| Author | Message | ||
     Falloutnl |
How are we supposed to react when we are told this by our "betters"? A team of scientists appointed by the United Nations has reported that a free market system cannot provide the economic transition required to defeat climate change. We can't. And while I 100% agree with that observation, the free market is what inadvertently caused this is in the first place, it's too big for any one of us to turn around in any meaningful time frame. Which is why it's entirely understandable and justified to get angry whenever it is suggested to us that we are the ones that should change it somehow. All we can do is vote someone in who will. Sadly, the world is showing a move towards parties and figures with nationalist tendencies for whom climate and environment are still tainted terms as if they somehow make you weak to even think of. Like the uh, tree hugger stigma. Oh and 'demands' is a misrepresentation of the language in the UN report. They do not 'demand' they recommend. Though I get it's tempting to skew that a little. It's almost a shame I have another 50-60 good years in me, and I have to put up with living with this crap... There's no need to get worked up over it from your end of things, I think. How much will it impact you really if all of this turns out to be nothing more than a fundamental misinterpretation of the data? "Our side" has significantly more to lose and get worked up over if we're right. (Message edited by falloutnl on November 30, 2018) (Message edited by falloutnl on November 30, 2018) | ||
| Sifo |
That graph you posted Sifo charts an increase, does it not? Seems to correspond with the start of the industrial age. Well that's incredibly simplistic. I really hope you can see a tiny bit deeper than that. I'll help out with a CO2 chart too. I made the assumption, perhaps incorrectly, that you were aware of when CO2 levels went up exponentially.  CO2 levels didn't really take off until post-WWII. "Global warming", which presumably is the cause of rising sea levels didn't really get going until the 1970's or so. Unless you count the warming from the Little Ice Age, but that event is being scrubbed from the official temperature history. Unfortunately, I can't find any record of direct sea level measurements prior to 1870. It seems that is the start of reliable records. What's clear is that sea levels were rising in the 1870s, long before the sharp rise in CO2, which didn't start until around 1950. So sea level rise started AT LEAST 80 years before the rise in CO2. Quite possibly much before that. But CO2 isn't the direct cause of sea level rise, it's temperature. Temperature didn't take a sharp turn upward until after 1970. I would accept the possibility that there could be a 20 year lag in warming from the rise in CO2, but you have a full century of steady sea level rise before the current temperature trend. I await your explanation of why sea levels are a leading indicator of global warming. So having said I would accept the possibility that rising temps lag rising CO2 by a couple of decades, I've seen nothing in the theory proposed that suggests this. Quite the contrary, it should be a readily apparent effect, as the heat is trapped immediately upon the rise in CO2. The truth however is that the world is a bit more complicated than that, and while CO2 is an effective greenhouse gas, it is already swamped by other greenhouse gasses in the wavelengths where CO2 is effective. So it isn't that CO2 has zero effect on temperature, but it is minimized to the point that it will never be the primary driver of the climate. Just because I'm a hypocrite, doesn't mean the point I'm making is wrong ; ). So your point is that you believe that if people continue to act as you do, the world will have catastrophic change happen, but you don't want to be a leader in preventing that from happening. You will only act if those who you can't convince will act first. It seems that folks like Al Gore take the same view too. That does little to help convince me that the AGW alarmists even believe what they claim. The same can be said very much for the political parties and the way they are funded. This goes for both Dems and Reps. I doubt very much that, Hillary, other than some lip service, would have done that much more to limit emissions and bring much needed change to the economic system that causes it. Such action would directly hit the wallets of the groups that put them in power. The Dems are largely funded by environmental groups. The actions of Dem leaders show that they are no friends of fossil fuel companies, despite BO taking credit for the boom in fossil fuels in the past couple of years. It's good for a laugh if nothing else. But again, these are world leaders, who do not make the changes they are asking of you and I in order to save the world from catastrophe. Total lack of conviction of their beliefs. I would also argue that there is a much less rigorous system of controlling those political dynamics than the system of peer reviews (though far from perfect) that check whether papers published on (in this case) climate change are scientifically sound. If only peer review had anything to do with a paper being scientifically sound. As evidence of this, I will point out that earlier this year I posted about a peer reviewed paper in this very thread, that was so stupidly wrong, that I chose to ridicule it here. Some months later, it came out that it was part of a group (of about 20 papers IIRC) "scientific" papers that were purposely falsified and submitted for publication to expose the problem that as long as you are on the side of the alarmists, peer review is basically a given. When an amateur like myself can easily spot a faked study, but the professionals who are supposed to be reviewing them with a critical eye can't (or won't), you have a real credibility problem. Again, just to be clear, I only noticed one of the faked studies. There was a large group of them that got published. Kind of funny, but it's a sad state of "science". It's also why they 'rebranded' to climate change because 'global warming' caused confusion whenever there was a cold winter. Actually, it got rebranded about 12 years into flat temperature records. Hard to keep calling it warming when it's not warming anymore. I started out as a skeptic as well. I thought Al Gore was full of shit when I first saw that film over a decade ago. I've come around though. I will simply submit this again...  Even Shell knew about it in 1991 and then suppressed the documentary they made on the subject. Documentary or propaganda? Either way, it's not scientific evidence of anything. It was a way for Shell to try to convince people that they were environmentalists. I'll let you tell me if you think that they really are environmentalists. | ||
| Ratbuell |
An abnormal rate of increase is not a temp out of range. And if you look at charts through history (LONG history, like geological history), the curves are not identical, they don't always match. they want to run your life, and take your money. Period. How though? To make a monthly donation to some environmental organisation? Seems like a lot of work to create such a large conspiracy for a few measly dollars each month. No. By dictating - once they achieve the power they desire by getting "voted in by people who want to see things change" - that you use only state-approved...well...ANYthing. Fuel sources. Power utilities. Food sources. They want to dictate how many children you can have. They want to dictate how much of the approved supplies you are allowed to consume. Why? Because they - once they are elected and given power - will make sure the companies THEY OWN, and the companies who have SUPPORTED THEM, are the ONLY ones on the list of approved resources. Look up the carbon tax post - they, literally, want to tell you how many children you are allowed to have. That isn't government, that isn't climate, that isn't economics. What that is (other than lunacy), is absolute dictatorship. And as for the sea levels rising...well...where is it? Manhattan was supposed to be underwater 8 years ago. But, as it turns out, some small islands (Galapagos?) are actually further OUT of the water than before - their square footage is INCREASING incrementally. None of their arguments hold water (pun intended). And their hypocritcal actions with the private jets and excessive lifestyles tell me - you know, that guy who thinks for himself and calls 'em the way he sees 'em - their lifestyles and hypocrasies tell me they aren't the type of people I'd want to waste any time on, much less believe in or give power to. Their LIFE is a LIE, but they're still being twofaced and trying to guilt the rest of the world into buying into their plan, to line their pockets with money and fill their lives with power. No thanks. | ||
| Hootowl |
"That's precisely what they say is happening. That it's an abnormal rate of increase." It isn't. Look beyond the 100 years or so of data they point to. Zoom out. There is nothing abnormal about the current temperature changes or the rate of change. These folks are worried about a trace gas that is not a significant greenhouse gas, and is sequestered naturally by marine life, and lost forever. Life on Earth will die from a lack of CO2, not from too much of it. They know this. The AGW lie is not about saving humanity. The researchers are making money they never would make with out it, and the people behind the lie have gained enormous political power. This is worth reposting. If you've not see this, please take the time to do so. Badwebbers, I give you one of the founding members of Green Peace, back when it was a real environmental organization. http://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-cel ebrate-carbon-dioxide/ Hail CO2! | ||
| Hootowl |
"I would accept the possibility that there could be a 20 year lag in warming from the rise in CO2" Except that temperature increases LAG CO2 increases by several years. Yes, that's right, temperature goes up, then CO2 goes up, not the other way around. This makes sense, as a warmer ocean can hold less dissolved CO2 (and other gases). The AGW zealots claim that CO2 and temperature go up in lockstep, and they are right...but they omit (lie) that temperature goes up first. | ||
| Sifo |
"I would accept the possibility that there could be a 20 year lag in warming from the rise in CO2" Except that temperature increases LAG CO2 increases by several years. Yes, that's right, temperature goes up, then CO2 goes up, not the other way around. This makes sense, as a warmer ocean can hold less dissolved CO2 (and other gases). The AGW zealots claim that CO2 and temperature go up in lockstep, and they are right...but they omit (lie) that temperature goes up first. I posted that just "for the sake of argument" on that one point. I did make it clear in the next paragraph that this held no water. | ||
| Sifo |
Observations often outpace the projections... which is why the IPCC lowered the threshold to 1.5 degrees C instead of 2 as a point of no return. You do understand that the IPCC is a political, not scientific body, don't you? You started this with a statement to the effect that it's kind of silly refuting someone who is refuting "end of the world" scenarios. The problem is that you are using those who push the end of the world scenarios as proof of your position. What is the evidence that a slightly warmer world will even be a bad thing? Mostly computer modeling. We know for a fact that a few degrees cooler is brutally bad. True end of the world as we know it bad. So we magically live in a Goldilocks environment that is easily upset by CO2 levels that are actually historically low? Not impossible, but improbable. they want to run your life, and take your money. Period. How though? To make a monthly donation to some environmental organisation? Seems like a lot of work to create such a large conspiracy for a few measly dollars each month. Through force and a global carbon tax. Again, the IPCC is a political organization, not scientific. Their agenda is political. Global governments need to extricate themselves from pockets of wealthy multinationals and start implementing top down policy to prevent further disaster. It will never happen though, but I do enjoy the discussion. You are so close to answering your own question about how they will control your life. Again, the IPCC is a piece of that very global government. They are NOT a scientific organization. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Again, the IPCC is a political organization, not scientific." The panel is political, yes, but there are scientists behind the scenes. And often the conclusions of the panel (the political part) contradict the observations made by the scientists in the annual report. If you just read the conclusion, you'll have a very different opinion of the state of the climate than had you read the report itself. Scientists who point this out are ostracized and lose work. | ||
| Sifo |
"Again, the IPCC is a political organization, not scientific." The panel is political, yes, but there are scientists behind the scenes. And often the conclusions of the panel (the political part) contradict the observations made by the scientists in the annual report. If you just read the conclusion, you'll have a very different opinion of the state of the climate than had you read the report itself. Scientists who point this out are ostracized and lose work. All exactly my point. Even a solid scientist in this atmosphere doesn't have their work fairly represented. Being political, it is just as corrupt as any political organization. Even worse, it lacks the internal checks and balances of a "good" corrupt government. | ||
| Hootowl |
I agree completely. | ||
| Gregtonn |
Once again I will ask: How are Global sea levels measured? How were they measured in 1870? What and where is the baseline? I will add: How are Global temperatures measured? How were they measured in 1870? What and where is the baseline? Until those questions can be answered you may as well be discussing Ratbuell's backyard measurements as the ideal climate. G | ||
| Sifo |
Hey Falloutnl, I've got a personal question for you if you don't mind. How do you, and I do mean the personal you, manage to trust the official temperature record as it is being presented, given the "adjustments" that are being made?    EDIT: Looks like the hot link I used for the GIF files is not playing nice all the time. Hope these new ones work better... (Message edited by SIFO on November 30, 2018) | ||
| Gregtonn |
Here are just a few variables affecting sea levels: http://scienceprimer.com/lunar-and-solar-tides Add in sea swells, storm surges, wave patterns, variations caused by orbital mechanics, plate tectonics etc. and you cannot possibly predict sea levels accurately within millimeters over any significant period of time. G | ||
| Hootowl |
The idea that we can determine the Earth's temperature within a half a degree is ludicrous as well. | ||
| Aesquire |
Simply. The Climate alarmists lie to you. The numbers are adjusted, it is fraud. With science, you make a theory & examine the data. If the data doesn't show what the theory predicts, your theory is wrong and you make another. If you change the data to match your theory, That is fraud, not science. And finally, in 1977 the prediction was onrushing ice age. The solution? Tax fossil fuels, control population, stockpile food, impose a world government with control of all energy use & all aspects of your life. What you eat, where you live, how warm your hovel is. Then in 1998, during a warm spell, the prediction was onrushing heat. Solution? Except for the food stockpiling, which never happened and has been dropped, the exact same thing. This we know, unequivocally, That the "solution" is the goal, not to solve any problem except how to rip you off by lying to you. And apparently, the folk following the Prophet Gore couldn't figure out how to get rich creating food stores. Because, obviously, if you create actual stockpiles, there can be actual accounting, and they'd get caught stealing your money. But taxing an invisible, odorless gas you exhale? In amounts they determine by fiat? Pure profit for rich, evil men. Dude. It is a lie. Not that climate changes, it always has and always will. I can discuss the historical record for hours, I've been studying it since the 1970's. You ever hear of Petra? Pueblo? The lie is that the government can control the weather if we submit to it enough. | ||
| Sifo |
So here's what really bothers me about the above images, and they are just a few that came up from my search. My concern applies to the plethora of these comparisons that have been published. I see 2 likely possibilities that would explain this. 1) The vast majority of the temperature data collected prior to about 1950 is corrupt and errors on the high side, while at the same time the vast majority of the temperature data collected after about 1950 is corrupt and errors on the low side. Even more incredible, the error grows larger as you get further from 1950, in both directions. This would require systemic problems across many weather stations, involving many individuals doing the work. Somehow though, as if by magic, right around 1950, all of those systemic problems didn't exist. Yet, incredibly, nobody was aware of these widespread systemic errors, across many independent data sets, some of which use different means of measurement than others until just recently, when they managed to correct all of these errors by adjusting all of the data. To say that this is improbable is really understating it IMO. or 2) There has been collusion in recent years to adjust valid data to increase the warming, across many independent data sets that are managed by numerous authorities. I really can't come up with a third plausible possibility. The first speaks of massive incompetence among climate scientists over a period of generations. That would be very bad. The second speaks of massive corruption among a smaller group of scientists, in recent years. If I'm missing another possible scenario, please post it up. As it is, I tend to believe the second possibility over the first. Here's the problem though... After seeing this exposed, how are we ever going to believe anything we are told by these authorities? They have simply changed the data to suite their purposes, and I'm unaware of any reasonable explanation for why the data would need such adjustment. The people backing this fraud should never be trusted again. And this is only the most recent of a long list of scandals from these people. What say you Falloutnl? Do you have faith in the people who have adjusted these data sets? Do you have ANY explanation for why these adjustments were necessary? I'd really like to hear answers to these questions. | ||
| Aesquire |
Consider the ideology of the people involved. Rush ( radio pundit ) is centrist/conservative, an idiot on science, and questions anything the Left says. He doesn't think people can cause climate change on a global level. Hubris, he says. He's half right. Don't trust the Left. I know human activity can cause local weather changes. Two examples. Ok three. Over grazing by sheep and goats causes deserts. The Sahara is much larger today by human activity. Much of the middle East is barren landscape because of over grazing & stone age farming. Every time you run a plow over the land some turns to dust & blows away. 14,000 years in the same place? You get modern Syria. Taking too much water out of natural circulation, can dry up a Sea, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea There's a different version in the American West, where an ill considered dam on the Colorado loses an incredible amount of water to evaporation and subterranean cracks caused by the sheer weight of the water. ( removing this dam might be a major good, but is unlikely due to bureaucracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_Canyon_Dam ) Only time will tell how much of a disaster China's new dams will cause. And a third, closely related disaster, the Aswan dam in Egypt stopped the periodic flooding of the Nile basin. The lack of yearly fresh mud has wrecked the ancient Egyptian farming system, functional for thousands of years, and the reduction in underground flow has led to salt water incursion into the Nile delta farmlands. I'll skip the defense analysis of building a sword of Damocles water system. Dang. And third, over population. In China, air pollution from coal cooking fires alone can be seen from space. & Eco-idiocy is directly responsible for the devastation of western U.S. Forest lands, especially in the annual California wildfire season. I include this with overpopulation, even though the density is low, because of political pressure to save rich folk's homes placed in wilderness areas that would have had minor ( but costly to a very few ) fires clearing the undergrowth, now have major ones. In all three cases man made messes affect a substantial region. The chaos theory analysis makes the regional disasters arguably global. Thus, Rush is an idiot. On the science. He is, however, correct on the scam. Simply not believing known liars can get you pretty far even if you are ignorant of a subject. Annoying, isn't it? Otoh, many of the folk classified as blasphemous deniers by the Climate cult, are informed, scientifically literate, people. Micheal Crichton, Freeman Dyson!, it's a long list, but just those should give you pause. | ||
| Aesquire |
Now, the other side. James Hanson, NASA, political leftist, violations of campaign laws. Proven dishonest. Al Gore, flunked out of meteorology in Divinity school. Highest position? Human shield . ( where he joins the illustrious ranks of Joe Biden, Dan Quale, and Dick Cheney as assassination discouragement greats. ) Burns more fossil fuel in a month than most of us in a year. But it's ok! He sells Indulgences. To himself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence The Communist Party U.S.A. The United Nations Climate panel, That has openly stated that the science is not the point, the purpose of Climate Change Cultism is power. Green parties, European and American, created originally by the Soviet Union to destroy Western Industrial might. And many more. All dedicated to gaining power over the individual and imposition of "benevolent" authoritarian State, because they are smarter, better, and more "woke" than you. I've skipped quite a lot for brevity. | ||
| Sifo |
I wish a smart congresscritter would get the notion to accept the "fact that the science is settled". Then they could pass a bill to not allow any more federal funding to toward climate studies. After all, the science is settled. What's the use of spending hundreds of millions (I'm sure many billions when you include NASA) more to study what is settled. I'm sure we will then hear how it's not so settled after all. | ||
| Aesquire |
So true. | ||
| Zac4mac |
How can you say "climate change" is political? "What began as protests over President Macron's fuel tax has transformed into general anger at high living costs. Mr Macron says his fuel policies are needed to combat global warming. At least 80 people have been injured, including 14 members of the security forces." BBC article on Paris riots 30NOV18 | ||
| Sifo |
You just can't make this stuff up. 3 years ago I was playing with some graphs using the Hadley global temperature data. In a post at Friday, December 04, 2015 - 10:30 pm: I provided the data as it was at that time. Just for kicks, I went back to it to see how history has been changed...  Surprised? The data from 2015 had already been adjusted showing more of a warming trend. That was part of the discussion back then. Now it's been adjusted even more! WTF! My confidence in the data provided by the keepers is about zero. Falloutnl, any thoughts? | ||
| Sifo |
 | ||
| Ebutch |
       | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.breitbart.com/latin-america/2018/12/01 /brazils-populist-minister-sl ams-climate-alarmism-as-marxist-ideology The truth comes out. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/01/deli ngpole-michael-hockey-stick-mann-invites-you-sniff -dirty-linen Mann of the infamous hockey stick graph. A work so flawed that no matter how he massaged the data, wouldn't come out the way he wanted until he wrote the algorithm so that random phone book numbers generated the hockey stick shape. When more of your emails are about discrediting folk who threaten your funding than science, you know the score. Incidentally, my micro meteorology teacher at U of PA, down the hall from Mann, just shakes his head and mutters when asked about him. When Mann was cleared of any wrongdoing by the same President that covered up for the pedo assistant coach, for the same reason, to protect the college's reputation and income stream, you get a pretty clear notion of how things work in academia today. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/graham-spanier-ex-pen n-state-president-convicted-of-child-endangerment/ You'll notice this isn't infowars, it's mainstream media & real criminal court. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2018/11/30/7-p ieces-of-fake-news-about-the-latest-u-s-climate-re port/ If we burn more coal than exists then the temperature may rise a lot. And still would kill less people than the Climate Con proposes to by economic crisis. That is, of course, based on fake science and biased projections. The ideal, from the Greenie view, is a Rainbow Six type plague that reduces humanity to sustainable levels. Since Tom Clancy scenarios brought us 9/11/01, ( Debt Of Honor ) this isn't as unlikely as it seems. Or the Organic Food Jihad could kill more than half the planetary population by famine, if they had their way. Not going to happen, unless Hyphen Cortez becomes President. But both are more likely than anything the U.N. Ipcc predicts. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2018/12/2/18119889/c imon-iss-ai-robot-crew-member-video-hal-9000-esa-s pace Programmed to refuse to open the pod bay doors. | ||
| Falloutnl |
Falloutnl, any thoughts? It's ten against one in here and responding to all of your points would take me a day or so (and we can all keep pulling graphs and stats from anywhere confirming whatever point of view we desire, that's also a dead end), so I've come up with the following uh, metaphor I guess: You visit a doctor, this doctor tells you you have cancer and you need treatment in the form of chemotherapy. You want to be sure, so you visit 99 other doctors. 96 of whom also tell you you have cancer and you need chemotherapy. Do you accept their diagnosis and start treatment? Cause what you guys are telling me is that you're afraid nearly a 100 doctors are making up some story about cancer in order to sell you chemotherapy they somehow make money on. Cancer in this scenario is climate change. Chemotherapy in this scenario is whatever solution humanity can come up with. 97 in this scenario is the percentage of climate scientist whose research supports the thesis that climate change is anthropogenic. | ||
| Hootowl |
The 97 percent number is also fraudulent. The thing is lies, soup to nuts. Don’t take my word for it. |
