Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…2021232526…44

Comments

  • #662
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »

    The oil companies themselves use words all the time promising to be green and sustainable and state that they believe in climate change. And then they use actions and lobbying and build infrastructure that does the exact opposite

    The Oil industry have absolutely been lobbying heavily to water down commitments to reduce climate change.

    As far as they're concerned, Paris was a massive win. They got words promising things, but no actual sanctions for any countries that don't meet the commitments.


    I did tell you before that Christiana Figueres, the former UN climate chief who who led the historic Paris agreement of 2015 is now on the board of one of Italy's biggest oil companies.


    They're doing well too, lots of new explorations in the pipeline as they say.



    Here they tell us how great they and their oil is:


    https://www.eni.com/en_IT/company/eni-history/history-oil-exploration-italy.page#


    Here they tell us how great their Director, the former UN climate chief is:


    :https://www.eni.com/en_IT/media/2018/04/eni-first-meeting-of-the-advisory-board?lnkfrm=serp


    Here they alert potential investors of it's plans about Becoming a fully integrated oil and gas company
    Eni is now a fully integrated oil and gas company, focused on its core operations, targeting greater efficiency and higher cash generation across all businesses.


    https://www.eni.com/en_IT/investors/strategy.page


  • #663
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Some time ago I posted that the IPCC despite having decades to do so, reports that it could not find evidence of climate catastrophe as a result of global warming.

    It's here for the newcomers to the thread:


    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108100618&postcount=572


    That position concurs with other research which suggests that outside of the alleged temperate rise from the pre industrial period (which is now apparently 1850 to 1900) less climate change is happening than what is being perceived.


    https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/trends-in-extreme-weather-events-since-1900--an-enduring-conundrum-for-wise-policy-advice-2167-0587-1000155.php?aid=69558

    The media hype about global weather extremes which is being swallowed whole by many has even been condemned by NASA's head.

    "General statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the popular media," Schmidt said.



    "It's this popular perception that global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time, even though if anyone thinks about that for 10 seconds they realize that's nonsense."
    https://www.eenews.net/stories/1059985592


  • #664
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,219 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    One minute "big oil" is the demon and can't be trusted, the next minute your hanging on their every word.


    I've seen more flip flopping here today than I've seen in a long time.

    So are shell part of the one world socialist conspiracy now?

    'Big Oil' are following the gameplan that has been obvious from the start

    1 deny there is any link
    2 say that there might be some link but it needs more study
    3. Say that there is a plausible link but we don't fully understand all of the causes of climate change, it's probably part of a natural cycle
    4. Admit it is likely caused by humans but the rate of warming is being exaggerated
    5. Admit that it is real and it is serious and they want to take measures to solve it, but we have plenty of time to adapt so there's no need to rush to regulate the industry
    6. Admit that it is real and serious and we are under time constraints and that changes need to be made, but lobby for self regulation and pretend that they are already committed to change, while in reality trying to prevent meaningful action to phase out fossil fuels or enforce CCS regulations.

    They are in phase 6 now, they will stay here for as long as they can while constantly lobbying and trying to water down any regulations that would affect their assets or their operating costs.


  • #665
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,219 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    maccored wrote: »
    we're too late, basically

    We're too late to prevent a lot of harm, but don't worry, there's still plenty of more harm that we still have a chance to avoid. What we desperately need to avoid crossing any tipping points where natural feedbacks amplify warming. Once that happens, no matter how much we reduce CO2, it might be too late to avoid runaway climate change and we may be forced to resort to much more drastic responses (geo-engineering)


  • #666
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,219 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    I did tell you before that Christiana Figueres, the former UN climate chief who who led the historic Paris agreement of 2015 is now on the board of one of Italy's biggest oil companies.


    They're doing well too, lots of new explorations in the pipeline as they say.



    Here they tell us how great they and their oil is:


    https://www.eni.com/en_IT/company/eni-history/history-oil-exploration-italy.page#


    Here they tell us how great their Director, the former UN climate chief is:


    :https://www.eni.com/en_IT/media/2018/04/eni-first-meeting-of-the-advisory-board?lnkfrm=serp


    Here they alert potential investors of it's plans about Becoming a fully integrated oil and gas company




    https://www.eni.com/en_IT/investors/strategy.page
    Thanks for basically verifying exactly what I was saying. Oil industry bribing corrupt politicians to water down negotiations to prevent meaningful action on climate change.


  • Advertisement
  • #667
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,219 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Some time ago I posted that the IPCC despite having decades to do so, reports that it could not find evidence of climate catastrophe as a result of global warming.

    It's here for the newcomers to the thread:


    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108100618&postcount=572


    That position concurs with other research which suggests that outside of the alleged temperate rise from the pre industrial period (which is now apparently 1850 to 1900) less climate change is happening than what is being perceived.


    https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/trends-in-extreme-weather-events-since-1900--an-enduring-conundrum-for-wise-policy-advice-2167-0587-1000155.php?aid=69558

    The media hype about global weather extremes which is being swallowed whole by many has even been condemned by NASA's head.



    https://www.eenews.net/stories/1059985592
    The irony of your position is that extreme weather is the far end of a bell curve. Climate change makes the extreme heatwave of the early 20th century a normal average summer by the 2030s. And when there are extreme events in the 2030s, they'll be on a scale that was unimaginable 30 years previously.

    If you told someone in the year 2000, that 30 years later, Portugal and Spain could have summer temperatures in the mid 40s almost every summer, they would be appalled. 3 years later in 2003 there was a devastating heatwave that climate 'skeptics' said was just natural variability, once in a century events. But since then, we've had multiple heatwaves approaching that intensity. The extremes of the 20th century are already becoming normal. If we add another .5c-1c to global average temperatures, we'll be in danger of turning mediterranean Europe into a desert.


  • #668
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The irony of your position is that extreme weather is the far end of a bell curve. Climate change makes the extreme heatwave of the early 20th century a normal average summer by the 2030s. And when there are extreme events in the 2030s, they'll be on a scale that was unimaginable 30 years previously.

    If you told someone in the year 2000, that 30 years later, Portugal and Spain could have summer temperatures in the mid 40s almost every summer, they would be appalled. 3 years later in 2003 there was a devastating heatwave that climate 'skeptics' said was just natural variability, once in a century events. But since then, we've had multiple heatwaves approaching that intensity. The extremes of the 20th century are already becoming normal.

    You're falling for the media hype again.

    Drought and heatwaves are normal for Europe in a historical context.

    No one here agreed with me when I criticised George Lee and RTE for making up "record breaking" heat in Ireland headlines this past summer because to do so would have been against their agenda which is to be party to the hysteria by spreading false information.

    So you endorse hyped, fake news whenever the opportunity arises.

    The majority of studies on recent hydrological droughts evaluate the drought properties in the context of records starting in the second half of the 20th century.



    There are indications, though, that the main drivers of hydrological drought (precipitation and soil moisture deficits and high evapotranspiration, with the latter linked to high temperature) had already reached recent levels in the more distant past.

    For instance, the highest daily temperatures in parts of Central Europe in 1540 were likely warmer than in 2003.



    The spatial extents of the reconstructed meteorological droughts in 1616, 1893 and 1921 exceed or are at least comparable to those of the recent events. Further, documentary evidence indicates severe large-scale European droughts, e.g., in 1893 and 1921.

    By extending our time window into the past, we can thus more accurately assess the range of hydroclimatic variability, and understand the extremity of recent drought events.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-27464-4


  • #669
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Thanks for basically verifying exactly what I was saying. Oil industry bribing corrupt politicians to water down negotiations to prevent meaningful action on climate change.


    Ex UN officials are now corrupt??


    This is all very Maurice Strong isn't it?


  • #670
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,219 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    You're falling for the media hype again.

    Drought and heatwaves are normal for Europe in a historical context.

    No one here agreed with me when I criticised George Lee and RTE for making up "record breaking" heat in Ireland headlines this past summer because to do so would have been against their agenda which is to be party to the hysteria by spreading false information.

    So you endorse hyped, fake news whenever the opportunity arises.


    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-27464-4

    Yeah, the most extreme droughts and heatwave in recorded history are 'normal'?

    I said that the extremes of the past are becoming the new normal, and you go off and find something that says extreme weather happened in the past.

    Another win for dense


  • #671
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,219 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Ex UN officials are now corrupt??


    This is all very Maurice Strong isn't it?

    What are you on about. You brought up this woman as someone who was a game keeper and has now become a fox. That's a thing called regulatory capture. Where officials are bought off by industry to betray their mandate and push for soft regulations, with the promise that they will then be given cushy jobs in industry after their term ends.


    I didn't check your sources or your links on your post. I don't have time. I realise that this was probably a mistake given your history of routinely misrepresenting the facts. I don't know anything about Christiana Figueres.

    None of this affects the science. If some politicians are self serving or prepared to set aside their principles for personal advancement, that says nothing about the scientific basis for climate change or the need for us to act urgently to reduce our emissions.


  • Advertisement
  • #672
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »


    I don't know anything about Christiana Figueres.


    But you've just said she's corrupt.

    Is she even being remunerated for her work in that company?


    How can you decide that someone is corrupt without any evidence to back up your claim?


  • #673
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    In the time it took me to go out for a blowdry, four posters have already expressed their thanks to someone who not only roundly endorses fake news but has just said that the ex UN climate chief is corrupt.

    I don't see how she's been corrupted by the oil company she's a direcor for and it's also a very serious allegation to be making. Anyone want to explain why they thinks she's corrupt?



    Oh, I see our own climate chief has just resigned.


  • #674
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,344 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    I see our Minister for Communications resigned for a rural broadband related controversy. I'm not sure what relevance this has to a thread about climate change but thought it worth mentioning :)


  • #675
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,103 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057886132&page=638

    This is an excellent post here by Demfad
    'Let's look at Brexit: All operating out of the same London address 55 Tufton Street: Campaigns Vote Leave, Leave.EU AND Climate denial groups-- The Global Warming Policy Foundation, The Atlantic Bridge, Institute of Economic Affairs. 55 Tufton Street is Brexiteer central and is the climate denial centre of the UK.'

    Amazing close relationship between Brexiteers and Climate Deniers.


  • #676
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,219 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    But you've just said she's corrupt.

    Is she even being remunerated for her work in that company?


    How can you decide that someone is corrupt without any evidence to back up your claim?
    What was the point you were trying to make about her?


  • #677
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    dense wrote: »
    four posters have already expressed their thanks

    For the fact that some posters have the patience to deal with your neverending circular arguments, pedantic statements, borderline conspiracy theories and obsessive subjective nitpicking over straightforward information


  • #678
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    What was the point you were trying to make about her?

    To try to determine whether your judgement can be trusted. It clearly can't.

    I simply presented a fact.

    She is now a director of ENI.

    You grabbed it and immediately twisted it into something to fit your false narrative, claiming she'd been bought off by big oil and was corrupt.

    You failed the test miserably.
    Alarmists don't do facts.
    They make things up for other alarmists to feed off of and get thanked here for doing so.

    Who knows, your false allegations are probably after been spread all over the net by now by other alarmists.

    As Joe Duffy says, this could go infectious, you just don't know how these rumours can grow legs.

    Nice one Akrasia.


  • #679
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Someone mentioned something about clear information so here's another study that says that observations consistently show no significant acceleration in global sea level rise from 1900 to the present.


    It's not the sort of information they're looking for though because it goes against what they've been fed and what they want to believe.



    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569118303429?via%3Dihub


  • #680
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    I find it reassuring that the IPCC are confident that we humans have the ability to determine what the world's temperature will be in 50 or 100 years time.
    We can do this, apparently, by simply controlling the amount of CO2 we put in to the atmosphere.
    It's a wonderful thing that after 5 billion years of having a climate which has fluctuated from one extreme to the other, we humans came along and discovered the key to controlling the whole system.
    So instead of worrying about our climate changing, we should rejoice in the fact that we can control it to suit our needs. All we have to do is turn that big CO2 knob up or down.


    The UN has always entertained proposals to control the weather.



    Here's JFK giving it large to the assembly back in '61 about his desire to control the weather.


    We shall propose further cooperative efforts between all nations in weather prediction and eventually in weather control.
    https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/DOPIN64xJUGRKgdHJ9NfgQ.aspx


  • #681
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,219 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    To try to determine whether your judgement can be trusted. It clearly can't.

    I simply presented a fact.

    She is now a director of ENI.

    You grabbed it and immediately twisted it into something to fit your false narrative, claiming she'd been bought off by big oil and was corrupt.

    You failed the test miserably.
    Alarmists don't do facts.
    They make things up for other alarmists to feed off of and get thanked here for doing so.

    Who knows, your false allegations are probably after been spread all over the net by now by other alarmists.

    As Joe Duffy says, this could go infectious, you just don't know how these rumours can grow legs.

    Nice one Akrasia.

    So you had no point and were just trolling for a response, and waiting for something you can twist into a gotcha moment.


  • Advertisement
  • #682
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,219 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    The UN has always entertained proposals to control the weather.



    Here's JFK giving it large to the assembly back in '61 about his desire to control the weather.



    https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/DOPIN64xJUGRKgdHJ9NfgQ.aspx

    Ooooookkk

    JFK weather control conspiracy..

    Rrrrriiiigghht. I'm just gonna stand over there now....


  • #683
    mikhail
    Registered Users Posts: 3,863 ✭✭✭mikhail


    Water John wrote: »
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057886132&page=638

    This is an excellent post here by Demfad
    'Let's look at Brexit: All operating out of the same London address 55 Tufton Street: Campaigns Vote Leave, Leave.EU AND Climate denial groups-- The Global Warming Policy Foundation, The Atlantic Bridge, Institute of Economic Affairs. 55 Tufton Street is Brexiteer central and is the climate denial centre of the UK.'

    Amazing close relationship between Brexiteers and Climate Deniers.
    Atlantic Bridge? The company Chuck Feeney set up to give away all his money? Do I have the wrong company, have they done something I'm unaware of, or do they stick out in that list?

    I'm wondering if that address is just a PO box for companies that want a UK address. Obviously, some of whom are up to no good, but it wouldn't make the shared address all that damning other than to emphasise that there's likely foreign money at work.


  • #684
    MonkieSocks
    Registered Users Posts: 8,258 ✭✭✭MonkieSocks


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Ooooookkk

    JFK weather control conspiracy..

    Rrrrriiiigghht. I'm just gonna stand over there now....




    Don't forget the Whitewater scandal and the Watergate affair.

    it's all about the water

    =(:-) Me? I know who I am. I'm a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude (-:)=



  • #685
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,219 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    mikhail wrote: »
    Atlantic Bridge? The company Chuck Feeney set up to give away all his money? Do I have the wrong company, have they done something I'm unaware of, or do they stick out in that list?

    I'm wondering if that address is just a PO box for companies that want a UK address. Obviously, some of whom are up to no good, but it wouldn't make the shared address all that damning other than to emphasise that there's likely foreign money at work.

    Chuck Feeney set up Atlantic Philanthropies, nothing to do with atlantic bridge AFAIK


  • #686
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,219 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    MonkieSocks wrote: »
    Don't forget the Whitewater scandal and the Watergate affair.

    it's all about the water
    They're sapping and impurifying all of our precious bodily fluids


  • #687
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,344 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Ooooookkk

    JFK weather control conspiracy..

    Rrrrriiiigghht. I'm just gonna stand over there now....


    Sure weather control and climate control are not the same thing anyway. Weather is localised. This kind of thing was about making it rain on the commies when you're trying to get away with something sneaky. Climate is the global interaction of all weather patterns and other factors. Climate control is something you get in your car :D


  • #688
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,219 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    xckjoo wrote: »
    Sure weather control and climate control are not the same thing anyway. Weather is localised. This kind of thing was about making it rain on the commies when you're trying to get away with something sneaky. Climate is the global interaction of all weather patterns and other factors. Climate control is something you get in your car :D

    Yep. Although on a grander scale, climate control is something that we are actually trying to do in that we know that CO2 has been the main greenhouse gas driving climate changes throughout the history of our planet, and we've identified that human activity is increasing the concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere. So we are trying to stop this pollution and regulate concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere to maintain our planet at an average temperature that is optimal for human civilisation

    We're not trying to engineer a change to our climate, we're trying to prevent an inadvertent change to global climate through human activity.

    The alternative to us trying to control the climate is humanity sleepwalking into our own extinction.

    The word 'control' here should really be influence, because even though we have identified the main factors that drive global climate, we are never really in control over it. We just make changes to a couple of the drivers and nudge it in different directions (either deliberately, or by accident)

    If we set off a whole load of nuclear weapons, we would change the global climate by causing a nuclear winter. This is a change we would have caused, but we wouldn't be in control over it. Similarly, by emitting billions of tonnes of CO2 into the air, and melting the glaciers and arctic sea ice, we're changing the climate, but not in control of it. Our efforts to prevent climate change are to simply reverse or limit the changes to the biosphere that we have already caused and have identified as being important drivers in the current changes in global climate.

    *bolded parts are there because these are the parts I can see 'skeptics' deliberately misrepresenting. CO2 is the main driver of climate change, but not the main greenhouse gas, that's water vapour, but water vapour is passive, in that the concentrations of water vapour depend on the temperature, while co2 is persistent in the air, so it can accumulate and drive temperature changes depending on it's concentration)

    Trying to control the climate is very different to being in control, or any of the crazy conspiracy theories that say some shadowy organisation is using climate control as a targeted weapon for some mad reason)


  • #689
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Ooooookkk

    JFK weather control conspiracy..

    Rrrrriiiigghht. I'm just gonna stand over there now....


    In the corner, for such a juvenile reaction to learning a bit of UN history.

    We shall propose further cooperative efforts between all nations in weather prediction and eventually in weather control.


    Why do facts confuse you so much?


    Once more you're gone off on one about conspiracy theories, this time because weather control was proposed at the UN.


    A resolution permitting the open ended continuation of environmental modification but prohibiting use for hostile or military purposes was passed in 1976.



    https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVI-1&chapter=26&lang=en


    http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201108/v1108.pdf


    Kennedy's speech to the UN, which contained the proposal for global weather control, archived by the CIA, (click the PDF):



    https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/5166d4f999326091c6a607b1


  • #690
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    One troll has ye in thrall lads, the twain will never meet despite your honourable efforts. He/she/it flourishes by a captive audience...


  • Advertisement
  • #691
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Yep. Although on a grander scale, climate control is something that we are actually trying to do in that we know that CO2 has been the main greenhouse gas driving climate changes throughout the history of our planet, and we've identified that human activity is increasing the concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere. So we are trying to stop this pollution and regulate concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere to maintain our planet at an average temperature that is optimal for human civilisation

    We're not trying to engineer a change to our climate, we're trying to prevent an inadvertent change to global climate through human activity.

    The alternative to us trying to control the climate is humanity sleepwalking into our own extinction.

    The word 'control' here should really be influence, because even though we have identified the main factors that drive global climate, we are never really in control over it. We just make changes to a couple of the drivers and nudge it in different directions (either deliberately, or by accident)

    If we set off a whole load of nuclear weapons, we would change the global climate by causing a nuclear winter. This is a change we would have caused, but we wouldn't be in control over it. Similarly, by emitting billions of tonnes of CO2 into the air, and melting the glaciers and arctic sea ice, we're changing the climate, but not in control of it. Our efforts to prevent climate change are to simply reverse or limit the changes to the biosphere that we have already caused and have identified as being important drivers in the current changes in global climate.

    *bolded parts are there because these are the parts I can see 'skeptics' deliberately misrepresenting. CO2 is the main driver of climate change, but not the main greenhouse gas, that's water vapour, but water vapour is passive, in that the concentrations of water vapour depend on the temperature, while co2 is persistent in the air, so it can accumulate and drive temperature changes depending on it's concentration)

    Trying to control the climate is very different to being in control, or any of the crazy conspiracy theories that say some shadowy organisation is using climate control as a targeted weapon for some mad reason)


    You're doing a great job, keep it up.


Advertisement