Aretheymyfeet wrote: » Of course, you much prefer your conditioned hysteria. Please dispute a single fact I have presented. Are you questioning Maurice Strongs role in creating the global climate change movement? Or is it his lifelong involvement with Big Oil you dispute? Or maybe you doubt the role the Rockefellars of Standard Oil fame have played in funding the movement and its narratives? What exactly do you dispute, we can discuss that? At present you're just waffling on about rabbit holes to comfort your own cognitive dissonance.
SlowBlowin wrote: » OK, so you are not a fan of Occam's razor then, that makes sense, so its the most far fetched convoluted plot that is most likely, gotcha.
SlowBlowin wrote: » CLUEDO: OK I am going to call it, you are CheerfulSpring from the 911 thread.
Aretheymyfeet wrote: » Nah, I'm a fan of objectively provable facts and evidence based reasoning. Your position appears more belief and faith based. But yeah, you're the reasonable one engaging in an hysterical movement based on an unproven theory promoted by vested interests seeking to radically change any and every aspect of life on planet earth and condemn billions to impoverishment and brutal suffering. How very woke of you.
Wanderer78 wrote: » Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez grills former Exxon scientists on oil giant's climate change denial worth watchinghttps://twitter.com/i/status/1187719206562910209
TimeToShine wrote: » RE: Climate change - it's happening, no doubt about it, but the atmosphere like the human body is an extremely complex organism with countless feedback loops, to directly correlate man-made emissions with the increase in CO2 and correspondingly believe that if we limit our emissions we abate CO2 levels is an extremely simplistic view to take.
SlowBlowin wrote: » Well my personal judgement is that you (and your brand new account) are part of a PR campaign funded by the Big Oil to discredit the people and their logical beliefs. There you go, now I am thinking like you. I have already shown your poor understanding of the maths you presented, you have obviously never worked in any technical background and are just a sensationalist with nothing better to do, unless you are doing this for a living ? And dont talk to me about how I am influenced, how can you know, you can't possibly know ? Never seen that Swedish kid's speech, I have no TV only internet, don't believe in BBC or CNN, live off grid, I still think you are from the 911 thread.
TimeToShine wrote: » I'm not seeing a grilling here to be honest. She's just reading facts we already know off a sheet and the Exxon guys are acquiescing without hesitation. OT, It's not "Big Oil & Gas" anymore, they are referring to themselves as "Big Energy" and "embracing the challenge of the energy transition". Half of the renewable energy projects you see around are being funded by a subsidiary of one of the big boys. Any drop off in demand for oil and gas in Europe/US will be met by surges in Asia - the game stays the same, all that changes are the pieces. RE: Climate change - it's happening, no doubt about it, but the atmosphere like the human body is an extremely complex organism with countless feedback loops, to directly correlate man-made emissions with the increase in CO2 and correspondingly believe that if we limit our emissions we abate CO2 levels is an extremely simplistic view to take.
Aretheymyfeet wrote: » Hilarious. Care to provide any evidence for your defamatory claim that I am 'part of a PR campaign funded by the Big Oil to discredit the people and their logical beliefs'? I have presented objectively verifiable facts confirming the role played by Big Oil interests in creating and promoting the global climate change movement. You haven't actually disputed a single fact I have presented. No, you haven't 'already shown your poor understanding of the maths you presented'. Again, you believing something doesn't necessarily make it so. You need to support your position with objectively verifiable facts. I have presented plenty. You, none. As I said, your position appears belief and faith based. I understand it's upsetting for you to not be able to properly dispute my facts as presented. The world you believe in is cracking at the seams. Quick, comfort yourself by retreating to your beliefs.
Akrasia wrote: » The extremely simplistic view is that the atmosphere is complex therefore you shouldnt believe in the scientific consensus What isnt simplistic is the science behind the climate change consensus, which is in fact founded on decades of rigorous research by thousands of the foremost experts in their fields
SlowBlowin wrote: » OK so you agree its happening, and the ONLY source of CO2 that we can control is man made pollution, which has risen 15% in recent years, and you are all arguing that we shouldnt cut down CO2 pollution ? Yes it is a simple solution, there is a saying about that: Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the one that requires the smallest number of assumptions is usually correct. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation.
Akrasia wrote: » I doubt you are being paid, you're just one of the useful idiots who has been manipulated by the paid shills and science denial bloggers to go off and repeat the nonsense they have filled your head with. There are always going to be crackpots who believe in grand global conspiracies, you just happen to be one of them "Question everything" (except never question anything that casts doubt on the conspiracy itself)
Aretheymyfeet wrote: » Calm down. Perhaps you could actually try dispute the numerous facts I have presented instead of just posting ad hominem attacks. Why is it so difficult for you believers to discuss the facts? What have I said that is false?
TimeToShine wrote: » I know what Occam's razor is, and I assure you I have plenty of experience in the energy field. Have you ever considered the idea that the more you know about this topic, the more you realize you don't know? Applying Occam's razor to a complex biological organism is, again, a very narrow-minded view to take.
SlowBlowin wrote: » You misunderstand Ocam's razor. Its the exact opposite of your current understanding. Its the very large and complex issues to which it is suited best, as the possible analytical solutions are corresponding more complex. Simple problems often have simple and obvious solutions, so Ocams razor need not be applied, although these simple solutions in themselves add further weight to the razors value. Look it up and think about it.
SlowBlowin wrote: » OK you said: Carbon makes up 0.0391 percent of the earth's atmosphere. About 3.75% [15 ppm] of that 0.0391% of CO2 in the lower atmosphere is man-made from the burning of fossil fuels, and thus, the vast remainder of the approximately 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is from land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing and plant respiration. I said when I was a lad it was 0.034% which is a 15% increase compared to current levels. Can you explain where the other 96.25% came from (your figures) ? Remember that this was at the exact same time when there was a exponential growth in fossil fuel use and population ? You criticise the "simple answer" yet you and everyone else lives by it, you have to to survive. If you are driving down the road and the ride gets bumpy and the steering goes funny, do you assume part of the steering rack has fallen into the wheel, or maybe you immediately think tires flat, if its the latter why ? Is it because its the most likely answer ?
Triangle wrote: » Sorry, I've read the thread and haven't seen you post any scientific credentials do you have any? With something as complex as the environment, I'd definitely want to have heard of knowledge behind me before I'd start looking into some figures and making up an opinion on what's happening.. Especially when that opinion is against the vast majority of people that work in and have worked in (for decades in some cases) Coming into a small community, trying to validate your opinion is just ridiculous.
SlowBlowin wrote: » But if all other things are the same, and man made CO2 increases by 15% dont you think there is a clue there as to why the earth is getting hotter ? For clarity let me do this: FACTS ALREADY ESTABLISHED 1. You believe that CO2 levels have risen. 2. You believe man is largely to blame for the increased CO2. TO ESTABLISH 1. You believe CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas ? 2. You believe the earth is globally getting hotter/more energy in the atmosphere ? Can we work on the to establish list please, hopefully this approach will help with clarity. Lets keep all the conspiracy out of this and focus on the important stuff.
SlowBlowin wrote: » OK so lets focus of greenhouse gases, nothing else. So you don't believe any science on greenhouse gases, or just the science on CO2 ? How about Boyles law we could start there ?
Aretheymyfeet wrote: » Sorry, are you trying to claim that debate on climate change is the preserve of climate scientists? The unproven theory you espouse and seek to radically change every aspect of life on earth on foot of, is open for all to debate. I suspect you're one of these 'voice of authority' types. The scientist says, the expert says, the priest says. Have you no faith in your own intellect to assess data yourself? It's this abdication of the responsibility to think for oneself, instead simply adopting and parroting the pronouncements of voices of authority, that lies behind much of the world's ills today. You should have more faith in yourself to understand issues. Could you perhaps challenge any of the facts I have presented instead of simply saying 'the smart important person says it's so, so it must be so'?
SlowBlowin wrote: » You are expanding it too much. I am just talking about the gases themselves, you have obviously looked into it, which science do you trust, what warming co-efficients do you agree with ?
Aretheymyfeet wrote: » How am I 'expanding it too much'? I am merely questioning the relative effect of such greenhouse gases and the significance of just one of those gases. The global climate is hugely complex with multiple factors affecting global temperatures such as the earths rotation and tilt vis a vis the sun, solar flares, clouds, even volcanoes. To simplify it all down to one single component, a gas which only makes up just 0.0391 percent of the earth's atmosphere, is a massive over simplification of such a complex system. We also have times in the earths history when carbon levels were dramatically higher, yet temperatures were significantly lower than today. The Climate has also changed repeatedly throughout the earth's history without any human carbon input.
