CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

16-02-2020 1:43pm

Nabber wrote: »

Wait till the ice melt season begins. Alarmist will be out in force. No mention of the ice growth this season it doesn’t fit the agenda.

Come summer time we should see tabloid headlines and the ice experts calling out the ‘significant’ melt, some nonsense along the lines of 5th worst melt in record. Alway equating the gravity of the situation by placement on a leaderboard.

Where the ranking lacks punch its altered to ‘worst in 50years’ rather than reporting ‘still not the worst on record’

The public are fatigued with 30year constant doom, none of which has materialised.
Maybe the planet is warming, maybe we don’t know why and maybe we have no idea of its impact. Currently that’s how it looks, with a best guess theory, as we as a species are reluctant to admit we “don’t know”... AGW is a new age religion born out of ignorance wrapped up in scientific postulations.

Well, we do know for a fact that human activity is adding a considerable amount of thermal energy into the biosphere, we also know that humans are terraforming large areas of the planet and this affects to local climate, replacing trees with grass or concrete changes the behaviour of rainfall. We also know that numerous pollutants are being spewed into the atmosphere.

On the other hand, globally climate is constantly changing due to many natural variations in ocean currents, solar activity and to a lesser extent human activity.

The AGW climate change argument is a diversionary tactic employed by business leaders and others to maintain BAU while avoiding the real issues.

Real issues like excessive population growth and an economic model that is hard coded for infinite growth, which has resulted in the throw-away society wh currently live in.
Good for the elite as as money is flowing to the top at a rapid rate, bat for the rest of us as we are forced into buying short lived stuff (multiple times) that they are also preventing us from even being able to repair.

The sheer amount of wasted resources that result from planned & perceived obsolescence is really criminal, all the talk about climate change is diverting people's attention away from this fact.

Water John · 16-02-2020 1:44pm

Very few disagree that the planet is warming. What more dispute is that humans are the cause of it and secondly the impact is being overestimated.
These to me, are the three strands of those having a contrarian view to the majority in the scientific community.

Thargor · 16-02-2020 1:58pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

You seem to have a habit of reducing every region on earth to just irrelevant 'minuscule' patches.

Sorry for my terrible habit of not accepting reports from cherry-picked individual areas as a rebuttal to the statement that the last 15 years have contained the 10 hottest years ever recorded globally, or that the last 10 years was the hottest decade ever recorded. Im sure there were cold records broken in several countries in the 1930s aswell but it would be wrong of me to pick them as proof if I wished to claim. that the 1930s was the coldest decade ever recorded.

I would like to see a source on that 1930s claim to be the hottest decade on record in the US even with it being irrelevant to my statement though, I dont remember ever coming across that statistic before, it would be interesting to know the causes, assuming its a true statement.

As far as I am aware, the US has some of the longest temperature records on earth, this matters more than its 6% global surface

I dont think the NOAA/Met Office/NASA etc use that as a metric when measuring the Earths temperature, not sure how that would work, happy to be proved wrong though.

the next time there is a heatwave, or a Cat 5 hurricane affecting the region we will be told that it will be down to global climate change and not very insignificant at all.

You'll be told that by the media and various other personalities, however most expert I see being interviewed whether on the subject of bushfires or hurricaines thankfully always rubbishes the idea of attributing individual events to climate change.

Gaoth Laidir · 16-02-2020 2:16pm

Thargor wrote: »

You'll be told that by the media and various other personalities, however most expert I see being interviewed whether on the subject of bushfires or hurricaines thankfully always rubbishes the idea of attributing individual events to climate change.

Could you please explain where you've seen a qualified climate expert being interviewed on mainstream media rubbishing the idea of single attribution? I haven't seen any such interviews recently myself. As far as the general public are concerned the Australian bushfires were made worse by agw.

Nabber · 16-02-2020 2:22pm

Deleted User wrote: »

The sheer amount of wasted resources that result from planned & perceived obsolescence is really criminal, all the talk about climate change is diverting people's attention away from this fact.

AGW is attributed to CO2 emissions, and not 90% of what you have described, which falls in more with habitat destruction, which is the force behind the majority of endangered species which are not part of human food chain.

Yet these animals are lumped in with carbon forced AGW, which misdirects people away from mining, drilling, farming and developments and points blame solely on Fossil fuels.

16-02-2020 2:39pm

Nabber wrote: »

AGW is attributed to CO2 emissions, and not 90% of what you have described, which falls in more with habitat destruction, which is the force behind the majority of endangered species which are not part of human food chain.

Yet these animals are lumped in with carbon forced AGW, which misdirects people away from mining, drilling, farming and developments and points blame solely on Fossil fuels.

The point is, BAU is the main driver for all the mining & drilling etc, but some environmentalists are blaming farmers for having belching cows that contribute to CO2.

By concentrating on CO2 a a culprit and blaming people for driving ICE vehicles & eating meat, it allows for the waste generated by BAU to go unchallenged!

So, I say again misdirection!

Akrasia · 16-02-2020 3:10pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Rubbish. Most lay people will have no idea how much energy is in a Hiroshima bomb. What would be much more easily understood would be "how many times the annual global domestic electricity usage" it equates to. The nuclear term is put in there purely as an association tool.

Yes, people associate nuclear explosions with a great deal of energy
Having 5 times that amount of energy a second added to the biosphere is having an impact on our weather, on atmospheric and oceanic currents, on melting ice sheets and on thermal expansion of the oceans

Nabber · 16-02-2020 8:25pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The point is, BAU is the main driver for all the mining & drilling etc, but some environmentalists are blaming farmers for having belching cows that contribute to CO2.

By concentrating on CO2 a a culprit and blaming people for driving ICE vehicles & eating meat, it allows for the waste generated by BAU to go unchallenged!

So, I say again misdirection!

Could you elaborate on your interpretation.

Of the global warming how much % do you attribute to human activity and of that % what is the breakdown within?

Your posting up to this point had been to defend carbon forced AGW.

Gaoth Laidir · 16-02-2020 8:42pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Yes, people associate nuclear explosions with a great deal of energy
Having 5 times that amount of energy a second added to the biosphere is having an impact on our weather, on atmospheric and oceanic currents, on melting ice sheets and on thermal expansion of the oceans

What would be a safe level being added then, seeing that at least a similar amount was being added from the 1920s to '40s?

16-02-2020 9:23pm

Nabber wrote: »

Could you elaborate on your interpretation.

Of the global warming how much % do you attribute to human activity and of that % what is the breakdown within?

Your posting up to this point had been to defend carbon forced AGW.

The rapid increases in CO2 can easily be attributed to human activity, the issue is that burning fossil fuels and agricultural activities (mainly slash & burn) are a major part of this increase. Carbon taxes only punish consumers, who in reality can only buy products that are manufactured for them, the destruction of much public transport infrastructure and the pricing out of accommodation from towns forces people into private cars.

I am not defending CO2 emissions, I am pointing out that there is much more to the equation than just CO2 and recycling a few bits and pieces here and there.

We have over the last century developed an incredibly wasteful way of life, a way of life that is engineered to transfer wealth to the top as fast as possible, climate change is mainly natural and is being exploited to divert people's attention away from the wasteful energy intensive and of course extremely profitable business of producing products that last as short a time as possible.

If you want to use CO2 as a metric, then it is simple to imagine a factory that produces widgets that last only five years, must produce five times the quantity, than if the same factory if it produced the same widgets that lasted twenty five years. The five year product production generates five times more CO2 than would be produced if the products lasted twenty five years.

In reality, what is really happening is that, we are simply moving resources from quarry to landfill much faster than we need to and this is clearly unsustainable in the long run.

This is on top of all the other energy intensive waste generated by long distance commuting due to the unequal distribution of employment and unsustainably high housing costs where the employment is, this is where governments should be pushing businesses that can work in regional towns out of the major cities.

There are many things can be done to reduce CO2 and pollution in general, but they won't be done, because a few people make a lot of money keeping things the way they are.

Oneiric 3 · 16-02-2020 9:57pm

Nabber wrote: »

AGW is a new age religion born out of ignorance wrapped up in scientific postulations.

The trendy, must have, religion for the new, technocratic age.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CETwPS4pvw0

posidonia · 16-02-2020 10:01pm

Nabber wrote: »

Wait till the ice melt season begins. Alarmist will be out in force. No mention of the ice growth this season it doesn’t fit the agenda.

Humm, so your agenda would be to focus on the tiny amount of recent time sea ice hasn't been below normal? Your view is like seeing a football team that loses 9 out of 10 matches and then saying a draw shows that anyone saying they're doing badly has an agenda against them. I dunno who'd buy that idea, you I guess...

Come summer time we should see tabloid headlines and the ice experts calling out the ‘significant’ melt, some nonsense along the lines of 5th worst melt in record. Alway equating the gravity of the situation by placement on a leaderboard.

Where the ranking lacks punch its altered to ‘worst in 50years’ rather than reporting ‘still not the worst on record’

Come summer we'll, probably, see the recent growth of sea ice so that it reaches (for a time?) normal was an exception not the rule.

The public are fatigued with 30year constant doom, none of which has materialised.
Maybe the planet is warming, maybe we don’t know why and maybe we have no idea of its impact. Currently that’s how it looks, with a best guess theory, as we as a species are reluctant to admit we “don’t know”... AGW is a new age religion born out of ignorance wrapped up in scientific postulations.

Humm sounds like it's you with the closed mind. Or are you open to the possibility that science, that points the the profound influence of anthro ghgs on the atmosphere but that you clearly refuse to study, might, you know, be right? I think not...

Open your mind.

Oneiric 3 · 16-02-2020 10:19pm

posidonia wrote: »

Open your mind.

Do you open yours? or does it only 'open' one way?

Open mindedness equates to questioning everything, not accepting just one body of thought.

posidonia · 17-02-2020 8:07am

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Do you open yours? or does it only 'open' one way?

Open mindedness equates to questioning everything, not accepting just one body of thought.

My mind is open. My great desire is that what I've learnt about AGW is wrong.

I read as much of what sceptics like Nabber and you post as I can. However, my mind is not so open to let my brain fall out.

TimeUp · 17-02-2020 10:11am

The post sounded pretty scientific at the beginning lol

Nabber · 17-02-2020 5:01pm

posidonia wrote: »

Humm, so your agenda would be to focus on the tiny amount of recent time sea ice hasn't been below normal? Your view is like seeing a football team that loses 9 out of 10 matches and then saying a draw shows that anyone saying they're doing badly has an agenda against them. I dunno who'd buy that idea, you I guess...

Clearly you missed the point. Any negative change is reported. Any positive changes are ignored. You seem to think cherry picking is a one way thing owned only by skeptics.

2nd Biggest storm in 50 years = Global warming!
No record breaking storm for 49years = ????......Global warming!

If anything, 2020 has shown the polar vortex is the big player in Ice growth.

Come summer we'll, probably, see the recent growth of sea ice so that it reaches (for a time?) normal was an exception not the rule.

I guess this is like the normal fierce winters you spoke about before. But never followed up with any credible data.
Weather and Climate are not one in the same.

Humm sounds like it's you with the closed mind. Or are you open to the possibility that science, that points the the profound influence of anthro ghgs on the atmosphere but that you clearly refuse to study, might, you know, be right? I think not...

Open your mind.

Not sure that I have refuted AGW or the possibility of human released GHGs being an issue. My issue is people like yourself holding themselves in high regard for what they think is leading a carbon less life or at the least feeling they are better than others. We are not in a position to say what our carbon foot print is, we use logic to determine our carbon footprint. But behind that facade you don't know other than what MSM has lead you to believe.

My issue has and still remains human ignorance.
Ignorance that we assume we understand the full dynamics of climate of our planets climate
Ignorance that what you think is 'green' is not as green as you know.

Peel away the surface of any green agenda and you'll find it's a facade. Made to distract.

Mortelaro · 17-02-2020 6:12pm

Meanwhile....

https://twitter.com/ClimateDepot/status/1229397234543931394?s=19

17-02-2020 6:20pm

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Climate change!

posidonia · 17-02-2020 6:24pm

Nabber wrote: »

Clearly you missed the point. Any negative change is reported. Any positive changes are ignored. You seem to think cherry picking is a one way thing owned only by skeptics.

2nd Biggest storm in 50 years = Global warming!
No record breaking storm for 49years = ????......Global warming!

If anything, 2020 has shown the polar vortex is the big player in Ice growth.

I've explained this to you before, you simply dismissed my explanation. Try this primer on AGW - oh hang on you'll dismiss that too no doubt? But, you're not closed minded. eh?

I guess this is like the normal fierce winters you spoke about before. But never followed up with any credible data.
Weather and Climate are not one in the same.

That was some time ago, but if you think I'm wrong to say that winters in our part of the world are not as cold as they used to be you can refute my claim with some data.

Not sure that I have refuted AGW or the possibility of human released GHGs being an issue. My issue is people like yourself holding themselves in high regard for what they think is leading a carbon less life or at the least feeling they are better than others. We are not in a position to say what our carbon foot print is, we use logic to determine our carbon footprint. But behind that facade you don't know other than what MSM has lead you to believe.

My issue has and still remains human ignorance.
Ignorance that we assume we understand the full dynamics of climate of our planets climate
Ignorance that what you think is 'green' is not as green as you know.

I think you assume to much. Try this for starters. But you'll know better?

Peel away the surface of any green agenda and you'll find it's a facade. Made to distract.

Spoken like a true believer of the church of AGW scepticism!

posidonia · 17-02-2020 6:26pm

Mortelaro wrote: »

Meanwhile....

https://twitter.com/ClimateDepot/status/1229397234543931394?s=19

Mmmmm, cherries.

Nabber · 17-02-2020 8:08pm

posidonia wrote: »

That was some time ago, but if you think I'm wrong to say that winters in our part of the world are not as cold as they used to be you can refute my claim with some data.

What a shame, typical socket puppet response.

The rest as always not worth commenting on.

posidonia · 17-02-2020 8:40pm

Nabber wrote: »

What a shame, typical socket puppet response.

I'm no more a sock puppet than you are

The rest as always not worth commenting on.

Why not do me, and all of us here, the courtesy of at least reading the links first? Perhaps because you're so sure you're right you don't need to read anything? That's another sure sign of a closed mind.

M.T. Cranium · 17-02-2020 8:43pm

Meanwhile, over at cc1 ...

Giving birth to a child is “the worst thing you can do” to the climate, says philosophy professor Patricia MacCormack of Anglia Ruskin University.

The professor, author of The Ahuman Manifesto: Activism for the End of the Anthropocene who describes herself as an “old school goth,” says that the only way to save the planet is to stop having children and allow humans to become extinct.

According to the official description of the book, MacCormack “actively embraces issues like human extinction, vegan abolition, atheist occultism, death studies, a refusal of identity politics, deep ecology, and the apocalypse as an optimistic beginning.”

Due to global overpopulation, giving birth is the worst thing you can do to the planet, MacCormack sustains, while insisting that she is not advocating wiping out the existing population but rather letting it die off.

Well true believers, here's your chance to set an example. If we see good results, we might follow along later.

Oneiric 3 · 17-02-2020 9:37pm

posidonia wrote: »

My mind is open. My great desire is that what I've learnt about AGW is wrong.

I read as much of what sceptics like Nabber and you post as I can. However, my mind is not so open to let my brain fall out.

I'm not a 'sceptic', and neither, as far as I can tell, is Nabs.

But what I do, and what I will continue to do, is call out sensationalism and scaremongerings by 'scientists' and journalists alike. Problem with those who are of these professions is that they actually believe, such is their vacuous hubris, that they are, and should be, above public and intellectual scrutiny.

Oneiric 3 · 17-02-2020 9:47pm

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Meanwhile, over at cc1 ...

Giving birth to a child is “the worst thing you can do” to the climate, says philosophy professor Patricia MacCormack of Anglia Ruskin University.

The professor, author of The Ahuman Manifesto: Activism for the End of the Anthropocene who describes herself as an “old school goth,” says that the only way to save the planet is to stop having children and allow humans to become extinct.

According to the official description of the book, MacCormack “actively embraces issues like human extinction, vegan abolition, atheist occultism, death studies, a refusal of identity politics, deep ecology, and the apocalypse as an optimistic beginning.”

Due to global overpopulation, giving birth is the worst thing you can do to the planet, MacCormack sustains, while insisting that she is not advocating wiping out the existing population but rather letting it die off.

Well true believers, here's your chance to set an example. If we see good results, we might follow along later.

Given that she produces 'papers' such as this:

Necrosexuality
Patricia MacCormack
Abstract:
Transgressive sexuality has frequently been defined through the dominant paradigms which it transgresses. This means transgressive sexuality is often seen as either affirming these paradigms by being oriented in dialectic opposition to them, or politically challenging in reference to them. Perversion i…

https://www.academia.edu/172597/Necrosexuality

She is someone who's opinions we should take very, very seriously indeed.

:rolleyes:

posidonia · 17-02-2020 10:35pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I'm not a 'sceptic', and neither, as far as I can tell, is Nabs.

But what I do, and what I will continue to do, is call out sensationalism and scaremongerings by 'scientists' and journalists alike. Problem with those who are of these professions is that they actually believe, such is their vacuous hubris, that they are, and should be, above public and intellectual scrutiny.

I've not once seen you call out 'sceptics'.

I've not once heard you call out the vacuous hubris of sceptics like N&Z or Heller. Not once...

I've not once heard you support any climate scientists who accepts the evidence and data for the atmospheric warming we've seen and why it's happening, and what will (most likely) happen - ever.

I'll judge you by your actions though, so go on surprise me.

Oneiric 3 · 17-02-2020 11:15pm

posidonia wrote: »

I've not once seen you call out 'sceptics'.

I've not once heard you call out the vacuous hubris of sceptics like N&Z or Heller. Not once...

I've not once heard you support any climate scientists who accepts the evidence and data for the atmospheric warming we've seen and why it's happening, and what will (most likely) happen - ever.

I'll judge you by your actions though, so go on surprise me.

1. I don't seek out 'sceptics' or their opinions enough to criticise them.

2. No idea who N&Z are, and as for Heller, see point 1.

3. as with point 1. I don't seek out the opinions of climate scientists, but I do seem to be inundated with them on a near daily basis.. for some reason.

Nabber · 18-02-2020 1:36am

posidonia wrote: »

what will (most likely) happen - ever.

Isn't this the issue?

The predictions have failed to materialise, they bring into disrepute the whole science. The pro AGW scientific community have done little to nothing in challenging the likes of Al Gore and their alarmist nonsense.
There is a moral obligation expected of medical science to debunk alarmist medical rhetoric. Given the gravity of the threat held within in the AGW theorem, why is climate science not also expected to debunk alarmist rhetoric?

In fact it's quite the opposite, the scientific community have embraced the doomsayers. No longer have we weather events, rather conditions fueled by AGW.
Dolanbaker has called out the distraction from the issues, while also supporting the AGW theory or at least that's how it seemed. A precarious position to take in today's climate (pardon the pun).

Every 'Skeptic' I have read in here wants to see change, they don't support big oil, they don't think BAU is sustainable.

'The science is settled' doesn't sound at all scientific, it's the basis of a religion designed not to to be challenged.

Akrasia · 18-02-2020 9:12am

Nabber wrote: »

Isn't this the issue?

The predictions have failed to materialise, they bring into disrepute the whole science. The pro AGW scientific community have done little to nothing in challenging the likes of Al Gore and their alarmist nonsense.
There is a moral obligation expected of medical science to debunk alarmist medical rhetoric. Given the gravity of the threat held within in the AGW theorem, why is climate science not also expected to debunk alarmist rhetoric?

In fact it's quite the opposite, the scientific community have embraced the doomsayers. No longer have we weather events, rather conditions fueled by AGW.
Dolanbaker has called out the distraction from the issues, while also supporting the AGW theory or at least that's how it seemed. A precarious position to take in today's climate (pardon the pun).

Every 'Skeptic' I have read in here wants to see change, they don't support big oil, they don't think BAU is sustainable.

'The science is settled' doesn't sound at all scientific, it's the basis of a religion designed not to to be challenged.

‘The predictions’ absolutely have not failed to materialize. There have been multiple studies comparing model output with observed warming and effects of climate change and the predictions have been very accurate.

Compared with the ‘sceptics’ who predict the end to global warming every time a graph has a flat spot and see which side has a better track record.

The ‘science is settled’ is not a religious position (for heavens sake) it is a response to the deliberate strategy of industry lobby groups to obfuscate the science and delay action through maintaining a discussion phase to filibuster and prevent any action that harms their commercial interests.
Every ‘Skeptic’ on here supports the idea of individual action but opposes the required policy changes that could make an actual difference

Gaoth Laidir · 18-02-2020 10:55am

I see Thargor and Akrasia conveniently ignored my questions.

CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Comments