Daniel1960

If you think that comparing the political slants of those outlets is the same as equivalency, then so be it. Personally, I think it is a stretch, but people tend believe stretches in their favor, and disregard those against. Just like Johnu think that papers supporting his viewpoint are mainstream. Readers of the aforementioned papers probably feel the same. People like to think they are mainstream, rather than wingers.

So you think the mere mention of the two in the same sentences translates into equating them to one another? That certainly explains a lot.

Yeah, well johnu seems to have high respect for Breitbart. The rest of us tend to disregard its stories.

Other sources rate FOX news as just as right-biased as the Times and Post are left-biased. https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444 The other way to look at them is how the political sides view each source. The Times and Post are trusted by the left, but distrusted by the right. Conversely, Fox News is trusted by the right, but distrusted by the left. Interestingly, those in the middle trust all three. Breitbart, the Blade, and The Drudge Report are less trusted by the middle, as are the Huffington Post, Mother Jones and Politico. http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-01/ I do not know how you can utter high regard and Breitbart in the same sentence. Maybe it is just another of your crazy ideas. Perhaps you have just as high regard as Politico.

Just because they are standards, does not mean they are not left wing. The Wall St Journal is a standard also, but that does not make it moderate or centrist. Is your quote self-reflective.

Typical left fringe nonsense; think left wing sites are mainstream.

So true. The largest death tolls recently were the Indonesian earthquake/tsunami and the Haiti earthquake. The largest death tolls in natural disasters have been recorded in China and India, which is more a reflection of the dense population. Also, death tolls from heat waves in the developing world have been much lower than in the U.S. and Europe. Whether this is greater tolerance to the heat or less temperature variability is hard to say.

Which is probably the main reason that people should not believe propaganda, especially articles appearing in the Guardian, on FOX News, NPR, Breitbart, The Times, Post, Blaze, etc. False claims like, "Heat already kills more Americans than floods, hurricanes or other ecological disasters" can be easily checked against reliable data. https://www.statista.com/statistics/236509/number-of-fatalities-from-natural-disasters-in-the-us/ Globally, heat-related deaths are even less than in the U.S., largely due to earthquakes, tropical activity and flooding. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/annual-disaster-statistical-review-2016-numbers-and-trends

I do not know where you get your crazy ideas. Will the temperatures measured during heat waves and corresponding deaths are related, one is not a direct measure of the other. This is another reason why should stick to the science, and ignore propaganda.

Yet, these scientists point to global warming as barely a footnote in species extinctions, right up there with the potential for nuclear war. Solving global warming will have a negligible effect on species extinctions. That is why the scientists are so worried. When it comes down to science vs propaganda, I prefer the science side. You would do well to follow suit.

Those scientists proclaiming the start of a sixth mass extinction are pointing to habitat destruction, overhunting and fishing, and pollution as the main causes (in that order). Climate change is just a minor footnote in the potential causes. The recent loss of sea ice has not caused polar bears to starve. You need to stop watching propaganda clips. Expanding sea ice was a larger detriment, as it closed feeding waters in the spring, when mother bears needed to find food for their young cubs. Polar bear populations have been relatively stable in recent years following increasing numbers after the 1973 hunting agreement. Of course any changes will not benefit all life. This has been true throughout history. However, warmer temperatures, and the resulting higher rainfall and reduced freezes will be generally beneficial to life in general. Additionally, higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations will generate greater plant growth and allow expansion into higher altitudes.

Yes, insects, like all animals, are expecting to flourish.

Of course. That is why it was called the little ice age! Perhaps you should compare to data from warmer periods, such as the medieval warm period, Roman warm period, or climatic optimum. You will then see similarities.

You do realize that scenario C is where emissions are eliminated altogether, and warming ceases? Hansen stated that this is what is necessary to avoid future problems. Do you believe we have achieved this?

Are you seriously saying that the summertime cooling (daytime highs only) is enough to compensate for the increasing temperatures during the other seasons (especially winter lows)? I do not know where you come up with these ideas?

1. Speculative. Hansen predicted much higher methane concentrations due to global warming compared to observational data. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/06/30-years-after-hansens-testimony/#more-21478 2. Contentious. Some scientists make this claim. Climate models contend that the variability in the weather patterns will decrease due to the warming. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-polar-vortex-climate-change-and-beast-from-the-east 3. Specifics needed. Wildlife tends to diminish during cold periods and flourish during warmer periods. https://web.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html 4. Seems likely, and has occurred until the last two years. "The higher-than-average input of snow, which continued into June , combined with the near-average melt season to date has pushed the estimated mass gain for the ice sheet very high—more than 200 billion tons above the 1981 to 2010 model average (MAR 3.9 model, X. Fettweis), and above last year’s high values for the same time period." Some climate scientists speculation that warmer winters will result in still higher snowfall, while cooler summers will keep melt in check. http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

Those stories are about warmer temperatures during the dead of winter. This is similar to what has been observed throughout the mid- and high-latitudes. Global warming has been amplified in Arctic, but so has summertime cooling.

The three hottest summers in the Arctic (at least since 1979) were 1991, 1990, and 1998, with 6 of the top 10 occurring in the 1990s. The only summer since to crack the top 10 was 2002 at 6th. The coolest summers have been 2013, 2010, 2009, 2014, 2004 and 2018 (so far). While winter sea ice maxima tend to follow global temperatures (the last 4 being the lowest), summer sea ice minima does not appear to follow any pattern. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

You may be interested in joining us back over at realclimate. We have quite a few lively discussions about heat waves.

Yet, Arctic sea ice extent is currently higher than the last three summers and seven out of the last ten. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

I think you are overreacting a bit. Average temperatures are increasing, and have been doing so for the better part of two centuries. But just because the average is increasing, does not mean that every aspect of the temperature record is increasing. Perhaps a little science lesson is needed. Global warming theory is based on the radiative absoption properties of greenhouse gases. These gases will absorb infrared radiation from solar and terrestrial sources and re-radiate in all directions. The wavelength of the IR radiation is dependent on the temperature of the irradiating object, and the absorption is based on the characteristic bands of the individual gases (yes, I am a chemist too). Many of the absorption bands are more intense in the lower temperature, higher wavelength regions in which the Earth emits. Hence absorption is greater at night than during the day. This gets accentuated during the winter months, when night is longer than the day, and amplified closer to the poles. During the winter months, the nighttime warming overwhelms daytime cooling, and warmer daytime temperatures occur also (the days warm less, but start at a higher temperature). During the summer months, the daytime absorption increases and in the high latitudes exceeds the nighttime absorption, resulting in cooler temperatures. This is seen in the Arctic temperature record whereby average winter temperatures have risen by 5C or more, while summer temperatures have decreased slightly. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php In some areas of the midlatitudes, daytime cooling can exceed nighttime warming, resulting in decreased summer averages. In other areas, nighttime warming is enough to cause an increase in the summer average temperature. Most of the U.S. has experienced a decrease in the number of hot days (defined by the epa as greater than the 95th percentile). https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures There is no need to throw out 99.7% of the temperature records, just because summertime highs are not increasing.

This may be more about semantics than entitling else. Some people use the term ‘believe’ to mean accept as truth without proof (or something like that). Hence, once something is proven, or has sufficient evidence in its favor, then it is no longer considered belief.

Here is an interest study about those claiming to be concerned and skeptical about climate change. "the “Highly Concerned” were most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions, whereas the “Skeptical” opposed policy solutions but were most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494418301488

Is there?

There are well qualified scientists on both sides of this debate. However, science is determined by the numbers in the data, not the number of scientists believing in thing or another. Also, the internet have people who know everything posting on both sides of this argument, and tend to be those posters on the extreme fringes. The funding claim works both ways. A corollary to your is question, is why would anyone want to squelch something that is supposed to be such a catastrophe?