Climate change, real or no deal.

[mike os]

The problem with 'climate science' is it started with a lie, (see michael mann and the infamous hockey stick fraud) was and is heavily politicised to the contradiction of the scientific papers contained in every ipcc report , and any dissent is crushed at every turn.

Nature will not publish ant paper that shows anything that might upset the agw applecart, the royal society has declared the science is settled, and within acamedia there is no funding for research that may contradict the great truth.

 

[Steveblade]

Did you hear about the Walrus suicides, No dont laugh. It was claimed these creatures chucked themselves to there deaths because of global warming, The BBC quietly retracted the claim after some complained. Calling BS me thinks. Just another example..


.https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04...-about-walrus-cliff-deaths-heres-how-we-know/

 

[Steveblade]

The problem with 'climate science' is it started with a lie, (see michael mann and the infamous hockey stick fraud) was and is heavily politicised to the contradiction of the scientific papers contained in every ipcc report , and any dissent is crushed at every turn.

Nature will not publish ant paper that shows anything that might upset the agw applecart, the royal society has declared the science is settled, and within acamedia there is no funding for research that may contradict the great truth.

Yeah I know , but many just prefer to put on the blinkers dont they. Its sad really that folk wont engage in a conversation, I understand it though I guess they think if they have anything to loose thier next to be shut down.

 

[Steveblade]

The problem with 'climate science' is it started with a lie, (see michael mann and the infamous hockey stick fraud) was and is heavily politicised to the contradiction of the scientific papers contained in every ipcc report , and any dissent is crushed at every turn.

Nature will not publish ant paper that shows anything that might upset the agw applecart, the royal society has declared the science is settled, and within acamedia there is no funding for research that may contradict the great truth.

Yeah I know , but many just prefer to put on the blinkers dont they. Its sad really that folk wont engage in a conversation, I understand it though I guess they think if they have anything to loose thier next to be shut down.

 

[fizzy]

I agree it is difficult to imagine we could have such an effect, that's why we employ scientists. They spend their lives working out stuff like this then try to explain it to us. Graphs can be deceptive and humans can survive in a CO2 rich environment, so long as there's enough oxygen.

From Wiki: "Normally, humans breathe in air that is approximately 20.95% oxygen, 78.09% nitrogen, 0.93% argon, and 0.04% (400 ppm) of carbon dioxide. ... The concentration of CO2 in each breath is ~3.8%"

Thos tiny amounts of CO2 don't bother us but CO2 acts like a blanket wrapped around the Earth and if you increase the insulation value (if you like) one tiny bit more than the Earth has become used to, it literally warms up until the amount of energy it can re-radiate forms an equilibrium with the amount of energy it receives. If you want to see what runaway CO2 can do to a planet, take a peek at Venus because what the scientists are worried about is that global warming is one great positive feedback loop. The warmer it gets, the more global warming increases....

I very nearly became one of those scientists - but life got in the way!
Maths and physics was my main study but Chemistry was my favourite.
Your summing up in laymans terms is spot on.

 

[fizzy]

My trade boatbuilding has been largely fibreglass based for 60 or more years, in that time most fibreglass boats have been built solely for pleasure use. All those boats moulded & 94% of them are still here. Built from a material that can last centuries & still sit there.
The industry is waking up to the realisation that it cant go on, but the reality is a collapsed market with a vast over supply of cheap boats that are simply uneconomic to restore or refit.
A material that is notoriously hard to recycle & the products from such recycling cost five times the price of new virgin material.
Ever wondered what happens to all those smashed up yachts in the Carribean every hurricane? A mate of mine was out there a few years back & said that due to the lack of repair facilities most were just put on barges & dumped in deepwater to form huge reefs. If true that is environmental vandalism on an industrial scale.

Yes fibreglass boats last a heck of a long time. Agree with most of your comments but sinking boats to provide a reef is good news for the environment. Same with tyres.
Yes chemicals and other stuff might slowly leach out but in the open sea it isn't such a problem. You should see the life that thrives on sunken warships in places like Truk lagoon. And God only knows what dodgy stuff was on them.

 

[fizzy]

Tick..... tock..... tick... tock.... here comes mr pad... lock....

Don't be mean we all love a mass debate

 

[Screwdriver]

Yeah I know , but many just prefer to put on the blinkers dont they. Its sad really that folk wont engage in a conversation, I understand it though I guess they think if they have anything to loose thier next to be shut down.

I am pretty sure I am not blinkered, I remain entirely open minded on the issue. I agree it has become a gravy train but that is human nature, people will simply capitalise on anything. But science and scientists can't get away with any such shenanigans. Their work is more rigorously scrutinised than any other profession and to deny climate science is valid is to deny the validity of all science. You can't pick and choose which to believe either there is a conspiracy involving the entire scientific community or what they are telling us** is true.

**they do not really tell us anything of course. The actual science is crushingly boring but it goes through a process of peer review and when it has been ratified by a consortium of experts, the paper is published in a science journal. That's where the trouble begins because journalists get hold of it and "precis" to the point of barefaced hyperbole.

That's the biggest problem. So what I do (and I invite any sceptic to also do) is to look behind those headlines and try to establish the truth. See where the information is coming from, see what the actual science is "saying". For example "the infamous hockey stick fraud" is not fraudulent but was the basis for a massive propaganda campaign funded by Big Oil. The fossil fuel industry is the biggest wealthiest industry on this planet and their tactics of obfuscation are very similar to those employed by the tobacco industry before so many people died from cancer, the cat was finally out of the bag.

 

[Wozzaaah]

There’s a few mass debaters on the forum...
Keep things civil and we’ll all be happy.

 

[Robert.]

The climate change denial lobby (big oil) are using the same whitecoat tactics the tobacco companies used in the various legislation fights they have had over the years .
Find a target audience who right now feel concerned but could be convinced into it being "theory" rather than " fact" .

 

[brightspark]

some people couldn't give a toss

 

[Screwdriver]

some people couldn't give a toss

I'm sort of with you on that. Seems a shame because this is such a tiny fragile jewel of a planet now overrun by humanity and I agree, most of them really couldn't care less.

Bloody humans, serves them right.

 

[Barking Mat]

There are no right and wrong answers to this thread.

It's about compromises.

Basically we need to change our behaviour globally.

Stop consuming rubbish we dont really need, stop buying the latest fads, the newest cars..

Computers, toys etc.

But in a capitalist society its like weve been conditioned, to earn or borrow money for stuff we think we need / want.

I'm big on buying old stuff, and repairing it.

What do i buy which is new? Clothes, rarely.

 

[Barking Mat]

Its like the coal versus nuclear argument,

Coal dirty co2 producing filth.

Nuclear, cleaner?, dirty stuff for thousands of years we can only store its by products.

Renewable energy? Solar, debatable, wind and sea better but complicated and expensive.

There are no clear cut answers.

Our behaviour must change.

But that wont support current economic growth...

Its all political.

The current rate of world growth is unsustainable.

We need to realise this.

And... Bed.

 

[mike os]

Please don't use the Big oil argument or I will, counter with the Big agw argument.

 

[mike os]

The the jockey stick is based on deliberately manipulating data, abuse of statistical methodology and massaging the results to fit the crime. The data is so flawed it took a congressional order and years of legal action to get the data and methodology released for independent review where it was torn to pieces, but the lie persists

 

[Screwdriver]

Please don't use the Big oil argument or I will, counter with the Big agw argument.

I'd be interested to hear what that is.

The the jockey stick is based on deliberately manipulating data, abuse of statistical methodology and massaging the results to fit the crime. The data is so flawed it took a congressional order and years of legal action to get the data and methodology released for independent review where it was torn to pieces, but the lie persists

I think you mean "hockey stick" and while it has been done to death, no harm in revisiting it.

The data were manipulated of course. You really have to manipulate it because methods change and some of our modern equipment is a bit more accurate than say, a bucket on a string from the early seventeenth century. The other issue of course is that it is global warming we're interested in and not local weather. Sadly much of the data we have prior to say the 1800's is largely European and there was no consensus on exactly how that data was captured.

You are absolutely correct to remain skeptical of course, "proving" an observation was flawed or the resulting data inaccurate is impossible. You therefore have to accept so called error bars and see how those data compare with other sources purporting to measure the same thing. What we are left with then is a consensus formed from modern interpretation of historic data and rather than "truth" we accept a thing is true based on the overwhelming preponderance of evidence.

I am not familiar with the "congressional order" you refer to, got any links? I'm not sure what exactly was "torn to pieces" either. Certainly there was a massive controversy when the hockey stick graph was first presented. No one could believe CO2 levels could possibly shoot up so quickly. Sadly it was to the best of my knowledge proved to be correct so I am surprised there is any doubt to its validity. Do you have any reputable sources to support your statement?

CO2 levels are higher now than at any time in history, so high in fact that even given the margins of error we have to accept for 800,000 year old estimates, something is afoot. If there is some other theory for how and why CO2 levels have shot up, I'd like to hear it because right now everything points towards human activity being the direct cause for that rise.

 

[Barking Mat]

We're all guilty.

Unless some major pandemic wipes out half the populus, we're doomed.

Hmmm.

Let's bring in some inane conspiracy theories.

How come this thread is still open?

 

[Steveblade]

Why would it not be?

 

[Steveblade]

We're all guilty.

Unless some major pandemic wipes out half the populus, we're doomed.

Hmmm.

Let's bring in some inane conspiracy theories.

How come this thread is still open?

How insane ? I have a theory that involves Wombles, you know those sneaky hairy sods are upto no good.