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

Big Oil and the Global Climate Change movement

Aretheymyfeet

How do any of the climate alarmists explain the seemingly contradictory prevalence of old Big Oil interests at the very heart of the Global Climate Change movement?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ps200306

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

RE 4 - Researchers from the Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos (PMOD), the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG), ETH Zurich and the University of Bern have produced elaborate model calculations supplying a robust estimate of the contribution that the sun is expected to make to temperature change in the next 100 years. For the first time, a significant effect is apparent. They expect the Earth's temperature to fall by half a degree when solar activity reaches its next minimum.

I'm comfortable reading original science papers. If you have any specific links I'd be happy to look. Otherwise I presume you mean this project (summary here, but there are thirty related papers, not all of them relevant. Further paper summary pdf here). Two of the more relevant papers would appear to be here and here (correct me if I'm wrong). The first one casts doubt on a set of UV variability satellite measurements, suggesting the data set is flawed. The second examines both the variability due to the 27 day solar rotation cycle, and the 11-year solar activity cycle. It finds the atmospheric temperature response to be "at the lowest boundary of previously reported values", with uncertainty as to whether the heating is external at all, or due to random internal atmospheric fluctuations. This is hardly a smoking gun.

But the most telling quote is from the project director:

Their elaborate model calculations are supplying a robust estimate of the contribution that the sun is expected to make to temperature change in the next 100 years. For the first time, a significant effect is apparent. They expect the Earth's temperature to fall by half a degree when solar activity reaches its next minimum.

According to project head Werner Schmutz, who is also Director of PMOD, this reduction in temperature is significant, even though it will do little to compensate for human-induced climate change. "We could win valuable time if solar activity declines and slows the pace of global warming a little. That might help us to deal with the consequences of climate change." But this will be no more than borrowed time, warns Schmutz, since the next minimum will inevitably be followed by a maximum.

In other words, whatever the effect of solar variability the project director himself says that it will only be a lesser signal on top of human-induced warming. I expect you must have more than this if you are seeking to replace anthropogenic CO2 as the primary explanation for warming. Happy to follow any other links you have.

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Many solar variables contribute to the variance we see in temperature: distance, orbit cycles, axis tilt, magnetic fields, sunspots, solar wind, cosmic rays, the passage of earth through our galaxy, etc. Even though the total energy coming from the Sun is nearly constant, a) those tiny fluctuations can make a difference, and b) there are many other factors that can and do change.

Yes, but the ones that are to do with Earth's movement and its various nutations are well understood, as are their timescales. There is little doubt that orbital changes will eventually plunge us back into a glaciation, but that's not today's problem. If you've got links to how those other "tiny fluctuations can make a difference" and to the "many other factors", I am happy to follow them. Obviously I prefer peer-reviewed papers to mere assertions.

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

In particular, magnetic field changes can have significant influence on the shape of the jet stream, and that can influence cloud formation.

As before ... got any links?

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Willie Soon, a solar physicist, showed that the tiny variations in incoming solar radiation can have a more direct effect on temperature than CO2 does, but it takes very sensitive measurements and careful analysis to see the signal. Willie and his team first did many months of inspecting data from weather stations in the Northern Hemisphere, throwing out spurious and made-up measurements, to put an accurate temperature picture together.

Then they plotted total solar irradiation (TSI) and found a very good first-order correlation, much better than with CO2. Their graph accurately shows the most recent cooling trend since 1998.

Then by all means, link me to that rather than your Swiss study which says the opposite. However, I note that Soon's methodology in other papers has had strips torn off it by other scientists, and he has collaborated with people like Viscount Monckton who I can provide links to on youtube telling barefaced lies about solar irradiance.

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Not only do fluctuations in solar energy drive changes in climate, the oceans react to increases in solar energy by generating clouds that help regulate temperature. Since 2013, much research has been aimed at constructing a more accurate picture of past temperature/solar radiation correlation and developing a realistic solar-driven climate prediction model, taking the greenhouse effect into account.

Again this is all very vague. Are these your own assertions or do you have links to articles/papers?

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Sunspots fluctuate in roughly 11-year cycles. It’s complicated, but in general these cycles show a moderate amount of correlation with temperature. The period of no sunspot activity 400 years ago corresponds to the Little Ice Age, when winters were significantly colder than they are today. The current cycle peaked in 2014. Solar experts speculate that the next cycle, which starts in 2020, will have fewer sunspots. If that turns out to be true, temperatures could be heading down, rather than up.

If you have seriously researched this then you must know that the correlation has been challenged, and the Little Ice Age is generally thought of as a regional rather than global phenomenon. Your own link suggests that the next solar minimum will be a blip compared to overall anthropogenic warming.

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

RE 5 - no more than the alarmist claim that manmade CO2 emissions are the primary driver of global climate change and increases in same are pushing us towards climate catastrophe.

The basic physics of CO2-induced warming is well understood. Less certain is the amount of amplification caused by feedbacks. Even less certain are the model predictions for future impact. I agree with you that predictions of catastrophe are overdone, but it doesn't mean we need to do somersaults to find alternate explanations. The denialist approach seems to be to simultaneously claim that little or no warming is occurring, that something over which we have no control is causing warming, and that climate policy makers are being alarmist. Those are all independent claims, each requiring its own evidence.

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

RE 6 - calling the substance that we exhale, plants require to survive and that forms the very basis of all organic life on earth a 'poison' is clearly ridiculous.

You used the word pollution in your last comment. Let's stick to that. And of course any substance, no matter how beneficial in the right contexts, can be harmful and polluting in the wrong ones.

SlowBlowin

Just to clarify you call 15% a small, insignificant increase right ? That seems the basis of your drivel.

Please confirm.

Edit: Thats the CO2 levels when I was a lad (early 70s) and your figure quoted earlier. Its bang on a 15% increase, just want to confirm to I can add to the list.

Also while you are at it do you believe single element molecules like O2, N2 have no green house effect, the total greenhouse effect is from the combination of the greenhouse gases.

You also said earlier that CO2 is not poisonous, thats not strictly true (but not relevant to this debate) do you know its used to kill chicks in the poultry industry ?

Akrasia

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Your supposed consensus has been debunked numerous times. I can provide links

Provide the links please, and then find me a single reputable scientific body that agrees with your view on climate change

When you cant find one, then try to explain how the complete lack of disagreement amongst reputable scientific institutions on Mans role in causing climate change doesn't count as a consensus

Aretheymyfeet

SlowBlowin wrote: »

As stated before, and igniored by you I have made my own opions, not read the reports you cite, so you are, as usual 100% wrong

I tried to add some structure and a few posts back tried to address the fact that you don't think small quantities matter. But you decided to go on a rant instead and ignore the fact that you are wrong, again.

Yes let the planet die because it MAY be a hoax, good thinking.

This is my first debate on climate change, and you are branding me a hero ? Is that for having the patience to listen to your ill formed drivel ?

Can are ask, are you 100% sure you are right, or do you believe there might be a tiny, tiny, chance you are mistaken ?

No, you repeatedly misrepresent my position which is and has been from the start of this thread that the claim that manmade carbon emissions are the primary driver of global climate change and is pushing the world towards climate catastrophe is false. You have not proven that small increases in carbon levels do in fact have such an impact on the global climate. I have also provided detailed evidence of the prevalence of old Big Oil interests at the very heart of the organisations making these claims and why they would seek to do so.

"Yes let the planet die" The planet is not dying. Don't be so melodramatic.

'This is my first debate on climate change'. Why am I not surprised?

'you are branding me a hero ? Is that for having the patience to listen to your ill formed drivel?' I have not branded you one, but you alarmists like to see yourselves as 'saving the planet'. How very egotistical. As for my ill informed drivel, you have been singularly incapable of disputing the numerous facts I have presented. Indeed, have you been able to dispute a single one of them?

"are you 100% sure you are right, or do you believe there might be a tiny, tiny, chance you are mistaken" I could similarly ask you the very same question. Please discuss the facts. That is the only way we'll identify who indeed is correct. Too many of the alarmist cult seek to shut down all debate or, as with our other poster here, try deny anyone outside of specialised science the right to debate the most important subject of our time.

Aretheymyfeet

ps200306 wrote: »

Aretheymyfeet, could you give some references to papers to support 4? Direct measurements of the solar constant are only as old as the satellite era, and show a 0.1% variation. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to see the peer-reviewed papers.

Regarding 5, there seems to be quite a lot of uncertainty in the climate sensitivity to CO2, but to say "CO2 has very little to do with it" sounds quite dogmatic.

6 is a non-sequitur. We're free to call carbon anything we want, depending on our views of whether it's needed or excessive. It doesn't change the argument.

RE 4 - Researchers from the Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos (PMOD), the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG), ETH Zurich and the University of Bern have produced elaborate model calculations supplying a robust estimate of the contribution that the sun is expected to make to temperature change in the next 100 years. For the first time, a significant effect is apparent. They expect the Earth's temperature to fall by half a degree when solar activity reaches its next minimum.

Many solar variables contribute to the variance we see in temperature: distance, orbit cycles, axis tilt, magnetic fields, sunspots, solar wind, cosmic rays, the passage of earth through our galaxy, etc. Even though the total energy coming from the Sun is nearly constant, a) those tiny fluctuations can make a difference, and b) there are many other factors that can and do change. In particular, magnetic field changes can have significant influence on the shape of the jet stream, and that can influence cloud formation.

Willie Soon, a solar physicist, showed that the tiny variations in incoming solar radiation can have a more direct effect on temperature than CO2 does, but it takes very sensitive measurements and careful analysis to see the signal. Willie and his team first did many months of inspecting data from weather stations in the Northern Hemisphere, throwing out spurious and made-up measurements, to put an accurate temperature picture together.

Then they plotted total solar irradiation (TSI) and found a very good first-order correlation, much better than with CO2. Their graph accurately shows the most recent cooling trend since 1998.

Not only do fluctuations in solar energy drive changes in climate, the oceans react to increases in solar energy by generating clouds that help regulate temperature. Since 2013, much research has been aimed at constructing a more accurate picture of past temperature/solar radiation correlation and developing a realistic solar-driven climate prediction model, taking the greenhouse effect into account.

Sunspots fluctuate in roughly 11-year cycles. It’s complicated, but in general these cycles show a moderate amount of correlation with temperature. The period of no sunspot activity 400 years ago corresponds to the Little Ice Age, when winters were significantly colder than they are today. The current cycle peaked in 2014. Solar experts speculate that the next cycle, which starts in 2020, will have fewer sunspots. If that turns out to be true, temperatures could be heading down, rather than up.

RE 5 - no more than the alarmist claim that manmade CO2 emissions are the primary driver of global climate change and increases in same are pushing us towards climate catastrophe.

RE 6 - calling the substance that we exhale, plants require to survive and that forms the very basis of all organic life on earth a 'poison' is clearly ridiculous.

SlowBlowin

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

And you're 100% deluded and brainwashed.

As stated before, and igniored by you I have made my own opions, not read the reports you cite, so you are, as usual 100% wrong

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

You are bailing now because you cannot convincingly make your case nor refute a single piece of the evidence I have provided.

I tried to add some structure and a few posts back tried to address the fact that you don't think small quantities matter. But you decided to go on a rant instead and ignore the fact that you are wrong, again.

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Your cognitive dissonance and desire to see yourself as some kind of hero 'saving the planet' won't allow you to even countenance the idea that the bogus unproven theory you so religiously believe in, may in fact be a politically motivated hoax. That reality, and it's implications for your child-like worldview, is simply to difficult for you to face.

Yes let the planet die because it MAY be a hoax, good thinking.

This is my first debate on climate change, and you are branding me a hero ? Is that for having the patience to listen to your ill formed drivel ?

Can are ask, are you 100% sure you are right, or do you believe there might be a tiny, tiny, chance you are mistaken ?

ps200306

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

4. New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.

5. CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much. You fanatics and gullible zealots will have impoverished billions for no environmental gain whatsoever.

6. There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. It is the very basis for all organic life on earth. Have you guys completely forgotten your primary school teachings on photosynthesis? CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.

Aretheymyfeet, could you give some references to papers to support 4? Direct measurements of the solar constant are only as old as the satellite era, and show a 0.1% variation. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to see the peer-reviewed papers.

Regarding 5, there seems to be quite a lot of uncertainty in the climate sensitivity to CO2, but to say "CO2 has very little to do with it" sounds quite dogmatic.

6 is a non-sequitur. We're free to call carbon anything we want, depending on our views of whether it's needed or excessive. It doesn't change the argument.

Aretheymyfeet

SlowBlowin wrote: »

You are 100% crazy.

You make all these statements like you are some kind of Prophet, when the argument gets too hard, you produce a load waffle. You disregard science, and wont debate any point through to conclusion you just bail when it gets too tough.

I am off on my solar charged bike, to get a pint.. while I am enjoying a pint read this then about your hero Mr. Ridd, I used to live in Townsville and still have lots of friends there, if you talked like you do there you would not last long, its a big thing the marine life is suffering. Ridd is condemned by the vast majority of his peers in the scientific community :

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-04-23/peter-ridd-reef-science-climate-change/11026540

And you're 100% deluded and brainwashed. You are bailing now because you cannot convincingly make your case nor refute a single piece of the evidence I have provided. Your cognitive dissonance and desire to see yourself as some kind of hero 'saving the planet' won't allow you to even countenance the idea that the bogus unproven theory you so religiously believe in, may in fact be a politically motivated hoax. That reality, and it's implications for your child-like worldview, is simply to difficult for you to face.

SlowBlowin

You are 100% crazy.

You make all these statements like you are some kind of Prophet, when the argument gets too hard, you produce a load waffle. You disregard science, and wont debate any point through to conclusion you just bail when it gets too tough.

I am off on my solar charged bike, to get a pint.. while I am enjoying a pint read this then about your hero Mr. Ridd, I used to live in Townsville and still have lots of friends there, if you talked like you do there you would not last long, its a big thing the marine life is suffering. Ridd is condemned by the vast majority of his peers in the scientific community :

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-04-23/peter-ridd-reef-science-climate-change/11026540

Aretheymyfeet

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Or indeed Cheerful spring from the 911 thread ? Got exactly the same disregard of science and logic, same way of speaking/typing...

Once again trying to label me as someone I am not. Boards.ie can possibly verify this via IPs. Happy for them to do so if they can.

'same disregard of science and logic' Eh, no. I simply dispute your pseudo science.

'same way of speaking/typing'. What's that then? The use of proper sentences, grammar or evidence based reasoning? I must check out Cheerful Spring, clearly someone of merit.

Aretheymyfeet

Akrasia wrote: »

No, i said only trained scientists can properly asses the scientific evidence behind climate change, and this assessment happens through the peer reviewed literature

I can assert climate change is real because that is in agreement with the scientific consensus. My assessment of the evidence is irrelevant because i am not challenging the science. You on the other hand are pretending that you know enough to judge the scientific consensus and come yo the conclusion that it is wrong

Your supposed consensus has been debunked numerous times. I can provide links if you wish. The science is certainly not settled, despite what you and many believe. You are simply bowing to a mass propaganda campaign that asserts the debate is over, the science settled. This is driven primarily by the IPCC. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. I have already told you who drafted its terms of rerference. I have also provided examples of the anti science fraudulent behaviour being carried out at the IPCC.

1. Weather is not climate. This is something alarmists say regularly and then proceed to refer to actual weather patterns to 'evidence' their supposed extreme 'climate change'. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves. The increase in storms is simply a result of improved measurement methods. There has been no real increase.

2. Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural, not man-made. The earth is warming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.

3. There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved. The U.N.-approved models used to project climate change impacts overshoot the observed warming by up to five times as much as has actually occurred in the tropical troposphere—a region where greenhouse theory expects the most rapid warming to occur. The only models to make accurate forecasts were the Russian models. The Russians specifically reject the anthropogenic climate change claim.

The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report tacitly rejects the catastrophe narrative popularized by Al Gore and other climate campaigners. Specifically, the IPCC concludes (AR5, Ch. 12, Table 12.4) that in the 21st Century, Atlantic Ocean circulation collapse is “very unlikely,” ice sheet crackup is “exceptionally unlikely,” and catastrophic release of methane from melting permafrost is “very unlikely.

4. New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.

5. CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much. You fanatics and gullible zealots will have impoverished billions for no environmental gain whatsoever.

6. There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. It is the very basis for all organic life on earth. Have you guys completely forgotten your primary school teachings on photosynthesis? CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.

7. Sea level will probably continue to rise — not quickly, and not much. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level. All alarmist predictions in this regard have proven false.

8. The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others. Polar bear numbers are up, not down. They have more to do with hunting permits than CO2. In respect of the Antarctic, it may interest you to know there's an active volcano sitting under the ice. Do you think this might be having some impact on icemelt?
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/volcano-antarctic-ice-melting-pine-island-glacier-sea-level-climate-change-global-warming-a8423131.html

9. No one has demonstrated any unnatural damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them. Reefs are more threatened by sunscreen than by CO2. See Professor Peter Ridd, formerly of James Cook University who showed the alarmism being conveyed over the barrier reef had no scientific basis.

10. Consensus is not an argument for any scientific principle. Many important scientists toiled alone to make discoveries that were less than popular. One key paper can be worth more than thousands of papers reinforcing a myth. The claim that 97 percent of scientists believe in man-made global warming is one such myth. Almost all scientists expect a small man-made contribution to warming, so the claim is misleading. It is not the case that 97 percent of scientists believe manmade carbon emissions are the primary driver of global climate change or that any warming resulting from such carbon emissions are driving the world to climate catastrophe.

You say 'My assessment of the evidence is irrelevant because i am not challenging the science.'. This is a ridiculous abdication of your responsibility to think for yourself on the most important subject now facing mankind. You zealots expect everybody to jump to and hand over the power to radically change every aspect of life on earth, but you won't actually analyse the evidence yourself. You leave that to a highly politicised organisation created by a lifelong Big Oil multimillionaire and nature reserve destroyer, Maurice Strong, who openly stated that the key to his vision was “environmentalism”, the one cause the UN could harness to make itself a truly powerful world government.

Yours is now a faith based religion bowing to known corrupt voices of authority, with its own original sin (human CO2); tithe (carbon tax) goddess (Mother Earth) priest class (experts = scientists, eugenicists, technocrats) and atonement (sustainability = no children, voluntary sterilisation, austerity). It now even has it's own Prophet or Messiah in Greta, who's words must be treated as gospel. Attenborough playing the role of John the Baptist, the forerunner prophet to Greta's Jesus character.

SlowBlowin

Akrasia wrote: »

All of science is full of examples of trace materials having big effects. Anyone who repeats the argument that C02 is only a trace gas, therefore it doesn’t matter, is a fukking moron. (Or a liar)

Or indeed Cheerful spring from the 911 thread ? Got exactly the same disregard of science and logic, same way of speaking/typing...

Akrasia

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Try this with regard to the quantity thing, please try and get the point.

Think of a big pile of panes of glass.

Light travels through this pile of glass to the surface below.

Most of the panes are completely transparent (representing the nitrogen and oxygen as they have zero greenhouse effect)

The last pane of glass is tinted (representing co2 so2 etc)

If this tinted glass gets 10% darker, the light getting to the surface gets 10% less. It does not matter that the tinted glass in a small percentage of the pile, as the rest of the glass is transparent.

In the atmosphere the oxygen and nitrogen have no greenhouse effect, zero. But the small percentage of greenhouse gases do have an effect, and if this small percentage doubles so does the total effect.

All of science is full of examples of trace materials having big effects. Anyone who repeats the argument that C02 is only a trace gas, therefore it doesn’t matter, is a fukking moron. (Or a liar)

SlowBlowin

Try this with regard to the quantity thing, please try and get the point.

Think of a big pile of panes of glass.

Light travels through this pile of glass to the surface below.

Most of the panes are completely transparent (representing the nitrogen and oxygen as they have zero greenhouse effect)

The last pane of glass is tinted (representing co2 so2 etc)

If this tinted glass gets 10% darker, the light getting to the surface gets 10% less. It does not matter that the tinted glass in a small percentage of the pile, as the rest of the glass is transparent.

In the atmosphere the oxygen and nitrogen have no greenhouse effect, zero. But the small percentage of greenhouse gases do have an effect, and if this small percentage doubles so does the total effect.

Akrasia

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Your claim that only a trained atmospheric scientist can discuss the most important issue of our time is ridiculous. By your reasoning you don't have any right to assert your claim of manmade climate change either. I'm sorry if I've upset your self congratulatory echo chamber circle jerk. You guys are 'saving the world'.

No, i said only trained scientists can properly asses the scientific evidence behind climate change, and this assessment happens through the peer reviewed literature

I can assert climate change is real because that is in agreement with the scientific consensus. My assessment of the evidence is irrelevant because i am not challenging the science. You on the other hand are pretending that you know enough to judge the scientific consensus and come yo the conclusion that it is wrong

Aretheymyfeet

Akrasia wrote: »

Unless you’re a trained atmospheric scientist (and you definitely are not) You don’t have the knowledge to question the science behind climate change, and you definitely do not have the knowledge to conclude that you know more about it than every single credible scientific organization on the planet

Your claim that only a trained atmospheric scientist can discuss the most important issue of our time is ridiculous. By your reasoning you don't have any right to assert your claim of manmade climate change either. I'm sorry if I've upset your self congratulatory echo chamber circle jerk. You guys are 'saving the world'.

Aretheymyfeet

SlowBlowin wrote: »

You keep on bringing in lots of other things in your reply. You asked me to dispute your science yet you wont tell me what you believe other than expanded general statements.

We already established that the quantity does not matter, or are you happy to swallow that tiny tiny cyanide pill, I mean such a small quantity cant possible make any difference ?

I am asking what science you believe regarding the strength of greenhouse gases, thats all, nothing else.

Please detail where I have brought in lots of things in my reply. I have from the start stated clearly that I refute the claim that manmade carbon emissions are the primary driver of global climate change. You have danced around this. If quantity does not matter, as you say, why should we then reduce carbon levels? Your arguments are incoherent.

Akrasia

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.

Unless you’re a trained atmospheric scientist (and you definitely are not) You don’t have the knowledge to question the science behind climate change, and you definitely do not have the knowledge to conclude that you know more about it than every single credible scientific organization on the planet

SlowBlowin

The main gases in the atmosphere have zero greenhouse effect, this effectively means your percentages are irrelevant.

The main greenhouse gases are CO2 and water vapor.

The water vapor in in equilibrium with the water cycle.

The thing thats changing is the co2.

SlowBlowin

You keep on bringing in lots of other things in your reply. You asked me to dispute your science yet you wont tell me what you believe other than expanded general statements.

We already established that the quantity does not matter, or are you happy to swallow that tiny tiny cyanide pill, I mean such a small quantity cant possible make any difference ?

I am asking what science you believe regarding the strength of greenhouse gases, thats all, nothing else.

Aretheymyfeet

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 ?

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.

Triangle

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'?

Lol, I have looked into it myself and have huge self belief.but I'm open to having my opinion corrected if I've misunderstood something.
Maybe contacting an environmental scientist and asking then to explain the points you don't understand would be a better way to spend time. There are plenty out there.

Unfortunately, I can't debate this with you as we both lack serious knowledge on the situation for it to be of any use.

SlowBlowin

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

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 ?

I didn't say that. I questioned it's potency or actual effect in relative terms. You'll find that a large proportion of the oft quoted '97% of scientists consensus' is actually made up of scientists who agree carbon has a warming effect as a greenhouse gas, but do not necessarily buy into the alarmist view that this is driving the globe towards a climate catastrophe. It's a matter of degrees. Wearing a coat will make you warmer but it won't necessarily result in you suffering from heat exhaustion or heat stroke.

SlowBlowin

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

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.

Fine. I dispute the claim that the tiny amount of carbon in the atmosphere is causing the earths climate to heat to a dangerous tipping point level.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's potency is up for debate.

Global mean temperatures rose from the 1970s to circa 2000 and have been relatively flat since then despite continued rising carbon levels. Global temperatures have always fluctuated and are never static. Correlation does not equate to causation either.

SlowBlowin

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.

Aretheymyfeet

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.

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'?

washman3

What ever happened to the 'hole' in the Ozone layer...??

Aretheymyfeet

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 ?

Eh, I think you've completely missed the point here. That's what they call a straw man. I have not disputed the fact that carbon levels have risen, nor have I disputed the fact human emissions are the main contributing factor in that rise. What I have disputed is the claim that manmade carbon emissions are driving the global climate to a catastrophic tipping point. That claim is unproven.