We’re saved?
Recent Harvard graduate looks for opinions on climate change
Climate change is a hot topic, and has been for quite some time.
Devi Lockwood, a recent Harvard University graduate from Ridgefield, Conn. has chosen to go on an adventure to learn more about climate change and what people all over the world have to say about it.
Lockwood recently got a taste of the Mississippi Delta when she passed through.
“I just graduated with a B.A. in Folklore & Mythology in May, and this year I am traveling in the USA, Fiji, Tuvalu, New Zealand, and the UK with support of a Gardner & Shaw Postgraduate Traveling Fellowship from Harvard. The focus of my trip is to collect stories from people I meet about water and climate change,” Lockwood said.
First, how’s she traveling? Fossil fuels, perhaps? Actually, good for her, a lot of her travel is on bike. Except when she’s jet setting around the world.
Second, is this what Harvard, one of the most prestigious universities in the world, is teaching?
Third, it is utterly perfect that she graduated with a B.A. in Folklore and Mythology and is yammering on about “climate change”.
Ironically, her BA in Folklore and Mythology from Harvard is more education than most professional Deniers possess.
In addition, she is pursuing a passion and is selflessly doing good (or at least she believes so). Good for her.
Is there a Denier who doesn’t make money off their science Denialism?
This is complete and utter nonsense, but what does one expect from people like Jeffery? Reality doesn’t exist in their minds.
And here we see a core belief of liberals and warmists.
It is not whether the person is actually doing “good,” but rather they believe they are doing good.
It doesn’t matter whether the science fails to support the idea of AGW, what matters is that they believe it does.
That’s one reason why people cannot have a logical conversation or discussion with warmists – in their minds their “beliefs” trump logic, reason, science and truth.
I see you still haven’t mastered 5th grade reading comprehension yet.
Since the science and evidence DOES overwhelmingly support the theory of AGW your point, such as it is, is moot.
Tell me, do you believe in the spirit world? Gods, demons and angels? Or like me, will you say there is no evidence of mythical, magical beings, making the concept of a Christian God or an Islamic Allah remote?
Most Deniers believe in gods and demons and angels, which don’t exist, and they don’t accept the overwhelming evidence of global warming, which does exist. Your claim about what climate realists “believe” is like you – full of shit.
Maybe. But as I am dealing with someone with a pre-kindergarten level of comprehension, I am still a long way ahead of the game when it comes to you.
Of course, the problem is that the evidence doesn’t support AGW but no one will convince you that your religion is false.
So you go against the majority of scientists who believe there is a god or supreme being?
Just out of curiosity, you have claimed that your wife is a “Christian.” Is she a liar in your mind as well? Do you think she is a stupid and clueless as you think others of faith are?
Cherry picking are we? You agree with those who think like you do and dismiss scientists who do not.
There’s that famous pre-K reading comprehension level of yours. The question on climate change is cause – not that the climate is changing. Climate change is natural and has happened since the formation of the earth.
Oh how it must be nice to dismiss the facts that expose your beliefs. You’ve done it since you ventured into this forum and continue to act like a 5 year old little girl who keeps thinking that if they repeat something long enough, that will make it true.
Poor l’il girl. Do you need a cookie?
Wow, so you do now wish to discuss global warming!
You typed: “The question on climate change is cause – not that the climate is changing. Climate change is natural and has happened since the formation of the earth.”
Yes, the climate changes, but there are causes, and magic doesn’t count. So what is causing the Earth to warm now? (We’ve been through this many times, and Deniers just say it’s “natural” that the Earth just warmed 1C the past century – so I don’t expect any better from you now).
Yes, we have been through this before and each and every time you say “it can’t be natural or an unknown force or interaction.”
Of course, that statement flies in the face of the computer modeling because if we knew everything (like you think you do) the models would work and they don’t.
So what we end up with is someone like you saying the science knows everything and yet the actual data, science and modeling says otherwise.
When you start talking about “denying,” maybe you should look in the mirror as you and people of your ilk deny the facts.
You once again lie about what I’ve said. I didn’t say it can’t be natural, only that the current rapid warming period is caused by CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere. It can be natural, but it isn’t.
The current abrupt warming period is so dramatic that it is easily explained by the greenhouse gases we’ve added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.
That’s not to say that scientists won’t discover a previously undiscovered major physical mechanism for adding or retaining heat on Earth. I’m not hopeful. Your science hero Casey doesn’t seem to understand ‘albedo’ or maybe it was just a mistake.
Finally, the computer models of surface temperature aren’t as bad as Dr. Spencer (an actual climate scientist!), Watts, Monckton and Morono claim. It would be helpful if you were more widely read.
What is your hypothesis for why the oceans are warming? Undetected, underwater vents? Undetected heat rays from space? Undetected radioactivity?
Also, I’ve never claimed we know everything – reductio ad absurdum. I doubt that any scientist has seriously made that claim. That is why there is so much ongoing research! But why Deny what we DO know?
The self-proclaimed ‘skeptics’ refuse to accept what we do know, preferring red herring arguments about trace gases, cosmic rays, thermometer locations, flawed thermodynamic laws, global hoaxes, dishonest scientists, manipulated data, Al Gore, water vapor, communist takeovers, clouds… a laundry list of distractions that can be summed up as… anything but carbon dioxide (ABCD arguments).
‘Skeptics’ are changing their argument from ‘it’s not warming, ’cause fraud, bad thermometers etc’ to ‘we’ve never denied warming, but question the cause!’ (even though they will deny warming and question the cause in the same paragraph! – a uniquely conservative mental ability). Eventually the argument will be that ‘we can’t stop it, so we must adapt’ or ‘it’s too costly’ – but those are honest arguments that can be evaluated so will be a last resort. It’s better at this time to cry “hoax” and “fraud” and “communist takeover” while your ‘scientists’ demand proof that a specific infrared ray has hit a specific carbon dioxide molecule.
Do you believe the greenhouse effect to be a real phenomenon?
“It can be natural, but it isn’t.” Sorry, no proof of that. Your job is to show that it isn’t natural, as we’ve had a few years in the past, like 4 billion, where it has been natural. “What are your hypothesis for why the oceans are warming?” You mean they’ve never warmed before? As they obviously have warmed before, what’s your hypothesis on how they warmed in the past? Jeffery sadly still believes our yet to be fully comprehended climate is somehow manipulated by a giant control switch named CO2, which amazingly overrides all other inputs. It’s like magic.
No, I’ve characterized your comments correctly.
When you talk about climate change you attribute the change only to CO2, never allowing that the change could be part of a natural cycle.
In fact, you wrote:
(We’ve been through this many times, and Deniers just say it’s “natural†that the Earth just warmed 1C the past century – so I don’t expect any better from you now).
It is clear that you dismiss any idea that climate changes can be due to natural causes and are wedded to the idea that all climate change is CO2 based.
Also, one of your favorite little dishonest tactics is to ask someone “what else can be contributing to climate change other than CO2?”
The implication is that you know all the possible reasons and that any other reasons are dismissed.
In short, your answers are dishonest.
As for the models, once again you are being dishonest. They don’t match and have not matched in the past. An honest person would say that means there is more to be understood and learned, but that’s not your style. You still try to rock the lie.
Jeff,
There is no science involving climate change that is settled. You can make those statements all day, but it does not lend truth.
Then, explain the logic of a trace gas in the atmosphere can cause such huge changes in the environment. For that matter, explain why this “science” is tethered to necessary changes in the government that amount to communism and complete control of our lives and unilateral elimination of our economy. For that matter, what is wrong with climate change?
In the entire time that you have commented on the board, you have never, ever given any real information supporting your religion. Instead, you take the opportunity to call everyone names and disparage their intellect. Maybe there is something wrong with you personally. After all, you own several corporations, earn a profit, don’t pay your fair share, demand changes in laws to keep others from achieving, etc.
Even natural changes in the climate result from physical phenomena- not magic. What are these physical phenomena that have caused the climate to change over these 4 billion years? Asteroids smashing into the planet, volcanism, cyclical changes in the Earth’s orbit, continental drift changing ocean currents, the albedo, mountain ranges created when continents collided, changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, changes in plant growth, and variations in solar activity.
So gc, if not greenhouse gases, what is causing the current rapid warming? What is your hypothesis? You call me unfair and a liar for asking a valid scientific question. Magic, nature, fairies or God’s will are not valid answers. And of course, there is much more to be studied and learned, as I have stated many times – that’s why research continues. You just don’t like the results. I’m very open to the idea of warming being natural – but there is NO evidence to support that hypothesis.
dave, If you don’t like being called a science Denier and a racist, stop being a science Denier and a racist. Religions rely on the supernatural, scientific theories do not. The Theory of AGW is a scientific theory supported by overwhelming evidence. What scientific evidence do you have to support your religion? And why you label a tax on carbon, or a market based cap and trade system, as communism is more than my simple mind can comprehend.
I understand that the Denier agenda dissuades you from reading outside your comfort zone but here’s an interesting article about ocean warming.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/oceans-getting-hotter-than-anybody-realized-18139