Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[RIOLIUSTAR]

If only Al Gore had won that election...911 and climate debate wouldn't have happened...**** you G.W

 

[Monniehawk]

Based on? Countless examples across many fields could show that premise to be wrong. Advances in sciences are often an occasion for overturning the previous prevailing wisdom.

That is precisely what happened with the IPCC when they so very conveniently whitewashed the MWP out of history.

"If I were wrong, it would only have taken one." --Albert Einstein, commenting on the book 100 Authors Against Einstein

Based on common sense!
Read carefully: "The majority opinion has the greatest chance of being right"!
It's not a guarantee: it's not EVERY chance: it's just simple statistics.
The majority believed the earth was flat until the presentation of evidence altered that view. They put Bush into power. Things can go wrong (twice in Bush's case!)! I have yet to see enough convincing evidence to abandon the greater majority of scientific opinion. And I don't accept all the doomsayers predictions any more than I accept the puerile explanation that we had climate changes in the past.
I have yet to jump on the sceptics (read denialists) bandwagon simply because it is an attractive minority opinion.

 

[medusala]

Based on common sense!
Read carefully: "The majority opinion has the greatest chance of being right"!
It's not a guarantee: it's not EVERY chance: it's just simple statistics.

Is it not simple statistics at all, you have no basis for making that claim. Further the often claimed overwhelming consensus does not in fact exist anyway.

You may as well say Keynesian economics works because the majority of academics believe it to be so. A ludicrous proposition.

I have yet to jump on the sceptics (read denialists) bandwagon simply because it is an attractive minority opinion.

Be a sheep if you want to.

 

[rayven]

Can anyone tell me if the IPCC models for sea level rises and temperature increases are on track ? That should shut everyone up considering the science is settled.

If you back to the 70's when greenhouse gas global warming was first theorised then yes they are....

What can't be predicted is how some eco systms react to others beuase of raised medium temp..
That is what is jumped on by people,funded to politicse the issue.

Way before then they knew how to control climates in man made enviorements for things like prevastion of antiques, growing plants in deserts and so on.

Accoding to the deniers that art never existed.

 

[Pie eyed]

If you back to the 70's when greenhouse gas global warming was first theorised then yes they are....

What can't be predicted is how some eco systms react to others beuase of raised medium temp..
That is what is jumped on by people,funded to politicse the issue.

Way before then they knew how to control climates in man made enviorements for things like prevastion of antiques, growing plants in deserts and so on.

Accoding to the deniers that art never existed.

WHAT???!!!

No shit, are you for real?

WTF has this to do with predicting long term real world climate and it's effects?

 

[OldBlueFan]

Is it not simple statistics at all, you have no basis for making that claim. Further the often claimed overwhelming consensus does not in fact exist anyway.

Typical meds ... all assertion and no supporting evidence ...

You may as well say Keynesian economics works because the majority of academics believe it to be so. A ludicrous proposition.

Yeah, because other economic theories have got so much going for them.

Be a sheep if you want to.

Who're the sheep exactly? Those who read, understand and give credence to expert opinion, or those who choose to follow fossil fuel industry shills and pseudo-scientists?

 

[medusala]

Typical meds ... all assertion and no supporting evidence ...

Evidence for what? The supposed consensus often mentioned is vastly overestimated ie not all those involved in the IPCC share the same alarmist view, organisations like the Royal Society whose name is often bandied about as evidence of consensus have not polled their members and there is no way of knowing if the views of the Society reflect that of its members etc etc.

This has been done to death on the other thread.

Who're the sheep exactly? Those who read, understand and give credence to expert opinion, or those who choose to follow fossil fuel industry shills and pseudo-scientists?

What expert opinion? Mann the fraudulent? The environmental activists who are in charge of the Met and NASA section responsible for looking at climate change? Tim Flannery? That sort of expert opinion? Stern / Treasury and their absurd modelling?

Who exactly are these experts that we should be listening to?

 

[Monniehawk]

Is it not simple statistics at all, you have no basis for making that claim. Further the often claimed overwhelming consensus does not in fact exist anyway.

(Probability is a more appropriate term.. my bad.)

You have bases for the bolded above?

I can't get that you think the less favoured must be, is undeniably and emphatically, the greater possibility.
How so?
Perhaps the sweeping statements could be supported with some factual statistics? I need convincing.

 

[Monniehawk]

Evidence for what? The supposed consensus often mentioned is vastly overestimated ie not all those involved in the IPCC share the same alarmist view, organisations like the Royal Society whose name is often bandied about as evidence of consensus have not polled their members and there is no way of knowing if the views of the Society reflect that of its members etc etc.

This has been done to death on the other thread.

Do we take your word for it?
EVIDENCE FFS!

What expert opinion? Mann the fraudulent? The environmental activists who are in charge of the Met and NASA section responsible for looking at climate change? Tim Flannery? That sort of expert opinion? Stern / Treasury and their absurd modelling?
Who exactly are these experts that we should be listening to?

Wow.... just WOW!!
All these miscreants conspiring to ... er... do... something sinister! Yep. Sinister!.. for some reason.... Destroy the free world, yep, ... and... um..
It's the guvmint, I tells ya! *Banjo fade-in*
Reds under the beds, the Grassy Knoll.... any more?

 

[Dan26]

Based on common sense!
Read carefully: "The majority opinion has the greatest chance of being right"!

Unless they are wrong. And when politics is involved, rather than science (like the climate change debate) they quite often are wrong.

That's why all the scientsits who are changing sides are going towards the sceptic side. That's why nearly all the political money is one one side (the alarmist side of the debate)

Don't fall for it Monniehawk. Do your own research. You'll come around. I did.

I used to be an alarmist. Then I studied both sides of the debate MYSELF and when you do the same, you will change your tune.

Here are some great examples of "consensus" helping humanity.

1. 1917 THE TOTALITARION CONSENSUS - 50 MILLION DEAD AND COUNTING

2. VERSAILLES CONSENSUS - 60 MILLION DEAD

3. EUGENICS CONSENSUS - 6 MILLION DEAD

4. APPEASEMENT CONSENSUS 60 MILLION DEAD

5. LYSENKO CONSENSUS - 20 MILLION DEAD

6. BAN DDT CONSENSUS - 40 MILLION DEAD AND COUNTING
"quite often in this field, politics comes first and science second. We must take a position based on the science and the data" - Dr Arata Kochi, who lifted the DDT ban in September 15th 2006.

Surely the fact that there is NO empirical evidence that human C02 emissions cause dangerous warming will sway you?

Surely the fact that ALL of the models have bene wrong will sway you.

Surely the political weight of money all one one side of the debate (the alarmist side) will have you questioning whether the science is really at the front and centre as it should be.

Or are you a left-wing voter who "thinks" you should be on the alarmist side because other left-wingers are? Well, I've got news for you monniehawk. It's okay for you to believe in left-wing ideology and still be a climate sceptic. So, break the mould, don't believe the ever-shrinking "consensus" and do some bloody reading on the topic!

 

[Monniehawk]

I have seeeeen the light!!
Hallelujah, Bro!

Love the passion; just miss the evidence, tho.

 

[Dan26]

Love the passion; just miss the evidence, tho.

Evidence?

You show me the evidence that human C02 emisisons cause dangerous warming. Oh that's right there isn't any.

There is not one peer reviewed paper, by anyone that shows that human C02 emissions cause dangerous warming.

But if you want some light reading, and are prepared to not be sucked in by the left-wings new "faith" - alarmist climate change... then try this for a resource:

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

 

[Dan26]

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science."

Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Science

 

[JHF1870]

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science."

Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Science

Without being emotionally invested in the argument, I decided to do a little research. Here's what I found

Many scholars believe in the hypothesis that the current yearly increases in CO2 emissions are the direct result of human involvement (Soon et al. 1999, p150). Additionally they also report that the hypothesis is possible given that the increases coincide with the increase in human activity since the Industrial Revolution. Furthermore CO2 levels have increased substantially during the last 100 years, and are predicted to continue on an upward trend.

Even though it is widely agreed CO2 levels are increasing, Soon et al. (1999, p 160) argue that 'impact assessments, like sea level rise or altered frequencies and intensities of storms, are premature.' Furthermore they criticise the belief that CO2 emissions are harming the environment, citing the lack of absolute evidence. Instead they suggest there is evidence the increase in CO2 ameliorates 'plant growth and development.'

Reference:

Soon, W, Baliunas, SL, Robinson, AB, Robinson, ZW 1999, 'Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide', Climate Research', vol. 13, pp. 149-164, viewed 25 March 2012, <http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/13/c013p149.pdf>.

 

[OldBlueFan]

Surely the fact that ALL of the models have bene wrong will sway you.

You mean models like these?

You sure you want to look at models vs reality?

Temperatures:

Sea Level:

Arctic minimum ice extent:

 

[Monniehawk]

Without being emotionally invested in the argument, I decided to do a little research. Here's what I found

...or too little research?

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science."

Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Science

Way to miss the point!
CO2 is a necessary gas. In over-abundance it ain't. You can get too much of a good thing!
But the point is overlooked that burning fossil fuels produces not only CO2. The major issue is all the other carbon compounds. There is also the release of a huge number of other gases, and smoke (solids) compounds. CO2 is but a small part of the emissions. To isolate just the one gas and say everything's OK is just simplistic nonsense.
Then we need to consider the earth's ability to sequester carbon. Plants, the beneficiary and absorber of the wonder gas, are also diminishing as the population increases. It doesn't take much to realise that de-afforestation is inversely proportional to human population and the production of CO2. The oceans (my daughter is a zoologist - no doubt a commie, baby-eating, brainwashed, environmental conspirator) has confirmed marine degradation in her work. Some significant damage is from those emissions.
Coupled with the toxic gases and particles from fossil fuels, we have a problem that is incrementing slowly each year.
Much semantic play has been made of 'dangerous' warming. At the moment it isn't dangerous, but its danger lies in the accrual of CO2 and its attendant pollutants. It is potentially dangerous. Eventually it will be critical.
The world has endured fluctuations in climate over its history. It was once a molten orb then became 'ice-ball earth'. More recently we have enjoyed a geologically brief period of tranquil climate - in which we evolved - and there have been fluctuations in this time. Some changes came about through terrestrial reasons - tectonic and volcanic activity, a molten core, our orbit and rotational wobbles. Some were cosmological influences - solar changes, the moon's influence and meteor impacts, etc. Ultimately, they will destroy the planet.
However, each of the above phenomena are well beyond our control. Human carbon emissions (not just co2!!!) is a threat, but it is controllable because we choose to make it.

Don't confuse 'scepticism' with denial!
True sceptics are analytical, objective and considered. They have no fear of prevailing thought. They will view and challenge ideas, and ultimately go with reasoned evidence, because they are interested in uncovering the facts.
Denialists have no motive other than to reinforce their current beliefs.

Evidence?
You show me the evidence that human C02 emisisons cause dangerous warming. Oh that's right there isn't any.
There is not one peer reviewed paper, by anyone that shows that human C02 emissions cause dangerous warming.
But if you want some light reading, and are prepared to not be sucked in by the left-wings new "faith" - alarmist climate change... then try this for a resource:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

Oh, Dear! Listen to yourself.
That web site is hysterical - in the truest sense of the word!
If you can honestly claim that the following material clipped from the home page is serious, objective science, then you are indeed in great trouble. It is an irrational rant.

You will learn that there is no empirical evidence that man-made CO2 is the primary cause of the mild 0.6c increase in temperature over the last 100 years, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution, pollution has nothing to do with global warming, Al Gore and his movie are a fraud, there is no "consensus" on the cause of global warming, the earth has been warmer in the past then it is today, the land based temperature stations are biased and their temperature records have been "adjusted", Antarctica is not melting, Arctic sea ice cannot effect sea level, sea levels are rising millimeters not feet, computer climate models are worthless, polar bears are not endangered or dying, droughts and hurricanes are not caused or made worse by global warming and there is extensive evidence of natural causes for global warming such as increased solar activity and orbital variations.

It gets better! This stuff below exposes the political imperative of the site with the use of the most belligerent, intemperate language that truly thoughtful and measured thinkers would never use.
It is hysteria. Plain and simple. I can't believe you have been taken in by this stuff!!

The current man-made global warming hysteria is largely driven by the environmentalist movement in an attempt to reshape western society away from capitalism by implementing state control (socialism) over private energy usage (Carbon Taxes, Cap and Trade). These environmentalists wish to get rid of the suburbs, SUVs, single family homes and return western society to a neo-urbanistic state of living. This is because the current environmentalist movement is filled with ex-communists and neo-socialists who have long ago abandoned science and replaced it with their politically motivated environmental "religion". Don't believe me? Go ask any "environmentalist" - socialism or capitalism? No, not all scientists even those who support man-made global warming theory seek these politically motivated intentions but their position has been distorted and exaggerated for political gain by extremists. I have created this page to help shed light on what you have not been told.

That is the rhetoric of a complete nutter.
Your 'research' is in sad need of overhaul.

 

[rayven]

One day people will realise that ww1 and ww2 were cause of fossil fuel reliant industries and economies...

then they wil realise the lies they were taught.

hopefully that day is not to late for thier kids and grandkids...

 

[JHF1870]

...or too little research?

I think its important to remember that I believe CO2 is having a negative effect on the earth.

However, I have not got enough information to back up my opinions, so they remain opinions.

What I think the article was suggesting, is that there is no actual evidence to suggest CO2 is having a negative impact on the planet because the testing over the last 1000 years is not an accurate method for distinguishing it from the last 100 years. They argue that we can't accurately prove the last 100 years, such as ice melting, storms etc, is a direct result of our industrious ways. They do point out that there is evidence to suggest plant life is improved. CO2 could very well be responsible for the climate change, but they believe there isn't enough evidence to support it (At this stage)

 

[rayven]

.
That is the rhetoric of a complete nutter.
Your 'research' is in sad need of overhaul.

Look up senator Jim Inhofe, his irupatable evidence that cimate change is a hoax is that god is still up there and wouldn't let this happen.

Also look at his campaign contributers, oil, gas and electric companies and he charied a commitee on envioremental works..

Look at his record on Iraq as well, apparantly Abu gharib was okay cause they were all murders and that....

Poor robbie...no grey for him as he used sources this guy relies on..

 

[Monniehawk]

I think its important to remember that I believe CO2 is having a negative effect on the earth.

Can we get back to the issue?
If burning fossil fuel only resulted in CO2, we would have far less to worry about.
Plants do benefit from CO2. The problem is if there are enough plants to sequester the growing CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, we are reducing the living carbon sinks. And when the plants die, they just release carbon back into the system. This is called the carbon cycle.
However, CO2 is but one small carbon emission of fossil fuel. CO (carbon monoxide) is its cousin and far more poisonous. Then there are the myriad other carbon compounds - amongst a host of other chemicals released during combustion. We also need to consider the solids - ash compounds, etc. - that contribute to the destructive haze. Check how safe this is by inhaling a truck, car, plane or train's exhaust!
Using CO2 as the sole focus of the greenhouse debate is way too narrow to be useful - and, frankly, more than just a bit dishonest.

 

[JHF1870]

Can we get back to the issue?
If burning fossil fuel only resulted in CO2, we would have far less to worry about.
Plants do benefit from CO2. The problem is if there are enough plants to sequester the growing CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, we are reducing the living carbon sinks. And when the plants die, they just release carbon back into the system. This is called the carbon cycle.
However, CO2 is but one small carbon emission of fossil fuel. CO (carbon monoxide) is its cousin and far more poisonous. Then there are the myriad other carbon compounds - amongst a host of other chemicals released during combustion. We also need to consider the solids - ash compounds, etc. - that contribute to the destructive haze. Check how safe this is by inhaling a truck, car, plane or train's exhaust!
Using CO2 as the sole focus of the greenhouse debate is way too narrow to be useful - and, frankly, more than just a bit dishonest.

I agree with what you say, co2 is the buzz word however.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

I agree with your general argument but this bit is dodgy. Glass greenhouses work by preventing convection of hot air; greenhouse gases work by blocking radiative heat.

You're talking to someone who thinks CO2 "traps light." Clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

[EasternTiger]

I have friends on either side of this debate, and I often have to sit through this nonsense for hours on end. Graphs and evidence and scientists, and yet you look out the window and one of the 'it's getting hot and the caps will melt' lads is driving a V8 Holden.

How many of you have actually done anything about it?

For my part, I haven't driven a car in 6 months. Admittedly, it's because of a 'bet you can't go without your car for a year' bet. I have to say, I don't feel I have suffered. In fact, I have met plenty of interesting people on the train.

I cancelled foxtel a few weeks ago, would have to have a gun pointed at my head to sub to the HS, and I'm seriously looking at solar power for the house.

Shit, or get off the pot ladies.

 

[Monniehawk]

I have friends on either side of this debate, and I often have to sit through this nonsense for hours on end. Graphs and evidence and scientists, and yet you look out the window and one of the 'it's getting hot and the caps will melt' lads is driving a V8 Holden.

How many of you have actually done anything about it?

For my part, I haven't driven a car in 6 months. Admittedly, it's because of a 'bet you can't go without your car for a year' bet. I have to say, I don't feel I have suffered. In fact, I have met plenty of interesting people on the train.

I cancelled foxtel a few weeks ago, would have to have a gun pointed at my head to sub to the HS, and I'm seriously looking at solar power for the house.

Shit, or get off the pot ladies.

I eat lentils, I push my car everywhere, 2 min shower once a week, only eat organic food, buy Village People records, and I fart in a bottle.


Well....... I'm thinking about it all, anyway.

 

[EasternTiger]

2 min shower once a week

daytripper, is that you?