Politics Climate Change Paradox

Should we act now, or wait for a unified global approach


  • Total voters
    157

Crankitup

Club Legend
Suspended
Sep 23, 2006
1,599
465
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subiaco
As a brief summary for the layman:

1. It has been known for a long time that having increased carbon gasses in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect and traps more heat.

2. Carbon gasses enter and leave the atmosphere as part of a natural cycle (one main cycle is extraction of carbon by plants that then returns to the atmosphere when plants rot, animals digest, animals die, etc).

3. Fossil fuels are not part of this cycle because the carbon was trapped millions of years ago. Therefore, burning fossil fuels like coil, oil, gas, etc. adds new excess carbon gasses to the atmosphere. Deforestation also increases carbons gasses in the atmosphere because less is taken out by trees.

4. The result of having this increase in carbon gases is global warming which is caused by the greenhouse effect. This is a small increase in average air and ocean temperatures, and is unlikely to be noticed in daily life.

5. The increase in average air and ocean temperatures changes and shifts wind patterns and ocean currents. These changes are further exacerbated by other factors like melting of polar ice.

6. The result of these changes is changing and shifting of climates, i.e. climate change. Climates also become less stable, as they have settled into steady patterns over thousands of years and now those patterns have been altered.

7. Most plants and animals on Earth are evolved to exist in the specific climates they inhabit. Therefore, shifting and changing of climates can lead to the dying of forests and animal extinctions. Similar effects can occur in the ocean as previously cold water areas become warmer or vice versa, or areas with specific properties change and shift. Put simply changing of habitats can make them no longer suitable for the things that inhabit them and those things die. This reduces resources that we rely on to live and also adds even more carbon gasses to the atmosphere that wouldn't have been there in the normal cycle. So the problem worsens and more extreme effects occur.

The eventual result can be extreme weather events and limited remaining resources making the planet far less inhabitable than it is now.
Point 7 relies on your Point 1 being correct. However the fourth word 'known' should be 'speculated' or 'theorised'.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Crankitup

Club Legend
Suspended
Sep 23, 2006
1,599
465
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subiaco
“Extreme bias of climate research was deliberately created through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to prove rather than disprove the hypothesis that human CO2 was causing runaway global warming,” he wrote to NTZ in an email. “The political message and funding were directed to only research that proved their hypothesis. Only journals that favored the objective were used and encouraged, so the preponderance of research and publications supported the predetermined message. It is a classic case of Lysenkoism
Canadian Climatologist Dr Tim Ball
 

Crankitup

Club Legend
Suspended
Sep 23, 2006
1,599
465
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subiaco
The following national and international organizations are part of the consensus that Anthropogenic global warming is a real phenomenon.
  • National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
  • NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
  • The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
  • Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
  • UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Just to name a few.

Though some have taken non-committal stances, the vast majority of scientific bodies are convinced by the evidence

No national or international scientific body has rejected anthropogenic global warming.
Actually that's not really a true picture. The Russian Academy of Sciences for instance was a signatory to IPCC 2001 but 4 years later the Russians were saying things like

Russian scientist predicts global cooling

Khabibullo Abdusamatov expects a repeat of the period known as the Little Ice Age. During the 16th century, the Baltic Sea froze so hard that hotels were built on the ice for people crossing the sea in coaches.

The Little Ice Age is believed to have contributed to the end of the Norse colony in Greenland, which was founded during an interval of much warmer weather.

Abdusamatov and his colleagues at the Russian Academy of Sciences astronomical observatory said the prediction is based on measurement of solar emissions, Novosti reported. They expect the cooling to begin within a few years and to reach its peak between 2055 and 2060.

"The Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times," he said. "The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth's global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol."

The US Association of State Climatologists is another scientific organization that has expressed serious doubts about the imagined “consensus” on climate change in the past.

The National Academy of Sciences which you have at the head of your esteemed list produced a report 40 odd years ago alerting us to the consequences of global cooling. The report said – “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale, because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

Between 1940 and 1975, global temperature had fallen, notwithstanding a continuous and monotonic increase in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and notwithstanding an increase in solar activity, suggesting a larger role for the oceans than the UN at present admits.

In response to the supposed threat of “global cooling”, the National Academy of Sciences trotted out its report, which, though cautiously expressed as was then the custom, was certainly exciting enough to attract the widespread media attention that such politicized bodies now crave. And we were told, then as now, by media outlets such as the BBC, that global cooling represented the scientific “consensus”.
 
Last edited:

Crankitup

Club Legend
Suspended
Sep 23, 2006
1,599
465
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subiaco

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
13,171
8,803
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Actually that's not really a true picture. The Russian Academy of Sciences for instance was a signatory to IPCC 2001 but 4 years later the Russians were saying things like
Four years later in 2005, the Russian Academy of Sciences was a signatory to the "Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change"

which stated that:

"...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."


The National Academy of Sciences which you have at the head of your esteemed list produced a report 40 odd years ago alerting us to the consequences of global cooling. The report said – “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale, because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
40 odd years ago? You mean in the 1970's?

A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 by Thomas C. Peterson from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
and William M. Connolley British Antarctic Survey Natural Environment Research Council in the UK showed that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming. The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences: "...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom, as mentioned above.
 

Crankitup

Club Legend
Suspended
Sep 23, 2006
1,599
465
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subiaco
40 odd years ago? You mean in the 1970's?
1975. Just as it started warming.

A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 by Thomas C. Peterson from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
and William M. Connolley British Antarctic Survey Natural Environment Research Council in the UK showed that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming. The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.
Is this the same Thomas C Peterson that was a lead author of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and the same strident greenie blogger/computer geek William M. Connolley who labels skeptics 'septics' and was involved in at least one Wikipedia editing bias controversy? Right. I'm not exactly confident there's no chance they would cherry pick the data (like for instance running their chosen survey period on to 1979 - 4 years after it started warming).
 
Last edited:

Crankitup

Club Legend
Suspended
Sep 23, 2006
1,599
465
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subiaco
A review of the climate science literature of the 1965-1979 period is presented and it is shown that there was an overwhelming scientific consensus for climate cooling (typically, 65% for the whole period) but greatly outnumbering the warming papers by more than 5-to-1 during the 1968-1976 period, when there were 85% cooling papers compared with 15% warming.

It is evident that the conclusion of the PCF-08 paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, is incorrect. The current review shows the opposite conclusion to be more accurate. Namely, the 1970s global cooling consensus was not a myth – the overwhelming scientific consensus was for climate cooling.

It appears that the PCF-08 authors have committed the transgression of which they accuse others; namely, “selectively misreading the texts” of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979. The PCF-08 authors appear to have done this by neglecting the large number of peer-reviewed papers that were pro-cooling.


I find it very surprising that PCF-08 only uncovered 7 cooling papers and did not uncover the 86 cooling papers in major scientific journals, such as, Journal of American Meteorological Society, Nature, Science, Quaternary Research and similar scientific papers that they reviewed. For example, PCF-08 only found 1 paper in Quaternary Research, namely the warming paper by Mitchell (1976), however, this review found 19 additional papers in that journal, comprising 15 cooling, 3 neutral and 1 warming.

I can only suggest that the authors of PCF-08 concentrated on finding warming papers instead of conducting the impartial “rigorous literature review” that they profess.

If the current climate science debate were more neutral, the PCF-08 paper would either be withdrawn or subjected to a detailed corrigendum to correct its obvious inaccuracies.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/the-1970s-global-cooling-consensus-was-not-a-myth/
 

Socrates2

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 11, 2015
6,377
7,135
AFL Club
Richmond
Australia is responsible for 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions and could be contributing as much as 17% by 2030 if the pollution from its fossil fuel exports is factored in, research says.

Under climate accounting rules that record carbon dioxide released within a country, Australia is responsible for about 1.4% of global emissions. The analysis by science and policy institute Climate Analytics found more than twice that, another 3.6%, are a result of Australia’s coal, oil and gas exports.
 

Mike Smyth

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 8, 2012
14,735
17,740
AFL Club
Adelaide
Australia is responsible for 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions and could be contributing as much as 17% by 2030 if the pollution from its fossil fuel exports is factored in, research says.

Under climate accounting rules that record carbon dioxide released within a country, Australia is responsible for about 1.4% of global emissions. The analysis by science and policy institute Climate Analytics found more than twice that, another 3.6%, are a result of Australia’s coal, oil and gas exports.
Global warming, white men are evil, LGBT, etc etc it must be exhausting for you to be involved with so many cults.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

HurleyHepsHird

Maximum Praxis
Oct 2, 2011
2,598
3,405
Annares
AFL Club
West Coast
Inappropriate misdirection.
Just a simple observation.

This: "1. It has been known for a long time that having increased carbon gasses in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect and traps more heat", is objectively true.

A definition for 'crank' as per the Cambridge dictionary: "a person who has strange or unusual ideas and beliefs".

Denying both the science and historical record of scientific opinion in the face of overwhelming consensus (and public support) in favour of an absurd and far reaching conspiracy, certainly qualifies as both 'strange' and 'unusual'.

But please do continue 'crank'-ing it up.
 

Crankitup

Club Legend
Suspended
Sep 23, 2006
1,599
465
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subiaco
Just a simple observation.

This: "1. It has been known for a long time that having increased carbon gasses in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect and traps more heat", is objectively true.

A definition for 'crank' as per the Cambridge dictionary: "a person who has strange or unusual ideas and beliefs".

Denying both the science and historical record of scientific opinion in the face of overwhelming consensus (and public support) in favour of an absurd and far reaching conspiracy, certainly qualifies as both 'strange' and 'unusual'.

But please do continue 'crank'-ing it up.
Explain this then Einstein. How is it that 100 million years ago (according to the timescales generally agreed upon) there was around six times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as today, (with no industry around to blame for it) and yet the temperature was cooler than today?
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 17, 2009
14,835
8,224
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
Explain this then Einstein. How is it that 100 million years ago (according to the timescales generally agreed upon) there was around six times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as today, (with no industry around to blame for it) and yet the temperature was cooler than today?
My reading of wikipedia shows the average world temperature then was 23c. Currently its 15c. scientists are saying the sudden rise of 2c will have dire consequences for us.

So arguing absolutes is one thing. I understand a great concern is over the RATE of change. such that ecosystems, on which we rely, cannot keep up. Thus serious ecological damage is being done. ie s**tting in our own nest. The only nest we have.

As if the mass of plastic in our environment isnt enough of a problem!!
 

Crankitup

Club Legend
Suspended
Sep 23, 2006
1,599
465
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subiaco
No, the mistake was bothering to post anything.

I looked up other sites who all very much agree on what I posted.

So keep making a goose of yourself.

You talk a big game. Mate this stuff is in recent peer reviewed journals. It's not something you'll find on a basic google search. If HurleyHepsHird doesn't take up the offer perhaps you'd like to have that bet?
 
Top Bottom