Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Originally Posted by Orrens

And even then they don't know the planet and continents have warming and cooling cycles. The Sahara desert was an inland sea but a change in the winds caused it to evaporate and become savannah and now desert. You'd say that was global warming at work. Well they didn't have many diesel trucks in those days.

Verbalizing those sorts of observations makes us "deniers." That's probably one of the most contentious parts of this issue. Whether it's 100% anthropogenic vs the possibility that there could be natural cyclic forces at work.


BTW isn't "climate change" the PC term now? Thought "global warming" was passe...

Originally Posted by SKkin

Whether it's 100% anthropogenic vs the possibility that there could be natural cyclic forces at work.

Because you are wrong. How many credible scientists not backed by big oil agree with what you posted? Why on earth do you consider yourself smarter then the overwhelming majority of scientists? CO2 levels are at their highest in 3 million years. Sea levels then were 50 feet higher and temps much hotter back then. CO2 levels have never rised so quickly in the entire history of the earth. To say that it is natural is beyond absurd.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Because you are wrong

That's what she said...

So I take it you're on the side of it's 100% anthropogenic?

When is Bangkok gonna sink?

Originally Posted by bsnub

How many credible scientists not backed by big oil agree with what you posted?

I'm going to go out on a limb and posit that there's "big money" on both sides. Was Joanne Nova speaking for big oil?

Climate Money
The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – Trillions to come
Massive climate funding exposed « JoNova

For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. It’s time to start talking of “Monopolistic Science”. It’s time to expose the lie that those who claim “to save the planet” are the underdogs. And it’s time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money. Who audits the IPCC?

The Summary

• The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.
• Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.
• Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded.
• Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
• The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?

Originally Posted by SKkin

I'm going to go out on a limb and posit that there's "big money" on both sides

There just isn't though. How many billionaire scientists with mega-yachts and private jets do you see.

The money spent is targeted -- rightly or wrongly and effectively or not -- at preventing a climate catastrophe and it's still not enough (and the argument it costs too much doesn't wash when you consider the alternative is killing the planet).

If you want a conspiracy here's one:

https://www.vox.com/2015/3/21/826704...hants-of-doubt

How Big Oil and Big Tobacco get respected scientists to lie for them


By Julia Belluz@juliaoftoronto[email protected] Mar 21, 2015, 9:30am EDT



BortN66/Shutterstock



By the 1950s, Big Tobacco knew smoking caused cancer. By the 1960s, the companies knew nicotine was addictive and that smoking could lead to heart disease. But three decades later, tobacco executives stood up before Congress and, under oath, denied the facts.


The same story has played out with other major scientific issues of our time, from climate change to the health harms of various chemicals. As scientists build consensus, industry tries to obscure their findings outside the ivory tower, turning non-debates into ginned-up controversies [...]

There's not even any actual debate remaining.

There are the facts and then there are those that intentionally or otherwise are muddying the waters. It's a conspiracy of lies, irrelevancies and diversions.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

^^ Does any one have a YD to English translator.

No, but I do have enough common sense to decipher what are obvious typos and drunken ravings.

Originally Posted by Orrens

The blue pill and the red pill are actually suppositories. And if you take both you get confused. Trust me.

Isn't that only if taken at the same time?

Originally Posted by cisco999

Isn't that only if taken at the same time?

Yes.
You are right.

Orrens
I see and I feel.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

conspiracy

There doesn’t necessarily need to be a conspiracy. It doesn’t require any centrally coordinated deceit or covert instructions to operate. Instead it’s the lack of funding for the alternatives that leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. The force of monopolistic funding works like a ratchet mechanism on science. Results can move in both directions, but the funding means that only results from one side of the equation get “traction”.

Jo Nova @ link above


Not making any declarations, just asking questions. I think her 2009 report brought up some valid points. Have you ever read it in its entirety?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...mate_money.pdf

You're asking the wrong questions, they're a distraction at best, meanwhile the environment continues to circle down the drain...

Originally Posted by SKkin

Jo Nova @ link above

Ah so the best you could do is come up with a microbiologist who is controversial at best. So once again not a climate scientist.

https://ramblingsdc.net/Australia/JoNova.html

Burn more oil and feed the world...

Burn more oil and feed the world « JoNova

That is from her own website. After reading that shit if you still think she is a credible source on the issue....

Just wondering if anyone read the link I posted and their views.
Actually it is not 90% of scientists. The figure is based on published scientists and does not take into account the views of non published scientists and is lower than 90%, although still high. Also many that agree (and none are 100% certain purely because it is an unproven hypothesis), do so on the basis of findings of other scientists or colleagues they know, not their own. Then of course very few are actually skilled in climatology, which means they know as much as you or I.
This of course still means the majority opinion of climate scientists is that the greater majority of climate change is "most likely" anthropogenic and for this reason alone should not be ignored. It must be remembered many scientists 20 years ago said that 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere would be catastrophic for the planet. it is now approx 410 PPM. The fact they were wrong does not mean their hypothesis is, but clearly it is not a theory as yet.
The problem is the big polluters are polluting more with no end in sight.
Scientists alarmed the size of the whole in the ozone layer has stalled against all predictions, have found China is still using R11, a chronic ozone depleting CFC and major GW gas to manufacture foam products 30 years after it was banned. That is on top of their 400% increase in G.W gases. Doesn't leave you with much confidence that there is any appetite to control let alone repair the problem.

On a brighter note I am expecting my property currently located 400 metres from the beach on a peninsula, to eventually be an island beach side property.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

The fact they were wrong does not mean their hypothesis is, but clearly it is not a theory as yet.

How can any rational person claim they are wrong? You live on the equator which may well be the last place to see the damaging effects of climate change, in fact when you do see the results it will be devastating and irreversible. I see the effects of it in the place that I grew up in with a very delicate "convergence zone" climate that has indelibly been changed. The weather has gotten hotter and hotter here records are being shattered over and over. The tomatoes I plant in my garden no longer grow anymore due to the intense heat that never existed here in the later part of summer.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

Just wondering if anyone read the link I posted and their views.

I skimmed it. He's technically correct in that there is no solid proof, no repeatabale experimental results etc.
Which is not to say he's denying the theories, certainly he is not contradicting the theories, simply pointing out that by strict scientific thinking, it's not done and dusted.

When will anyone capable of independent thinking wake up?

I think most people understand the the climate is changing and that it will continue to change. There are cycles, and cycles change in different ways. This is perfectly normal in earth evolution.

Add into this unpredictable and changing cycle, the contribution by an increasingly greedy and growing population of a certain species. The scale of any change can be measured, and the attribution to human intervention will continue to grow, accelerating any change.

The occupant of this unique habitat will continue to witness change. Some of this is inevitable, evidenced by the changes already passed over the centuries. The only question you need to ask is; Does our contribution have a discernible and measurable effect on these irregular natural changes? Are we, as a species making the inevitable cyclic changes better or worse?

Personally I think we are making life harder for inevitable change to take place naturally. Time we accepted some responsibility for that input.

Originally Posted by bsnub

How can any rational person claim they are wrong? You live on the equator which may well be the last place to see the damaging effects of climate change, in fact when you do see the results it will be devastating and irreversible. I see the effects of it in the place that I grew up in with a very delicate "convergence zone" climate that has indelibly been changed. The weather has gotten hotter and hotter here records are being shattered over and over. The tomatoes I plant in my garden no longer grow anymore due to the intense heat that never existed here in the later part of summer.

Firstly I have studied thermodynamics that does allow me a better understanding than many of the actual hypothesis itself. I am still not convinced man made CO2 is the major cause or even that CO2 itself is. However the scientific data that does exist tells us that we are certainly going through a global warming period on the planet. Even so some still doubt this although to me the strength of the evidence puts it beyond all reasonable doubt.
My own personal rationale is that we are in general polluting this planet in a way that is unsustainable. If we decrease pollution levels that is good for the planet. Generally CO2 is emitted alongside other pollutants and therefore the decrease will also decrease CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
If scientists have it wrong we have at least drastically reduced polluting the planet, if they are right we have at least reduced pollution and the potential for global warming. Win Win.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

I am still not convinced man made CO2 is the major cause or even that CO2 itself is.

So just what will it take for you to see it otherwise as the temperature increases have risen uniformly with the increases in man made CO2 into the atmosphere. To me that would make it pretty obvious that the two go hand in hand. Not to mention that there has not been been this much CO2 in the atmosphere in three million years. So I think that factor in and of itself dispenses of the argument that this is just a natural pattern or cycle that the Earth goes through.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

However the scientific data that does exist tells us that we are certainly going through a global warming period on the planet.

Well at least you got that part right.

CO2 is a worry because of ocean acidification, too. Reason enough to reduce CO2 emissions.

Originally Posted by bsnub

How can any rational person claim they are wrong? You live on the equator which may well be the last place to see the damaging effects of climate change, in fact when you do see the results it will be devastating and irreversible. I see the effects of it in the place that I grew up in with a very delicate "convergence zone" climate that has indelibly been changed. The weather has gotten hotter and hotter here records are being shattered over and over. The tomatoes I plant in my garden no longer grow anymore due to the intense heat that never existed here in the later part of summer.

Must be poor gardening my tomatoes thrive thrive and our summers have a longer hot stretch than yours.

^Have you considered you may have a different varietal? It's quite pessimistic to jump to the negative conclusion of poor gardening skills.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

^Have you considered you may have a different varietal? It's quite pessimistic to jump to the negative conclusion of poor gardening skills.

Just pointing out probably not climate related,at least not temperature wise.