Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

You say this, but you have to be unable to differentiate between a lie and the truth.

You see the real world run like clockwork, and we have a good understanding how it works. using measurements, mathematics and physics. its why planes fly, cars work and probes manage to land on comets.

People who tell you the truth use these measurements, mathematics and physics to prove their point, becuase they use this evidence to base their understanding of how the universe works.
The conman cannot do this because they are trying to deceive you and measurements simply prove they are lying, they use the techniques of rhetoric, cherry picking and for the particularly gullible blatant lies.
When conmen are foolish enough to embrace science, as the koch brothers did with the berkely study designed to build a brand new client model removing all of the concerns that the deniers had with the existing models.... but backfired horribly with the new model matching the results of the pre-existing models... validating them. Needless to say the koch brothers did not fund pt2 of the berkely study.

Then we have the study into the funding of the climate denial echo chamber, which shows right wing lobby groups and vested industry lobby groups funding the lot.

if you cannot tell the difference its simply a matter that you are either into faith based truthdeceiving yourself or too dim to tell the difference between a lie and the truth. Rember those poor fools why bought into the 'tobbaco does not cause cancer' fu and carried on smoking... well thats the foolishness you find yourself engaging in here.

Originally Posted by birding

Man made global warming is a con by con men for con men.

Go and tell that to the almost total majority of climate related scientists that say you are incorrect and that it is majorly due to anthropogenic emissions and actions. While you are at it check the funding background of the very few climate related scientists that disagree and you will find they are all well paid by the fossil fuel industry to cast doubt in the public arena, but they are virtually silent in the science journals.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

It's a multi-billion dollar scam - the biggest in history

I agree, climate denialism is the biggest scam this world has ever seen, an inexcusable evil blight on the character of humanity. I for one will be doing everything in my power to see these cunts brought to justice and made to pay for their willful deliberate lies and deceit. Unfortunately most of them will be dead by the time their actions are held accountable, so I will be going after their estates and their families holdings instead.

World's Glaciers Melting At Fastest Rate Since Record-Keeping Began

"Globally, we lose about three times the ice volume stored in the entirety of the European Alps every year."

The world's glaciers have melted to the lowest levels since record-keeping began more than 120 years ago, according to a study conducted by the World Glacier Monitoring Service that was released on Monday.

The research, published in the Journal of Glaciology, provides new evidence that climate change has spurred the rapid decline of thousands of the world's ice shelves over the past century. The first decade of the 21st century saw the fastest loss of ice since scientists began tracking it in 1894 -- and perhaps in recorded history, WGMS reported.

"Globally, we lose about three times the ice volume stored in the entirety of the European Alps every year," Michael Zemp, director of the WGMS and lead author of the study, told The Huffington Post.

On average, the world's glaciers will lose 30 inches of ice thickness this year, Zemp said. That's twice the rate lost in the 1990s, and three times the rate lost in the 1980s.

The news comes just a few months before many of the world's leaders gather in Paris for the United Nations Conference on Climate Change. The planet's leading scientists have emphasized the importance of reaching a deal, saying there is "no plan B" if the talks fail.

The latest news on ice melt continues a trend of worrying statistics. The planet saw the warmest year on record in 2014, and researchers observed the lowest maximum ice extent ever seen earlier this year. All of that lost ice will very likely contribute to catastrophic sea level rise, which some scientists predict could approach 10 feet in the next 50 years.

Preliminary data for the past five years suggest that the melting has continued at an alarming rate, and the "bad news is getting worse," according to Zemp. Up to 90 percent of the glaciers in the European Alps could disappear by the end of the century.

"We’re getting used to the message that glaciers are melting," Zemp said. "But we should not get too used to it."

Glaciers often provide a highly visual signifier of climate change that can be a more effective message than statistics. While it can be hard to feel a tenth of a degree in temperature change over time, the collapse of an ice sheet is hard to ignore, Zemp said.

"I always say to people, 'Go take your children and sit in front of the glacier and take a picture, then go back every year,'" he said. "It reminds you of what you could lose."

Originally Posted by chuckd

When Al Gore ran for the Presidency in 2000, he filed an estimate of his net worth as being between $700,000 and $1.9 million.

CBS News says it is around $200 million as of 2015.

Anybody know which fossil fuel companies are financing his little operation?

Al Jazeera Media Network?

Terms were undisclosed, but analysts told the Reuters news agency the deal could be worth an estimated $500m. The new channel will be headquartered in New York City.

Originally Posted by hazz

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

This seems to be a bickering session, where both sides are talking about slightly different things that they think are the same thing.

Climate Change is not the same thing as Global Warming. Global Warming is an obvious subset idea within the Venn diagram of Climate Change; Climate Change is a sensible catch-all that doesn't commit one to being specific or getting eco-zealous about things; i.e.: the academic approach.

The real debate is about Anthropogenic Input into Climate Change, both qualitative and quantative, and the economic and resource allocation impacts of that (which includes the health impacts; logistics impacts; and land use impacts); with a knock-on into identity and ownership politics.

The climate change debate is a proxy war about economics: collectivism v capitalism.

Not quite.

Yes quite.
The climate change debate is a proxy war about economics: collectivism v capitalism.

Originally Posted by hazz

The evidence that global warming is real, man made and a threat to our futures is as real as the evidence that asbestos and tobacco cause cancer was over 30 years ago.

In all three cases you have industries whose business modle is threatened by this evidence. They for a modest sum of money can pay people to generate manufactured controversy and doubt. They can call on a legion of sceptial thinkers without the intelligence to differentiate fact from fiction and simply choose to believe any alternative media that tells them what they would like to be true is true.

With care this campaign can lobby with a power way beyond its public support and delay legislation and political action for decades. And each year these businesses get delay action increases their profits. you will find that there is continuity in the people involved in all of these 'controversies', which die as soon as industry stops funding them, DDT, tobacco, ozone hole, asbestos, global warming.


The only collectivism v capitalism going on in this fight is the private ownership of the profits the oil industry gains in delaying action against global warming and the socialization of the costs to the tax payers of the world.

Lets not forget, the value of an oil company is based upon the value of the potential profits they can create from unexstracted oil they have licenses to extract. Anything that threatens oil demand or their ability to extract that oil is a threat to value and viability of their business.

Superficially, evidence that undermines a particular business model might seem to be a threat that needs to be eliminated, but companies tend not to think like that, what they want is new ideas for new business because all business products have cycles, and diversification is in the interests of most companies. Conflating energy companies with tobacco companies belies ignorance of the products these companies sell and their models. Tobacco companies really can't diversify - they can't start selling weed or herbal highs, they can only exploit their main product (it would be interesting if Marlboro started selling bananas or beer, though).

In contrast, energy companies (they don't just do oil, you know) can easily diversify. Their value is not purely based on licences they may or may not temporarily hold and buy and sell, but also on assets they hold, and where growth is, and the cost of extracting, transporting, and processing energy products, and the value of the assets associated with that. Someone I went to uni with, works for an oil major and is more like a stockbroker, a world away from working in oily overalls.

Climate change obviously exists in the same way that "change" exists.
"Global Warming" is a useless term that doesn't have any support in the academic community, because it's silly.
When you start a paper on this subject, the buzz phrase is "anthropomophic climate change", because the issue in contention is not "change" but "type of change", "speed of change", "direction of change", and most of all, the extent of human input into that change; and of course how humans can manage the outputs of that change that are by definition the result of myriad inputs and interactions, as any complex system is.

There's a massive dearth of evidence, and lots more to find out, and (despite constraints on funding) lots of initiatives to develop technology to collect data over larger temporal and spatial scales, rather than simply dunking stuff at a few favourite sites that are easy to get to - how do you know how true your true is without collecting more extensive datasets and cross-referencing them?

It's important to challenge the pseudo-scientific rubbish about "Global Warming" that seems to be cobbled together from professional imbeciles and the ropey websites and newspapers they contribute to. The idea that the media is in any way hostile to climate change issues is laughable - the BBC treats supposition and conjecture on the subject like fact. Disconnecting these industrial players from the media environments and consumers that they interact with on a regular basis does not even make sense, never mind match reality.

Energy companies collect data on this stuff religiously, for positively influencing their share prices with greenwash. You get scorecards where you have to maintain a certain level of issues to resolve - because if the number falls below a threshold, rather than looking at it like you've fixed problems, they see it as you haven't found all the problems that are there, so people end up submitting spurious problems on the scorecards to maintain a prescribed ratio.

It is in the developing world, places like China, and Brazil, and Africa where your notion of energy companies "delaying action against global warming and socialising the costs" gets even less traction. What kind of "action" are you expecting them to take? They are organisations whose sole purpose is to make profits, a substantial part of which is put back into colossal pension funds that public sector employees benefit from (never mind all the primary and derivative products that our civilisation depends upon, that come from energy company activity). The responsibility is with governments, and regulatory authorities; and in democratic countries, with voters and media outlets.

You can put lots of renewable energy installations all over the place, but often they are objected to by environmentalist movements for disrupting ecosystems; not to mention infrastructure.
Take the UK for instance, if the government invested hundreds of billions of pounds installing tidal power in all the major viable locations around the coast, the UK would probably generate about 60 times the power the whole country needed, but without the grid of powerpoints for cars, or giant undersea cables, what would you do with it? Do you really think energy companies have any influence on that?

From an engineering and commercial point of view, saving the world is (relatively) a piece of piss; the hard part is the political will. Ranting and raving from an American perspective about the "industrial military complex" is pissing in the wind. You need to convince large swathes of the electorate of viable plans that will deliver actual results that make the sacrifices worthwhile.
In this way, it is about whether you do that as a capitalist enterprise or a collectivist one, and history has taught us that collectivism doesn't deliver.

The climate change thing is about economics - not how to save the world and preserve a certain set of species in aspic, but rather how to maintain quality of life and prosperity, and health, and negotiate property rights to balance the need to get large scale viable resource exploiting projects that benefit civilisation off the ground whilst accommodating the needs of local populations, and the viability of their existence.

The term "Anthropomorphic Climate Change" alludes to managing the human impact on the world: land use (industrial/commercial/residential/logistics), pollution, food/water sustainability and health impacts, and that knocks on into politics, and which ethnic group owns what land, and what significance that land has etc... (you could logically reduce human impact by having less humans; or by reducing everyone to a pre-industrial state, but that is not sustainable).

The statement "The only collectivism v capitalism going on in this fight is the private ownership of the profits the oil industry gains in delaying action against global warming and the socialization of the costs to the tax payers of the world." just can't be true - it's just such a simplistic view of one tiny aspect, and quite distorted, that belies a lack of understanding of how energy companies work, and where the decision making takes place... where do you think those profits go, exactly?! In some vast chambre of gold like in Lord of the Rings?! Where do you think the money comes from for your pension? Investment in large capital projects? Government coffers to maintain civilisation?

Somebody better show this to the President. No change in Arctic Sea Ice since 1971. Man, we really have gone back to the 70's. Job participation is at 1977 levels. Ice at 1971 levels.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ce-since-1971/

Can already hear the shrill cries from all you climate-istes!

National Geographic is in the pockets of Big Oil!

Stick it...