Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 42 · Next
Author Message
Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8420
Credit: 4,136,541
RAC: 1,474
United Kingdom
Message 1332246 - Posted: 28 Jan 2013, 15:32:18 UTC

This follows on from: Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III


Is there genuine Denial?

Is Climate Denial just a game of politics?

Or is this all just a cynical game of Marketing by the Fossil Fuels industry, and our world be damned?


The day the world went mad

As record sea ice melt scarcely makes the news…, is there a form of reactive denial at work?


YouTube: The American Denial of Global Warming - Perspectives on Ocean Science

... Join scientist and renowned historian Naomi Oreskes as she describes her investigation into the reasons for such widespread mistrust and misunderstanding...


YouTube: Culture of Denial - Evolution, Global Warming, and Big Tobacco

... examine where this culture of scientific denial came from, and how it relates to conservative thinktanks and big tobacco.


And then very cleverly in a way that should appeal to many, there is the view by the Blue Man Group on Global Warming (YouTube), from some long time ago now.


All on our only one planet,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8420
Credit: 4,136,541
RAC: 1,474
United Kingdom
Message 1332252 - Posted: 28 Jan 2013, 16:11:56 UTC

A shorter YouTube for thoughts on Denial or Marketing:

... Global Warming - Science & Distortion - Stephen Schneider

Personal values against the data?...


All guiding what we do with our only one planet...
Martin


____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8420
Credit: 4,136,541
RAC: 1,474
United Kingdom
Message 1332257 - Posted: 28 Jan 2013, 16:40:49 UTC

And so for some, it is just a game of politics... (And the world be damned.)


EU referendum: Climate efforts could be 'collateral damage', warn MEPs

Fears are growing in Brussels that climate policy could become a political football...

The UK Independent Party (UKIP), ... launched a petition on 21 January calling for the EU's climate and energy targets to be suspended.

The petition's professed objectives – to prevent carbon leakage, stop 'wasting money' on unilateral climate measures, reduce energy prices and increase energy security by allowing more fossil fuel use – are widely shared on the Conservative right and among Europe's energy-intensive industries.

UKIP's initiative may not reach the million signatures needed to activate EU policy-making processes, but it has set alarms ringing that climate change could enter the UK's Europe debate by the backdoor. ...

... The UK has historically taken a firmer line on climate policy than some other EU states for reasons ranging from the scientific quality of its Met Office, to the destruction of its coal industry in the 1980s. ...




All guiding what we do with our only one planet...
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12526
Credit: 6,824,095
RAC: 5,114
United States
Message 1332264 - Posted: 28 Jan 2013, 17:08:49 UTC

Ex wrote:
Ice does NOT RAISE THE WATER LEVEL. LOL

Ice is neutrally boyant! 10% of an iceberg is above sea level. 90 below. The displacement is the same regardless of what form H20 takes. Come on! This is basic physics!!!

We've had this discussion about ice. You are wrong.

Even un-melted ice has mass, which DOES make water rise. Drop an ice cube in a glass...
The issue is not the difference between solid and liquid, the issue is this ice was not part of the oceans, and now it is.

Do it the right way Ex!

Fill the glass. Note the level. Pour some into an ice cube tray. Freeze it. Drops the ice back in the glass. Note the level.

____________

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,759,248
RAC: 1,343
United States
Message 1332267 - Posted: 28 Jan 2013, 17:16:45 UTC
Last modified: 28 Jan 2013, 17:17:13 UTC

I repeat:

The issue is not the difference between solid and liquid, the issue is this ice was not part of the oceans, and now it is. :-)


And sure maybe it was part of the oceans once, but not any time recently.


I'm going to take the same stance I always do on the subject:
The climate is changing, the ice is melting, sea levels are rising. I will not speculate as to why this is, but I certainly cannot participate in the nay-saying.

How do we deal with it, how do we fix it? I can't even begin to pretend to answer that one.
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

Profile James SotherdenProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 8814
Credit: 34,467,751
RAC: 59,896
United States
Message 1332270 - Posted: 28 Jan 2013, 17:22:34 UTC - in response to Message 1332264.

Ex wrote:
Ice does NOT RAISE THE WATER LEVEL. LOL

Ice is neutrally boyant! 10% of an iceberg is above sea level. 90 below. The displacement is the same regardless of what form H20 takes. Come on! This is basic physics!!!

We've had this discussion about ice. You are wrong.

Even un-melted ice has mass, which DOES make water rise. Drop an ice cube in a glass...
The issue is not the difference between solid and liquid, the issue is this ice was not part of the oceans, and now it is.

Do it the right way Ex!

Fill the glass. Note the level. Pour some into an ice cube tray. Freeze it. Drops the ice back in the glass. Note the level.

But that would just simulate ice from the ocean. Fill the glass up with water. note the level. Now add 10 ice cubes you take from an ice tray. Thats Antarticas Ice cap melting.
____________

Old James

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1332286 - Posted: 28 Jan 2013, 18:19:32 UTC - in response to Message 1332270.

not all the ice melting is sitting on the artic ocean. We have large glaciers and other areas like greenland that have 100% land locked ice that are now melting. This adds to the ocean levels at increasing rates.

This is exactly the opposite of what happened during the last Ice Age where water became locked in Ice on North America and Europe. Ocean water levels are estimated to have dropped about 300 ft.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12526
Credit: 6,824,095
RAC: 5,114
United States
Message 1332295 - Posted: 28 Jan 2013, 18:49:35 UTC - in response to Message 1332267.

I repeat:

The issue is not the difference between solid and liquid, the issue is this ice was not part of the oceans, and now it is. :-)


And sure maybe it was part of the oceans once, but not any time recently.

Try this. Put some water in the glass, the ocean. Add an ice cube, the arctic ice cap. Note the level. Wait for it to melt. Check the level again.

It isn't the "Al Gore" arctic ice melting that raises sea level because that arctic ice cap is part of the ocean.

____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8420
Credit: 4,136,541
RAC: 1,474
United Kingdom
Message 1332312 - Posted: 28 Jan 2013, 19:50:29 UTC - in response to Message 1332295.

It isn't the "Al Gore" arctic ice melting that raises sea level because that arctic ice cap is part of the ocean.

So you're playing the old sillines of confusing Arctic sea ice and the non-floating Antarctic ice and other land supported ice...

Shame on your sham trolling.

Meanwhile, the oceans are measurably warming. That gives a double whammy of sea level rise due to the thermal expansion of the water, AND you suffer further sea level rise due to the runoff from the land supported ice.

A further whammy is you get additional warming when you lose the white reflective covering of ice...


All argued on our only one planet,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12526
Credit: 6,824,095
RAC: 5,114
United States
Message 1332326 - Posted: 28 Jan 2013, 20:25:28 UTC - in response to Message 1332312.
Last modified: 28 Jan 2013, 20:27:18 UTC

It isn't the "Al Gore" arctic ice melting that raises sea level because that arctic ice cap is part of the ocean.

So you're playing the old sillines of confusing Arctic sea ice and the non-floating Antarctic ice and other land supported ice...

Shame on your sham trolling.

Tis Ex & Scary
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=67666&postid=1332233

Of course had the thread not been split maybe you would have read it in order.
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12526
Credit: 6,824,095
RAC: 5,114
United States
Message 1332331 - Posted: 28 Jan 2013, 20:31:01 UTC - in response to Message 1332312.

Meanwhile, the oceans are measurably warming. That gives a double whammy of sea level rise due to the thermal expansion of the water, AND you suffer further sea level rise due to the runoff from the land supported ice.

You fail to mention the offset, perhaps on purpose.

____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12526
Credit: 6,824,095
RAC: 5,114
United States
Message 1332366 - Posted: 28 Jan 2013, 22:58:27 UTC

Very interesting ...

Aaron Huertas, of the Union of Concerned Scientists wrote:
Scientists include a “margin of error” in their models to account for unpredictable variations like volcanoes and weather patterns. Yet one of the IPCC’s models missed the actual warming trend entirely -- in other words, the actual temperatures were outside its “margin of error.”

Maybe those error bars are a bit too tight ...

____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8420
Credit: 4,136,541
RAC: 1,474
United Kingdom
Message 1340190 - Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 12:20:27 UTC

Here is a very good and apt summary, and from a politician at that!


UK Climate Change Secretary Slams Deniers As ‘Dogmatic And Blinkered’

... Some excerpts on the science:

Two hundred years of good science – teasing out uncertainties, considering risk – has laid the foundation of what we now understand.

It screams out from decade upon decade of research.

The basic physics of climate change is irrefutable. Greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere and cause changes to the climate. Human activity is significantly contributing to the warming of our planet.

And on the mistaken notion that reading on climate action is bad for a country’s economy:

Too often, we are told that those who go low-carbon first will sacrifice their competitiveness. But as the Prime Minister set out last week, reaffirming our shared commitment to being the greenest government ever:

“We are in a global race and the countries that succeed in that race, the economies that will prosper, are those that are the greenest and the most energy efficient.”

The real danger we face is being outpaced by other countries who are investing in clean, low-carbon economies. ...

And on those who deny the science:

You know, when I am confronted by some of the most dogmatic and blinkered people who deny that climate change is happening, I am reminded of the sentiment of the famous USA Today cartoon.

“If we really are wrong about climate change, we will have created a better world for nothing”. ...



No joke? Can you hear?

All on our only one planet,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12526
Credit: 6,824,095
RAC: 5,114
United States
Message 1341106 - Posted: 26 Feb 2013, 23:18:50 UTC

German harmful gas emissions rose by 1.6 percent year-on-year in 2012, the Federal Environment Agency (UBA) announced on Monday on the basis of preliminary calculations.

A break-down into specific climate killers revealed that carbon dioxide emissions climbed by 2 percent last year.

The agency attributed the rise to a colder winter, leading to more natural gas and coal being used for heating purposes.


____________

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,154,048
RAC: 2,429
United States
Message 1341176 - Posted: 27 Feb 2013, 6:12:43 UTC
Last modified: 27 Feb 2013, 6:14:00 UTC

while the physics of global warming may still be detectable the fact of global warming is not.

since 1850 it has been getting warmer this date predates any modeled argument

for greenhouse gasses but it is still there.

so arguing about global warming is silly arguing about what to do is more to the point.

even if we choose to do nothing that is a choice.

for me I want to know a lot more about options before I choose actions.

THE KYOTO ACCORDS and things like them are about keeping the rich, rich, and the poor, poor, not about climate change we still can not model well enough to know what to do much less craft solutions.

yes it is good to use less and to impact the environment less but this was true in Rome 2000 years ago.
____________

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,154,048
RAC: 2,429
United States
Message 1341641 - Posted: 28 Feb 2013, 15:25:35 UTC

opps that was debatable not detectable
____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8420
Credit: 4,136,541
RAC: 1,474
United Kingdom
Message 1343612 - Posted: 7 Mar 2013, 1:31:52 UTC

Is "Climate Denial" and "Fossil Fuels Pollution Denial" the same as "Tobacco Denial"?

Fight tobacco marketing, boost vaccinations to curb cancer...

Fighting the tobacco industry's tactics in the world's poorest countries and ensuring the best vaccines get to those most in need are key to cutting the number of cancer deaths worldwide...


... They do use some of the same Marketing people...

All on our only one world,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2555
Credit: 1,178,182
RAC: 147
United States
Message 1344327 - Posted: 9 Mar 2013, 3:32:07 UTC - in response to Message 1343612.

Here's a post I made 2000 days ago--let's have a rebuttal if you are capable:


For those of you who want to take a dispassionate view of the issue: Here is an excerpt from Pat Bedard's column in fall of 2006:

"The atmosphere is primarily composed of nitrogen (78 percent), oxygen (21 percent), argon (0.93 percent), and CO2 (0.04 percent). Many other gases are present in trace amounts. The lower atmosphere also contains varying amounts of water vapor, up to four percent by volume.

Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and have no warming influence. The greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol are each rated for warming potency. CO2, the warming gas that has activated Al Gore, has low warming potency, but its relatively high concentration makes it responsible for 72 percent of Kyoto warming. Methane (CH4, a.k.a. natural gas) is 21 times more potent than CO2, but because of its low concentration, it contributes only seven percent of that warming. Nitrous oxide (N2O), mostly of nature’s creation, is 310 times more potent than CO2. Again, low concentration keeps its warming effect down to 19 percent.

Now for an inconvenient truth about CO2 sources nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man. Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature’s outpouring. They and Al Gore are alarmed only about anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2 percent caused by humans.

They like to point fingers at the U.S., which generated about 23 percent of the world’s anthropogenic CO2 in 2003, the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration. But this finger-pointing ignores yet another inconvenient truth about CO2. In fact, it’s a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect when water vapor is taken into consideration. All the greenhouse gases together, including CO2 and methane, produce less than two percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, by the way, is described by one source as the most renowned climatologist in all the world. 

When water vapor is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

If everyone knows that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, why do Al Gore and so many others focus on CO2? Call it the politics of the possible. Water vapor is almost entirely natural. It’s beyond the reach of man’s screwdriver. But when the delegates of 189 countries met at Kyoto in December 1997 to discuss global climate change, they could hardly vote to do nothing. So instead, they agreed that the developed countries of the world would reduce emissions of six man-made greenhouse gases. At the top of the list is CO2, a trivial influence on global warming compared with water vapor, but unquestionably man’s largest contribution.

In deciding that it couldn’t reduce water vapor, Kyoto really decided that it couldn’t reduce global warning. But that’s an inconvenient truth that wouldn’t make much of a movie."

"Just the fact's ma'm , just the facts--" Joe Friday-DRAGNET

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,154,048
RAC: 2,429
United States
Message 1344542 - Posted: 9 Mar 2013, 13:43:57 UTC - in response to Message 1344327.

while co2 may not be the cause of global warming it is still undeniable that it is happening.

the question is can we or should we do anything about it.

thankfully the tech. to decide this is near at hand.

weather changes that is it's nature. changing weather without knowing the

concupiscence's is foolish. and you are right Kyoto it about money for special

interest's not global warming.

undoubtedly world wide weather modification will happen and when it does i hope

that some means can be found to made it fair.

____________

NickProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 3943
Credit: 2,007,354
RAC: 996
United Kingdom
Message 1344765 - Posted: 9 Mar 2013, 23:43:07 UTC

No one denies global warming exists and there's nothing that man can do to
stop it. Both global warming and cooling has been natures work and not man's so
just sit back and let nature run it's course.

____________
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 42 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL

Copyright © 2014 University of California