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

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

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 . . . 25 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20000
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1486803 - Posted: 9 Mar 2014, 21:22:40 UTC - in response to Message 1486796.  
Last modified: 9 Mar 2014, 21:37:58 UTC

Yes, there is 'another side' in that there is a commercial and Marketing side of outright lies to take business-with-no-morals, "free market libertarianism", and profits at all costs, all to extreme greed.

And the world and everyone else be damned.

It always amazes me how many people think that this only applies to the "Dark Side", i.e. the oil and coal companies. Yet have the idea that the Wind and solar farm operators are somehow divine beings who only want what is best for humanity and the planet at large.

At least those are usually significantly less polluting.


Big Business is totally agnostic in this matter, they don't care at all, as long as the balance sheet is in the black.

Which is where amoral "Big Business" must be reigned in whereby everyone in the business is directly made responsible with a duty of care to Mankind and the planet. That should add a whole new dimension of realism to some of the business nasties currently perpetrated for such as reckless pollution, pensions fraud, and the cut-costs-and-be-damned disasters such as the ongoing Bhopal (for which people are still ill and dying from the effects and pollution) and many others...


To quote Shakespeare, "Lord what fools these mortals be."

T.A.

Indeed so, except that I'd add the adjective "corrupt" in there...

(And that seems to be a fond phrase of yours...)


All on our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1486803 · Report as offensive
Profile MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 6895
Credit: 6,588,977
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1486811 - Posted: 9 Mar 2014, 22:02:54 UTC

And you are totally correct. This IS a 100% manufactured controversy. Just so when when your electricity bill and general cost of living rises by 200 or more percent, you can get a nice, smug, rosy, warm glow that you are helping to save the planet


Yep. Many Groups found themselves "Losing The Battle" and with 'Climate Change' they Have The PUNCH to Keep Their Causes Alive and WELL FUNDED.

shO Be NIce if We Did nOt have tO PAY sO much fO dere Extreme Results and FAILURES.

fO shO

' '

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!
ID: 1486811 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1486817 - Posted: 9 Mar 2014, 22:29:25 UTC - in response to Message 1486673.  

Anyone who disagrees with the party line is decried by people like you as being funded by Big Oil, Big Coal or Big Whatever and therefore any statement they make is meaningless and worthless.

Well these people are getting paid by large corporations who have a vested interest in as little as possible environmental regulation. Climate change threatens that as it would naturally result in stricter environmental regulations.

What a load of horse manure....

Do you honestly think that the Green lobby is socially and morally pure and pristine ?

As I drive around the country I see many "wind farms". The funny thing is that irrespective of the wind speed, most of the turbines are stationary. Despite this, the owners of these wind farms are being paid by the government just to have them sitting there. When they are turning, the government is paying the owners well above the going rate per kW hour for the "clean and green" energy they produce.

In other words, the owners of the wind farms and solar farms have as bigger vested interest in the debate as any other operator and therefore they will fund the more politically correct research and web sites in order to make sure their income is maintained.

And do you honestly think that the windpower lobby has the same amount of money and resources to their disposal as those big oil corporations? Clearly you do because they have apparently managed to buy 97% of the scientists, as opposed to that measly 3% that are on the skeptics side. Do you honestly think that windfarm lobbies have the income that is capable of buying about 32 times as many scientist and scientific institutions as those absolutely massive multinational oil corporations?


So please, let's stop making an issue of who is funding which research or web site, research is not necessarily invalidated by who is paying for it.

Eh, whoever pays for the research is most definitely a factor when you are looking at an articles validity. Or do you think it was just coincidence that all the science that claimed smoking wasn't bad for you just so happened to be paid for by the Tobacco industry. And don't you think its a little convenient that a website is run by people who claim that pumping more CO2 into the air is good for the world, is funded by companies that are responsible for this and highly dependent on everyone being able to pump as much CO2 into the air as they want?


Let's accept the fact that one side is as corrupt as the other and the actual truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Lets not accept that. First of all, you haven't actually proven that the warmist side is corrupt. Sure, you say that they are supported by windmill lobby and you expect us to believe those are just as powerful as the oil and gas lobby. You expect me to believe that the warmist side has the support of some magical sponsor that actually has enough money to buy 97% of all the climate scientists while the corporate lobby only has enough money and power to buy 3% of them. That argument is ridiculous. And more importantly, you have not provided any form of proof that supports the notion that all the warmist scientific studies were bought by someone with a vested interest in promoting the idea of climate change.

The second bit of your sentence is a fallacy. Just because two groups oppose each other, it doesn't mean the truth must therefor be in the middle. It is very possible that one group is completely correct and the other group just blatantly wrong. Their inability to accept their own wrongness for whatever reason does not mean they can make a compromise.

Sadly, plenty of people think like this, and that is exactly what these skeptics are aiming for. They hope that by pretending that there is not actually a scientific consensus or by pretending that all groups are utterly corrupt and doing it for their own reasons, people think 'the truth is somewhere in the middle'. That paralyzes people, prevents them from taking action, and it gives the people in power a perfect excuse to do nothing. And the climate skeptics win and the planet loses.
ID: 1486817 · Report as offensive
Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 4548
Credit: 35,667,570
RAC: 4
Canada
Message 1486841 - Posted: 10 Mar 2014, 0:22:22 UTC



Earth on track to be hottest in human history: study


Earth is on track to becoming the hottest it has been at any time in the past 11.3 millennia, a period spanning the history of human civilisation, a new study says.

Based on fossil samples and other data collected from 73 sites around the world, scientists have been able to reconstruct the history of the planet's temperature from the end of the last Ice Age around 11,000 years ago to the present.

They have determined the past 10 years have been hotter than 80 per cent of the past 11,300 years.

But virtually all the climate models evaluated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predict Earth's atmosphere will be hotter in the coming decades than at any time since the end of the Ice Age, no matter what greenhouse gas emission scenario is used, the study found.


Byron
ID: 1486841 · Report as offensive
Profile MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 6895
Credit: 6,588,977
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1486850 - Posted: 10 Mar 2014, 0:44:30 UTC

Also, we need to come up with some reliable models on what warmer (and cooler) global average temperatures will do. We need to know just how 'bad' things will get. Remember, in the past, CO2 levels were MUCH higher than they are today. About half a billion years ago, CO2 levels were between 10x and 20x what they are today. (thats 4000 to 8000 ppm). They declined. About 200 million years ago they went back up to around 5x what they are today (thats 2000 ppm). Again, they went down. In both cases, life went on. Likely some species went extinct, but still, life went on.


Yep. Way Way Up, Way Way Down. Way Up, Way Down. Up, then Down. The Result: A Beautiful Earth for HuWoManKind.

It 'is' doing 'as' 'it' always has. Future: A Better mO Beautiful WOrld fO da Next 'Ruling' Species of Earth.

Sweetness.

fO shO

' '

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!
ID: 1486850 · Report as offensive
Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 4548
Credit: 35,667,570
RAC: 4
Canada
Message 1486851 - Posted: 10 Mar 2014, 0:44:47 UTC - in response to Message 1486788.  

Ok Martin I withdraw. I should have learned that having a discussion with you is like debating "I.D" on the existence of God. You just cannot admit there is another side to the argument.

Yes, there is 'another side' in that there is a commercial and Marketing side of outright lies to take business-with-no-morals, "free market libertarianism", and profits at all costs, all to extreme greed.

And the world and everyone else be damned.


What world do you prefer to live in ?

All on our only one planet,
Martin


+1

This whole manufactured controversy will go down as just a shameful part of history as the lobbying by the tobacco industry when science started to show the connection between cigarettes and lung cancer.

The idea that there is a "debate" on the science is a fiction. That is what I find so frustrating.

The only debate left between scientists is if its going to be bad or really bad. I am fed up with the way people decide when to pick and chose which science they will "believe" as if belief has anything to do with science.

I put the deniers in the same class of people who think the moon landing is hoax, who believe in chemtrail conspiracies, who think that 9/11 was an inside job and that aliens killed Kennedy and I am tired of arguing with kooks who can't face reality.


just thanking Es99 and Martin for two thoughtful posts.

Excellent well said

Byron
ID: 1486851 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1486946 - Posted: 10 Mar 2014, 10:29:54 UTC - in response to Message 1486823.  
Last modified: 10 Mar 2014, 10:31:26 UTC

@ Мишель:
Easy. It (at almost 3,000,000 employees) is one of the biggest employers on the planet, if not the biggest. It also has spending of several Trillion US$ per year. And it funds the great majority of the climate research, or at least that done in the USA. The US Government. While it can not be properly called an industry (but listed in the political interest category) it *IS* the big dog in the room. If you want an actual private industry that backs the Warmists, I would say 'Hollywood'. But then, Hollywood usually supports the left-wing elements of the US Government in whatever the issue-of-the-day is (and now it appears to be AGW), so really Hollywood is just another mouthpiece for the US Government on the party-line. I will address the bias(es) of the US Government later.

Yes, it funds perhaps some of the research in the US. However, the US alone does not add up to 97%. Furthermore, the US government is rife with 'skeptics'. Just look at congress. And sure, the US government has a very big budget. But of those trillions of dollars, only a tiny amount goes to scientific research. Of that tiny amount, most of it is spend on Defense, such as DARPA. And of the civilian budget, it is still spread among a number of departments. Really, the budgets we are talking about here are in the few millions, which is not nearly enough to buy 97% of the scientists.

Opposed to that is a multi-billion global industry whose only concern is their own bottom line. And the acceptance of climate change directly threatens their bottom line in the form of tighter environmental regulations. They have the same amount of money or more to spend on scientists as the US government, yet they only manage to buy about 3% of them.

And this is all very interesting, but you haven't shown me any proof. Where is your proof that the US government pays scientists to say that global warming is man made. All you have so far are your own speculation and conjecture on what the US government does, but that does not count as proof.

People are paying for studies on who pays for studies? You kidding me? What a COLOSSAL waste of money. Doesn't ANYONE ever think for themselves any more?

Clearly not such a colossal waste as it pretty clearly showed a link between climate skeptics and big corporate lobby groups.
ID: 1486946 · Report as offensive
Nick
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4344
Credit: 3,313,107
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1486961 - Posted: 10 Mar 2014, 12:32:17 UTC - in response to Message 1486935.  

It doesn't get away from the point that depending upon which side of the fence you stand on, there is "evidence" to say there is or that there isn't global warming going on due to greenhouse effects. Neither side has 100% proof either way. So why argue about it until the cows come home?

Chris, I don't believe that the cows ever did leave home in the first place.
It has not been substantiated that rises in CO2 contribute to global warming.

To this end then it's time everyone put that notion to bed. Human life span is
short when compared to planetary cycle time spans. Yet if the humans life span was
that of a thousand years we would today say, "Global climate change, what the
heck, experienced it all before".....and our ancestors have. When this climate
game has finally played out most men will be poorer for it but richer in
knowledge from it. There is still vast amounts of wealth to me made, by a few
who occupy privilege positions in the world today, from green issues behind
the fallacy that man is killing the planet. If you look at the government
initiatives designed to combat global warming there all for profit in their
making....alarm bells should have been ringing in most peoples ears years ago.

No, it seems the cows had more sense than us for they never left home. They
saw the rain coming so all toddled off in to the barn to keep dry. Us humans
though got caught in the coming rain storm and all cried out, "we got soaked,
why didn't anyone tells us the storm was coming". Lesson, like the cows do,
learn to read from the clouds and don't rely on forecasters, certainly not
where the UK is concerned anyway.

It will take another hundred years before scientist gain a good understanding
of what drives climate change. There will be though many dead end avenues
explored in the mean time as to it's causes. One dead end avenue was CO2,
time to turn back now and study another route. Might find though that
the root cause is something beyond mans control, now that would not surprise
me, for had I been around now for a thousand years I would be saying,
"No sweat, experienced it all before, gov'".
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.
ID: 1486961 · Report as offensive
Nick
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4344
Credit: 3,313,107
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1486970 - Posted: 10 Mar 2014, 13:02:51 UTC
Last modified: 10 Mar 2014, 13:05:15 UTC

Goodly afternoon Chris....

For all, in and around London and the outer suburbs, Nitrogen dioxide.
...Kill diesel, save the humans...or suming' like that anyway.
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.
ID: 1486970 · Report as offensive
Nick
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4344
Credit: 3,313,107
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1486989 - Posted: 10 Mar 2014, 14:31:04 UTC

I feel with diesel it's going to be a case of watch this space...
I do expect to see more government legislation to control the consumption of
this type fuel.....
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.
ID: 1486989 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20000
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1486995 - Posted: 10 Mar 2014, 15:02:44 UTC
Last modified: 10 Mar 2014, 15:03:23 UTC

Sometimes, this thread looks like the convention of the loony bin (trash can) brigade. Blinkered to reality yet selectively (randomly?) picking on isolated scraps of reality in the hope of appearing sane...

Incredible.

How can anyone be honest with themselves when trying to argue that science and physics only work 'sometimes' only as and how they wish to cherry-pick the bits that match their mood for the moment?

Almost insane!


Well folks, sorry to burst your happy-bubbles. The world around you continues to the same rules every day, regardless of which bits of science you might selectively want to play with today...

I wonder if that is why politicians do not like science?...


All on our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1486995 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20000
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1486998 - Posted: 10 Mar 2014, 15:11:51 UTC
Last modified: 10 Mar 2014, 15:12:30 UTC

Is this where some of the richest are now feeling themselves rich enough to exercise a little conscience and care?


Tim Cook tells climate change sceptics to ditch Apple shares

Apple chief executive Tim Cook has bluntly told climate change sceptic investors to ditch their stocks if they do not support his pledge to slash greenhouse gas emissions, in the latest signal that the company will continue to invest in sustainable energy.

According to witnesses at Apple’s annual meeting on Friday, Cook became visibly angry when questioned by a radical right-wing think tank about the profitability of investing in renewable energy.

Under Cook’s leadership Apple has stepped up its commitment to curbing its environmental impact...



Richard Branson tells climate deniers to 'get out of the way'

Virgin Group chairman and founder, Sir Richard Branson, has said businesses should "stand up" to climate change deniers and they should "get out of our way"...


And perhaps is this one climate-denial funded group also getting worried enough that they too will get their own behinds cooked along with everyone else?...

Global Warming Policy Foundation optimism is unjustified, but the group admits that climate change is serious

GWPF has released a biased report on the subject of climate sensitivity, but it acknowledges the dangerous path we're on

The UK anti-climate policy advocacy group Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has published a report written by Nic Lewis and Marcel Crok claiming "the IPCC hid the good news" regarding climate sensitivity (how much the climate will warm in response to the increased greenhouse effect). ...

The report itself is essentially a commentary and includes no new information. It boils down to Lewis and Crok trying to make the case that climate sensitivity is on the lower end of the IPCC estimated range. The report represents a very selective and biased review of the scientific literature on the subject. Recent papers by Gavin Schmidt and Drew Shindell at NASA, not considered in the GWPF report, entirely contradict its conclusions, for example. As climate scientist Steven Sherwood described it,

"The report is standard cherry-picking. ... relying very heavily on a few strands of evidence that seem to point toward lower sensitivity while ignoring all the evidence pointing to higher sensitivity."

However, the good news is that the report is consistent with the 97 percent expert consensus on human-caused global warming. It acknowledges that global warming will continue as long as humans continue increasing the greenhouse effect, ... As climate scientist Ed Hawkins at the University of Reading also noted,

"Remarkably for a report published by the GWPF, the authors agree with mainstream climate scientists that significant further warming is expected ... It is great to see the GWPF accepting that business-as-usual means significant further warming is expected. Now we can move the debate to what to do about it."

That being said, the conclusions of the report are poorly justified...



So... Two positive bits of industrial conscience. However there is still the rest of the businesses-with-no-morals and pollute us all to damnation...

All on our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1486998 · Report as offensive
Profile Byron Leigh Hatch @ team Carl Sagan
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 4548
Credit: 35,667,570
RAC: 4
Canada
Message 1487005 - Posted: 10 Mar 2014, 15:34:21 UTC

CO2 traps heat:

According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites
ID: 1487005 · Report as offensive
Nick
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4344
Credit: 3,313,107
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1487024 - Posted: 10 Mar 2014, 16:36:35 UTC - in response to Message 1486998.  

Richard Branson tells climate deniers to 'get out of the way'

How truly green is thy valley, Mr Branson?
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.
ID: 1487024 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20000
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1487025 - Posted: 10 Mar 2014, 16:42:52 UTC - in response to Message 1487024.  
Last modified: 10 Mar 2014, 16:45:47 UTC

How truly green is thy valley, Mr Branson?

Have you nothing better to add than pseudo-religious cynicism?

You missed out on "He who can cast the first stone" gibberish.


So, we can assume you remain stubborn in your disbelief of the world around you? All for no useful discussion other than your personal 'wish-claims' of "it can't be so"...?


All on our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1487025 · Report as offensive
Nick
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4344
Credit: 3,313,107
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1487028 - Posted: 10 Mar 2014, 16:55:10 UTC - in response to Message 1487025.  

How truly green is thy valley, Mr Branson?

Have you nothing better to add than pseudo-religious cynicism?

You missed out on "He who can cast the first stone" gibberish.


So, we can assume you remain stubborn in your disbelief of the world around you? All for no useful discussion other than your personal 'wish-claims' of "it can't be so"...?


All on our only one planet,
Martin

It's just that, Martin I clearly happen to know more about all this than you do.
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.
ID: 1487028 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20000
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1487054 - Posted: 10 Mar 2014, 17:55:26 UTC - in response to Message 1487028.  

It's just that, Martin I clearly happen to know more about all this than you do.

So that we don't do you an injustice with whatever assumptions... Would you care to explain your angle?


All on our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1487054 · Report as offensive
Nick
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4344
Credit: 3,313,107
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1487107 - Posted: 10 Mar 2014, 19:03:00 UTC - in response to Message 1487054.  

It's just that, Martin I clearly happen to know more about all this than you do.

So that we don't do you an injustice with whatever assumptions... Would you care to explain your angle?


All on our only one planet,
Martin

I don't have an angle, an angle is for those who think they know something so
follow it religiously without actually knowing if they are correct.
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.
ID: 1487107 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20000
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1487131 - Posted: 10 Mar 2014, 19:37:33 UTC - in response to Message 1487107.  

It's just that, Martin I clearly happen to know more about all this than you do.

So that we don't do you an injustice with whatever assumptions... Would you care to explain your angle?


All on our only one planet,
Martin

I don't have an angle, an angle is for those who think they know something so
follow it religiously without actually knowing if they are correct.

So... Yet more innuendo and bluster and nothing more tangible than random personal opinion (and personal attack rather than discussion).

Again: Care to explain what your clearly greater knowledge actually "is"?...

All on our only planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1487131 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20000
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1487172 - Posted: 10 Mar 2014, 21:10:51 UTC - in response to Message 1486797.  
Last modified: 10 Mar 2014, 21:14:56 UTC

Please name your best two examples that we can examine in a little detail.

OK, #16, #32 and #135

The link to the SS page is at the top of my post. The numbers refer to the points in the SS page.

T.A.

Will consider and link the first two. I can let you expand on that third one to see if you can press a convincing case.

So that's one set of work for you vs the two threads of work for me.


(Note how Denialists and armchair critics can never be bothered to offer any helpful links or any useful links at all? Yet, they are very happy to see everyone else run around the web for them... Part of their Denialist game?)

So, from the T.A. Message 1486251:

#16) Neglects to mention that temperatures were higher higher 2000 years ago and up to 2 deg C than the 1934-1960 and in the north, up to 4 deg C higher during the [Watts Up With That?:] Medieval Warm Period

What and where and so what?

There is the myopic view that seizes upon just the small part of the world, meanwhile ignoring the rest of the planet. Such is the difference between weather (local for a locality and changes day by day) and that of climate (longer term averaged over a wide area of the planet).

And then there is the [Watts Up With That?:] Medieval Warm Period which opens with the punchline:

“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” – George Orwell, 1984

That nicely sets the tone for leading into a "conspiracy theory" which is then made 'authentic' by taking the reader on a random but selective wander around the globe for selected 'warm events' to then end on the final triumph of fiction:

It is therefore not surprising that there are influences on the climate, which can by far exceed the CO2 as a driver of climate variability. This hypothesis is massively supported by the observations made during the last 10 years. Finally, we have been experiencing no increase since 2002, the temperatures have dropped slightly [26]. And that even though the emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels in exactly the same period increased to previously unmatched dimensions.

That all sounds very plausible? So yea... It just must be some strange conspiracy! Really??!... And I really like the use of the phrase "unmatched dimensions" to end on a note suggesting the supposed 'unknown'...

Note how there is no good explanation for why thousands of years of Philosophy and Science would be sacrificed now for a conspiracy. Further, nothing is offered as an explanation for what greater "influences on the climate" are shaping our world. Might those 'greater influences' be industrial politics?...

Any believable science report will always clearly explain the significant factors. The non-explanation for the last paragraph shows that piece to be on the same level as propaganda.


For contrast, try the far less exciting trip around the globe for the "Medieval Warm Period" as given by Wikipedia: Medieval Warm Period. That lists a much more varied picture where some regions were warmer, some colder, some wetter, some drier. That all suggests a shift in ocean circulation and weather patterns. Overall, that says little about average global temperature. (For some regions, you may be able to claim a temporary change in climate for the decade long or more wider events.)


A good summary of the arguments surrounding the "Medieval Warm Period" is given on the skepticalscience: Medieval Warm Period compared and sounds nothing like as conspiratorial (or as 'exciting'). But then, that article is what T.A. is questioning...

A more detailed summary is given on skepticalscience: Medieval Warm Period compared (intermediate level) which shows some good charts/diagrams to compare then and now... The spread of cool spots generally offset the spread of hot spots seen.

There is also a small warming effect from the sun's activity and a lack of volcanic activity at that time. However, those effects are very much greatly smaller than the warming effect we are directly measuring now due to the heat trapping effects of CO2 and the consequent effects. (Reminder: CO2 concentration 'modulates/controls' other effects that together trap a proportion of re-radiated heat from the earth's surface.)


From elsewhere, a good and blunt summary is given by an article published by the American Meteorological Society 2011:

SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CLIMATE IN MEDIEVAL TIMES REVISITED (pdf)

That highlights more the disruption to our weather systems and local 'climate' by just a very modest change in how much of the sun's heat is captured by our planet.

And yet we are now (recklessly) forcing much greater climate forcing for the world by our industrial-scale pollution and wide-scale change of land use than was ever wrought by a medieval period change in volcanic activity...


But please do not take my word for it. Please read around further for yourself. But also please note whether the source you are reading is scientific, commentary, or scientific-like parody or vested-interest propaganda. (The contrast between Mr Watt vs Wikipedia gives a good example.)


All on our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1487172 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 . . . 25 · Next

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


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.