Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL (#2)


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL (#2)

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 29 · Next
Author Message
Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,258,417
RAC: 1,339
United Kingdom
Message 1482966 - Posted: 28 Feb 2014, 22:58:30 UTC
Last modified: 28 Feb 2014, 23:02:20 UTC

So, the discussions and heat continue...

Is it all FUD and conspiracy? Is it all a dream? Does it matter how whatever ice melts? And all the while, the free Markets and Industry just Must Produce (and pollute) more and more and more...

All without any adverse effects?... Really??

So who is dreaming?

Or can we Blindly Trust In God that nothing for our world can change?...


The last post on the previous thread gives an apt summary of part of the sentiment on these forums at least:

... the underlying warming since the last Ice age and the documented warming since 1650 its obvious that the climate is warming with or without man made influences. I am not a denier either but see the evidence for what it is, without the hysteria. Are humans making things warmer, yes. To the degree the "warmists" say, probably not.


So... Really all of no consequence?


And all despite or in spite of over 200 years of uncontested science that shows what can happen?...

Or is this all just a game of Politics and Industry and the common person be Damned?


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)

Мишель
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 1920
Credit: 53,662
RAC: 157
Netherlands
Message 1482970 - Posted: 28 Feb 2014, 23:07:57 UTC

I am not a denier either but see the evidence for what it is, without the hysteria.

Interesting. But before I believe you, please state your credentials. Are you a climate expert? How many articles about climate change have you published in peer reviewed journals? Or in other words, what gives you the authority on the interpretation of the evidence that makes it better than of everyone else?

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2645
Credit: 1,180,846
RAC: 52
United States
Message 1482971 - Posted: 28 Feb 2014, 23:08:07 UTC - in response to Message 1482966.
Last modified: 28 Feb 2014, 23:08:52 UTC

Martin Luther

Never said we don't pollute the planet. Never said that there are no adverse effects to pollution. What has been said is than Man's 3% contribution to what is now less than .04 % of our atmosphere is not causing any warming effect that warrants any concern.

Far better to worry about ground and sea water pollution from sewage and scrubber sludge as well as atmospheric pollution from fly ash from China and India. Far better to spend your energies there than on some nonsense science.

another good rant from Daddio

Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1627
Credit: 940,050
RAC: 178
United States
Message 1483022 - Posted: 1 Mar 2014, 1:11:31 UTC - in response to Message 1482966.
Last modified: 1 Mar 2014, 1:14:51 UTC

So, the discussions and heat continue...

Is it all FUD and conspiracy? Is it all a dream? Does it matter how whatever ice melts? And all the while, the free Markets and Industry just Must Produce (and pollute) more and more and more...

All without any adverse effects?... Really??

So who is dreaming?

Or can we Blindly Trust In God that nothing for our world can change?...


The last post on the previous thread gives an apt summary of part of the sentiment on these forums at least:

... the underlying warming since the last Ice age and the documented warming since 1650 its obvious that the climate is warming with or without man made influences. I am not a denier either but see the evidence for what it is, without the hysteria. Are humans making things warmer, yes. To the degree the "warmists" say, probably not.


So... Really all of no consequence?


And all despite or in spite of over 200 years of uncontested science that shows what can happen?...

Or is this all just a game of Politics and Industry and the common person be Damned?


All on our only one planet,
Martin

Martin,

In your reply to ihenderson's post in the last thread, which was a reply to my post:

you stated

So... Really all of no consequence?


At no point did he say 'no consequences', nor did I. He states that he thinks humanity is having an effect on global climate, as did I. What he DID say was

Are humans making things warmer, yes. To the degree the "warmists" say, probably not.


If you are going to poke holes in other's posts, kindly poke them based on what they posted. Please do not blindly retreat into Warmist dogma.

In an attempt to discredit scientists who do not agree, Warmists like to point out some connection to 'big oil' and then say 'follow the money'. I invite all the adherents of Warmism to do the same to their own Prophets and Priests. Starting at the Chief Prophet of Warmism, old Al Gore himself. Mr. Gore runs a business on AGW, and furthermore he has published book(s) on the subject. The more hysteria he can fan up over AGW, the more he personally profits. All the while he travels all over the world on his private jet (with a huge carbon footprint) making personal appearances and giving speeches (for, of course, high fees) to further his Warmist cause, the hypocrit. The Prophet Profits. Follow the money and power.

Next, look at current government officials. They are salivating over the additional power, control, and tax money (which they get to decide how to spend) they will get from any one (or more) tax schemes they are designing to combat AGW. Will one (or more) of these tax schemes get passed? Highly likely. Will it do any good in helping against AGW? Highly unlikely. An example, current Sec. of State of the USA John Kerry. He just spent a week taking a global trip speaking at several conferences in support of the AGW agenda. Just his transportation for the week had a carbon footprint about 2/3rds of the average US Citizen's carbon footprint for the entire year. Again, hypocrit. Why couldn't he have attended the conferences and given his speeches by teleconference (at just a tiny fraction of the carbon footprint)? Blargh. Once again, follow the money and power.

Next, let us look at ALL of those climate scientists. Back in the old days, there were some climate scientists. Then came the Ice Age!!! scare of the 1970s (when elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 was held to be a good thing, holding off the upcoming Ice Age!!!). Then came the AGW scare a couple of decades later. These two scares greatly swelled the ranks of the Climate Scientists. Scientists tend to work either in industry (like, for instance, "big-oil" as many term it) or in academia (where they depend on grants to support their research that they have to do so they can 'publish' so they can keep their positions). Climate scientists are no exception. They depend on either industry or academia for their livelihoods. Just as you say that many of the big-oil bunch skew their results to discredit AGW, so too do the academic bunch skew their results to support AGW. Both sides know on which side their bread is buttered. The big-oil bunch depends on continued use of oil which means no AGW crisis at all. The academic bunch depends on the existence of the AGW crisis to justify their grants. Neither side will publish results that contradict their "employer's" best interests. They are not going to bite the hand that feeds them. Follow the money.

Hopefully, we will have a few scientists that can make sense of the mess without being corrupted by it. Otherwise all we are ever going to have is a religious jihad between the adherents of the First Church of the Almighty Oil-Barrel, and the adherents of the United Warmist Church and nothing will ever change.

Don't like my tactics against the Warmists? Stop using the same tactics against those that might not totally agree with the Warmists.

That said, (as I have said before), My opinion is that there is some element of AGW at work. However, the unsavory tactics used by the Warmists combined with rather glaring holes in their models of the climate cause me to doubt that things will be as bad as the Warmists claim. I hope that I am right. Should we risk the deaths of a small percentage of people through diminished bad effects? Or, if the Warmists are right and we are facing a species (ours) ending chain of events, should we employ the only possible cure and cease using all oil/gas/coal immediately then try to ride out the bad effects from the damage we have already done? On the one hand, should we just accept the deaths of a few people, and the inconvenience of some more? Or, on the Warmist hand, should we turn out the lights 'cause the party is over, ending civilization in the developed world as the pitiful few survivors must retreat back to pre- industrial-revolution subsistence level farming as most people die of starvation, thirst, and disease? Also, the developing nations of the world would have to forever abandon their dreams of 'the good life' as they too de-urbanize and return to subsistence level farming, but they wouldn't be as screwed as the developed west would be.

What do we do? First we need to get rid of the big-oil/Warmist religious jihad. Then, we need to proceed with some *ethical*, correct science until we understand the problem better. Especially in the area of 'how bad is it going to be'. We NEED to be double dang sure that we are headed to a human extinction point before we pull the plug on civilization. Currently, with the state of the science on the subject, especially given the distortions and biases on both sides, we just aren't yet sure enough. Don't want the cure to be worse than the disease, especially since we are discussing something as important as human life.

Martin, some of your other environmentalist postings have a lot of merit. But on the subject of AGW... err... 'Human caused Global Climate CHANGE'... I think it is your side spreading the FUD and doing the conspiracy. We need to figure it out, quickly, and the Warmist... activities are only hindering doing so.

ihenderson
Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 00
Posts: 50
Credit: 585,878
RAC: 640
United States
Message 1483036 - Posted: 1 Mar 2014, 2:12:21 UTC

So... Really all of no consequence?

The consequences IMHO are severe due to global warming, but this warming is a mix of human and natural phenomena. As pointed out below we cant stop the human component without a disruption in lifestyle that will not be tolerable to the majority whoever that may be. Even if we did I am not sure it would make much difference.

The sea level will probable rise close to the historical maximum level, I would assume that to be in the tens of meters, not inches.

The rainfall patterns will shift. Things will change and maybe not for the better.
____________

Profile CLYDEProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 2773
Credit: 25,224,646
RAC: 28,629
United States
Message 1483080 - Posted: 1 Mar 2014, 5:27:27 UTC

If the Warmest are correct about Dire, and Immediate, Man-Made Climate consequence's, why not just BAN the use of...

But no they don't. They propose Tax, Tax, and Tax. Where do these Tax's go? Who controls the Tax Money Distributions? Which 'Green' Industries receive them? How much did these 'Green' Industries contribute to the Politicians who gave them the money?

Ban the use of... Saves the planet.

Tax the use of... Corruption.

The above does not excuse Big Oil, Big Coal, Big...

Just shows 'Green' is NO better.
____________

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 9121
Credit: 37,592,733
RAC: 34,817
United States
Message 1483099 - Posted: 1 Mar 2014, 6:33:38 UTC - in response to Message 1482970.

I am not a denier either but see the evidence for what it is, without the hysteria.

Interesting. But before I believe you, please state your credentials. Are you a climate expert? How many articles about climate change have you published in peer reviewed journals? Or in other words, what gives you the authority on the interpretation of the evidence that makes it better than of everyone else?

I could just as well ask you the very same question.
____________

Old James

Мишель
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 1920
Credit: 53,662
RAC: 157
Netherlands
Message 1483135 - Posted: 1 Mar 2014, 8:32:53 UTC - in response to Message 1483099.

I could just as well ask you the very same question.

I don't presume to be able to interpret the evidence in any meaningful way because I'm not a climate expert. I simply go with what the experts say, which is that climate change is most likely caused by humanity.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32632
Credit: 14,506,903
RAC: 13,757
United Kingdom
Message 1483162 - Posted: 1 Mar 2014, 9:33:20 UTC

Without it seems bearing in mind that at the moment, climate change is a hot topic (pun intended) and it is universally seen to be "cool", "trendy", and "in" to support it and jump on the bandwagon. Experts and scientists have to go with the flow to maintain their funding and credibility. The day they come out with a radical theory that is not immediately provable or popular, is when they get sidelined by their peers. I do not simply go with what the experts say, I will listen to what they have to say first, because they most likely will know more than I do, then I will make up my own mind, bearing in mind all the other factors involved.

It is well known that the earth had had severe climatic changes in the past consisting of ice ages and mini ice ages, all part of long term and short term cycles. The evidence at the moment suggests that there is global warming going on, nobody is really disputing that, but you can find data that says it is minimal, or conversely even catastrophic. You can even find data that says it isn't happening. I don't doubt for one minute that mankind isn't helping by what he is doing, but there is no evidence that it is having any great impact, on what is most likely happening anyway despite man.

The validity of Scientific evidence has got noting to do with any of it. If you are a climate change supporter you will choose the evidence that supports your views, if you are not, then you will cherry pick the evidence that supports your version of events. Have you noticed how vociferous the save the planet peeps are? Maybe their parents were part of the CND activists marching at Aldermaston in the 1960's. Half of them never really knew what it was all about, but I expect it felt good waving banners at the police. Not much different to the climate change lot today. And of course the politicians just love it, it's a popular vote winner when you have three important elections in the next 2 years.

Мишель
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 1920
Credit: 53,662
RAC: 157
Netherlands
Message 1483168 - Posted: 1 Mar 2014, 9:56:29 UTC - in response to Message 1483162.

Without it seems bearing in mind that at the moment, climate change is a hot topic (pun intended) and it is universally seen to be "cool", "trendy", and "in" to support it and jump on the bandwagon. Experts and scientists have to go with the flow to maintain their funding and credibility. The day they come out with a radical theory that is not immediately provable or popular, is when they get sidelined by their peers. I do not simply go with what the experts say, I will listen to what they have to say first, because they most likely will know more than I do, then I will make up my own mind, bearing in mind all the other factors involved.

I wonder how many people here would lose it if someone replaced climate change with evolution and would argue along the same lines. How is it possibly that so many of you will gang up on people who say that evolution is nonsense or who claim they are 'evolution skeptics' because all those evolution scientists are just saying it because they wanna keep their research grants, but will accept such rhetorical nonsense when it comes to climate change.

The validity of Scientific evidence has got noting to do with any of it. If you are a climate change supporter you will choose the evidence that supports your views, if you are not, then you will cherry pick the evidence that supports your version of events.

Again, just replace the words climate change with evolution and see what happens.

And of course the politicians just love it, it's a popular vote winner when you have three important elections in the next 2 years.

Oh yeah, I guess thats why every politician these days doesn't run on a platform for more renewable energy and reducing their countries carbon footprint. I guess that is why so many politicians are openly climate change skeptics or downright climate change deniers. All because supporting the idea of climate change is a popular fad that is going to get them votes. Not.

Profile CLYDEProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 2773
Credit: 25,224,646
RAC: 28,629
United States
Message 1483237 - Posted: 1 Mar 2014, 14:05:06 UTC - in response to Message 1483168.
Last modified: 1 Mar 2014, 14:07:51 UTC

I wonder how many people here would lose it if someone replaced climate change with evolution and would argue along the same lines. How is it possibly that so many.

Climate Change Debate = Evolution 'Debate'?

A Warmest , attacking Non-Warmest with the above ridicules analogy, shows to this 'Man-Made - Severe Climate Change Agnostic': The shallowness, and as has been mentioned, the almost religious nature of the Warmest argument.

Could it be that the Warmest and Anti-Evolution people, are just 'different side of the same coin'?
____________

Мишель
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 1920
Credit: 53,662
RAC: 157
Netherlands
Message 1483249 - Posted: 1 Mar 2014, 14:29:24 UTC - in response to Message 1483237.

Climate Change Debate = Evolution 'Debate'?

A Warmest , attacking Non-Warmest with the above ridicules analogy, shows to this 'Man-Made - Severe Climate Change Agnostic': The shallowness, and as has been mentioned, the almost religious nature of the Warmest argument.

Is it that ridiculous? The science is absolutely clear on both evolution and climate change, yet with both 'debates' we have people proclaiming to be skeptics, arguing against the overwhelming scientific evidence and scientific consensus. The overwhelming majority of the people that argue against one or both theories are not experts in the fields, and in both cases they come up with arguments that range from completely ignorant of science in general to severely misinformed to misplaced skepticism against science.

The only difference is that a lot of 'climate skeptics' (especially here) are not skeptical when it comes to the evolution debate. I find it curious though why these skeptics have absolutely no problem listening to the scientists when it comes to evolution, but reject it when it deals with climate change.

Profile CLYDEProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 2773
Credit: 25,224,646
RAC: 28,629
United States
Message 1483262 - Posted: 1 Mar 2014, 15:18:28 UTC - in response to Message 1483249.

Climate Change Debate = Evolution 'Debate'?

A Warmest , attacking Non-Warmest with the above ridicules analogy, shows to this 'Man-Made - Severe Climate Change Agnostic': The shallowness, and as has been mentioned, the almost religious nature of the Warmest argument.

Is it that ridiculous? The science is absolutely clear on both evolution and climate change, yet with both 'debates' we have people proclaiming to be skeptics, arguing against the overwhelming scientific evidence and scientific consensus. The overwhelming majority of the people that argue against one or both theories are not experts in the fields, and in both cases they come up with arguments that range from completely ignorant of science in general to severely misinformed to misplaced skepticism against science.

The only difference is that a lot of 'climate skeptics' (especially here) are not skeptical when it comes to the evolution debate. I find it curious though why these skeptics have absolutely no problem listening to the scientists when it comes to evolution, but reject it when it deals with climate change.

Very Silly.

Can a Warmest enter this debate based upon Scientific Differences and not personal attacks.

Please!
____________

Мишель
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 1920
Credit: 53,662
RAC: 157
Netherlands
Message 1483263 - Posted: 1 Mar 2014, 15:20:23 UTC - in response to Message 1483262.

Very Silly.

Can a Warmest enter this debate based upon Scientific Differences and not personal attacks.

Please!

How am I attacking you personally?

Profile CLYDEProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 2773
Credit: 25,224,646
RAC: 28,629
United States
Message 1483282 - Posted: 1 Mar 2014, 16:07:48 UTC - in response to Message 1483263.

Very Silly.

Can a Warmest enter this debate based upon Scientific Differences and not personal attacks.

Please!

How am I attacking you personally?


Well.. As a skeptic (of most things), and having you equate skepticism with Evolutional Denial...

I understand, and I hope you do, that there are always a small amount of 'crazy's in every debate.

But to equate, with a 'broad brush', Climate Denial with Evolutional Denial, I do take that as a personal attack against, not only myself, but ALL others who do not agree with your position.

Upon what foundation can you make the statement that All/Most/Large Minority
of skeptic's thoughts, are from some Evolutional Denial foundation?

It is akin to accusing others of being a Communist/Nazi/Bigot, etc. for disagreeing within a Scientific Debate.

Are we pushing the 'Red X'?
____________

Мишель
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 1920
Credit: 53,662
RAC: 157
Netherlands
Message 1483297 - Posted: 1 Mar 2014, 16:40:33 UTC - in response to Message 1483282.

Well.. As a skeptic (of most things), and having you equate skepticism with Evolutional Denial...

I understand, and I hope you do, that there are always a small amount of 'crazy's in every debate.

But to equate, with a 'broad brush', Climate Denial with Evolutional Denial, I do take that as a personal attack against, not only myself, but ALL others who do not agree with your position.

Well, you obviously are not an evolution denier. And that was the thing that surprised me in the first place. We got two theories that are both accepted as 'correct' by the scientific community due to the overwhelming amount of data and evidence, yet we see a group of people that accepts that evidence without to much difficulty for one theory, but not for the other. It surprises me that in this whole debate that I could substitute global warming with evolution, and I would get a pretty standard 'evolution is wrong' thread. Only most of the members that are climate skeptics would then firmly move to the side of evolution, when in scientific terms global warming is as much an accepted fact as evolution.

Upon what foundation can you make the statement that All/Most/Large Minority
of skeptic's thoughts, are from some Evolutional Denial foundation?

What, sheer ignorance and misinformedness? The idea that there are valid competing theories or that global warming lacks the evidence to make it a valid theory? Yeah, that are things I see in the standard 'evolution isn't real' threads as well. Either people have no idea what the theory stands for or how it works, or they believe that ID/creationism are valid competing scientific theories that deserve equal amounts of consideration, or they claim that evolution lacks evidence because no one has seen evolution happen right in front of their eyes or missing fossils or something dumb like that.

It is akin to accusing others of being a Communist/Nazi/Bigot, etc. for disagreeing within a Scientific Debate.

Two of the three are mass murderers. Would you say that calling someone an evolution denier is similar to calling someone a mass murderer?

Are we pushing the 'Red X'?

I never do such a thing. I respect your opinions even if I totally disagree with them. I hope you extend me the same courtesy.

Bubba Winkerbean
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 65,925,669
RAC: 348,655
Message 1483314 - Posted: 1 Mar 2014, 17:53:19 UTC
Last modified: 22 Mar 2014, 0:19:09 UTC

--

anniet
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 5045
Credit: 229,602
RAC: 376
United Kingdom
Message 1483470 - Posted: 2 Mar 2014, 3:18:54 UTC - in response to Message 1483314.

Let me just say this is just one of many topics being pushed to help the ruling class fool some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the time in the interest of concentrating more and more power among themselves.


Very good point - but ALL sides of this debate are being pushed at once. Classic divide and rule... and we're all taking the bait. Bickering amongst ourselves is a pastime for fools. We need to stop furthering their agenda and concentrate on the things we can actually agree on. If we do that, we may find that our differences are of very little consequence.

It may be presumptuous of me - but having read through the postings on this and other threads - I am struck by what seems to me general consensus on a desire amongst everyone to have a cleaner planet in which to raise our children and to have a rich and diverse legacy of fauna and flora to bequeath to them. Whether climate change/ global warming is a fact or not - none of us can deny that of all the species that inhabit this planet, our environmental impact on it has been by far the greatest.

Whilst we've been nitpicking - advances in clean/renewable energy for all have become the lucrative intellectual propert of the few. Quite how we reverse that I don't know - but we never will unless we find a common starting point. We can.

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 9121
Credit: 37,592,733
RAC: 34,817
United States
Message 1483471 - Posted: 2 Mar 2014, 3:22:38 UTC

Nobody on this planet is innocent of not leaving a carbon footprint. Even nature leaves one. Wild fires, Vulcanism,And whatever else nature does.
____________

Old James

anniet
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 5045
Credit: 229,602
RAC: 376
United Kingdom
Message 1483482 - Posted: 2 Mar 2014, 3:54:06 UTC - in response to Message 1483471.

Nobody on this planet is innocent of not leaving a carbon footprint. Even nature leaves one. Wild fires, Vulcanism,And whatever else nature does.



True. Nature, given time, does lock up her carbon, in the form of "carbon sinks" for example - we on the other hand excel at rapidly releasing it all again - then burning it. Pandora eat your heart out.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 29 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL (#2)

Copyright © 2014 University of California