2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

Banana Republic 1 · 04-07-2021 11:29am

BettyS wrote: »

Do you remember when there was the big campaign by the tobacco industry, dismissing the health concerns secondary to tobacco intake. They dismissed all the evidence as poor research design and biased (it was retrospective), knowing damn well that you could never get ethics approval for a double-blinded RCT for smokers vs non-smokers.

Bottom-line: remember when they told us that smoking was not harmful!

You have to look at the vested interests of big industry. Of course the petroleum industry is not going to tell us climate change is harmful.

The nature of the research question related to climate change is difficult to test, just like the smoking question was difficult. But in both cases, just look around. 50degrees in the summer! When I was a child 53C was the highest on record. And the soaring temperatures in the Artic!

Let common sense prevail rather than trying to resort to esoteric arguments about the research methodology!!!

Last week exonmobil were rumbled doing the same thing.

BettyS · 04-07-2021 11:30am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

What's the tobacco or oil industry got to do with discussing the science of climate change? Their vested interests don't affect the laws of physics or medicine. People are too quick to worry about WHO is saying something rather than WHAT they are saying. Akrasia's first port of call is invariably to discredit the author on the grounds that s/he is linked with the oil industry (without backing that up with evidence, of course). Rather than focusing on that, why not focus on discrediting the science of their comments? Science works, regardless of who is speaking.

My point is that we should use common sense as there are previous precedents for unreliable scientific arguments. I think that anybody who follows the news is aware that there is climate change

BettyS · 04-07-2021 11:30am

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Last week exonmobil were rumbled doing the same thing.

Exactly! People are parroting arguments that they don’t even understand and don’t know the source of

Banana Republic 1 · 04-07-2021 11:35am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

What's the tobacco or oil industry got to do with discussing the science of climate change? Their vested interests don't affect the laws of physics or medicine. People are too quick to worry about WHO is saying something rather than WHAT they are saying. Akrasia's first port of call is invariably to discredit the author on the grounds that s/he is linked with the oil industry (without backing that up with evidence, of course). Rather than focusing on that, why not focus on discrediting the science of their comments? Science works, regardless of who is speaking.

They do effect the laws/legislation and if you bothered your arse to even watch the clips from channel 4 news I posted last week you would have seen that exonmobil have been lobbying senators to obstruct the climate change policies joe Biden is trying to bring and pay people like tony heller to put out fake news.

Akrasia · 04-07-2021 11:54am

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Any comment of that study regarding jet stream patterns I posted for you (twice now) Akrasia?

The atmosphere is complicated, the study you quoted didn't find that the jet stream hasn't become more 'wavey' they conclude that the waveyness may not be directly correlated to arctic surface temperatures on any given year.

They used a combination of modelling and observations to try to find a correlation and there was one, up until the last few years where the correlation seems to have broken down.
They also found that one of the fundamental parts of Jennifer Francis' AA theory, that the westerly winds are slowing down is happening, they just don't think that this change is enough to overwhelm other naturally varying drivers of climate. Their paper is valuable and adds to the scientific knowledge as it is a well undertaken study, but it is not the only study and it is not the definitive study.

What does this mean for the arctic amplification theory? Well There was a review paper published this year that looked at the bulk of papers that discuss this theory (156 papers in total) and analysed where they are with the state of current understanding. What they concluded is that there is a lot of variation in the different models as they handle the polar interactions slightly differently and this introduces a lot of noise to the data. Also, that the natural variability interacts with the effects of the AA, so that some years, where there should be a strong AA (arctic amplification) signal, there are other synoptics that counteract it to maintain a balance

An advance in understanding high-latitude climate change is that Arctic/midlatitude weather linkages depend not only on the magnitude of AA, but also on the location, amplitude, and movement of meanders in the polar jet stream [22, 35–37]. That this connection does not appear in all years or all months is an argument for the intermittency of weather linkages despite continued AA. Spatial and temporal variations in AA patterns also contribute to intermittency [38]. Inspection of year-to-year variability reported in studies claiming weak multi-decadal trends in linkages (e.g. [39]), suggests such intermittency. In fact, amplified Arctic warming may not initiate midlatitude connections, but instead intensify intrinsic linkages by enhancing the amplitude of existing large-scale Rossby waves—subject to the influences of sea-surface temperature (SST) anomaly patterns and geographic features—and therefore contribute to the formation of stationary blocking anticyclones [37, 40]. Amplified Rossby waves lead to increased northward warm advection as well as southward cold advection between the subarctic and midlatitudes. Some metrics of jet-stream waviness (e.g. sinuosity, meridional circulation index, local wave activity flux) have indicated an increased frequency of high-amplitude jet stream days since AA emerged in the mid-1990s, embedded within large year-to-year winter natural variability [41–46]. Because cold and warm extreme events often occur simultaneously in adjacent regions, according to the axis and amplitude of jet-stream waves as they progress, metrics based on averages over a season, across large regions, or over many model ensemble members tend to produce insignificant composite signals [3, 47]. This fact is one source of discrepancy among studies.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abdb5d/meta#fnref-erlabdb5dbib4
Because of the complexity of the atmosphere and all of the interactions between all of the different layers and zones, it is possible to study the same thing and reach different conclusions. There is an ongoing debate on what is causing these changes to the atmospheric circulation. Some researchers are concluding that on average, over a multi decadal timescale, things are stable, while others are saying that when you measure things differently, there are statistically significant changes to the polar and subtropical jet streams

This is similar to how the overall Accumulated Cyclone Energy in a season may be not be increasing in a steady and measurable way, but the number of severe storms is still increasing, it's just that it's offset by there being fewer storms in total, or less intense storms at the lower end of the scale, and other measurement artifacts such as the way the ACE is calculated not fully capturing all of the energy in a system

Gaoth Laidir · 04-07-2021 12:28pm

Akrasia wrote: »

The atmosphere is complicated, the study you quoted didn't find that the jet stream hasn't become more 'wavey' they conclude that the waveyness may not be directly correlated to arctic surface temperatures on any given year.

They used a combination of modelling and observations to try to find a correlation and there was one, up until the last few years where the correlation seems to have broken down.
They also found that one of the fundamental parts of Jennifer Francis' AA theory, that the westerly winds are slowing down is happening, they just don't think that this change is enough to overwhelm other naturally varying drivers of climate. Their paper is valuable and adds to the scientific knowledge as it is a well undertaken study, but it is not the only study and it is not the definitive study.

What does this mean for the arctic amplification theory? Well There was a review paper published this year that looked at the bulk of papers that discuss this theory (156 papers in total) and analysed where they are with the state of current understanding. What they concluded is that there is a lot of variation in the different models as they handle the polar interactions slightly differently and this introduces a lot of noise to the data. Also, that the natural variability interacts with the effects of the AA, so that some years, where there should be a strong AA (arctic amplification) signal, there are other synoptics that counteract it to maintain a balance

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abdb5d/meta#fnref-erlabdb5dbib4
Because of the complexity of the atmosphere and all of the interactions between all of the different layers and zones, it is possible to study the same thing and reach different conclusions. There is an ongoing debate on what is causing these changes to the atmospheric circulation. Some researchers are concluding that on average, over a multi decadal timescale, things are stable, while others are saying that when you measure things differently, there are statistically significant changes to the polar and subtropical jet streams

This is similar to how the overall Accumulated Cyclone Energy in a season may be not be increasing in a steady and measurable way, but the number of severe storms is still increasing, it's just that it's offset by there being fewer storms in total, or less intense storms at the lower end of the scale, and other measurement artifacts such as the way the ACE is calculated not fully capturing all of the energy in a system

So from what you're saying, the confidence that many have (including you) in stating that certain weather events are attributable to humans is unfounded? We finally agree on something. This part of the science is anything but settled, which kind of begs the question; how can you be so sure - without waiting for any study - that the Canadian hotspot or Texas coldspot are attributable? "Everyone knows it" were your words, IIRC.

Gaoth Laidir · 04-07-2021 12:34pm

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

No context for your own rebuttals! Spoofing is a hard thing to give up when you’re in so deep I guess.

Ok, you wanted to know. Most of your posts are childish personal insults or random garbled nonsense more suited to AH or Twitter. This is a science forum, not a school playground, so come back when you've grown up and have something of actual value to add.

Akrasia · 04-07-2021 12:43pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Right, that's an analogous argument indeed. :rolleyes:

By the way, speaking of misleading stats and statements, did you manage to find answers to the questions I asked you a few times in the past days, namely,

a) what has affected the swallows' migration to Ireland and
b) proof that Tony Heller is being paid by ExxonMobil or similar?

Your question about swallow was something similar to a jerry seinfield stand up routine

So, what's with the swallows??

You seem to have remembered some guy on the radio mention climate change in the same conversation as swallows but can't remember what he said

I don't exactly have a lot to go on there

And Heller does not have to be paid directly by Exxon Mobil, I never said he was, I said, and showed in that video, that Exxon Mobil and lots of other energy companies have been funding climate change misinformation through giving out money to politicians 'think tanks' and PR organisations who then funnel that money to people who engage in anti scientific propaganda

They fund groups like the heartland institute (at least 700k in funding for them up to 2014) who then pay 'skeptics' and 'influencers' to speak at their conferences

Heller has attended the Heartland conferences, as well as he CPAC conference as a sponsored speaker paid for by 'the CO2 coalition' who are funded by the energy industry.
He's been speakers at events hosted by 'The Cooler Heads Coalition' etc etc.

He as also commissioned to write a book by the 'Institute of Policy Affairs' another 'think tank' who doesn't reveal their donors but investigations have shown them to be funded by the energy and mining industry

The energy industry, including Exxon Mobil have been funding this misinformation campaign for decades, it's very well established. Heller can deny that he has ever been paid directly by Exxon Mobil, but if he is getting paid by any of these conferences, or media organisations that only exist because they are funded by people and corporations eager to delay action on climate change, then he is taking their money

Now, I'm not saying Heller is saying these things Because he is being paid to say them, He is an absolute loon who probably believes his own nonsense and is too stupid and arrogant to change his mind. But the if it wasn't for the hundreds of millions pumped into climate change denial, Heller would almost certainly not have the platform he has now

The man has absolutely no scientific credibility, and even when it comes to youtube debates, he was humiliated by Potholer54 (Peter Hadfield, a science Journalist) until he ran away and refused to engage any further

And on top of his scientific ignorance on climate change, he's also a conspiracy theorist who believes Biden stole the election from Trump amongst many other far right fringe nonsense

Heller has repeatedly been caught distorting data, misquoting scientists, and making the most rudimentary errors in data analysis. Nobody should use him as a source for anything, he's not peer reviewed, in fact, he's created his own blog for the distinct reason that even Anthony Watts got sick of his bullsh1t and booted him off his site

Gaoth Laidir · 04-07-2021 12:52pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Your question about swallow was something similar to a jerry seinfield stand up routine

So, what's with the swallows??

You seem to have remembered some guy on the radio mention climate change in the same conversation as swallows but can't remember what he said

I don't exactly have a lot to go on there

And Heller does not have to be paid directly by Exxon Mobil, I never said he was, I said, and showed in that video, that Exxon Mobil and lots of other energy companies have been funding climate change misinformation through giving out money to politicians 'think tanks' and PR organisations who then funnel that money to people who engage in anti scientific propaganda

They fund groups like the heartland institute (at least 700k in funding for them up to 2014) who then pay 'skeptics' and 'influencers' to speak at their conferences

Heller has attended the Heartland conferences, as well as he CPAC conference as a sponsored speaker paid for by 'the CO2 coalition' who are funded by the energy industry.
He's been speakers at events hosted by 'The Cooler Heads Coalition' etc etc.

He as also commissioned to write a book by the 'Institute of Policy Affairs' another 'think tank' who doesn't reveal their donors but investigations have shown them to be funded by the energy and mining industry

The energy industry, including Exxon Mobil have been funding this misinformation campaign for decades, it's very well established. Heller can deny that he has ever been paid directly by Exxon Mobil, but if he is getting paid by any of these conferences, or media organisations that only exist because they are funded by people and corporations eager to delay action on climate change, then he is taking their money

Now, I'm not saying Heller is saying these things Because he is being paid to say them, He is an absolute loon who probably believes his own nonsense and is too stupid and arrogant to change his mind. But the if it wasn't for the hundreds of millions pumped into climate change denial, Heller would almost certainly not have the platform he has now

The man has absolutely no scientific credibility, and even when it comes to youtube debates, he was humiliated by Potholer54 (Peter Hadfield, a science Journalist) until he ran away and refused to engage any further

And on top of his scientific ignorance on climate change, he's also a conspiracy theorist who believes Biden stole the election from Trump amongst many other far right fringe nonsense

Heller has repeatedly been caught distorting data, misquoting scientists, and making the most rudimentary errors in data analysis. Nobody should use him as a source for anything, he's not peer reviewed, in fact, he's created his own blog for the distinct reason that even Anthony Watts got sick of his bullsh1t and booted him off his site

That's fair enough. If all that is true then he falls into the bad guy bin. However, that still doesn't change the scientific validity/invalidity of what he says. As I said earlier, science is either right or wrong, regardless of who says it. I don't look at the name of who writes something, instead preferring to examine the validity of it from a scientific point of view. I don't know a lot of the people who are linked here and don't really care either.

On the swallows, I did say that a guy had said climate change was responsible for changes to swallows' migration patterns to Ireland and was wondering what has caused these changes. You said "Why wouldn't it influence them?" and left it at that. I can't find any papers explaining this phenomenon. Something must have changed between here and North Africa, but as yet you nor anyone else has been able to come up with what. All I can guess is it must be to do with natural patterns, such as the AMO flip, etc.

BettyS · 04-07-2021 1:12pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

That's fair enough. If all that is true then he falls into the bad guy bin. However, that still doesn't change the scientific validity/invalidity of what he says. As I said earlier, science is either right or wrong, regardless of who says it. I don't look at the name of who writes something, instead preferring to examine the validity of it from a scientific point of view. I don't know a lot of the people who are linked here and don't really care either.

On the swallows, I did say that a guy had said climate change was responsible for changes to swallows' migration patterns to Ireland and was wondering what has caused these changes. You said "Why wouldn't it influence them?" and left it at that. I can't find any papers explaining this phenomenon. Something must have changed between here and North Africa, but as yet you nor anyone else has been able to come up with what. All I can guess is it must be to do with natural patterns, such as the AMO flip, etc.

We cannot always extrapolate a right or wrong from our hypothesis testing. Sometimes, our present methodology is limited and hence our answer is tinged with equipoise.

You would think that proving the link between smoking and lung cancer could have been definitively answered as a yes or no pretty quickly. And yet it took 30 years for expert consensus that smoking causes lung cancer.

Science is sadly not as simple as you make it seem. Unless we know all the explanatory variables (which is impossible), our models will always be shrouded in uncertainty. And no, they won’t give us a simple yes or no

But common sense should prevail. Summers are getting warmer (we can objectively see records been broken) and disaster events. I am sure that in time that climate change will be like smoking. People will ask how could they possibly not have realised it was man-made

Gaoth Laidir · 04-07-2021 2:48pm

BettyS wrote: »

We cannot always extrapolate a right or wrong from our hypothesis testing. Sometimes, our present methodology is limited and hence our answer is tinged with equipoise.

You would think that proving the link between smoking and lung cancer could have been definitively answered as a yes or no pretty quickly. And yet it took 30 years for expert consensus that smoking causes lung cancer.

Science is sadly not as simple as you make it seem. Unless we know all the explanatory variables (which is impossible), our models will always be shrouded in uncertainty. And no, they won’t give us a simple yes or no

But common sense should prevail. Summers are getting warmer (we can objectively see records been broken) and disaster events. I am sure that in time that climate change will be like smoking. People will ask how could they possibly not have realised it was man-made

Apparently it is when it comes to attribution of weather events. We have the new "instant noodle" scientific method, where we don't wait for any studies anymore, instead instantly claiming "everyone knows" x was caused by y.

BettyS · 04-07-2021 2:53pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Apparently it is when it comes to attribution of weather events. We have the new "instant noodle" scientific method, where we don't wait for any studies anymore, instead instantly claiming "everyone knows" x was caused by y.

On observation-level, there is undoubtedly climate change. That is undeniable. When better models emerge and there isn’t the same financial incentive to conceal climate change, I am certain there will be overwhelming consensus

Gaoth Laidir · 04-07-2021 2:55pm

BettyS wrote: »

On observation-level, there is undoubtedly climate change. That is undeniable. When better models emerge and there isn’t the same financial incentive to conceal climate change, I am certain there will be overwhelming consensus

Fine, you're entitle to your opinion, but at the moment there is no evidence one way or the other.

BettyS · 04-07-2021 2:57pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Fine, you're entitle to your opinion, but at the moment there is no evidence one way or the other.

Opinion is subjective, observation is objective. Make the difference

BettyS · 04-07-2021 3:02pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Fine, you're entitle to your opinion, but at the moment there is no evidence one way or the other.

And while we are discussing this point, there are multiple peer reviewed articles which report 97% consensus amongst experts that climate change is driven by man (1).

1. Maertens, R., Anseel, F. and van der Linden, S., 2020. Combatting climate change misinformation: Evidence for longevity of inoculation and consensus messaging effects. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 70, p.101455.

“Consensus research has replicated this finding in at least five high quality studies over the past years, estimating the consensus among scientists from a minimum of 91% to a maximum of 100% (Anderegg, Prall, Harold, & Schneider, 2010; Carlton, Perry-Hill, Huber, & Prokopy, 2015; Cook et al., 2016, 2013; Doran & Zimmerman, 2009; Oreskes, 2004; Stenhouse et al., 2014; Verheggen et al., 2014). These studies further show a strong positive relationship between expertise in climate science and scientific consensus on human-caused climate change (Cook et al., 2016). However, most people are not climate science experts, and need to navigate facts through a cloud of (mis)information.“

Gaoth Laidir · 04-07-2021 3:09pm

BettyS wrote: »

Opinion is subjective, observation is objective. Make the difference

BettyS wrote: »

And while we are discussing this point, there are multiple peer reviewed articles which report 97% consensus amongst experts that climate change is driven by man (1).

1. Maertens, R., Anseel, F. and van der Linden, S., 2020. Combatting climate change misinformation: Evidence for longevity of inoculation and consensus messaging effects. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 70, p.101455.

“Consensus research has replicated this finding in at least five high quality studies over the past years, estimating the consensus among scientists from a minimum of 91% to a maximum of 100% (Anderegg, Prall, Harold, & Schneider, 2010; Carlton, Perry-Hill, Huber, & Prokopy, 2015; Cook et al., 2016, 2013; Doran & Zimmerman, 2009; Oreskes, 2004; Stenhouse et al., 2014; Verheggen et al., 2014). These studies further show a strong positive relationship between expertise in climate science and scientific consensus on human-caused climate change (Cook et al., 2016). However, most people are not climate science experts, and need to navigate facts through a cloud of (mis)information.“

We have been speaking specifically about Arctic Amplification and its link or not to events such as the Canadian heatwave.

Oneiric 3 · 04-07-2021 3:15pm

BettyS wrote: »

Do you remember when there was the big campaign by the tobacco industry, dismissing the health concerns secondary to tobacco intake. They dismissed all the evidence as poor research design and biased (it was retrospective), knowing damn well that you could never get ethics approval for a double-blinded RCT for smokers vs non-smokers.

Bottom-line: remember when they told us that smoking was not harmful!

You have to look at the vested interests of big industry. Of course the petroleum industry is not going to tell us climate change is harmful.

The nature of the research question related to climate change is difficult to test, just like the smoking question was difficult. But in both cases, just look around. 50degrees in the summer! When I was a child 53C was the highest on record. And the soaring temperatures in the Artic!

Let common sense prevail rather than trying to resort to esoteric arguments about the research methodology!!!

Your post reminded me of an article I read years ago about how synthetically produced margarine was sold as being healthy by bought and sold scientists, who were paid to go on a campaign to demonise butter as being incredibly unhealthy. As we know there is no truth to this at all but it was all about how it was marketed.

I have zero interest in the 'fuel debate', but I find it strange how oil/fossil fuel companies are portrayed as being demons when they are literally providing us the energy to function and survive. I ask, the next time a rescue helicopter is called upon to rescue people off the Galway coast, should they not bother because their very essential vehicle is using evil fossil fuels?

I also keep in mind that documentary produced by Michael Moore last year which exposed 'green energy' as not only being in hands of muti-billionaire politicians, business men and bought off scientists (no less by the Koch Brothers) but actively depends on fossil fuels and environmentally destructive practices in its own right.

Oneiric 3 · 04-07-2021 3:18pm

BettyS wrote: »

Opinion is subjective, observation is objective. Make the difference

But how observation is interpreted is often very subjective.

Banana Republic 1 · 04-07-2021 4:28pm

BettyS wrote: »

And while we are discussing this point, there are multiple peer reviewed articles which report 97% consensus amongst experts that climate change is driven by man (1).

1. Maertens, R., Anseel, F. and van der Linden, S., 2020. Combatting climate change misinformation: Evidence for longevity of inoculation and consensus messaging effects. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 70, p.101455.

“Consensus research has replicated this finding in at least five high quality studies over the past years, estimating the consensus among scientists from a minimum of 91% to a maximum of 100% (Anderegg, Prall, Harold, & Schneider, 2010; Carlton, Perry-Hill, Huber, & Prokopy, 2015; Cook et al., 2016, 2013; Doran & Zimmerman, 2009; Oreskes, 2004; Stenhouse et al., 2014; Verheggen et al., 2014). These studies further show a strong positive relationship between expertise in climate science and scientific consensus on human-caused climate change (Cook et al., 2016). However, most people are not climate science experts, and need to navigate facts through a cloud of (mis)information.“

SOP on this forum amongst the "deniers" is to deflect, obfuscate, flipflop, spoof and gaslight. I wouldn't get to worked up about convincing people because their "dug in like Alabama ticks"

FYI Micheal Moores documentary on green energy was essentially making the point that what were doing, or not doing as the case is, is nowhere near enough so take everything your read especially from that poster as spin and fossil fuel powered NOX emissions.

I’ve watched the Michael Moore planet of the humans and it’s no where near as well put tighter as other well known Moore documentaries. In fact it’s Moore a hatchet job. It’s very telling that he himself is not the narrative face of this.

However it is accurate in the overall sense that humans have destroyed the planet in every way possible and there’s no turning back. Funnily for something that is used by deniers to say look Michael Moore has rumbled the green agenda actually doubles down on anthropogenic causes for the predicament we’re in.

What I don’t find at all shocking is that once again capitalism is squeezing a few more bucks at the cost of us all.

Akrasia · 04-07-2021 6:59pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

That's fair enough. If all that is true then he falls into the bad guy bin. However, that still doesn't change the scientific validity/invalidity of what he says. As I said earlier, science is either right or wrong, regardless of who says it. I don't look at the name of who writes something, instead preferring to examine the validity of it from a scientific point of view. I don't know a lot of the people who are linked here and don't really care either.

On the swallows, I did say that a guy had said climate change was responsible for changes to swallows' migration patterns to Ireland and was wondering what has caused these changes. You said "Why wouldn't it influence them?" and left it at that. I can't find any papers explaining this phenomenon. Something must have changed between here and North Africa, but as yet you nor anyone else has been able to come up with what. All I can guess is it must be to do with natural patterns, such as the AMO flip, etc.

Every species will have their own triggers to begin their migration, migrating animals are sensitive to late winters or early springs, or late autumns/early winters. Changes to any of these can spark changes to their migratory pattern, or even changes to the food supply that they rely on.

You would really need to track down the original comment that was made so we can see if it was genuine science based claim, or someone saying something off the cuff that may not have evidence to back it up.

Akrasia · 04-07-2021 7:07pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

But how observation is interpreted is often very subjective.

This is true, and this is why the scientific debate happens in the scientific literature.

Someone makes an observation that challenges another scientist's findings, so the other scientist investigates those claims and checks the calculations, and then incorporates those into their findings in a follow up study. Often, if the methodology of both studies is sound, both studies may be accurate, but focused on slightly different parts of the same problem, so each of them is contributing a different piece to the puzzle, and it is only when all of these studies are pieced together that we can get a clear picture of how the system actually behaves

A genuine attempt to understand a phenomena is one that incorporates the science that challenges the existing theory and attempts to improve the model

Akrasia · 04-07-2021 7:16pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Your post reminded me of an article I read years ago about how synthetically produced margarine was sold as being healthy by bought and sold scientists, who were paid to go on a campaign to demonise butter as being incredibly unhealthy. As we know there is no truth to this at all but it was all about how it was marketed.

I have zero interest in the 'fuel debate', but I find it strange how oil/fossil fuel companies are portrayed as being demons when they are literally providing us the energy to function and survive. I ask, the next time a rescue helicopter is called upon to rescue people off the Galway coast, should they not bother because their very essential vehicle is using evil fossil fuels?

I also keep in mind that documentary produced by Michael Moore last year which exposed 'green energy' as not only being in hands of muti-billionaire politicians, business men and bought off scientists (no less by the Koch Brothers) but actively depends on fossil fuels and environmentally destructive practices in its own right.

The reason they are being demonised,is because the energy industry while providing a valuable commodity, have been downplaying the harm that their product is causing, while sabotaging any attempts to reduce the harm caused from consuming their product.

They are demonised because these are extremely wealthy companies and individuals who could sacrifice some of their wealth, to make their products safer, but instead of doing this, they spend money to try to pretend that their products are safe knowing that they will never have to pay the costs from the harm they are causing.

The Michael Moore documentary was really poor by the way. It was a hatchet piece.
Here are just some of the rebuttals
https://www.newsweek.com/michael-moore-planet-humans-film-climate-change-1502554
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/michael-moores-green-energy-takedown-worse-than-netflixs-goop-series/
https://www.thesolarnerd.com/blog/planet-of-the-humans-debunked/
https://ketanjoshi.co/2020/04/24/planet-of-the-humans-a-reheated-mess-of-lazy-old-myths/
https://climatecrocks.com/2020/05/12/michael-me-just-went-boom/

Oneiric 3 · 04-07-2021 11:55pm

Akrasia wrote: »

The Michael Moore documentary was really poor by the way. It was a hatchet piece.
Here are just some of the rebuttals

The Moore documentary was really excellent but highly disturbing. The 'rebuttals' were anticipated because it revealed the dark underbelly of 'green energy'. How science is bought, how media manipulates, and how very powerful people with vested interests shape a favorable narrative to their (very lucrative) cause'.

What the doc showed is how big green energy (which isn't 'green' at all) is basically a big money making con. Banana speaks of the evils of capitalism above, well there it is right there.

Akrasia · 05-07-2021 11:47am

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

The Moore documentary was really excellent but highly disturbing. The 'rebuttals' were anticipated because it revealed the dark underbelly of 'green energy'. How science is bought, how media manipulates, and how very powerful people with vested interests shape a favorable narrative to their (very lucrative) cause'.

What the doc showed is how big green energy (which isn't 'green' at all) is basically a big money making con. Banana speaks of the evils of capitalism above, well there it is right there.

You can show anything is evil or corrupt etc if you just misrepresent the facts and use misleading and outdated
statistics
Lets just take one specific example of how Moore mislead in that documentary (there are loads to choose from, but its better to focus on one concrete example)

The film talks about solar PV being 8% efficient and they only last 10 years

14:51 - [Jan Nelson, Lansing Board of Water & Light] We took a hard look at wind and determined that, around here, there's not really any real good wind coming through all the time. That's what we liked about solar. You would get the power when you most needed it. Pass these around, look at 'em. They are pliable. Made in Michigan, that was another good thing. Although, the efficiency of these panels is only about, just under 8%. If you happen to be NASA and you happen to own a rover running around Mars, they have very efficient panels. But, we can't afford those at about a million dollars a square inch.

This is a film released in 2020, talking about solar efficiency levels that would have been out of date a decade earlier without any attempt to inform the audience of the current state of technology.

The top 20 most efficient domestic SolarPV available when this film was released are all above 20% efficiency The vast majority of panels on sale are above 16% and most of them come with 25 year warranties
https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/what-are-the-most-efficient-solar-panels
https://news.energysage.com/best-solar-panels-complete-ranking/

Thelonious Monk · 05-07-2021 11:50am

Even if there are all kinds of charlatans in the Green energy field that doesn't mean man made climate change isn't real

Akrasia · 05-07-2021 11:58am

And just FYI, I don't just dislike the Moore documentary because i don't like it's conclusions, I don't like any documentary that plays fast and loose with the facts. I do not like 'An inconvenient truth' and have never once referred to it to support any argument, nor do I like those netflix 'Seaspiracy' documentaries because I don't want viewers to be manipulated or lied to.

Akrasia · 05-07-2021 1:08pm

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Even if there are all kinds of charlatans in the Green energy field that doesn't mean man made climate change isn't real

The fact is, we're going to be migrating to a completely different energy generation and distribution system over the course of a few decades. Fortunes will be made, and fortunes will be lost. There will be individuals and corporations lobbying for their own interests, just like there are now, and always will be

There is a huge amount at stake here. People have made massive investments in both preserving the old energy system, and taking bets on where to invest in the new sustainable energy system.

The important thing is to assess things skeptically in relation to the best evidence we have available, and to use the mechanisms we have available to regulate industry and limit the ability for individuals and corporations to corrupt politicians through 'lobbying' for their own interests

Thelonious Monk · 05-07-2021 1:51pm

NZ just had its warmest June on record

Oneiric 3 · 05-07-2021 5:46pm

Akrasia wrote: »

You can show anything is evil or corrupt etc if you just misrepresent the facts and use misleading and outdated
statistics
Lets just take one specific example of how Moore mislead in that documentary (there are loads to choose from, but its better to focus on one concrete example)

The film talks about solar PV being 8% efficient and they only last 10 years

This is a film released in 2020, talking about solar efficiency levels that would have been out of date a decade earlier without any attempt to inform the audience of the current state of technology.

The top 20 most efficient domestic SolarPV available when this film was released are all above 20% efficiency The vast majority of panels on sale are above 16% and most of them come with 25 year warranties
https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/what-are-the-most-efficient-solar-panels
https://news.energysage.com/best-solar-panels-complete-ranking/

I think the 'misinformation' line is just a bit overused to be honest, and particular from people with an agenda like yourself and it is the mark of hubris to believe that 'your side' are the sole gate keepers of all that is good and true. We see actual mis (and dis) information everyday from the press (which has a far bigger influence on the general public) regarding the climate change issue and I have yet to see you call them out. Why would that be?

Anyway, I found this interview by Michael Moore in which he address some of the criticism from the usual suspects. I haven't watched it yet but will later. In the meantime, it may be of interest to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bop8x24G_o0

Thelonious Monk · 05-07-2021 8:31pm

https://www.thejournal.ie/heatwave-hits-nordic-countries-arctic-5486665-Jul2021/

Heatwaves and record temps in the Arctic. I mean this isn't looking good to me, when even Journal commentators seem to be coming around to thinking climate change is real.

2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

Comments