Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Chops_a_must]

One-dimensional cheerleading. Anyone reading this would conclude that no credible opposing argument exists, at least among the scientific community.

Are you able to present contrarian views that have been published in peer-reviewed journals?

There aren't many, if any at all.

When I followed the literature, most of the opposing arguments and hypotheses were mopped up around 2005/06. Which was when you saw a different turn in policy in most of the laggards, including Australia.

 

[Dan26]

Look mate, time to put up or shut up!
YOU do not know 30k scientists at ALL

I can mame 30,000 of them. Go to the website.

You know of the list of names on a politically extreme web site that PURPORTS the signatories to be scientists and actual, real people.

What are you suggesting? That the lsit isn't real? Go on, name 10 fake names.

Politically extreme???? The Petition Project is funded by donations from individuals and run by volunteers!!!!!!! It receives no money from industry or companies!

This isn't about politics, it's about the evidence.

On what evidence is that a political site????

2. Warmist scientists are paid to lie by the government??[/B]
Are you 12?

I never said they are paid off by the government to lie. Most scientists are not wrong, but they’re not studying the central question either. Instead they're researching the effects of warming — not the causes.
Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon dioxide emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw billions of dollars at one question and how could bright, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of connections, links, predictions, projections and scenarios? What’s amazing is what they haven't found: empirical evidence. Because THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT HUMAN C02 EMISSIONS CAUSE DANGEROUS WARMING.

The models that are used have all been incorrect because they have made incorrect assumptions bout something called FEEDBACKS. The models are sophisticated, put together by experts, and getting better all the time. But even if they could predict the climate correctly (they can’t), even if they were based on solid proven theories (they aren’t), they still wouldn’t count as evidence. Models of complex systems are based on scores of assumptions and estimates piled on dozens of theories. None of the current models forecast that temperatures would stop rising from 2001 onwards did they? So there is at least one other factor that is more important than CO2 and the models don't know what it is.

Remaining scientists are largely paid by industry - either by funding academic research or employment in industrial/commercial laboratories. Are those scientists going to do the bidding of their masters? You betcha! Most industrialists do not want to acknowledge climate change issues because it impinges on their profits.

Oh give me a break! Exxon mobil paid 23 million to sceptics, but what about the 79 BILLION paid to the alarmists. Big government outspends big oil 3000:1.

All 'evidence' you post and quote is drawn from just these two extremist sites. They are patent propaganda, without any scientific expertise and are driven by lone extremists.

Rubbish. There are plenty of sites you can go to. After all, thouands of scientists are running away form the alarmsit theory, because they know it is bullshit.

This site below has thousands of resourcnes for you to look it. Some good, some average, some brilliant.

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

The facts are that there is no empirical evidecne that human C02 emissions cause dangerous warming.

There is not really a consensus at all. The alarmists just say that.

Yo're not looking at the evidecne Monniehawk. You are assuming that what you have bene told is correct.

The facts are: (number 6 is the clincher. It seals the deal)

1) There has been no warming for more than a decade
2) Many of the world’s elite scientists say catastrophic warming is a hoax, and at most the warming will be mild.
3) Global sea ice has not decreased (ie, when you include ALL ice including Antarctica, there has been no decrease)
4) The leading scientists promoting the alarmism have been caught out (Climategate) hiding data, conspiring to have opposing views banned, etc etc - and the media refused to report this.
5) The AGW models have in EVERY case over the past 2 decades proven to be incorrect in their temperature predictions. Not one has ever been close to correct.
6) The AGW theory requires that there is a positive feedback of water vapour (which actually causes most of the warming) - and this feedback has not only NOT been observed, but that negative feedbacks have infact been observed. On this issue alone, the “catastrophic” AGW theory has been proven wrong
7) Al Gore’s movie has been found in a court of law in the UK to be political propaganda full of factually incorrect information that should not be shown in schools without a disclaimer that it is infact a political movie and not an environmental one.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Are you able to present contrarian views that have been published in peer-reviewed journals?

There aren't many, if any at all.

When I followed the literature, most of the opposing arguments and hypotheses were mopped up around 2005/06. Which was when you saw a different turn in policy in most of the laggards, including Australia.

No, I don't have the time or inclination to wade through those publications.

Get back to me in five years when more comprehensive data is available, assuming the alarmists haven't fiddled with it to make it fit their struggling theories.

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

Are you able to present contrarian views that have been published in peer-reviewed journals?

There aren't many, if any at all.

When I followed the literature, most of the opposing arguments and hypotheses were mopped up around 2005/06. Which was when you saw a different turn in policy in most of the laggards, including Australia.

Forget the peer reviewed hoo-haa...that is irrelevant since the last IPCC report.

Follow this link to see what many many scientists think...afterall they are putting there reputations on the line.

http://hw.libsyn.com/p/b/f/6/bf663f...33670013&hwt=273d9a6ff840616a288320dccd0a9e96

 

[Chops_a_must]

No, I don't have the time or inclination to wade through those publications.

Get back to me in five years when more comprehensive data is available, assuming the alarmists haven't fiddled with it to make it fit their struggling theories.

What kind of argument is that?

For someone interested in the science, you don't want to engage where the debate is actually happening? Seriously?

Probably why you're confusing a theory with a demonstrated phenomenon.

 

[Chops_a_must]

Forget the peer reviewed hoo-haa...that is irrelevant since the last IPCC report.

Follow this link to see what many many scientists think...afterall they are putting there reputations on the line.

http://hw.libsyn.com/p/b/f/6/bf663f...33670013&hwt=273d9a6ff840616a288320dccd0a9e96

It's not irrelevant. It's just up to these scientists to put up - through peer reviewed literature.

Most of the scientists who raise concerns are statisticians. And a lot them confuse reality with numbers. You know - dumping arsenic into waterways doesn't kill fish, smoking doesn't cause cancer, because we can't quantify it sort of business. And that's a fundamental problem with science generally - not the individual theory. The level of connectedness increases the complexity of theory and subsequent confounding factors.

Most complaints are at the level of scientific theory. And they are not exclusive to global warming. It's across the board.

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

It's not irrelevant. It's just up to these scientists to put up - through peer reviewed literature.

Most of the scientists who raise concerns are statisticians. And a lot them confuse reality with numbers. You know - dumping arsenic into waterways doesn't kill fish, smoking doesn't cause cancer, because we can't quantify it sort of business. And that's a fundamental problem with science generally - not the individual theory. The level of connectedness increases the complexity of theory and subsequent confounding factors.

Most complaints are at the level of scientific theory. And they are not exclusive to global warming. It's across the board.

You obviously didn't follow the link

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

Most complaints are at the level of scientific theory. And they are not exclusive to global warming. It's across the board.

That's the whole problem here....it's a theory in regards to AGW and nothing more unless you have come up with some proof in the last 5 minutes.

Don't diss stats guys chops in this debate they can see the fabrication clearer than most.

 

[Chops_a_must]

You obviously didn't follow the link

Yeah, I did.

And much of it has already been proven wrong. The CO2 as a fertiliser argument has been proven as a myth. Above certain levels, CO2 can only be processed by pathway C3 specific vegetation (trees and so on), whereas C4 vegetation such as grasses and cereals suffer. There are other nutrient limiting factors at CO2 thresholds and will likely increase soil exhaustion. But it doesn't hold as a productivity benefit for food production. I've written at length about this on this site before.

I'm not going to read 300 pages of crap when I can spot stuff that has already been proven false - and shouldnt be peddled.

That's the whole problem here....it's a theory in regards to AGW and nothing more unless you have come up with some proof in the last 5 minutes.

Don't diss stats guys chops in this debate they can see the fabrication clear than most.

Just like air travel is a theory.

Stats are important, but incredibly malleable. It's not a substitute for logic and reason. Not everything is easily quantifiable. Stats are exceptionally poor with confounding factors for instance and contextual/ temporal environmental problems. We don't have another planet on which to give us a sample size.

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

Yeah, I did.


I'm not going to read 300 pages of crap when I can spot stuff that has already been proven false - and shouldnt be peddled.
quote]

So you didn't read the article did you

I suggest you read the whole article, where hundreds of highly qualified scientists reckon that AGW in the form the IPCC and Gore et al present is complete crap (fullstop)

 

[Ron The Bear]

What kind of argument is that?

For someone interested in the science, you don't want to engage where the debate is actually happening? Seriously?

Probably why you're confusing a theory with a demonstrated phenomenon.

If we all had to be experts to have an opinion on anything, there would be no point in elections. The government aren't even experts on it, which is why we haven't had public debate. I suspect its stance is more a nod to our various low-lying island nation neighbours than anything else, as ineffective as the carbon tax will be with regard to sea levels. My opinion doesn't count for shit anyway, nobody's polled me about it and the government doesn't care.

 

[Monniehawk]

I can mame 30,000 of them. Go to the website.

Yeah! I can find a list of names in White Pages! Read my previous post, FFS!
What are you suggesting? That the lsit isn't real? Go on, name 10 fake names.
Very sceptical! That list is far more likely to be contrived than the computer models you blithely decry.
Confirm those on the list that aren't fake!
In fact, I might even add a few just to prove a point.

Politically extreme???? The Petition Project is funded by donations from individuals and run by volunteers!!!!!!! It receives no money from industry or companies!
Says you!
Even so, how does that NOT make it politically extreme. The 'volunteers' could not be extremists? Remember, they are blogs, not conventional web sites and they attract a far right audience. Did you not read Tory Aardvark's pen portrait?? Truly, just how gullible are you?

This isn't about politics, it's about the evidence.
No! it is clearly about politics!! Evidence has been the manipulated tool of political zealotry.
On what evidence is that a political site????
Strike!! Did you not read Aardvark's articles? He is a rabid extremist right winger with outrageous opinions on a plethora of right wing pet topics!
I never said they are paid off by the government to lie.
You most certainly indicated that - a number of times! Why try to moderate it now?
Most scientists are not wrong, but they’re not studying the central question either. Instead they're researching the effects of warming — not the causes.
What!??? Who told you that?
Do you honestly believe they only look at effects?? Where on earth did you get that little gem of misinformation? What an utter insult to science!
Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon dioxide emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw billions of dollars at one question and how could bright, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of connections, links, predictions, projections and scenarios? What’s amazing is what they haven't found: empirical evidence. Because THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT HUMAN C02 EMISSIONS CAUSE DANGEROUS WARMING.
Are you trying to obfuscate by using the qualifier 'dangerous' and then awaiting the ensuing lexical debate over the definition of dangerous?
Either way, your statement is abjectly wrong! There is evidence. Your sources just don't accept it and so they try to discredit with outrageous conspiracy theories. Such as.....
The models that are used have all been incorrect because they have made incorrect assumptions bout something called FEEDBACKS. The models are sophisticated, put together by experts, and getting better all the time. But even if they could predict the climate correctly (they can’t), even if they were based on solid proven theories (they aren’t), they still wouldn’t count as evidence. Models of complex systems are based on scores of assumptions and estimates piled on dozens of theories. None of the current models forecast that temperatures would stop rising from 2001 onwards did they? So there is at least one other factor that is more important than CO2 and the models don't know what it is.
There is a lot of techno-babble in all that. The pity is that you don't understand any of it. It is parroted techno-babble.
Can you prove ANY of it without resorting to "the scientists lied or the data models are seriously flawed"?

Oh give me a break! Exxon mobil paid 23 million to sceptics, but what about the 79 BILLION paid to the alarmists. Big government outspends big oil 3000:1.
You've just confirmed that industry has deliberately funded scientists to corrupt the results of accepted science seen as hostile to Exxon's aspirations! Thank you!
Now, confirm that the government research was done ONLY to validate the so-called alarmist stance. The fact is that it was for research into environmental atmospherics, etc, and the results came overwhelmingly that man had a few problems to look at. Inconvenient, eh? because the results don't suit, you invent some fanciful world-wide conspiracy.

Rubbish. There are plenty of sites you can go to. After all, thouands of scientists are running away form the alarmsit theory, because they know it is bullshit.
I have NO EVIDENCE AT ALL of this world wide defection of scientists. Only the ridiculous claim that 99.27% of scientists are sceptics, which is phenomenally stupid. You stand by that?

This site below has thousands of resourcnes for you to look it. Some good, some average, some brilliant.
All biased and fraught with psuedo-science.

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050
Cripes! Yet another light-weight thread on a Popular Technology forum titled "The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource"
The facts are that there is no empirical evidecne that human C02 emissions cause dangerous warming.
Rubbish! It is not a FACT at all. It is the addled opinion of some denialists. You just can't find the facts in extremists' blogs. Look around!

There is not really a consensus at all. The alarmists just say that.
Grassy Knoll?
Then support with data what you, in your ignorance, reject because you were told by some extremist bloggers! Please!
Yo're not looking at the evidecne Monniehawk. You are assuming that what you have bene told is correct.
Ummm... Who is making that assumption...? I have done you the courstesy of looking at your 'evidence'. It is appallingly corrupt. You have been too lazy to move from two major extremists' blogs.
The facts are: (number 6 is the clincher. It seals the deal)

1) There has been no warming for more than a decade
Read the data correctly!
2) Many of the world’s elite scientists say catastrophic warming is a hoax, and at most the warming will be mild.
Many, many more disagree with them!
3) Global sea ice has not decreased (ie, when you include ALL ice including Antarctica, there has been no decrease)
Not according to NASA satellite data and a host of other authorities.
4) The leading scientists promoting the alarmism have been caught out (Climategate) hiding data, conspiring to have opposing views banned, etc etc - and the media refused to report this.
Oh dear! Now a media, government and scientist conspiracy. Murdoch's empire is stridently anti warmist and you think they are refusing to publish this imaginary data? Murdoch is leading a conspircy against denialists? Come on!
5) The AGW models have in EVERY case over the past 2 decades proven to be incorrect in their temperature predictions. Not one has ever been close to correct.
No guessing where that little pearl came from. Unfortunately, that seems to fly in the face of established scientific opinion.
6) The AGW theory requires that there is a positive feedback of water vapour (which actually causes most of the warming) - and this feedback has not only NOT been observed, but that negative feedbacks have infact been observed. On this issue alone, the “catastrophic” AGW theory has been proven wrong
No. It is claimed to be wrong by denialists. Go figure! The 'catastrophe is a construct of a few extreme opinions. Like denialism, it isn't mainstream.
Water vapour is indeed the major contributor. CO2 is a smaller contributor, but still significant! As are the myriad other carbon compounds emitted by fossil fuels. This has been substantiated by science and refuted by denialists because it is uncomfortably true! Hence, they try to deflect it to the water vapour furphy so we won't notice the effects of aggregation of other pollutants.
7) Al Gore’s movie has been found in a court of law in the UK to be political propaganda full of factually incorrect information that should not be shown in schools without a disclaimer that it is infact a political movie and not an environmental one.
I never mentioned Gore - ever! Al Gore is the warmists' Lord Monckton. A zealous amateur addicted to publicity. (Although Gore, I repeat, has not lied about his career!) You have failed to notice that I do not use amateurs or zealots as a source of my information. Please reciprocate!

 

[medusala]

And much of it has already been proven wrong. The CO2 as a fertiliser argument has been proven as a myth.

The IPCC says global food production will rise given an increase of up to around 2c IIRC

Are they wrong?

 

[Holy Foley!]

Also, it is a fact that as each extra molecule of C02 goes into the atmosphere it has less and less warming effect.

Oh give me a break What evidence is that that plants "can't keep up"

The reality is if there is more C02, plants gwo quicker, better and in areas, where if the C02 was lower, the growth of the plants would be marginal. This leads to more food production.

These are the facts and I have always stood by them.

- C02 is a greenhouse gas
- C02 has a warming effect.
- Humans are putting more C02 into the atmosphere
-The amount of C02 into the atmosphere now is higher than at any other point during humans time on Earth.

I've never argued any of the above points. Nor would anyone.

The debate is whether humans are the MAIN driver of climate (they're not). Whether humans effect on warming is significant (it's not). Is it dangerous? (no evidecne of this at all). Is it so minimal as to be irrelevant? (absolutely.) Is the effect humans have any match for the other bigger influences out there? (It's no match at all.) And is it cost effective to do anything about it, even if there is a problem, which there isn't anyway? (no.)

The clincher is that there is no empirical evidence that human C02 emissions cause dangerous warming.

Firstly, "can't keep up". That was purely opinionative.

You say that CO2 has no warming effect, but then go on to say it does. Which is it?...

You contradict yourself again when you state "It is so minimal (the effect humans are having on warming) as to be irrelevant", but also say that there is no evidence to suggest if it is dangerous or not. So basically you don't know if human CO2 contributions are dangerous, but it's definitely irrelevant?

To go back to CO2 being plant food. It is possible to increase plant growth by increasing CO2 concentration, but only in controlled environments such as greenhouses. Only a minute amount plants species can process increased amounts of CO2. Too high a concentration causes a reduction of photosynthesis in the majority of plants.

Also, when you increase one substance in a plant (eg. CO2) you also increase its need for other substances, such as nutrients and water. Water resources are already scarce. In agriculture such nutrients come from fertilisers. These too would have to increase. But with more severe storm events, water does not penetrate soil, it runs to the lowest level, flooding creeks and rivers, then running into the sea along with the fertilisers and soil.

Further, rising temperatures will increase desertification and decrease arable land area.

Lastly, if plants responded to higher CO2 concentrations, wouldn't that mean as the concentration increases (like you agree with) that we should have seen an increase in forest sizes etc?

 

[Pie eyed]

You say that CO2 has no warming effect, but then go on to say it does. Which is it?...

He actually says it has "less and less warming effect" not that it has"no" warming effect.
Any warming effect however infinitesimal is still a warming effect.

Hairsplitting?

I don't think so.

 

[11sjw]

This didn't need a new thread so here is as good a place as any..

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

Good and bad news at the same time..

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

 

[ShanDog]

This didn't need a new thread so here is as good a place as any..

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses



Good and bad news at the same time..

I'm reliably informed that there is an increase in snowflakes and liberal tears all over the world. Worth investigation?

 

[11sjw]

I'm reliably informed that there is an increase in snowflakes and liberal tears all over the world. Worth investigation?

Lol.

Peculiar though if the rise in sea level didn’t come from melting ice where did it come from.

Some non-settled science me thinks.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Peculiar though if the rise in sea level didn’t come from melting ice where did it come from.

Thermal expansion of water?

 

[ShanDog]

Lol.

Peculiar though if the rise in sea level didn’t come from melting ice where did it come from.

Some non-settled science me thinks.

Climate science is so incredibly complex with numerous earth systems combining to create different outcomes. I know the same can be said about many topics, but one encompassing the earth and everything in it is just crazy big. We certainly don't know everything.

 

[11sjw]

Thermal expansion of water?

Possibly but I'm sticking my hand up to say I have NFI.

 

[JoondalupJ]

This didn't need a new thread so here is as good a place as any..

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses



Good and bad news at the same time..

Every one has opinions, and no body really is sure, and I mean nobody, even the panic driven squealers.
The almighty scientists. The world changes constantly , I'm not sure we can do a thing about it, but then again we are nature as well, so maybe our advancement in technology is dirtying up the place. Perhaps a bit of a clean up, is what is really needed, rather than forecasts of doom. We are what we are and we do what we do, what will happen is what nature has planned.
What we do with fossil fuels, will sort out in time, and renewable energy will be here in a few decades and nothing else will need using.
But now we have some more researchers hunting for money to go to large asteroids and mine them ! For what?
Oil, coal, ha ha, see how stupid we are, so what we going to bring more filth down to earth to sort out the energy problem ? No we won't be doing that, so why even talk about it, and Mars? Well don't get me started.

 

[faible]

To me; the fundamental question we should all ask ourselves is what harm does it do to make changes (or choices) toward more renewable options when and where possible?

We may or mat not be contributing to global warming, but we certainly are going to find a scarcity of resources in to the future, so investment in to more renewable technology and associated areas (e.g. solar power generation brings with it the requirement for improved means of conversion and storage) makes sense from a number of perspectives.

I do agree with the level of alarmism reaching new heights, with a call to basically abandon everything that currently works in favour of untried technology (SA power I'm looking at you) is as unproductive for modern society as digging our heels in and doing nothing.

 

[Ron The Bear]

To me; the fundamental question we should all ask ourselves is what harm does it do to make changes (or choices) toward more renewable options when and where possible?

If cost and reliability are comparable - none whatsoever.

 

[faible]

If cost and reliability are comparable - none whatsoever.

Personally I'd like to see us investing in areas of development like this moving forward; mining is coming to an end and our manufacturing industries are basically non-existent and not coming back.