would like to hear a constructive debate about this claim.
Yes an ultimatum Howard with a specific deadline -2050 and negative consequences if action not taken eg preparing for rising sea levels.
Howard . Is it wrong for the scientists to give this and these types of ultimatums to govt?
Definitions are so crucial for any ethical discussion that they should be established before the participants disconnect with each other into irrelevancy. Here is an illustrative example of what I mean: Michael Shermer once debated Douglas Jacoby about the existence of God (You know Michael as the head of Skeptics and publisher of Skeptic Magazine. Douglas is a non-evangelistic Protestant ‘deacon’, well known for his many books defending the existence of God). Neither defined God. It turned out that Michael was speaking generally about a supernatural being, and Douglas was talking about a Christian God. They were presenting answers to different questions. Hence the debate was, effectively, irrelevant. In my bioengineering ethics course at UCLA I worked hard to not take a moral position on any issue. I provided the students with 5 moral theories to use in debating the issues, intending for each student to choose the one most consistent with who they are; unless they had ‘permanently’ committed to one irrespective of any taught in the course (e.g. a devout Catholic student considering the abortion issue). I did take an epistemological position. If they acted professionally in a manner inconsistent with the nature of science, they were not scientists. When you use the word “wrong”, you need to define whether you mean immorally/unethically(ethics texts tend to no longer distinguish between the two, although they are different) or wrong in terms of not being consistent with the definition of a scientist. I always adhere to the latter definition in these discussions. The ethical definition is the property\right of each individual. When I say it is wrong for a scientist to give an ultimatum, I mean that one of the consequences of a scientist not becoming political, is that he/she becomes trusted as an honest broker of the data. Since the U.S. Government committed to funding university research in the 1940’s, federal political pressure has been a constant companion in university life. The taxpayers, through their representatives and the agencies that dispense funds, will not support scientists they cannot trust. For many scientific issues that have become politicized, there are scientists who present valid arguments for alternative conclusions. One of the main areas of difference is disagreement about the assumptions used to build mathematical models. I do not think it is wrong for these scientists to challenge the consensus. In the special circumstances of a major life threatening threat, emergency procedures may be necessary. These often include application of the Hill criteria and rapid action. That is for another lecture. By the way, I would be incomplete if I did not mention a third category for “wrong”. That would be “unjust”. An ultimatum could be wrong if it demanded breaking a law.
Then it turns out everything has a price tag, and no one wanted to consider a bit of sober moderation - instead it was too much is never enough, full steam ahead, and Hollywood filling us with expectations,
Getting people to believe that hating taxes and government was the plan for our future, that’s political, …
What panel? In the IPCC, concerned intelligent people & experts came up with a plan - for about the best panel one could hope for - look what vandals have done to their image (with transparent lies, fraudulent arguments, and slander that a high school student should have been able to see through.), while ignoring the real work they do. We are way past “panels” given today’s developments.
Sorry but that’s why I was ignoring this. A panel, is like saying let’s reason with trump.
Beyond wrong, it’s another thing that is useless.
Look at actual factual global trends, and Earth’s stressed out natural systems and the damages that have been inflicted upon our Earth over the past couple centuries (especially this past half century) is nothing less than horrendous, but no one wants to notice.
Look at the Keeling Curve, and Greenhouse Gas physics, and trends in ocean chemistry and rising, and destructive torrential weather events, etc, etc. We have our (100% you can take to the bank) Physical Reality Ultimatums spelled out in sober words, with tons of data a facts to back up their voracity, and pretty near no one takes it seriously.
Howard you used the word unfortunately so you see such action in the pejorative. Wrong to advice govt on climate change mitigation actions ?
“When I say it is wrong for a scientist to give an ultimatum, I mean that one of the consequences of a scientist not becoming political, is that he/she becomes trusted as an honest broker of the data.”
As if there is a lone scientist working in a backyard laboratory advising govt . This is crazy. Do you teach your students of the scientific method and the peer review process?
“For many scientific issues that have become politicized, there are scientists who present valid arguments for alternative conclusions.”
Is that so? Which ones? Do tell. What is the alternative conclusion to observed climate change ? Observed diversity of species ? Observed depletion of the ozone layer? Observed expansion of the universe? Observed earth as a globe ? Observed pandemics like covid?What do you have to support your words here?
I’m afraid I cannot be of any further service in this discussion. I was not making a moral judgment about the scientists you are defending. It was an epistemological classification. That you saw it as pejorative is a condemnation. That shuts the door.
Howard . Why the cowardice ? Lets start with just one for your alternative conclusion claim on scientific issues. Lets discuss climate change . Whats the alternative conclusion?
The basic principles of scientific methods include that. Every experiment, every piece of new data, every review of existing data and logical conclusions is a challenge to the consensus. That’s why we have the methods.
What rarely happens anymore is that the consensus is flipped based on one experiment or revelation. It’s rare because we have improved the methods. We have rooted out the hidden data, exposed the unethical experiments, and acknowledged the contributions of people who weren’t in the elite groups. Not all of them, so don’t give one example where we didn’t and say it proves your point, because that you know about it, proves my point.
You are right, it was more like innuendo and implication, just like the best climate science denial spokesmen have become expert at.
I don’t think there have been any specific scientists being mention here. It all broad spectrum musing you’ve shared. We are defending the scientific process, and defending the general good character of scientists - because honesty, truthfully sharing your evidence and honestly critiquing and weighting the evidence is still the standard the scientific community lives by. The lies and frauds get drummed - corporate driven science (such as Pharma ), does get a bit more dicey
Whereas our political and business leaders endlessly defend their “free speech right” to commit lies and fraud again the public’s right to honesty know what scientists are learning about our world and what we are doing to our children’s future. upon this our one and forever only Home Planet
It’s your sloppy (or was it simply creative) way of presenting your arguments, that makes it difficult to take you seriously.
That one is a big LOL for me.
From my days of actively confronting science contrarians and liars about climate science. That was about how every debate ended.
Big mouth shows up complaining about ‘hysteria’ and to point out all the stuff I’m ignoring. First, friendly informed corrects & critique - Second, I show up with the evidence that shows, they were pushing a deliberate falsehood(s) and why, Third, I (not the evidence brought to the table) start getting insulted for my narrow mindedness and having bought the scientific “pill”. Fourth, I pile on with yet more evidence to repudiating said claims about my feeblemindedness. Then, it comes. Said Contrarion: “I’m afraid I cannot be of any further service in this discussion” (or a close variation).
Georgieboy,
I seem to spend a lot of time dueling with you. It’s nice to have a reason to tip my hat to you regarding #34. I’m reminded of my suspicion that you got more going on than empty needling responses. Glad to see it. Have a good day.
Howardwinet,
Have at it.
This is both my personal learning project and my contribution in the struggle to confront the ongoing Republican/ libertarian assault on rational science and constructive learning, as manifested in their malicious strategic Attacks on Science ~ A collection of articles, scientific resources, plus my own essays and indepth critique of various presentations from unidirectional-skeptics ~ Hopefully a resource for the busy, yet discerning, student who’s concerned about the health of our Earth (2011)
Have you tried putting a timetable to your work?
When using a seven-thousand-year timetable you will see that scientists are gods. Whereas the political pathway you refer to is the Pauline god which for the most part is only seventeen hundred years old.
God is just a term use to refer to people of knowledge.
Pauline god is a branch of the Christian religion referring supernatural god.
It is easy to separate the two by who controls the knowledge.
If this is understood, then the it becomes quite easy to see the nature of science using your epistemological thinking.
Mixing the notion of God with the notion of science. Typical disingenuous game playing.
Yohe raising the “science is religion” specter - begs a sober response.
Six Rules of Critical Thinking in Science
After J. Lett. 1990. A field guide to critical thinking. Skeptical Inquirer 14(2): 153-160.
1. Is it falsifiable?
For any explanation to be considered science, it must be falsifiable. It must be possible to obtain some evidence that would falsify the claim. This is what makes science science, and why most significantly evidence matters.
2. Is it logical?
All conclusions or predictions drawn from an explanation must logically follow. This is important because explanations are tested by evaluating such predictions.
3. Is it comprehensive?
Does the explanation account for all of the available evidence? If not, then how can it possibly be true? This means you cannot pick and choose among the available evidence and select only those items that support your explanation. To be a viable alternative explanation, all the available evidence must be explained.
4. Has everyone been honest?
Anybody offering an explanation has an obligation to weigh all the evidence and reach a rational conclusion. You always must be on guard of self-deception, and you must be willing to abandon any explanation if the evidence contradicts it. Science makes progress when falsified explanations are abandoned and replacing them with new explanations.
5. Is it replicable?
Any evidence offered in support of an explanation must be capable of being obtained independently and confirmed by someone else. If something repeatedly cannot be confirmed independently, then the original evidence becomes suspect, and so does the explanation it supported.
6. Is it sufficient?
Is the evidence offered sufficient to support the truth of the explanation? The belief we place in an explanation must remain proportionate to the amount of credible evidence that has been accumulated in its support. Remember the burden of proof rests on the person putting forth the explanation, and the more extraordinary the claim, the more solid the evidence required to support it. Further the absence of falsifying evidence is not the same as the presence of evidence that confirms a claim or explanation.
Conclusion
If an explanation or claim passes on all six rules, then you are justified in considering it to be true. Of course, this does not provide a guarantee of truth, but it means you have a good basis for supporting the explanation. If an explanation fails one of the six rules, then it should be rejected or at least treated with great skepticism. If you following these six rules you will be a skeptical thinker, supporting or accepting an explanation only when the evidence warrants it. These rules are one of the reasons reports in science are subjected to peer reviews prior to publication to guard against making exactly such mistakes.
source: Six Rules of Critical Thinking
This is what science looks like:
Climate Misinformers