Climate Change Still Denied?

Two words: political reality.

 

One word: Instigation.

 

Seriously?????

well that site certainly isn't biased......:smilielol5:

 

Rocket

But the point is that a lot of money is being spent on lobbying and propaganda to say it isn’t or that it isn’t us and so nothing should be or could be done by humans to slow it down or stop it.

And the problem is that many people believe that propaganda or are influenced by that lobbying to hold up measures that could be of help.

In the end the opposition is based on profit and tax – wealth (or at least sections of it) fear that any measures made to reduce climate change or its impact would have an adverse effect on their profits or mean that their taxes might go up.

They are like kids who want to eat sweets and drink coke all day long while refusing to clean their teeth or listen to warnings about tooth decay, obesity and diabetes. Or maybe more like a junkie who doesn’t care about anything but their next fix.

 

Bilby

[SIZE=11pt]Sorry but you still sound like a creationist talking about evolution, because I’ve heard the same argument from them.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]http://www.ucg.org/science/prove-evolution-false-even-without-bible/[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]They like you jump on what they see as gaps or inconsistencies and shout very loudly that these ‘prove’ the whole theory is wrong. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The article you present as ‘proof’ climate change is not human driven but its conclusion states –[/SIZE]

“However, it is difficult to determine the quantitative role of solar activity on the
Earth's climate change at present. More evidences need to be found to better understand the long term impact of solar activity on the climate of our Earth.”

[SIZE=11pt]Now given the consensus in the scientific community that human activities are driving climate change….[/SIZE]

 

I only put the link up for everyone's consideration , not as any kind of proof. Did you know:
-that plants can only obtain carbon from the atmosphere?
- when plants are given extra CO2 the rate of photosynthesis increases IE the plant grows? Look in any high school biology text book to confirm this.
- growing trees certainly have a net absorption of carbon and a net output of O2 , mature trees the net absorption of carbon and net out put of O2 is negligible?
- Greenpeace claim that when a tree is cut down, the carbon absorbed is then release back into the atmosphere?
I would certainly entertain the idea of anthropogenic climate change if the methodology was demonstrated. So far it has not. I have an idea. I will write to Michael Mann asking him for details on his calculations from measuring the tree rings of Bristlecone Pines.. I own some digital vernier callipers and could access some large tree trunks.

 

I don't see how you'd take "stats are meaningless" away from that.

That particular stat is meaningless, what you can get people to say about a television adaptation of bullshit is a pretty meaningless stat in assessing the meaning of that bullshit.

Television exists to be watched, to get people to watch it, to incite drama and make drama and questions where none exist, etc.. The point is to get ratings, that's what TV shows exist for.

The rating is totally meaningless in terms of assessing the quality or truth of the material presented.

 

Only if the tree is burned or allowed to rot away to nothing.

 

The ABC in Australia is the public broadcaster , so there is commercial imperative although ratings help in terms of public funding.

 

Still all a bunch of BS and nothing more than a candy coated turd hoax like the 'ozone' scam. If you want to fall for it, So be it. There will be a tomorrow and next week, That roll into years of people using this as a crutch as a scare tactic to scam funs.

That aside, Look at all the jets and planes in the sky owned by the gubment idiots flying flight patters with all the 'jet stream' fall out and up! Guess there is a 2k ceiling that makes you exempt from the EPA but on the ground they fuck ya. I see that all day everyday in my area and thus/fri is always packed with sky traffic and exhaust that is blatant to the naked eye and can be seen from everywhere by everyone.

 

Bilby

The paucity of your own methodology has already been demonstrated – You made unequivocal statements then you admit that you don’t have any evidence for those statements and that is just your perception that they are right – in other words because you think something is true it therefore is true to you.

Again this is a statement worthy of a creationist – I mean one once put up forward the argument to me that since he couldn’t see the animals in his back garden evolving that proved evolution didn’t exist.

 

In science if you are going to make a claim you should expect others to scrutinise and verify your claims. Experiments to be at all credible must have repeatable results. Why was Michael Mann so reluctant to explain his methodology? The way he behaved was in breach of scientific protocol. Transparency and controversy are at the heart of science. Nobody is going to start disputing the laws of say arithmetic or trigonometry, but at the more advance levels of science everything is disputable. Science is in a constant state re-evaluation and revision.
If you think I sound like a creationist why am I in this group?
https://www.************/RichardDawkinsFoundation
What I have posted in this thread is opinion. There is no such thing as a correct or incorrect opinion.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/dec/11/global-warming-continues-despite-continuous-denial

http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse/article/viewFile/332/583

the conclusions of the 2nd link.

"Recent research provides a clearer picture of a seemingly enigmatic event—the apparent
slowdown in global warming over the past decade. An emerging understanding allows articulation of clear conclusions. First, despite views expressed in the popular press, global warming did not cease 15 years ago. Measurements taken with modern equipment show that the thermal energy contained within Earth’s thermal reservoirs has continued to increase unabated at a rate of 0.5 to 1.0 Watt per square meter of Earth surface area. This
conforms to expectations based on relatively simple atmospheric physics, given the addition of important greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and positive feedbacks reinforcing the effects of this change.

As we have explained, much of the extra heat is being stored in deep ocean waters. The increase in deep-water storage is likely to have been driven by changes in wind patterns in the Pacific Ocean, which bring cool water to the ocean surface while burying surface waters to intermediate depths. In terms of the implications for surface temperatures, studies that have accounted for the impact of short-term natural changes, the solar cycle, and changes in atmospheric aerosols and particulates show remarkable agreement in quantifying both the persistence and intensity of the long-term warming trend. In short: Earth is still warming—there simply is no data to support any other conclusion"

 

[SIZE=11pt]Bilby[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Have I said that I’m against the scientific method – NO – basically this is a classic piece of misdirection – you put forward junk science [peddled by the likes of Pilmer] and when someone points this out you get up on a high horse and claim you are the scientific one who is just being questioning and even handed.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]LOL – I said you sound like a creationist I didn’t say you were a creationist so saying that you are a supporter of Richard Dawkins is irrelevant [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]To repeat - [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]They like you jump on what they see as gaps or inconsistencies and shout very loudly that these ‘prove’ the whole theory is wrong. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]This is another example of your flawed methodology and thinking. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]It depends if the opinion is acted on - you might dispute someone that puts forward the opinion that all the Jews should be exterminated but it becomes in my opinion incorrect behavior when that person starts killing Jewish people and convinces other people to join in. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]It might be your opinion that it is OK to driving a car at 120mph with your eyes closed down the wrong side of a motorway, but in my opinion it becomes incorrect behavior if you actually do it, and I think people would be correct if they tried to stop you from doing it. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]In my opinion those who are peddling the line that nothing can or should be done to try and tackle climate change are putting others in potential danger if they are believed and I think that people are correct in challenging them. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Are you saying I and others should not be allowed to challenge them? [/SIZE]

 

I have been known to change my opinions on different theories,to give an example I used to be sceptical of the glycemic index theory but later on changed my mind.I don't believe we should waste the world's resources , in fact I believe in taxing resources including land tax.
Instead of posting up dogma, how about giving me the actual science including the anecdote behind the hypothesis and how conclusions were reached. Maybe you could also give me some experiments that I could do at home to prove the point.

 

Put a frog in a pot with some water, heat it up real slow...(-;

 

Climate change deniers are pretty much in the same category as people who don't think smoking causes cancer, and it's no coincidence that both AGW denialism and tobacco denialism are linked to the same political figures. The strategies for responding to both claims are practically identical, and both PR campaigns took place via the Heartland Institute, which is unsurprisingly tied to Libertarianism.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

They fund most of the deniers directly, and also have ties to the Koch Brothers who are heavy into petrochemicals, GMO, and basically everything that is toxic to people and the planet.

Here is a document from the similar pro-tobacco movement:

http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/332506.html#images

Objective No. 1: To set aside in the minds of millions the false conviction that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer and other diseases; a conviction based on fanatical assumptions, fallacious rumors, unsupported claims and the unscientific statements and conjectures of publicity-seeking opportunists.

This is why suddenly Al Gore is making millions off of his climate change speeches, why the science is apparently sloppy, why climatologists are being pressured to fudge their research, why Michael Mann is suspicious, etc.
Also familiar is objective 3:

Objective No. 3: To expose the incredible, unprecedented and nefarious attack against the cigarette, constituting the greatest libel and slander ever perpetrated against any product in the history of free enterprise...

This is where we get movies like 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', shills like Roy Spencer claiming there's a conspiracy afoot, science is now for sale, this is the greatest hoax in the history of science, etc. Climatology is not science, it's an attack on our liberties, it's about a tax, etc. I mean, how people can actually believe in this stuff is beyond me, but generation after generation falls for it.

Here's just one article that adopts this exact tone:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/american-thinker-a-climatology-conspiracy/

Objective No. 4: To unveil the insidious and developing pattern of attack against the American free enterprise system, a sinister formula that is slowly eroding American business with the cigarette obviously selected as one of the trial targets."

This is where we have the whole economic threat posed by climate change policies, and one of the favorite Libertarian delusions about sinister patterns being hatched by 'socialists' who want to change America into something monstrous. It's not about simply consuming less dirty energy or regulating industry, it's a massive attack on liberty and freedom where people won't be allowed to drive their cars, won't be allowed to have things, oil won't be used AT ALL, etc.

Here's a scary quote from the bottom, and it fits the climate denial arguments perfectly:

In thinking over what we might do to improve the case for cigarettes, I have looked at the problem somewhat like the marketing of a new brand. Here is a chart where I have defined the basic marketing elements which I see in the smoking and health problem. Our consumer I have defined as the mass public, our product as doubt, our message as truth -- well stated, and our competition as the body of anti-cigarette fact that exists in the public mind. We have chosen the mass public as our consumer for several reasons: - This is where the misinformation about smoking and health has been focused. - The Congress and federal agencies are already being dealt with--and perhaps as effectively as possible--by the Tobacco Institute. - It is a group with little exposure to the positive side of smoking and health. - It is the prime force in influencing Congress and federal agencies--without public support little effort would be given to a crusade against cigarettes. Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the "body of fact" that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy. Within the business we recognize that a controversy exists. However, with the general public the consensus is that cigarettes are in some way harmful to the health. If we are successful in establishing a controversy at the public level, then there is an opportunity to put across the real facts about smoking and health. Doubt is also the limit of our "product". Unfortunately, we cannot take a position directly opposing the anti-cigarette forces and say that cigarettes are a contributor to goo health. No information that we have supports such a claim.

 

2014 was the hottest year on record.

 

i think we can say with certainty that it *is* possible for organisms on a planet to drastically change the climate on the planet, as it has happened before.

cyanobacteria consumed most of the CO2 in the atmosphere and produced most of the oxygen present today drastically cooling the planet in the process.