nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

Creative83

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Cina

daheff wrote: »

my view is we just dont have enough data to make a valid determination. Reasonally proper regular temperature records only go back to around 1840s, but we know there have been ice ages and the earth was warmer than now when there were dinosaurs. historical records tell us there were a lot of winters in 1700s where the Thames was so regularly frozen that there were organised winter markets on it. Krakatowa erruption in late 1880s caused world temperatures to drop a couple of degrees for the next few years because of the amount of ash it blew up into the atmosphere.

We cant conclusively say mankind is causing the increase in temperatures (& that its not a coincidence)... but we can reduce the pollution we cause & hope that it helps.

Yes we do.

The temperature of the earth has been steadily rising year on year since the industrial revolution and matches the amount of CO2 emissions p/a. Unless you're saying that these two are somehow not connected (arguably the biggest coincidence ever) then it's quite blatantly obvious that we're causing this. Added to the facts that scientists have regularly proven that CO2 emissions cause a negative effect on the Ozone layer etc.

An ice-age or mega-volcano eruption would cause a huge, short term- shift in temperatures as you already pointed out above with that example, whereas what we are seeing now is a very gradual change over the last 150 years.

Anyone who really doesn't believe that humans and our lifestyles are what's causing climate change is deluded and completely in denial because they don't want to accept the idea that our lifestyles need to completely change for our children and grandchildren not to suffer the severe consequences it's going to bring.

xckjoo

Sofiztikated wrote: »

. For instance, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by about 35% in the industrial era, and this increase is known to be due to human activities, primarily the combustion of fossil fuels and removal of forests. Thus, humankind has dramatically altered the chemical composition of the global atmosphere with substantial implications for climate.

From the very same report, and I found that in 2 minutes reading.

He wasn't talking about those lines though. You can't just go reading the whole report and trying to discuss it as a whole. You have to cherry-pick the lines that you want from it and ignore the rest.

dense

Sofiztikated wrote: »

. For instance, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by about 35% in the industrial era, and this increase is known to be due to human activities, primarily the combustion of fossil fuels and removal of forests. Thus, humankind has dramatically altered the chemical composition of the global atmosphere with substantial implications for climate.

From the very same report, and I found that in 2 minutes reading.

And the more you read the more inconsistencies you will come across showing that the debate is not over and neither is this niche area of science settled.

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm

In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

Extreme events are, almost by definition, of particular importance to human society. Consequently, the importance of understanding potential extreme events is first order.

The evidence is mixed, and data continue to be lacking to make conclusive cases.

Not terribly encouraging.

The "cannot think of anything else" explanation suits some as the best political lever to try to have the UN's socialist economic plans implemented for the good of humanity experiment based on having developed countries stopping emitting C02 and creating solar powered economies for developing countries, dictating to them and everyone else how their prosperity is to be controlled and decided.

We are constantly reminded that science has to be open, reproducible and reliable.

This area of "science" having been bastardised by climate justice seeking left liberal NGOs is not.

CO2 has certainly been recorded as rising gradually but normal science as opposed to politicised science would say that correlation does not prove causation.

xckjoo

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

When you complain about politicised science, are you implying that your own position is not politicised? You seem to be trying to portray yourself as independently looking at facts, but in reality your position is at least as political as what you're arguing against.

More-so since there's a complete lack of understanding of science and maths and a cherry-picking of information to suit the agenda. There's nothing of substance in the posts except for a political agenda.

dense

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

When you complain about politicised science, are you implying that your own position is not politicised? You seem to be trying to portray yourself as independently looking at facts, but in reality your position is at least as political as what you're arguing against.

Interesting observations.

We agree that the science has been "politicised".

I have shown where Friends of the Earth complain about the brutalist capitilast patriarchy and Professor Sweeney, our climate change expert putting a socialist dictator on a pedastal and the UN says we should be more like China.

These are the facts.

I can only report them as they are.

What I am interested in is whether those here hell bent on implementing this socialist agenda are themselves socialists.

Many people do profess to be socialists.
It is not a crime.

But each time the subject comes up there is hand waving and shouts of conspiracy and none are to be found.

Is it strange that no one here is?
No one who supports the UN calls to transform the global economy?

I can not say.

What I can say is that I think that it is very strange to deny that an agenda exists.
Not only strange, but suspicious.

Also, the drive to support and implement the socialist agenda of those being admired seems incompatible with not being a socialist.

And that's all fine and dandy, but to then try to deny that this agenda exists?

Or pretend not to have a name for what they're wanting to have glbally implemented?

Maybe I (and others) are wrong, Christiana Figueres and the capitalism-hating, socialist-loving supporters are not socialists at all, but just pretend ones who secretly endorse the status quo.

The support for calls to deliberately and rapidly transform the global economic system which has prevailed for the last 150 years seems incompatible with endorsing our current system.

Which, by most metrics has served us extremely well, and whilst not being perfect, has lifted the majority of the worlds population out of poverty, delivered security and higher living standards, better health care, education and life expectancy. These are all benefits that the current economic model existing alongside with industrialisation has delivered.

Tinkering or making slight improvements with that system is not what is being envisaged.

Transforming it is.

Transforming it into what, is the part that the environmental activists become silent on, or worse, start denying.

It has no name, it cannot be described and it is denied when queried.

Which doesnt help if they have any genuine desire to be taken seriously.

A bit more openness about what their plan for the world is would be useful, beyond simply saying we need to be more like China and complaining about capitalism is too vague; denying it is most unhelpful.

Is there anything unreasonable in any of that Doctor?

So maybe there are some socialists out there who'd like to take the opportunity to lay out their stall?

What economic system do you want, and why?

Or explain why exactly someone would want to wait to be ordered to reduce their carbon footprint instead of doing it of their own accord whilst at every opportunity saying we need to decarbonise.

I'll let the part about advocates of these half baked policies not being able to articulate what a zero emissions Ireland is supposed to achieve in terms of climate change go for the time being.

Sofiztikated

dense wrote: »

Interesting observations.

So many words, so little said.

You're not listening to anything that's been said, and you are just rambling at noone in particular.

Have at it, though. You do you.

WinnyThePoo

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

When you complain about politicised science, are you implying that your own position is not politicised? You seem to be trying to portray yourself as independently looking at facts, but in reality your position is at least as political as what you're arguing against.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057843402

Dense believes climate change is apart of some sort new world order conspiracy.

dense

xckjoo wrote: »

More-so since there's a complete lack of understanding of science and maths and a cherry-picking of information to suit the agenda. There's nothing of substance in the posts except for a political agenda.

That's not fair, you yourself learned from my posts that NASA say their adjustments added half a degree C of heat to the US records for the 20th century.

What you don't know is whether there was any warming outside of that adjustment observed.

Research suggests that there wasn't.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989GeoRL..16...49H

dense

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I agree that the science has been politicised, yes. There's definitely an element of using climate change as an excuse to increase taxes, etc, and I'd have serious doubts that those implementing these increases are doing so as a result of a genuine concern over climate change.

The issue I have with your stance is that instead of simply questioning things (which is a good thing, IMO), you go all in politicising things in the other direction. Your entire stance seems to be based on an irrational, conspiracy theory level distrust of the UN and socialism. You assert that politicised science can't be trusted, yet in the same post go on to spout your own brand of politicised science. Do you genuinely not see the hypocrisy here?

Not at all. I have no particular preference either way, but I think we as a society, a continent and globally have experienced improvements as a result of the system some want transformed.

I am inviting those who have strong urges to support the transformative calls to explain what it is that they want.

Others begin shouting conspiracy as soon as they are presented with what the climate leaders say.

Do you not think it is hypocritical to preach about carbon emissions whilst failing to address one's own output?

dense

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

A single, 30 year old paper. Well, close the thread lads, that's all the evidence we need!

You seem to be suggesting that the research linked to is flawed in some way?

Why the faux hilarity Doctor?

Let everyone in on the joke?

dense

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

That's an outright lie. You clearly have an agenda against conventional climate science. To suggest otherwise is completely dishonest.

Sorry, thought you meant politically, but no, you're right, I don't take the whole area of climate science and the Citizens Assembly too seriously.

Must I, Doctor?

Sofiztikated

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Even politically, my point stands. You can't go two posts without veering off topic into rants about socialism.

Is there a reason you refer to me as Doctor? It's just a username, I'm not a real doctor, although given the kind of places conspiracy theorists tend to get their information from, maybe the difference isn't too distinct to you.

It reads like he's talking to a therapist.

Redpatio

As someone who hasn't seen evidence wither way, is there conclusive evidence that climate change is man made?

dense

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Even politically, my point stands. You can't go two posts without veering off topic into rants about socialism.

Is there a reason you refer to me as Doctor? It's just a username, I'm not a real doctor, although given the kind of places conspiracy theorists tend to get their information from, maybe the difference isn't too distinct to you.

Why hide behind the "conspiracy theorist" stuff?

You say you think it is right to ask questions, but then seek to define which ones can be asked.

I don't think I've ranted about socialism.

Rather I have given you evidence of climate activists ranting about capitalism as the cause of AGW and praising socialists as if their solution is to destroy capitalism.

Why does that always become a problem for those who profess profound respect for the climate science community each and every time it comes up here?

Should we not analyse it, and if not, will you say why not?
Because no one here will ever discuss or attempt to explain or defend the greens stated wish to destroy capitalism, or the adoration Professor Sweeney expressed for the socialist star of the Lima show.

https://www.foe.ie/blog/category/climate%20law/-/-/51/

On the very same Friends of the Earth page it asks who is Ottmar Edenhofer.
You know who he is now.

He's the UN official who said we have to free ourselves from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy and it has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

Who here endorses the views of the greens on this solution of theirs?
Who doesn't?

You said the science has become politicised yourself.

What exactly did you mean by that?

And why if I say it does it raise cries of conspiracy theorist??

dense

Sofiztikated wrote: »

It reads like he's talking to a therapist.

You'd know?

Secondly, I'm non binary.

But if theres anything on topic you want to bring to the table we could discuss it?

jackboy

Redpatio wrote: »

As someone who hasn't seen evidence wither way, is there conclusive evidence that climate change is man made?

Undoubtedly we are having some effect on the climate. How much is still up for debate. Climate change and shifts have always occurred and we are woefully unprepared for this. Reducing CO2 emissions and other pollution is obviously a good idea but will not stop climate change.

dense

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Anyone who has studied any branch of science at a remotely high level would know that you can't expect to back up a statement that goes completely against consensus on the topic with a paper that old and be taken remotely seriously. Maybe the research is flawed, maybe it isn't, but if it isn't surely something more recent would have come out backing it up?

We don't know if that research was flawed, agreed, and what we do know is that it was based on 6000 US weather stations of the type that years later were found by the US government to be prone to recording artificially warm temperatures.

But before that had been discovered NASA had already added a half degree of warming to the record through adjustments.

So you have a scientific study saying no temperature trend had been observed, NASA adding half a degree, and finally the US Government Accountability Office publishing a report in 2011 saying that almost half of US temperature recording equipment is prone to giving artificially high readings.

Which means no one really knows what the real US temperature record is for the 20th century because of being subjected to two separate external effects.

xckjoo

Funny one, but even the EPA can't find any proof that CO2 emissions are not a primary contributor to global warming (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/epa-docs-dont-show-any-scientific-evidence-for-scott-pruitts-climate-claims/).

It sounds like a strange thing for the EPA to be trying to prove until you remember that the guy making the statements was the Attorney General suing the EPA on climate change before being appointed to the position. Pruitt has since left the position (according to original article) but no proof has been forthcoming to back-up his claims; either by himself or the rest of the EPA.

daheff

Cina wrote: »

Yes we do.

The temperature of the earth has been steadily rising year on year since the industrial revolution and matches the amount of CO2 emissions p/a. Unless you're saying that these two are somehow not connected (arguably the biggest coincidence ever) then it's quite blatantly obvious that we're causing this. Added to the facts that scientists have regularly proven that CO2 emissions cause a negative effect on the Ozone layer etc.

An ice-age or mega-volcano eruption would cause a huge, short term- shift in temperatures as you already pointed out above with that example, whereas what we are seeing now is a very gradual change over the last 150 years.

Anyone who really doesn't believe that humans and our lifestyles are what's causing climate change is deluded and completely in denial because they don't want to accept the idea that our lifestyles need to completely change for our children and grandchildren not to suffer the severe consequences it's going to bring.

we do have data? conclusive data more than a couple of hundred years of data? remember the earth is hundreds of millions of years old.... so to conclusively prove your theory you need a large data set... not 200 odd years worth.

In any case you didnt read my full post. at the end i said we shouldn't be polluting the Earth regardless of whether you believe people are the cause of global warming or not.

dense

The other thing that doesn't get much publicity is that there's little point in trying to fix any of this by trying to tax Co2 emissions.

Some members of the climate science community say that the damage is already done, so there's not much point in pretending we can reverse anything they say we've set in train for the next few centuries.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-game-over-global-warming-climate-sensitivity-seven-degrees-a7407881.html

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2013/11/24/even-if-emissions-stop-carbon-dioxide-could-warm-earth-centuries

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/what-would-happen-climate-if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-today/

Indeed some members of the climate
science community foresee runaway warming if we continue as we are.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/permafrost-meltdown-raises-risk-of-runaway-global-warming/

xckjoo

Denialism: what drives people to reject the truth

dense

xckjoo wrote: »

Denialism: what drives people to reject the truth

Scientists secretly believe we're all going to die soon - retired professor

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2018/03/scientists-secretly-believe-we-re-all-going-to-die-soon-retired-professor.html

Sofiztikated

dense wrote: »

Scientists secretly believe we're all going to die soon - retired professor

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2018/03/scientists-secretly-believe-we-re-all-going-to-die-soon-retired-professor.html

While Prof McPherson appeared to be very knowledgable about his areas of expertise - ecology and biology - there were serious problems with his understanding of atmospheric physics, and he exaggerated some key figures by up to 10 times.

You were blathering on about a 0.5°c exaggeration, but roll in behind someone that gets it wrong by 10 times?

dense

Sofiztikated wrote: »

You were blathering on about a 0.5°c exaggeration, but roll in behind someone that gets it wrong by 10 times?

I haven't rolled in behind anyone; I'm demonstrating the kind of people who are pushing the catastrophic global warming story.

Why do you class a NASA adjustment which basically makes up for a lack of observed and recorded warming in the US an "exaggeration"?

And do you agree that RTE and George Lee should not be publishing fake news items about recent "record breaking heat"?

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2018/0630/974393-weather-heatwave-ireland/

The left leaning masses love that kind of thing from the left leaning media, helps them pay their carbon taxes without questioning anything about what those taxes are supposed to be achieving.

I don't know, but maybe wanting to read about record breaking temperatures is vindicating people's confirmation bias about AGW and theyre now stuck in a situation where they have to excuse such bullshït instead of condemning it.

Dohnjoe

dense wrote: »

I haven't rolled in behind anyone; I'm demonstrating the kind of people who are pushing the catastrophic global warming story.

Scientists.

The people who oppose it are generally denialists who use every trick in the book to back their narrative - I've seen single individuals keep "debates" going for hundreds of pages using these neverending subjective techniques

What they essentially do is twist the debate into getting opponents to convince them personally. And of course they'll never accept it. Hence a circular neverending "debate" like this trainwreck

dense

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Scientists.

The people who oppose it are generally denialists who use every trick in the book to back their narrative - I've seen single individuals keep "debates" going for hundreds of pages using these neverending subjective techniques

What they essentially do is twist the debate into getting opponents to convince them personally. And of course they'll never accept it. Hence a circular neverending "debate" like this trainwreck

What do you think of George Lee's recording breaking heat claims?

Do you endorse that kind of nonsense?

dense

Here's another good one.

Please Note: Gray areas represent missing data.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-land-sfc-mntp/201806.gif

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-prcp/201806.gif

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/stations.gif

dense

So I've asked Ireland's leading climate change blog what affect Ireland's use of fossil fuels has had on climate change and what we can expect to achieve by building wind more wind farms.

Doubt it will be published.

These environmental sites don't welcome awkward questions, and if they are published are not answered.
You'll usually get some waffle about having to play our part in the big socialist charade with no credible answers.

Still, that kind of ****ę rocks a lot of people's boats. Keeps em busy.

Given that the Citizens Assembly on Climate Change can't answer those most basic if questions I don't really expect anyone running a blog to be able to, but it's worth a shot.

Dohnjoe

Interesting article here on how, for example, climate change denial can be linked to right-wing nationalism. Basically they are working on taking denialism seriously and establishing a 40 strong team of the world's foremost experts to tackle the subject

https://www.chalmers.se/en/departments/tme/news/Pages/Climate-change-denial-strongly-linked-to-right-wing-nationalism.aspx

Good opportunity for people who doubt AGW to contact them and get the answers they need - and also provide examples of denialism arguments

dense

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Interesting article here on how, for example, climate change denial can be linked to right-wing nationalism. Basically they are working on taking denialism seriously and establishing a 40 strong team of the world's foremost experts to tackle the subject

https://www.chalmers.se/en/departments/tme/news/Pages/Climate-change-denial-strongly-linked-to-right-wing-nationalism.aspx

Good opportunity for people who doubt AGW to contact them and get the answers they need - and also provide examples of denialism arguments

Ooooh, taking denialism seriously?
As in making it a criminal offence of some sort, to appease the easily offended?

Here's another study, which shows that skeptics are more environmentally friendly:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494418301488

But what climate change are you yourself personally concerned about Donjoe?

The one that makes it necessary to explain that every winter it's still winter? Where's the climate change there?

That you can have heatwaves during the summer sometimes?

Ophelia?

That wasn't caused by climate change according to opinions published by
THE ROYAL IRISH ACADEMY (which) IS IRELAND'S LEADING BODY OF EXPERTS IN THE SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

https://www.ria.ie/news/climate-chan...t-caused-storm

The March snowperson building extravaganza opportunity can't reliably be pinned on it either:

https://www.rte.ie/eile/brainstorm/2...eather-trends/

Tuvalu isn't sinking as a result of it, nor is Venice.

The war in Syria can't be attributed to it.

Global land area being lost to fire is reducing.

There's been no acceleration in sea rise levels threatening the swamping of European cities by 2020.

In fact sea level rises have been levelling off coinciding with C02 being reported to be increasing

The polar bears are doing well too, as is mankind in general, going by most accounts.

The main reason for the current concern about climate change is the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration.

And unless I'm mistaken nothing detrimental has happened as a result.

You're probably unaware that the settled scientists are in dispute about the historic accuracy of C02 analysis and whether today's levels are even being compared correctly to previous measurements?

https://www.scribd.com/document/337186053/180-Years-of-Atmospheric-CO2-Gas-Analysis-by-Chemical-Methods

For most of the 20th century temperatures didn't move, later, adjustments did show a few tenths of a degree increase.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1930/to:1981/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1930/to:1981/trend

trend

So yes, I doubt that climate change actually exists at all, where previously I would have said, yes, of course it exists, it's natural that climates would change and cause terrible things to happen, all coinciding with mankind starting to burn fossil fuels.

Historic "bad weather" which didn't have the "human fingerprint of fossil fuels" was the same as it is today, bad weather.

Am I right in thinking that if climate change does exist, no one has been able to actually attribute anything detrimental to it?

Aside from the climate justice folk who appear to want justice in the form of equal or non existent carbon footprints for all, because something?

Do you want to lead us through what you think will happen if we manage to transition off fossil fuels and reduce CO2 to say 300ppm?

That I presume is what you accept is the necessity/if not, I'm not sure what you're saying.

What do you yourself think that will achieve and when will the achievements be observed?

This is your baby Donjoe, so tell us all about it.

Or you could just admit you're out of your depth on this topic and you've been had by those charlatans pretending to be living in fear of something they can't articulate terribly well.

Cult members, if you will. Faith in something they want others to accept whilst being unable to explain their own reasons for being followers.

You could always come over to the dark side where those who can critically analyse the varied claims of the climate science and climate justice community end up being sceptical.