Conspiracy Theory Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming?

[SizeMatters]

LOL. I gave a quick abstract above from peer reviewed literature. Even a simple google search will show that this is the case. I'm out of here... no time for this. Astonishing really.

 

[Windhover]

You're an idiot. How is it unnamed when I gave you the references with authors and title of their reports?

Fair cop mate. My bad. I can't tell you how deeply ashamed I am that I did not assume that one of your unlinked references contained in the very cute "spoiler: reference" box was, actually, the journal from which you had quoted. I shall try to draw unwarranted assumptions in your favour in the future, like that you actually have a brain.

 

[Windhover]

LOL. I gave a quick abstract above from peer reviewed literature. Even a simple google search will show that this is the case. I'm out of here... no time for this. Astonishing really.

LOL? I was sure you posted: "Just a quick copy and paste from a science journal with references at the end."

As a bubble degree holder in the environment and geography (which makes you way more qualified than me) do you know the difference between "a science journal" and "peer reviewed literature"? If my assumption you have a brain has any credence, you do.

But I digress in response since your post is itself of course a digression.

As CM has pointed out, having collected the posts containing my repeated requests, at no time have you addressed my question of you, (sought for sociological interest) as to the source of your ridiculous claim. I would dearly love to know whether you just make stuff up for the fun of it or alternatively how you justify sourcing your knowledge from whatever cesspool you gathered your nonsense factoid. Certainly not from the science journal you quoted or any of your other references.

But I can imagine why you would wish not to respond and instead depart this thread with your tail tucked between your jellied legs with such "astonished" innocence you think you can escape with. Fare the well maate and happy future "fact" manufacturing.

 

[SizeMatters]

How about you try to prove to me that I'm wrong? It's a win - win then? I'm obviously uninformed and would like to learn. Thank you.

 

[Windhover]

thanks for the reply Windhover appreciate it. a few comments.

No wurries Jas, I am happy to help.

climate modelling- i am skeptical of how accurate they can be with such a complex system, i accept that it is a very well educated and researched conclusion.

Nice one Jas. Some little birdie has told you that "scientific method" involves "being skeptical" so you think being skeptical about the accuracy of the models is a good "sciency" thing.

It isn't. It is one thing for a scientist to be skeptical about the models. It is another thing for self-confessed ignorami (like you and me) to be skeptical. Put another way, if you don't know the first thing about how the climate models are constructed, their designed limits of accuracy or the coherence of the modelling to past events what exactly are you being skeptical about?

Whatever you are being skeptical about, it isn't the science. And what's more, you are not a very consistent skeptic for reasons that will appear below.

i do have a little bit of doubt and always have, it has just gradually decreased over the years to the level it is at now.

Unlike you, I don't have any "doubt" because I don't have any "knowledge" to doubt. Surely you have to have scientific knowledge of climate science and its conclusions to have scientific doubt. Like if I had knowledge of God, I could doubt God. Not having such knowledge I have nothing to doubt.

as for my "pseudo-question". yes i am fishing for a responses and i already have my views, although i do like to hear others put forward in various ways. i do not dogmatically hold on to my opinions and have no problem admitting when i am wrong.

Surely ever skeptical you would more accurately say that you have no problems admitting when even your tentative conclusions are demonstrated not to be correct?

thanks for the reply Windhover appreciate it. a few comments.

No wurries Jas, I am happy to help.

climate modelling- i am skeptical of how accurate they can be with such a complex system, i accept that it is a very well educated and researched conclusion.

Nice one Jas. Some little birdie has told you that "scientific method" involves "being skeptical" so you think being skeptical about the accuracy of the models is a good "sciency" thing.

It isn't. It is one thing for a scientist to be skeptical about the models. It is another thing for self-confessed ignorami (like you and me) to be skeptical. Put another way, if you don't know the first thing about how the climate models are constructed, their designed limits of accuracy or the coherence of the modelling to past events what exactly are you being skeptical about?

Whatever you are being skeptical about, it isn't the science. And what's more, you are not a very consistent skeptic for reasons that will appear below.

i do have a little bit of doubt and always have, it has just gradually decreased over the years to the level it is at now.

Unlike you, I don't have any "doubt" because I don't have any "knowledge" to doubt. Surely you have to have scientific knowledge of climate science and its conclusions to have scientific doubt. Like if I had knowledge of God, I could doubt God. Not having such knowledge I have nothing to doubt.

what do i think is catastrophic? massive disruption to human life on this planet (all other forms of life will adjust and evolve as it always has IMO) eg. coastal inundation from rising sea levels. increases in tropical diseases.

Several points.
1. "Massive disruption" is no more quantitative than "catastrophic". Replacing one descriptor with another is not explanatory.
2. Your distinction between "human life" and all other forms of life is illusory for a number of reasons. First, evolution is an unavoidable aspect of reproducing life and applies to both sets, us and them, whether or not there are massive disruptions unless of course the form of life is wiped out. Indeed massive disruption (environmental change) will accelerate evolutionary change since there will be new niches to exploit even as old niches disappear. Secondly all (or almost all) life is inter-dependent or to put it more gruesomely all forms of life "eat" other forms of life (including deceased life). So whilst you and I don't eat grass we almost certainly eat something that does.
3. Which means for a top of the food chain predator (like you Jas) we get very badly affected much more quickly than those in simple niches with a single but reliable food source. I mean I will simply die if I can't eat oysters because the ocean's acidity prevents the formation of calcific shells.

i will confirm that i am ignorant when it comes to the wonders of this thing we call existence and the universe we inhabit and the many wonders and mysteries that this entails.

False modesty is the worst conceit, so it is said.

i have perused that link you supplied before thank you for the information anyway. yes a climate believer, but skepticism thrown into everything i am fed.

Not true. See below.

by "they" i mean the nightly weather forecast on the mainstream news. the average layperson would assume it has never been hotter IMO. my point was that if recorded temperature levels mean only a few hundred years, that seems a very small sample size to me. although you have confirmed that they can do said readings from ice core samples, so i stand corrected.

Why would you (a so-called skeptic) rely on anything a self-confessed ignoramus about climate change might tell you? Your "point" is a silly one although it starts promisingly enough.

First you aks yourself "Who cares about heat records being broken? Surely records are such a small time scale in the existence of human-like (say 2 M years), and we would want to know whether human-like creatures lived/even flourished in hotter conditions before we started running around yelling "fire". This is good thinking.

But, whether or not human-like creatures lived/flourished in hotter conditions in the past does not necessarily tell us anything about how we will go based on future predictions based on unabated carbon emissions. There are several reasons for this. First, it is a different world with different species (including us) to the ones human-like creatures might have lived in.

Secondly, the pace of climate change is important. Something that occurs on the time-scale applicable to the comings and goings of ice-ages seems, from the fossil records, not to be something that leads to mass extinction events - a point Size Matters might consider if only he were to rejoin our discussion. On the other hand climate change on the time scale applicable to large meteor strikes does seem to create difficulties for life to evolve through. Just ask the dinosaurs . . . oh wait.

Apparently (again I express no personal opinion since I have no knowledge about such things) so called experts in the biological sciences say that based on the speed at which climate change unabated will occur is going to cause mass extinctions of many species. In the short term certain species will no doubt (so they say) proliferate - perhaps jellyfish, but in the medium term there will be a large loss of diversity in life forms. The less the diversity the more vulnerable all life is to evolutionary adaption in the event of say a meteor strike because there are fewer different ways that life can grab on to what is still available to live on.

Anyway, applying the precautionary principle, why would we want to risk damaging our only home, the only one to which we have adapted to by evolutionary processes just so we can do all the things involved in burning fossil fuels?

finally, no i am not dying from cancer but thank you for your concern.

If you were a true skeptic (and you knew anything about cancer) you would have replied: "I have no evidence I am dying of cancer but for sure I may be in the nascent stage of some hideous cancer for which there is no cure." Instead, gullible like the rest of us, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Fine for every day living but nothing a scientific skeptic could agree with.

 

[M Malice]

No wurries Jas, I am happy to help.



Nice one Jas. Some little birdie has told you that "scientific method" involves "being skeptical" so you think being skeptical about the accuracy of the models is a good "sciency" thing.

It isn't. It is one thing for a scientist to be skeptical about the models. It is another thing for self-confessed ignorami (like you and me) to be skeptical. Put another way, if you don't know the first thing about how the climate models are constructed, their designed limits of accuracy or the coherence of the modelling to past events what exactly are you being skeptical about?

Whatever you are being skeptical about, it isn't the science. And what's more, you are not a very consistent skeptic for reasons that will appear below.


Unlike you, I don't have any "doubt" because I don't have any "knowledge" to doubt. Surely you have to have scientific knowledge of climate science and its conclusions to have scientific doubt. Like if I had knowledge of God, I could doubt God. Not having such knowledge I have nothing to doubt.



Surely ever skeptical you would more accurately say that you have no problems admitting when even your tentative conclusions are demonstrated not to be correct?


No wurries Jas, I am happy to help.



Nice one Jas. Some little birdie has told you that "scientific method" involves "being skeptical" so you think being skeptical about the accuracy of the models is a good "sciency" thing.

It isn't. It is one thing for a scientist to be skeptical about the models. It is another thing for self-confessed ignorami (like you and me) to be skeptical. Put another way, if you don't know the first thing about how the climate models are constructed, their designed limits of accuracy or the coherence of the modelling to past events what exactly are you being skeptical about?

Whatever you are being skeptical about, it isn't the science. And what's more, you are not a very consistent skeptic for reasons that will appear below.


Unlike you, I don't have any "doubt" because I don't have any "knowledge" to doubt. Surely you have to have scientific knowledge of climate science and its conclusions to have scientific doubt. Like if I had knowledge of God, I could doubt God. Not having such knowledge I have nothing to doubt.


Several points.
1. "Massive disruption" is no more quantitative than "catastrophic". Replacing one descriptor with another is not explanatory.
2. Your distinction between "human life" and all other forms of life is illusory for a number of reasons. First, evolution is an unavoidable aspect of reproducing life and applies to both sets, us and them, whether or not there are massive disruptions unless of course the form of life is wiped out. Indeed massive disruption (environmental change) will accelerate evolutionary change since there will be new niches to exploit even as old niches disappear. Secondly all (or almost all) life is inter-dependent or to put it more gruesomely all forms of life "eat" other forms of life (including deceased life). So whilst you and I don't eat grass we almost certainly eat something that does.
3. Which means for a top of the food chain predator (like you Jas) we get very badly affected much more quickly than those in simple niches with a single but reliable food source. I mean I will simply die if I can't eat oysters because the ocean's acidity prevents the formation of calcific shells.



False modesty is the worst conceit, so it is said.



Not true. See below.


Why would you (a so-called skeptic) rely on anything a self-confessed ignoramus about climate change might tell you? Your "point" is a silly one although it starts promisingly enough.

First you aks yourself "Who cares about heat records being broken? Surely records are such a small time scale in the existence of human-like (say 2 M years), and we would want to know whether human-like creatures lived/even flourished in hotter conditions before we started running around yelling "fire". This is good thinking.

But, whether or not human-like creatures lived/flourished in hotter conditions in the past does not necessarily tell us anything about how we will go based on future predictions based on unabated carbon emissions. There are several reasons for this. First, it is a different world with different species (including us) to the ones human-like creatures might have lived in.

Secondly, the pace of climate change is important. Something that occurs on the time-scale applicable to the comings and goings of ice-ages seems, from the fossil records, not to be something that leads to mass extinction events - a point Size Matters might consider if only he were to rejoin our discussion. On the other hand climate change on the time scale applicable to large meteor strikes does seem to create difficulties for life to evolve through. Just ask the dinosaurs . . . oh wait.

Apparently (again I express no personal opinion since I have no knowledge about such things) so called experts in the biological sciences say that based on the speed at which climate change unabated will occur is going to cause mass extinctions of many species. In the short term certain species will no doubt (so they say) proliferate - perhaps jellyfish, but in the medium term there will be a large loss of diversity in life forms. The less the diversity the more vulnerable all life is to evolutionary adaption in the event of say a meteor strike because there are fewer different ways that life can grab on to what is still available to live on.

Anyway, applying the precautionary principle, why would we want to risk damaging our only home, the only one to which we have adapted to by evolutionary processes just so we can do all the things involved in burning fossil fuels?



If you were a true skeptic (and you knew anything about cancer) you would have replied: "I have no evidence I am dying of cancer but for sure I may be in the nascent stage of some hideous cancer for which there is no cure." Instead, gullible like the rest of us, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Fine for every day living but nothing a scientific skeptic could agree with.

thanks again for the detailed response. i will take all you have said on board and undertake a little introspection.

 

[Windhover]

How about you try to prove to me that I'm wrong? It's a win - win then? I'm obviously uninformed and would like to learn. Thank you.

For me to "prove" to you that you are wrong I would need to know what methodology you apply in acquiring your "knowledge".

So if you can tell me the source of your ridiculous claim, as I have previously requested, I can at least begin on the task you set me.

I mean, if you were to say you heard it from Bolt and he is the best, then my efforts to inform you of what real scientists say would be entirely wasted on you as they are on Bolt.

 

[Duritz]

According to the cowspiracy doco animal agriculture is the biggest cause of global warming, not the burning of fossil fuels etc. according to the stats they present the clearing of forests for grazing and the emissions of cows plus the rsourves required to sustain the animal agriculture levels we currently have is by far the biggest reason we have global warming.

People watched this? Thoughts?

 

[POGMA]

Hi.

For the record, I consider myself pro environment, and as a zeitgeist advocate, I'm automatically what u might call a technological anarchist.
But I'm beginning to think that "man made global warming" is a hoax, ie, it's exaggerated and not understood well enough to know for certain what the toll of our co2 emissions are vs natural causation.

I'm not denying there's been a climate shift, or that we've being stupid wrt the environment in general, but I think it's important that we have certainty when it comes to AGW, and especially any horror stories about runaway global warming.

 

[POGMA]

According to the cowspiracy doco animal agriculture is the biggest cause of global warming, not the burning of fossil fuels etc. according to the stats they present the clearing of forests for grazing and the emissions of cows plus the rsourves required to sustain the animal agriculture levels we currently have is by far the biggest reason we have global warming.

People watched this? Thoughts?

My thoughts are, how do the scientists know what amount of co2 ppm is dangerous/threatening etc, and how do they know what the breakdown is between us and nature re the dispersal of it into the atmosphere.

 

[Lebbo73]

My thoughts are, how do the scientists know what amount of co2 ppm is dangerous/threatening etc, and how do they know what the breakdown is between us and nature re the dispersal of it into the atmosphere.

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/10-facts-and-10-myths-about-climate.html?m=1
Professor Bob Carter (1942-2016) was a paleontologist who was sacked for his work and findings on climate change and global warming. Here he has stated his 10 facts about climate change and 10 myths about global warming.

 

[POGMA]

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/10-facts-and-10-myths-about-climate.html?m=1
Professor Bob Carter (1942-2016) was a paleontologist who was sacked for his work and findings on climate change and global warming. Here he has stated his 10 facts about climate change and 10 myths about global warming.

On the proviso those facts are all true, it makes a mockery of AGW and the IPCC.

 

[POGMA]

Former Vice President Al Gore references computer modeling to suggest that the north polar ice cap may lose virtually all of its ice within the next seven years. "Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years," says Gore.

TIMES UP AL!!!!

 

[POGMA]

".

So if you can tell me the source of your ridiculous claim, as I have previously requested, I can at least begin on the task you set me.
.

I think the ridiculous claim is that the IPCC has credibility

 

[Windhover]

I think the ridiculous claim is that the IPCC has credibility

Why's that Poggo? Your reasons for thinking that, if you do, are much more interesting than your claimed opinion.

 

[POGMA]

Why's that Poggo? Your reasons for thinking that, if you do, are much more interesting than your claimed opinion.

Al gore and other environmental disaster alarmists have a RECORD OF WRONG

 

[wmvaux]

My thoughts are, how do the scientists know what amount of co2 ppm is dangerous/threatening etc, and how do they know what the breakdown is between us and nature re the dispersal of it into the atmosphere.

 

[theyellowsash]

I'm sure everyone thought releasing cfcs into the air wouldn't do any damage too. Nek minnit we've opened up a hole in the ozone layer and the whole world agrees to stop using them.

This idea that releasing our pollution into the air is not going to damage the environment is a complete fallacy. Even if it is not directly causing global warming, there is plentiful other damage being done that justifies the same measures used to combat global warming.

 

[Lebbo73]

I'm sure everyone thought releasing cfcs into the air wouldn't do any damage too. Nek minnit we've opened up a hole in the ozone layer and the whole world agrees to stop using them.

This idea that releasing our pollution into the air is not going to damage the environment is a complete fallacy. Even if it is not directly causing global warming, there is plentiful other damage being done that justifies the same measures used to combat global warming.

A totally different issue to CO2. Air pollution is a worry and I believe is responsible for causing some cancers, respiratory diseases and lower fertility rates.

 

[wmvaux]

I'm sure everyone thought releasing cfcs into the air wouldn't do any damage too. Nek minnit we've opened up a hole in the ozone layer and the whole world agrees to stop using them.

This idea that releasing our pollution into the air is not going to damage the environment is a complete fallacy. Even if it is not directly causing global warming, there is plentiful other damage being done that justifies the same measures used to combat global warming.

Fossil Fuels are the most reliable energy we have. Solar & Wind the so called renewables are unreliable and have been around for over 100 years and the so called experts are still saying it's the energy of the future. It's old and not reliable. Solar is far from being a green energy... look at the process it takes to make solar panels and then the waste product isn't much better. It's amazing the propaganda that comes out from the climate change people and groups... lies and more lies. CO2 is not a pollution, it's part of life and we need it to grow. If we were to follow "Green" ideals the world would be worse off. They are anti humanists, they have no consideration for the people of the world. We have longer lives, more enriched lives because of fossil fuels. We have access to more food and technology because of fossil fuels. There is no doubt we can always improve and have a cleaner environment, but lets not forget how far we have come because of fossil fuels.

Lets look at a couple of situations and work out what's best.....

1. We have a massive land area with lots of trees, wildlife, some areas with water.... Do we develop that land or do we keep it in it's natural state? A Green ideal would be to keep it in it's natural state..... Lets say that land is New York City.... A place where millions of people can develop and change the world in a positive way. Lots of energy is needed to power the city and they need reliable power. These people use technology to create things of the future to help make us live longer, have more enriched lives, give opportunities for the next generation to discover and improve things from the past....etc

2. You mother is on a life support machine.... Do you want that machine powered by renewable energy, lets say a solar panel or would you like that machine to be powered by fossil fuels... the most reliable energy around? It's a no brainer... yet we keep getting fed with bullshit propaganda. If we didn't have fossil fuels we'd be worse off not better off.

CO2 is not making global warming. If we all stopped emitting CO2's the global temperature isn't going to come down. It's not a temperature dial. There is solar activity that has changed conditions on other planets in the last 10-20 years... and it doesn't have anything to do with CO2's, so maybe there is a chance that we have also been affected. There have been higher CO2 ppm levels in the past and the Earth is still here, so the sooner we get over the doom and gloom the better we'll be.

Imagine if we put all our efforts in to positive things and not negative things... I think it's called perspective

 

[Father Jack]

Well, I have another name for it

 

[CM86]

Solar & Wind the so called renewables

 

[GreyCrow]

A totally different issue to CO2. Air pollution is a worry and I believe is responsible for causing some cancers, respiratory diseases and lower fertility rates.

But not climate change

 

[GreyCrow]

Fossil Fuels are the most reliable energy we have.

And brownouts don't occur

Solar & Wind the so called renewables are unreliable and have been around for over 100 years and the so called experts are still saying it's the energy of the future. It's old and not reliable

.Lol at old

Solar is far from being a green energy... look at the process it takes to make solar panels and then the waste product isn't much better. It's amazing the propaganda that comes out from the climate change people and groups... lies and more lies

.But lets ignore that big coal powered station. Lets ignore the tonnes of steel and concrete and wood for the poles.

CO2 is not a pollution, it's part of life and we need it to grow. If we were to follow "Green" ideals the world would be worse off. They are anti humanists, they have no consideration for the people of the world. We have longer lives, more enriched lives because of fossil fuels.

Fossil Fuels won a Nobel prize then? Really you truly believe this

We have access to more food and technology because of fossil fuels. There is no doubt we can always improve and have a cleaner environment, but lets not forget how far we have come because of fossil fuels.

At least you acknowledge a cleaner environment could be a good thing

Imagine if we put all our efforts in to positive things and not negative things... I think it's called perspective

Absolutely right. I'm putting my effort into unwatching this thread and doing some work. My perspective is you are clueless

 

[POGMA]

. They are anti humanists,

True to some extent, however, when considering the role of alt energy, we certainly have to ensure that people and environment are our main priority, but, and this needs to be understood in the context of a "resource based economy", "if" we installed a RBE, the cost of energy would be irrelevant as a RBE dispenses with money, it's primarily concerned with peak scientific efficiency and as I mentioned, must also put humanity and environment first.

Alt energy's value is its abundance, but again, we have to factor in efficiency, so parts of the world that have plenty of sunlight should focus on solar as an energy stream, and of course this regional application of alt energy makes the most sense, so parts of the world with strong persistent wind can take advantage of that as an energy stream......but we also have the notion and the technology to build entire land or seas based cities/dwellings that are "off the grid" to start with, so that would place less pressure on fossil fuel reserves, whatever they may be, LOL.

It would seem to me, that given all the problems we're facing...

1...unemployment, technological unemployment/permanent unemployment.
2...environmental problems, exacerbated by increasing population and globalization.
3...an unstable and corrupt monetary system.
4...continuing wars for resources, or for their own sake, ie, various players make money from wars regardless of the outcome.
5...gap between rich and poor increasing along with the cost of living.
6..crime rates to reflect circumstances and also providing better pay.

It would seem to me that one of 2 things are inevitable, either full automation{zeitgeist/venus project} or large scale war till human numbers managed and economic cycle "reset" to some degree, given the extreme nature of the war scenario, it seems to me that the zeitgeist is inevitable.