CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Akrasia

I don’t trust the intelligence agencies either. They don’t work for the public, they work for the government, or whoever controls the government, but Oneiric was happy to allude to them when they supported his argument and then instantly discredits all intelligence agencies as soon as they say something he disagreed with.

This is why, when the origins of the virus came into question, I don’t just blindly follow statements by Trump or (blatantly political) announcements of government investigations, I checked what the expert scientists had to say and whether those statements conformed with the best scientific evidence

There have been multiple studies looking at the genetic evidence and they all conclude that it had natural origins

We do not have all of the information needed to know for certain but this doesn’t mean we should just fill in the gaps with half baked conspiracy theories and treat all information as equally valid

The parallels between attitudes and beliefs surrounding this virus and Climate change are many

Oneiric 3

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

The intelligence organisations have confirmed that there is absolutely no evidence that this virus was created in a lab
zero

:eek:

Akrasia wrote: »

We do not have all of the information needed to know for certain

Akrasia wrote: »

The parallels between attitudes and beliefs surrounding this virus and Climate change are many

:cool:

Akrasia wrote: »

I checked what the expert scientists had to say... not half baked conspiracy theories

2018.


:pac:

2020


:rolleyes:

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

:eek:

Those two quotes are completely compatible with each other

There is zero evidence that humans evolved from a discarded packet of alien King Crisps. We do not have enough evidence to know for certain and say exactly where the very earliest humans originated from

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

I don’t trust the intelligence agencies either...

Why?, science=knowledge=intelligence.

You blissfully accept "climate science", but are very quick to dismiss agency science!

Akrasia wrote: »

There is zero evidence that humans evolved from a discarded packet of alien King Crisps.

There is also zero evidence that we didn't too...

Thargor

Danno wrote: »

Why?, science=knowledge=intelligence.

You blissfully accept "climate science", but are very quick to dismiss agency science! .

Do you actually need the difference explained to you between peer reviewed scientific studies and politically driven intelligence opinions or are you just pretending to not understand? Theres really no hope for you if you do.

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

Why?, science=knowledge=intelligence.

You blissfully accept "climate science", but are very quick to dismiss agency science!



There is also zero evidence that we didn't too...

Well you clearly do not understand the words you are using

Oneiric 3

Danno wrote: »

Why?, science=knowledge=intelligence.

You blissfully accept "climate science", but are very quick to dismiss agency science!

.

Note Mann's comments above. Classic example of 'confirmation bias' at play. He likes to project the image that, as an 'expert', he is free and apart from such silly little things, but just slightest prod in the belly is enough to reveal that he and his work are motivated, in no small part, by his own personal politics, to the point where he will blatantly indulge in age old conspiracy theories which are pushed by right wing, agenda driven mainstream media and political hacks.

Akrasia

So you're saying that everything is peachy in the US at the moment? That they're not experiencing some of the most broken and corrupt political machinations in living memory?

The US political system is a total train wreck right now

BTW, Trump was not exonerated on his links to Putin and attempt to use russian interference to win his election, the only reason he wasn't prosecuted was because it was deemed that they had no authority to prosecute a sitting president

Mann was far from a conspiracy theorist by alluding to the corruption in the US Political system

FVP3

Akrasia wrote: »

So you're saying that everything is peachy in the US at the moment? That they're not experiencing some of the most broken and corrupt political machinations in living memory?

The US political system is a total train wreck right now

BTW, Trump was not exonerated on his links to Putin and attempt to use russian interference to win his election, the only reason he wasn't prosecuted was because it was deemed that they had no authority to prosecute a sitting president

Mann was far from a conspiracy theorist by alluding to the corruption in the US Political system

Most of the Steele report was proven false. All of it perhaps. All that was left was the known fact that he publically asked wikileaks to get dirt on Clinton.

The US has been bat crazy since 9/11, on both sides of the aisle.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

The US political system is a total train wreck right now

Yes, but no more than it ever was. You just want to believe the likes of 'expert' (what exactly is his area of expertise anyway?) Mann who pushes idiotic, childish conspiracy theories.

If I was Michael Moore, I would sue Mann for every penny he has, and then some.

FVP3

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

You just want to believe the likes of 'expert' (what exactly is his area of expertise anyway?) .

Climate change.

Oneiric 3

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Frankly, I don't know who to believe about this virus and its origins but it sure was fishy to say the least that Chinese government scientists were working in a Canadian lab several years ago where something very similar was being studied, and then they got kicked out of Canada for violating the terms of their contractual arrangement, and some samples of various pathogens were shipped to Beijing against the wishes of the lab. Now these may all be facts that don't line up to the conclusion that COVID-19 was deliberately created or enhanced for bad purposes, but you can't blame anyone for being suspicious about it, given the nature of the government of China and the relationships of western nations with China (a mixture of fear, respect and entrapment).

Imagine, for a moment, if the we replaced the name 'China' here with 'Russia'. You and I could be our bottom cent that the mainstream narrative regarding the origins of this virus would be very, very different.

FVP3 wrote: »

Climate change.

Ah, that explains his 'takes'.

FVP3

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Imagine, for a moment, if the we replaced the name 'China' here with 'Russia'. You and I could be our bottom cent that the mainstream narrative regarding the origins of this virus would be very, very different.

You don't live in the US dude. Both sides are nuts. The US, as a whole, is conspiratorial about other nations, particularly any nation that stands up to it, or stands in the way or global or regional hegemony.

FVP3

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I
Ah, that explains his 'takes'.

You right though, we should stop listening to experts scientists working for Nasa and instead listen to you. A lad on the interweb.

Oneiric 3

FVP3 wrote: »

You right though, we should stop listening to experts scientists working for Nasa and instead listen to you. A lad on the interweb.

And of course we should listen to you, a lad on the 'interweb' telling us to listen to experts from NASA.

But what has your comment got to do with anything I have said?

Oneiric 3

FVP3 wrote: »

You don't live in the US dude. Both sides are nuts. The US, as a whole, is conspiratorial about other nations, particularly any nation that stands up to it, or stands in the way or global or regional hegemony.

I know all this already... 'dude', so what is your point exactly?

Nabber

Climate change is a populist agenda with a foundation based in consensus and not science. COVID19 will probably shift a lot of focus towards pandemics.
What we will see the Natural Climate Variation deniers do now is link them together, that some how COVID19 is a wake up call to climate change threat (already posted in here) or that the additional warmth in the atmosphere helped to spread the virus.

Oneiric 3

Interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCSdDKsxo34

Double standards of the pro Neocon/Neolib media brought to the surface, and by implication, the so-called 'experts' who bought into this conspiracy theory hook, line and centre and pushed it onto gullible minds.

Scum.

Isn't it noteworthy though that all of these climate change 'activists', are, time and time again, having their foundations of their beliefs exposed as being total fabrications, and yet, never do they have the humility to self reflect and re-evaluate their position, but instead double down on their absolute hubris?

FVP3

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

And of course we should listen to you, a lad on the 'interweb' telling us to listen to experts from NASA.

But what has your comment got to do with anything I have said?

Sure because I am pointing to the experts, not saying I am one. If for instance I suggested that someone interested in quantum theory looked at lectures on Feynman and you said your opinion was that quantum theory was nonsense, I could an reject your theory for not being expert but wouldn't, myself, be claiming expertise.

Not sure how we got onto Russiagate.

Oneiric 3

FVP3 wrote: »

Sure because I am pointing to the experts,

And I was pointing to 'experts' who unironically spout out long known conspiracy theories simply because it suits their ideological agenda. Mann and his likes should stick to 'climate change', because they are just way out of their depth when it comes to anything that actually matters in the real world.

Hooter23

If scientists are so smart why are they always "baffled"




https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/scientists-baffled-earthquakes-suggest-moons-21973495

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1269311/yellowstone-volcano-old-faithful-geyser-eruption-due-supervolcano-usgs-activity-spt

https://www.thesun.ie/tech/5089287/scientists-baffled-by-mysterious-radio-signals-sent-from-another-galaxy-every-16-days/

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/monster-galaxy-xmm2599-university-of-california-a4354796.html



Here is just a few examples seems they are baffled everyday by everything......

FVP3

Hooter23 wrote: »

If scientists are so smart why are they always "baffled"




https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/scientists-baffled-earthquakes-suggest-moons-21973495

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1269311/yellowstone-volcano-old-faithful-geyser-eruption-due-supervolcano-usgs-activity-spt

https://www.thesun.ie/tech/5089287/scientists-baffled-by-mysterious-radio-signals-sent-from-another-galaxy-every-16-days/

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/monster-galaxy-xmm2599-university-of-california-a4354796.html



Here is just a few examples seems they are baffled everyday by everything......

Because not everything is easily understood, and it doesn't mean they wont work it out.

They aren't "baffled" by what is causing climate change though, humans.

Thargor

Hooter23 wrote: »

If scientists are so smart why are they always "baffled"




https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/scientists-baffled-earthquakes-suggest-moons-21973495

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1269311/yellowstone-volcano-old-faithful-geyser-eruption-due-supervolcano-usgs-activity-spt

https://www.thesun.ie/tech/5089287/scientists-baffled-by-mysterious-radio-signals-sent-from-another-galaxy-every-16-days/

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/monster-galaxy-xmm2599-university-of-california-a4354796.html



Here is just a few examples seems they are baffled everyday by everything......

Look at the sources you're using for your claim and then go look at yourself in the mirror, embarrassing.

M.T. Cranium

I continue to think that the main problem creating this division of opinion is that one side has attempted to claim absolute certainty about something that is only being estimated, while another side doesn't want to legitimize the debate and awaits a restart from those making the unacceptable pronouncements.

Having said that, the predictable response will be that I am not "following the evidence," in other words, a complete inability to recognize that there could be any merit in the charge of incomplete development of the climate change theory.

So if the climate change theory is incompletely developed, then the agenda that follows is both irrelevant and dangerous. Anyone could have an agenda based on what they believe, see for example widely different political positions on abortion or gay rights. In those sorts of fields, there is no scientific test, it's a moral question and therefore can only be settled by the eventual dominance of one position over its alternative.

With this incomplete science looming over us, the solution is to complete the science. Many of the people who are skeptical of the details of the AGW position are reasonable people who have long ago accepted most other scientific propositions because they see no compelling reason not to accept them. It must be maddening and somewhat difficult to understand this call to go back and finish the work properly, when the workers believe they have done a great job. I think the canary in the coal mine was that exchange over natural variability -- not that the loudest voices on that were necessarily speaking for anyone but themselves, but on the assumption that their views might reflect those of more senior people in the AGW community (something I have not yet totally established to my own satisfaction) then that needs to be revisited, and the Toronto data shows why. There was obviously a much stronger role for natural variability in changes that took place in that data set than is widely accepted by modern climate science. But I consider that to be partly due to a blind spot within modern climate science, it developed more or less out of the marriage of climate change investigation and political theories that would bias the holders towards anti-development solutions. Nobody in that movement apparently wants to engage with these unpleasant realities that climate has shown similar tendencies to decadal change in the past and that a larger part of recent warming could very well be natural in its origins.

If so, we are just wasting our time with these conferences, political pressure movements and other phenomena that cannot change anything even if they succeeded, and I note that success is more or less defined as the failure of development economies. So that is dangerous and with the pandemic as a sort of cautionary tale, just closing down large sectors of economies can only work for a short time before chaos and economic collapse follow.

Now some will argue, scientists should not worry about economic abstractions, this is purely a scientific question. Well not really, the pure scientific question is, how much will sea levels rise and when will they do so? And a secondary question, is there really any substantial danger from other aspects of warming, or is that being overblown to scare people into acting? When I hear such chestnuts as the Syrian civil war being a direct consequence of global warming, I would have to say the AGW lobby has rolled the dice and decided to go "all in" on a theory that has to explain a lot of things that probably cannot be explained by the weather at all. People have been fighting and killing each other in the Middle East since a historical record was kept.

I would like to see the international community acting on the potential for warming, make no mistake about that, because there are things we can do and should do now. But to imagine that it will be preventable if we change "our ways" is to throw out the important foundation of our science in general, that natural variability plays a large role, always has and always will unless we invent climate modification on a much larger scale than increasing greenhouse gases slightly. Yes it leaves a signal in the temperature record, but so do other things.

We are being asked, essentially, to accept that greenhouse gases have some way of increasing the frequency and intensity of the El Nino effect -- because that's what drove the warming phase from 1998 to 2012. I don't see how the physics establishes any such cause and effect. And when there was a massive El Nino in the mid 1870s, guess what happened at Toronto -- the climate warmed by 3 degrees. The years from 1876 to 1881 were considerably warmer than the years up to 1875. Because it was a somewhat colder background global climate, it became highly variable at times and the warming more or less collapsed around mid-1882. The idea that the 1880s were cold because of Krakatoa seems to be fundamentally flawed because the 1880s turned very cool a year before Krakatoa erupted. The eruption may have prolonged what was already going to be a lengthy cold spell (it faded out in North America at least around 1889).

You can't win a debate if nobody says it's a debate, so I don't know what to make of this situation, people who seem to know very little about past weather and climate blandly telling people who I know do understand it in considerable detail that they are not drawing responsible conclusions -- this is rather like the students telling the teacher that he has no clue and they will take over instruction. But in this case the students have a lot of clout with the media and political parties. So we may just have to throw out hands up and say, I give up, go ahead and wreck the economy and see what happens next. It won't be what you expect.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Imagine, for a moment, if the we replaced the name 'China' here with 'Russia'. You and I could be our bottom cent that the mainstream narrative regarding the origins of this virus would be very, very different.

Why?
They’re both corrupt totalitarian regimes

You believe whatever conspiracy theories you like. I’ll base my opinion on the best available scientific evidence

Akrasia

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

I continue to think that the main problem creating this division of opinion is that one side has attempted to claim absolute certainty about something that is only being estimated, while another side doesn't want to legitimize the debate and awaits a restart from those making the unacceptable pronouncements.

Having said that, the predictable response will be that I am not "following the evidence," in other words, a complete inability to recognize that there could be any merit in the charge of incomplete development of the climate change theory.

So if the climate change theory is incompletely developed, then the agenda that follows is both irrelevant and dangerous. Anyone could have an agenda based on what they believe, see for example widely different political positions on abortion or gay rights. In those sorts of fields, there is no scientific test, it's a moral question and therefore can only be settled by the eventual dominance of one position over its alternative.

With this incomplete science looming over us, the solution is to complete the science. Many of the people who are skeptical of the details of the AGW position are reasonable people who have long ago accepted most other scientific propositions because they see no compelling reason not to accept them. It must be maddening and somewhat difficult to understand this call to go back and finish the work properly, when the workers believe they have done a great job. I think the canary in the coal mine was that exchange over natural variability -- not that the loudest voices on that were necessarily speaking for anyone but themselves, but on the assumption that their views might reflect those of more senior people in the AGW community (something I have not yet totally established to my own satisfaction) then that needs to be revisited, and the Toronto data shows why. There was obviously a much stronger role for natural variability in changes that took place in that data set than is widely accepted by modern climate science. But I consider that to be partly due to a blind spot within modern climate science, it developed more or less out of the marriage of climate change investigation and political theories that would bias the holders towards anti-development solutions. Nobody in that movement apparently wants to engage with these unpleasant realities that climate has shown similar tendencies to decadal change in the past and that a larger part of recent warming could very well be natural in its origins.

If so, we are just wasting our time with these conferences, political pressure movements and other phenomena that cannot change anything even if they succeeded, and I note that success is more or less defined as the failure of development economies. So that is dangerous and with the pandemic as a sort of cautionary tale, just closing down large sectors of economies can only work for a short time before chaos and economic collapse follow.

Now some will argue, scientists should not worry about economic abstractions, this is purely a scientific question. Well not really, the pure scientific question is, how much will sea levels rise and when will they do so? And a secondary question, is there really any substantial danger from other aspects of warming, or is that being overblown to scare people into acting? When I hear such chestnuts as the Syrian civil war being a direct consequence of global warming, I would have to say the AGW lobby has rolled the dice and decided to go "all in" on a theory that has to explain a lot of things that probably cannot be explained by the weather at all. People have been fighting and killing each other in the Middle East since a historical record was kept.

I would like to see the international community acting on the potential for warming, make no mistake about that, because there are things we can do and should do now. But to imagine that it will be preventable if we change "our ways" is to throw out the important foundation of our science in general, that natural variability plays a large role, always has and always will unless we invent climate modification on a much larger scale than increasing greenhouse gases slightly. Yes it leaves a signal in the temperature record, but so do other things.

We are being asked, essentially, to accept that greenhouse gases have some way of increasing the frequency and intensity of the El Nino effect -- because that's what drove the warming phase from 1998 to 2012. I don't see how the physics establishes any such cause and effect. And when there was a massive El Nino in the mid 1870s, guess what happened at Toronto -- the climate warmed by 3 degrees. The years from 1876 to 1881 were considerably warmer than the years up to 1875. Because it was a somewhat colder background global climate, it became highly variable at times and the warming more or less collapsed around mid-1882. The idea that the 1880s were cold because of Krakatoa seems to be fundamentally flawed because the 1880s turned very cool a year before Krakatoa erupted. The eruption may have prolonged what was already going to be a lengthy cold spell (it faded out in North America at least around 1889).

You can't win a debate if nobody says it's a debate, so I don't know what to make of this situation, people who seem to know very little about past weather and climate blandly telling people who I know do understand it in considerable detail that they are not drawing responsible conclusions -- this is rather like the students telling the teacher that he has no clue and they will take over instruction. But in this case the students have a lot of clout with the media and political parties. So we may just have to throw out hands up and say, I give up, go ahead and wreck the economy and see what happens next. It won't be what you expect.

Not one single credible person ever has said that science around climate change has been completely finished and we know everything with ‘absolutely Certainly’

What the IPCC said in their last synthesis report was that the link between climate change and GHGs is unequivocal

This means we know that it is not just natural variability with close to certainly and we need to move away from that debate and onto solving the crisis, and further research into the scale and impacts of climate change

A new study has shown that events where the Wet Bulb temperature has surpassed 35c have already begun around the world, and that millions of people live in coastal regions that are at increasingly high risk of these deadly heatwaves

Our findings indicate that reported occurrences of extreme TW have increased rapidly at weather stations and in reanalysis data over the last four decades and that parts of the subtropics are very close to the 35°C survivability limit, which has likely already been reached over both sea and land. These trends highlight the magnitude of the changes that have taken place as a result of the global warming to date. At the spatial scale of reanalysis, we project that TW will regularly exceed 35°C at land grid points with less than 2.5°C of warming since preindustrial—a level that may be reached in the next several decades (35). According to our weather station analysis, emphasizing land grid points underplays the true risks of extreme TW along coastlines, which tends to occur when marine air masses are advected even slightly onshore (14). The southern Persian Gulf shoreline and northern South Asia are home to millions of people, situating them on the front lines of exposure to TW extremes at the edge of and outside the range of natural variability in which our physiology evolved (36). The deadly heat events already experienced in recent decades are indicative of the continuing trend toward increasingly extreme humid heat, and our findings underline that their diverse, consequential, and growing impacts represent a major societal challenge for the coming decades.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/19/eaaw1838

The heatwave in 2003 that killed tens of thousands in Europe didn’t see a tw exceeding 28c so we don’t need to get even close to tw35c to see life threatening conditions.

These are conditions that are incompatible with human life

Hooter23

Thargor wrote: »

Look at the sources you're using for your claim and then go look at yourself in the mirror, embarrassing.

Who is your source RTE news:pac: where you are forced to pay for your own brainwashing...it wasn't too long ago that they used to have ads on tv threatening people with jail if they didnt pay...yeah they are a respectable source to get your news from

Thargor

Hooter23 wrote: »

Who is your source RTE news:pac: where you are forced to pay for your own brainwashing...it wasn't too long ago that they used to have ads on tv threatening people with jail if they didnt pay...yeah they are a respectable source to get your news from

Where did you get any of that from my post?

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

You believe whatever conspiracy theories you like. I’ll base my opinion on the best available scientific evidence

Good for you, but as recent posts have shown, it is you and your beloved 'climate scientists' that unquestioningly buy into and push establishment approved conspiracy theories and not I. That you cannot even acknowledge this shows that you are not really a good faith actor at all, but instead, are little more than a zealot. But no matter, you keep believing what you need to believe in, and I'll do the same.