Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Groin guru]

Misogyny, male rage and the words men use to describe Greta Thunberg

Greta Thunberg’s critics say the climate activist is unstable, hysterical and mentally ill. That’s because she challenges the view that the world is theirs to conquer.

theconversation.com

Which is your choice from the usual ragey grab-bag?

* Mentally ill?
* Young?
* Misbehaving?
* Weird?
* Emotional?
* Manipulated? *BING BING BING*

Well I'm shocked. It's us men that are the problem. I'm surprised they didn't go the extra yard and say it was white males.

An Associate Professor in Media (Camilla Nelson...lol. Her history in the Conversation tells you all you need to know. Praising Clem Ford and talking about gender stereotypes and toys) and a Lecturer in English...two credible sources for such an issue as this The Conversation must have been struggling because they couldn't even find someone in the appropriate field to tie this story too. Or no one in the field was compelled enough to think it was an issue.

Notice how they selectively only mention autism and now that is not linked to mental illness. What about the other issues she is dealing with?

What about the issues her mum discussed in her book 'Scenes from the Heart':

Greta is eleven years old and has gone two months without eating. Her heart rate and blood pressure show clear signs of starvation. She has stopped speaking to anyone but her parents and younger sister, Beata.

After years of depression, eating disorders, and anxiety attacks, she finally receives a medical diagnosis: Asperger’s syndrome, high-functioning autism, and OCD. She also suffers from selective mutism—which explains why she sometimes can’t speak to anyone outside her closest family.

Greta's mum expressed concerns for her two daughters on several occasions throughout the book. But of course, we'll ignore these issues. We're just men, what would we know...

 

[its free real estate]

Millenarian cults have always had their magical, precocious children. Greta Thunberg almost seems like an invention, as if the Fearless Girl statue was a golem that came to life. She is not the problem, progressive worship of her is. It is, in a word, deranged.

 

[Snake_Baker]

She inadvertently facilitates denialism.

 

[madmug]

In the Climate Change arguing thread someone asked if I had a science background. I answered them here #317. I didn't do much study on climate science though and certainly didn't major in it. So I'm not qualified to publish a journal article on the issue but neither were many of the IPCC's famous 2,500. A large number of them weren't climate scientists. Many of them were just politico-bureaucrats & green activists.

I wouldn't normally ask this because I don't see it as being relevant to commenting on the issue on a football forum, but since you've asked me, what's your science background? Just for the sake of interest alone.

For me.

I have no particular Climate skills save a science based degree. I'm certainly no academic.

I try & differentiate the 'noise' from both ends of the spectrum. I tend to look at reputable science based organisations & actual Climate based experts for my information.

Yes I am always 'skeptical' when looking at science issues. That's important.

However I see a real difference between that & the way 'some' argue the subject.

Climate Change is real & is Global. Sure we'll see local differences in its effects. That seems to be an important point that is often 'overlooked'. Also that local variation in various ecosystems. So although change is variable in such a large & complex system, the data points to an inevitable outcome, a raise is temperatures above what might 'naturally' be expected.

Mans increasing use & release of carbon into what is a finely balanced but seasonally variable system, although relatively small, appears to be enough to unbalance that Carbon cycle system enough to rapidly affect the climate.

In a nutshell, that's it.

What do we do? Head in sand is no answer. Panic? No, but FFS recognise the facts & our best science based view of the problem.

We need to address them now. Permanent damage is happening now.

 

[madmug]

It's a discipline of mindboggling complexity.

There needs to be a lot more basic chemistry experimentation shown to the public in order for them to grasp the impacts of what is evolving here.

No, the basic chemistry is well known. Many people, pro & con, wouldn't know a chemistry experiment if they fell over it. I mean, we do know the serious problem of smoking, why do people still do it? Its human nature & the ease of denial when it contradicts ones basic belief parameters.

Ask a teacher how hard it is to change habits. I had occasion to educate people/staff on aspects of our job & lives. its hard to encourage change. Look at exercise & food. We're killing ourselves & filling expensive hospitals. How do we change that level of behaviour?

With CC Its the deliberate attacking of the science, politicisation of science, obfuscation & deliberate denial by some people.

That's the problem.

Maybe if more people promoted the benefits of investing in new technologies & more sustainable living practises, ie personal, community, economic & generational benefits, we'd get somewhere.

Of course, their are the vested interests. That's a whole other problem

 

[Snake_Baker]

Go away

 

[woota]

Go away

negged

 

[Crankitup]

For me.

I have no particular Climate skills save a science based degree. I'm certainly no academic.

I try & differentiate the 'noise' from both ends of the spectrum. I tend to look at reputable science based organisations & actual Climate based experts for my information.

Yes I am always 'skeptical' when looking at science issues. That's important.

Agreed. No problem with any of that at all.

Climate Change is real ....

You can repeat that mantra all you like. It says as much as saying 'weather is real'. The climate is in a constant state of flux without man's help. It was warmer during the Medieval Warming Period than it is now and civilization flourished. The oceans didn't rise in the way they are predicting now. They grew crops in Greenland. The earth has moved into and out of ice ages without any input from man at all.

10 years ago when I could last be bothered to spend the time to combat the myths associated with what was then called global warming, the favourite subject was melting arctic ice and the risk of polar bear populations plummeting due to drowning. This despite the fact that polar bears have webbed feet, can stay underwater for more than two minutes and swim up to 100 miles without stopping. I had to point out at the time that ...

Oops! Arctic sea ice underestimated by 193,000 square miles
February 21, 3:42 PM - Denver Weather Examiner - Tony Hake

The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reported that faulty satellite data was responsible for it underreporting the amount of Arctic sea ice by an area the size of California.

Beginning in early January, “sensor drift” caused an underestimation of ice that grew until the error was finally caught in the mid-February. Internet visitors who look to the NSIDC for data sent emails to the center and, “it became clear that there was a significant problem—sea-ice-covered regions were showing up as open ocean.”

I then pointed out (this was in 2009) that Antarctic Sea Ice levels were increasing. They were at their highest levels since satellites first started monitoring ice levels (40 years ago). 95% of the world's polar ice is in the Antarctic too BTW. Arctic ice advances and recedes over decades. 2007 saw a minimum in Arctic ice cover in the relatively short period that it's been monitored using satellites. 2008 saw the most rapid growth in Arctic ice cover in that same period (of monitoring history) and Arctic ice cover was back to the average it has over that period by early 2009.

We've already seen that humans have trouble measuring temperature properly, they struggle to measure ice coverage, are responsible for biases in computer modelling and the list goes on.

We need to address them now. Permanent damage is happening now.

Give me three examples of permanent damage that human CO2 production (which is a miniscule amount compared to CO2 from natural sources) is causing. It shouldn't be too hard. Here's a list of over 600 things global warming has been blamed for in the past.

100 million years ago there was (according to currently accepted timescales) six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was not much different from today. In fact recent research seems to suggest it was possibly marginally cooler than today. I keep saying it but those here who think I'm full of shit seem to ignore this key point - water vapour is a much more prevalent and vastly more important GHG in our atmosphere than CO2 ever will be.

 

[madmug]

Agreed. No problem with any of that at all.



You can repeat that mantra all you like. It says as much as saying 'weather is real'. The climate is in a constant state of flux without man's help. It was warmer during the Medieval Warming Period than it is now and civilization flourished. The oceans didn't rise in the way they are predicting now. They grew crops in Greenland. The earth has moved into and out of ice ages without any input from man at all.

10 years ago when I could last be bothered to spend the time to combat the myths associated with what was then called global warming, the favourite subject was melting arctic ice and the risk of polar bear populations plummeting due to drowning. This despite the fact that polar bears have webbed feet, can stay underwater for more than two minutes and swim up to 100 miles without stopping. I had to point out at the time that ...



I then pointed (this was in 2009) out that Antarctic Sea Ice levels were increasing. They were at their highest levels since satellites first started monitoring ice levels (40 years ago). 95% of the world's polar ice is in the Antarctic too BTW. Arctic ice advances and recedes over decades. 2007 saw a minimum in Arctic ice cover in the relatively short period that it's been monitored using satellites. 2008 saw the most rapid growth in Arctic ice cover in that same period (of monitoring history) and Arctic ice cover was back to the average it has over that period by early 2009.

We've already seen that humans have trouble measuring temperature properly, they struggle to measure ice coverage, are responsible for biases in computer modelling and the list goes on.



Give me three examples of permanent damage that human CO2 production (which is a miniscule amount compared to CO2 from natural sources) is causing. It shouldn't be too hard. Here's a list of over 600 things global warming has been blamed for in the past.

100 million years ago there was (according to currently accepted timescales) there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then not much different from today. In fact recent research seems to suggest it was possibly marginally cooler than today. I keep saying it but everyone seems to ignore this key point - water vapour is a much more prevalent and vastly more important GHG in our tmosphere than CO2 ever will be.

Its the man induced sudden rate of CO2/GHG rising which is causing a relatively rapid change to our climate & thus the environment we live in.

The rate of CO2/GHG change is global, its effect is regional/local depending on many factors.

Cherry picking some bits which on the face, support your view, cant be simply extrapolated to now.

 

[Crankitup]

Its the man induced sudden rate of CO2/GHG rising which is causing a relatively rapid change to our climate & thus the environment we live in.

The rate of CO2/GHG change is global, its effect is regional/local depending on many factors.

Cherry picking some bits which on the face, support your view, cant be simply extrapolated to now.

So, not going to highlight three examples of the permanent damage you said we are causing right now? What about just two then?

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Its the man induced sudden rate of CO2/GHG rising which is causing a relatively rapid change to our climate & thus the environment we live in.

The rate of CO2/GHG change is global, its effect is regional/local depending on many factors.

Cherry picking some bits which on the face, support your view, cant be simply extrapolated to now.

Ice cores have already proven that CO2 does not drive climate change, in fact, it is the exact opposite with up to an 800 year lag. If you have a science background as you claim, why do you keep getting the facts so hopelessly wrong?

 

[woota]

10 years ago when I could last be bothered to spend the time to combat the myths associated with what was then called global warming, the favourite subject was melting arctic ice and the risk of polar bear populations plummeting due to drowning. This despite the fact that polar bears have webbed feet, can stay underwater for more than two minutes and swim up to 100 miles without stopping. I had to point out at the time that ...

I remember this. I think it was on 60 minutes, or basically any TV program who wanted to push the climate change agenda would show footage of a polar bear standing on a small block of ice surrounded by arctic water. HAHAHAHAHA. Scaremongering at its finest.

 

[Chief]

Greta Thunberg says our houses are on fire.

Well, mine isn't! She's a liar!

 

[Chief]

Ice cores have already proven that CO2 does not drive climate change,

Myth:

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

<p>When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming...

skepticalscience.com

When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.

That CO2 lags and amplifies temperature was actually predicted in 1990 in a paper The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming by Claude Lorius (co-authored by James Hansen):

"Changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing"

The paper also notes that orbital changes are one initial cause for ice ages. This was published over a decade before ice core records were accurate enough to confirm a CO2 lag (thanks to John Mashey for the tip).



To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

• Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
• CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
• CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet

Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 3).

 

[Crankitup]

Chief, I'll let BLU respond to the bulk of your post but allow me to interject with one statement. I wouldn't be so quick to take anything from the John Cook owned and operated website skepticalscience.com as gospel. He is after all the guy responsible for the '97% of climate scientists agree fable'. If he's willing to manufacture and cherry pick as much as he did for that fairy story, I wouldn't put much else past him.

 

[Chief]

'97% of climate scientists agree fable'

Good lord.

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities

climate.nasa.gov

 

[Present Not Past]

Chief, I'll let BLU respond to the bulk of your post but allow me to interject with one statement. I wouldn't be so quick to take anything from the John Cook owned and operated website skepticalscience.com as gospel. He is after all the guy responsible for the '97% of climate scientists agree fable'. If he's willing to manufacture and cherry pick as much as he did for that fairy story, I wouldn't put much else past him.

Very true. We should just listen to those reputable commentators Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones.

 

[madmug]

So, not going to highlight three examples of the permanent damage you said we are causing right now? What about just two then?

Its systemic change leading to serious, broad environmental damage. Like the human body goes through systemic change from some diseases, yet the whole body still gets out of bed & goes to work. The body gets use to the damage & poor performance, until its too late.

That's the trap, picking single examples that can't 'specifically' be, on its own, attributed to CC.

Its a bit like the smoking argument. No one study proves the link between cancer & smoking. Yet the mass of research & studies over many years makes that link plain to see. Except smokers, denialists of a different type

This is exactly what the denialists do. Say 'pick something' out. Then one attacks that single point with doubt & 'construed bits of science & 'opinion' Ala Bolt, Jones & that Lord whatsizname Monkton of whatever.

I've got a chunk of work here so we'll 're-engage' some other time no doubt.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Myth:

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

<p>When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming...

skepticalscience.com

When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.

That CO2 lags and amplifies temperature was actually predicted in 1990 in a paper The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming by Claude Lorius (co-authored by James Hansen):


The paper also notes that orbital changes are one initial cause for ice ages. This was published over a decade before ice core records were accurate enough to confirm a CO2 lag (thanks to John Mashey for the tip).



To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

• Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
• CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
• CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet

Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 3).

Ahh John Cook and his Skeptical Science...

I must say, I hold a very similar position to Crankitup when it comes to this page and John Cook himself.

That said, I don't necessarily completely dismiss these articles, I just tend to find the robust discussions in the comments sections far more interesting.

As far as I'm concerned, referencing Skeptical Science articles to me would be the equivalent of me referencing the Heartland Institute articles to you.

 

[Corpuscles]

IF there was one group of people who ought recognise some aspects of "Climate" it ought be Australians especially those who post on BF. (Mainly from Southern most states)

We all watched, not long ago snow falling , in a game of AFL footy. ! ???
How does it feel in Hobart or Melbourne TODAY?

The difference is NOT we are further from the Sun. It is the angle at which the Sun's rays hit our atmosphere.
Soon it is going to be Bloody HOT!
All ponytailed girls and most BF numbnuts will NEED their air conditioner on!

How much arsenic does it take in Bolt's fancy scotch to kill him? (Ans : Not much! ...ought have A Jones as guest that test day)

It might be BS! A mistake. Doing NOTHING now, is a BIGGER mistake to make. (That is a serious tampering with urine type mistake, J Stephenson like stupid cheap punt. But much Worse)

Global economic compounding growth, is unsustainable. Stop buying Chinese rubbish!!!!!

Be part of the solution yourself. Don't wait for the " maybe NOT" hyperbole

Norway is the opposite (but they "get it"). They have hydro. We must find a real clean solution. NOW!

Some reading it is long:
https://www.catherineingram.com/fac...DfcGZ9OnZ2DSrt0muw6y3LntICrV-AbHiiVfjKm9JPV-I

But for those who want funny vids



Solution? I think not. You just contributed 150 million to this delusion!

 

[Bradesmaen]

Chief when will you realise climate is controlled by God and that climate change is a Marxist conspiracy that was created to make everyone become gender fluid and give all the Muslims the money while making farmers poor

 

[Better Loosen Up]

IF there was one group of people who ought recognise some aspects of "Climate" it ought be Australians especially those who post on BF. (Mainly from Southern most states)

We all watched, not long ago snow falling , in a game of AFL footy. ! ???
How does it feel in Hobart or Melbourne TODAY?

The difference is NOT we are further from the Sun. It is the angle at which the Sun's rays hit our atmosphere.
Soon it is going to be Bloody HOT!
All ponytailed girls and most BF numbnuts will NEED their air conditioner on!

How much arsenic does it take in Bolt's fancy scotch to kill him? (Ans : Not much! ...ought have A Jones as guest that test day)

It might be BS! A mistake. Doing NOTHING now, is a BIGGER mistake to make. (That is a serious tampering with urine type mistake, J Stephenson like stupid cheap punt. But much Worse)

Global economic compounding growth, is unsustainable. Stop buying Chinese rubbish!!!!!

Be part of the solution yourself. Don't wait for the " maybe NOT" hyperbole

Norway is the opposite (but they "get it"). They have hydro. We must find a real clean solution. NOW!

Some reading it is long:
https://www.catherineingram.com/fac...DfcGZ9OnZ2DSrt0muw6y3LntICrV-AbHiiVfjKm9JPV-I

But for those who want funny vids



Solution? I think not. You just contributed 150 million to this delusion!

I am speechless. This is whole new level!

 

[Chief]

Ahh John Cook and his Skeptical Science...

I must say, I hold a very similar position to Crankitup when it comes to this page and John Cook himself.

That said, I don't necessarily completely dismiss these articles, I just tend to find the robust discussions in the comments sections far more interesting.

As far as I'm concerned, referencing Skeptical Science articles to me would be the equivalent of me referencing the Heartland Institute articles to you.

This is the problem: that article references actual data. “CO2 lag!” is a misinterpretation of the data.

 

[Crankitup]

Good lord.

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities

climate.nasa.gov

Not sure why you posted that link. It leads to a page that entirely relies on John Cook's flawed paper.

 

[Crankitup]

Its systemic change leading to serious, broad environmental damage. Like the human body goes through systemic change from some diseases, yet the whole body still gets out of bed & goes to work. The body gets use to the damage & poor performance, until its too late.

That's the trap, picking single examples that can't 'specifically' be, on its own, attributed to CC.

Its a bit like the smoking argument. No one study proves the link between cancer & smoking. Yet the mass of research & studies over many years makes that link plain to see. Except smokers, denialists of a different type

This is exactly what the denialists do. Say 'pick something' out. Then one attacks that single point with doubt & 'construed bits of science & 'opinion' Ala Bolt, Jones & that Lord whatsizname Monkton of whatever.

I've got a chunk of work here so we'll 're-engage' some other time no doubt.

No problem. I wasn't trying to trap you BTW. I genuinely wanted to know what permanent damage you thought was happening right now.