Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[twotooto]

You need to clarify your position on climate change.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

I liked the Professor. The interview amounted to 35 minutes of explaining of how climate change models are useless. He was saying the detailed models about specific scenarios such as cloud cover and tipping points are not sophisticated enough. But I thought he waffled on how the models of more general climate change were valid.

I liked the professor when he said he didn't like stuff that I didn't like but I didn't like the professor when he said that he liked the stuff I also didn't like.

This thread in a nutshell.

 

[parsons nose]

I liked the professor when he said he didn't like stuff that I didn't like but I didn't like the professor when he said that he liked the stuff I also didn't like.

This thread in a nutshell.

Yep, it reads like- I’m not really about educating myself on the subject, I just want to double down on my world view.

 

[Deliverance]

That's pretty much every thread on this forum.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Who needs climate scientists when Teffy is on the case.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Watch the clips and forget the news.

 

[Frank Bunn]

 

[Leeda]

Watch the clips and forget the news.

nibble and rifle ... it aint pretty but it is sustainable.. ... crack and push us into rubbish...

 

[sdfc]

How can you have any faith in the modelling which tells us about temperature rises if we do nothing, if similar models cannot be trusted to tell us about temperature rises if we do something?

I don't trust any model to predict what the temperature will be in 80 years. Theory tells us that the more CO2 etc is in the atmosphere, the warmer 2100 is likely to be.

 

[its free real estate]

What modelling? Which specific studies are wrong? Which studies that have been proven to be incorrect are still being cited, without supersecion, by anybody who matters? What government bodies are relying on data that's known to be flawed?

Frog in strangely warming pot: It was 30 degrees only a few minutes ago, now it is 40 degrees, don't you think something is up? Shouldn't we get out as I insisted earlier?!
Skeptical frog in strangely warming pot: Ahahaha, but you said based on your calculations that it would be 45 degrees at exactly this point, how can I trust you when you can't even get your predictions right?

 

[its free real estate]

The post I questioned said -

if we continue to treat the planet like a rubbish tip and if we continue to pump all kinds of highly toxic shit in to the atmosphere there's going to be an impact. I don't think any reasonable person could deny that climate change is real.​

The statement is confused and obfuscates the issue.

CO2 does have an impact on the climate, the extent of which is the subject of debate, but CO2 is not at all toxic at the atmospheric trace levels that form part of that debate.

Sulphate particulates are toxic, and we remove them from coal power station emissions. But in regards to climate change they act as a cooling agent.

I think you have misread the sentences, inferring one implies the other, when they are in fact exclusive. Do you explicitly disagree with the planet being treated "like a rubbish tip"? If not, then how does this claim not run on into the second sentence as much as the second part of the prior sentence?

You have tried to manufacture a gotcha where one didn't exist.

 

[its free real estate]

You need to clarify your position on climate change.

sorted, when engaging in his usual motte and bailey tactics, has explicitly stated the CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Think Ian Plimer saying there is no such thing as a carbon emission because carbon isn't a gas at atmospheric pressure and temperature - a gotcha that convinces fools.

It then becomes a ladder towards "maybe warming isn't that bad" when each subsequent defence in his argument is defeated.

 

[its free real estate]

Science is best defined as parsimoniously deriving descriptions of nature from first principles (axioms). Climate change science meets this definition. Denialists begin by at first attempting to refute the axioms, then as each and their derivations are proved up the chain, reach the end point where 'models' are incorrect, or cheat and claim that the science being observed is actually desirable.

Think about how epicycles lasted hundreds of years despite observations and parsimonious explanations to the contrary. When you are wedded to a worldview you want, you can create more epicycles.

 

[twotooto]

sorted, when engaging in his usual motte and bailey tactics, has explicitly stated the CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Think Ian Plimer saying there is no such thing as a carbon emission because carbon isn't a gas at atmospheric pressure and temperature - a gotcha that convinces fools.

It then becomes a ladder towards "maybe warming isn't that bad" when each subsequent defence in his argument is defeated.

As the saying goes, "denial is not a river in Egypt".

 

[Snake_Baker]

Have you lot forgotten to have a discussion about climate change?

The dick sizing is boring.

 

[its free real estate]

As the saying goes, "denial is not a river in Egypt".

I have read denialist arguments for nearly 20 years and there hasn't been a single one that hasn't conformed to the same pattern, and I have never been convinced by their arguments.

 

[twotooto]

I have heard that a couple of gulps of CO2 in the morning does wonders for girth.

 

[its free real estate]

Have you lot forgotten to have a discussion about climate change?

The dick sizing is boring.

Tell us more about spraying the roofs of the world's 2 billion dwellings with magnesium oxide, master.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Tell us more about spraying the roofs of the world's 2 billion dwellings with magnesium oxide, master.

Like I stated, it's boring.

You're behaving like a tool.

 

[twotooto]

I have read denialist arguments for nearly 20 years and there hasn't been a single one that hasn't conformed to the same pattern, and I have never been convinced by their arguments.

I've stated my position on CC a couple of times in this thread. I'm somewhere in the middle. Not in the sell the farm category, but not in the head in the sand category either. The climate is undoubtedly changing though, that much is not in doubt.

As I've also said, while I'm unconvinced by reports around the extent of man's impact, I don't think we are helping matters, so it would seem to be not unreasonable to have a focus on it and ways that we can potentially minimise our impact.

 

[its free real estate]

Like I stated, it's boring.

You're behaving like a tool.

It's not boring, identifying pathological argument is useful. That you want to engage them on a good faith basis is a waste of your own time. Good luck,

 

[its free real estate]

I've stated my position on CC a couple of times in this thread. I'm somewhere in the middle. Not in the sell the farm category, but not in the head in the sand category either. The climate is undoubtedly changing though, that much is not in doubt.

As I've also said, while I'm unconvinced by reports around the extent of man's impact, I don't think we are helping matters, so it would seem to be not unreasonable to have a focus on it and ways that we can potentially minimise our impact.

The extent of our impact is in fact greater than most of the people who are climate change believers can countenance. Something like 90% of the biosphere has been reengineered to feed us in some way. Years ago, we were running low on fish stocks of certain species (salmon the most notable). So to solve that problem, we created aquaculture. Great move! But to feed the salmon, we needed protein, so instead of reducing our wild fishing to get salmon, we have increased it to feed salmon, meaning a lot of species which would have been classed as 'bycatch' in the fishing for salmon are now deliberately fished for, thereby depleting the oceans of even more fish.

Basically, the problem is intractable.

 

[Snake_Baker]

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” ― Groucho Marx

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

 

[Snake_Baker]

Manufacturing consent

Surprise! Greta Thunberg BIOPIC reveals cameras were rolling from day one of her ‘viral’ rise

Teenage environmental activist Greta Thunberg is the subject of a forthcoming documentary film – made by a crew that has followed her since the early days of her school strike. Still believe her rise to fame was an accident?

www.rt.com

 

[Snake_Baker]

Science.

Again.

NREL scientists research potential bioblendstock for diesel fuel - Biofuels International Magazine

Researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have discovered a novel oxygenate molecule that can be produced from biomass to be used as a blend for diesel fuel. The NREL team is working with scientists from Yale University, Argonne National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National...

biofuels-news.com