Climate Change Still Denied?

Why can't we get the smiley back?

 

We are at the Jersey Shore at about 15 Ft. above sea level.

They have been saying: " The Oceans will rise" since the late 70's an its a little like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf " I'm constantly reckoning the water level. Personally any change is from shoreline sinking, not water coming up.
All the beach replenishment does consume a lot of Government money if anybody cares.

Yet we continue to watch the water, and read the news. Climate people need more discipline and more emotional detachment. Climate people would seem more credible if they cared about a wider spectrum of issues. It seems at times a partisan hammer to beat up on Industrialists.

Yes I read about China, and Our President signing that agreement, I'm just afraid its window dressing and that they don't really care. The Agreement is a sop to a guillible public. If we cant convince China or Russia to stop threatening war over sand bars and sea mounts, will they heed our cry to stop polluting? Are the OPEC nations really on board with this?
Can we get people to stop chopping down The Rainforests?

I would hate to be nasty to anyone on Hip Forums, or to come off like a total ass, but how much warmer is it now than say 1964? or whatever is the baseline year being used?

Yes, one hears about people ice skating on The Thames in olden times. And those Peter Bruegel paintings of folks skating on canals in the Renasance. Are todays tempatures out of the norm?

 

Yes,.... there is a too strong emotional content to the climate alarmists, almost similar to an Ebola alarmist;..... sure, its about science at its root but it is topped by a whipped cream lather of emotion, almost aggression. that is un-seemly when discussing supposedly purely scientific events.


Since my college biology days, theories of human evolution and human ancestors have changed and changed again with several missing links added to the human family tree.

Why were those evolution scientists not as personally invested in those theories as a climate scientist?

Why no protests on the street when Neanderthal was disinherited as our direct ancestor?

No wringing of hands, or rendering of garments upon the unveiling of: Australipothicis Bosoi or Hobbit Man.

Yes.....tired of the pompous, condesending priesthood of Global Warming

Yet it might be true?

Have fun with it !

 

I consider there to a be great deal of intellectual dishonesty regarding climate change as climate has always been in a state of change since the planet was formed. In other words, it is a play on words. it is my understanding that planet is jut in the goldilocks zone. Any further from the sun and life would not exist on earth is it currently does.

Read the books Heaven and Earth by Ian Plimer and Green Hoax Effect by Peter Sawyer.

 

Then after you are done reading enjoy that Polar Vortex...

 

They only changed it because "global warming" (which is still what it really is) was confusing to the dumb-shit public, who couldn't understand how something called global warming could also be responsible for making certain parts of the world colder.
I remember when it was just called "the greenhouse effect" but I guess that just made everyone think how cool it would be to grow bananas in Alaska or some shit...

 

I looked up the Wikipedia entry and it looked pretty alarmist. When it mentioned ozone depletion it was all I needed to know.The whole ozone scare was about making money for DuPont who I consider to be just as evil as Monsanto.

 

Ozone depletion was and is very real...and climate change is making it worse.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/07/ozone-destruction

"....the complex atmospheric chemistry that destroys ozone has previously been thought to occur only at very cold temperatures over polar regions where there is very little threat to humans. (A large hole in the ozone layer persists over Antarctica.) The discovery also links—for the first time—ozone loss (an issue around which world leaders successfully organized to ban chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs) to climate change (a global problem that has so far proven politically intractable)."

"The high current loading of chlorine and bromine resulting from earlier commercial release of CFCs and halons is unprecedented in Earth’s history. “Were the intensity and frequency of convective events to increase irreversibly as a result of climate forcing,” the scientists write, “decreases in ozone and associated increases in UV dosage would also be irreversible.”

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/19/claim-the-pause-is-caused-by-small-volcanic-eruptions/

 

CFC's became dangerous when patents held by DuPont and ICI were about to expire and they replacement refrigerant gases they had taken patents out on. How very convenient for DuPont and ICI. Once patents for CFC's expired, anyone with the necessary equipment, materials and know how could legally make CFC''s and not have to pay any royalties had CFC's not been made illegal. There are many people who think that patent laws are too wide ranging in the USA. In Australia you cannot take out a patent on a chemical formula.

 

Dupont is absolutely evil and does very questionable things - but you're ass-backwards on this.

 

Thing is that people are trying to warn of the dangers ahead to call that ‘hysteria’ seems a bit ingenuous it’s like saying that a bystander waving their arms to stop a car from going over the washed out bridge is acting hysterically and what they should do is hope the driver sees the pained expression on their face as he passes.

There seem to be many arguments along this line or that they can’t see it personally so it must be wrong or citing dubious sources like Ian Pilmer.

Ian Pilmer, an associate of the right wing lobby group, has writings have been wildly criticised for their factual errors and in 2009 he was thrashed in a TV debate summarised by Peter Jackson of the Canadian paper, The Telegram - "For Plimer, it was an unmitigated disaster. He fudged and distracted at every turn like a senile old goat. In the end, he refused to answer a single question put to him by Monbiot or the moderator. His credibility - and that of his book - withered away into oblivion”

 

The thing is Balbus is that these dubious sources have already been addressed in this thread and others; the fact that the only information the right is willing to pull from are sort of incredible persons or clearly biased news outlets. Unfortunately this fact gets ignored and they either retreat from the debate or pretend like it was never brought up. This isn't just the case with climate change but virtually every single discussion in the political forums. As much you might want to assume good faith on the part of others, eventually you have to start wondering why they enter a discussion at all when it seems all they are interested in doing is throwing their opinion out there with little backing and then disappearing altogether; only to reappear in another thread with the same exact tactic.

 

Yeah, sometimes it's easier to just give them this instead;




I personally can not fathom the degree of willful ignorance some of these folks muster up in defense of indefensible ideas...........mind-boggling I tell ya.

 

http://www.jamesmcalm.com/pubs/Calm%20JM,%202007.%20The%20Next%20Generation%20of%20Refrigerants,%20ICR%202007%20%28Beijing%20PRC%29,%20IIR-IIF,%20Paris,%20FR.pdf
A historic overview of refrigerant gases and their uses and impact..

just because the CFC's get all the attention, they are not better or worse when it comes to modern refrigeration machines but rather how they impact the environment when released, leaked, intentionally or accidentally..

R11 makes for nice flush outs and possible extend the life of the machines, but thats controversial at best../ this was a highly abused chemical / or just used in ignorance towards the environment. nobody really gave a shit what happened when it evaporated til 1996 ..



Ammonia/ Propane/CO2 and other petrol formulas are only so much safer for the environment.. Ozone depletion and Global warming are 2 different things, they play in the same ball field when it comes to the atmosphere, however they operated differently..

The chlorine molecule /and chloroforms are naturally present in the environment, its how they reach the stratosphere that makes the difference ..

 

I believe that we have paid disinformation agents.

Paranoid? Nope, just logical.

That tactic has been employed (and exposed) by all sorts of organizations and interests all over the internet - youtube has a LOT of it in the comments on political videos, people who come in and repeat the republican or oil industry or whatever talking points, act like they gotcha, and repeat - even when actually reading the comment shows that they're full of shit. These people obviously know they're wrong, they have carefully tailored ways of talking around how wrong they are. The most important thing is to save face and never let your point stand unopposed - if you have two "sides", even if one is totally crazy, people tend to see them as opposite and somewhat equal, it's the same tactic fox news relies on: scream bloody murder, nothing you say needs to be based in reality, but even if they (the casually opposed public) know you're literally just lying and that they'd get better news from the ministry of truth, it still effects their opinions subtly.

It's a known industry and government tactic, it's been leaked and exposed repeatedly. And it only makes sense.

There's no fun, no honor, no anything in blindly copy/pasting an obtuse (and seemingly modular) reply to anything anyone says the instant they say it - but if you're being paid by the post (again, the strategy of abandoning quality and flooding everything with cardboard arguments), that might not matter.

A lot of the internet (or discourse anywhere) is affected by various types of shills and propagandists, and I don't believe HF is free from that - some may remember me accusing individual of this years ago. Using his own free market rational actor models and ideas, there's got to be more to it than meets the eye.

 

The motive seems to be more introducing a level of cognitive dissonance than presenting any objective opposition.