253 replies to this topic

[Solarclimax]

Can someone rename this thread to "what percentage of people on this site are brainwashed" ? so that the poll more accurately eflects reality ?

[Solarclimax]

Also the poll titles themselves are biased towards disinformation and shillery.

"Is Climate Change Denial Funded by the Oil Companies?" this is like saying, is the "everyone should eat junk food" movement, funded by the health and fitness industry ?

The people who own the oil are in bed with politicians and the military industrial complex, and the fuel prices will go up to balance out the reduce in fuel, but then there will be the added bonus of carbon tax, another stepping stone in bringing about a new world order <---obviously if you're a shill you're going to convince everyone that i'm a conspiracy theorist.

The co2 records show the co2 rises in relation to global warming (non man made) no the other way round
just ask any of the 30,000 scientists that are trying to sue al gore. It's not even covered by mainstream media anymore because too many people can see through it, and the mainstream media know if they cover it anymore that there's lots of scientists ready to expose the media, and if the media are to continue to be complicit in covering up terror attacks like 7/7 and 9/11 and blaming it on muslims then they can do without the exposure.

Edited by Solarclimax, 23 April 2012 - 11:06 AM.

[Mind]

Which reminds me, the person who started this thread did not put the polls there. They were inserted by a moderator or some other person with access (according to him). I broached the issue a few months ago, but there was no discussion and no resolution. From my perspective, there is no reason to point fingers at anyone, only that the polls should be removed because the thread-starter did not put them there. If no one speaks up and provides a reason for NOT removing the polls, then I will do it soon.

The AGW discussion is part science and part politics and thusly is going to drive passionate discussion. Longecity has a long history of free speech in the forums. If someone spreads what is considered unscientific dis-information, then it is up to others in the community to provide a counter argument.

[mikeinnaples]

ask any of the 30,000 scientists that are trying to sue al gore.

Link to a source, I would like to read what you are reading.

Thanks

[johnross47]

Just Google "30000 scientist suing Al Gore" and see the whole farce. There is no petition, there will be no court case. Most of it is just the usual denialist fantasy that gets passed around and just grows and grows. The rest is fraud, by denialists.

[mikeinnaples]

Just Google "30000 scientist suing Al Gore" and see the whole farce. There is no petition, there will be no court case. Most of it is just the usual denialist fantasy that gets passed around and just grows and grows. The rest is fraud, by denialists.

Yeah I did that before asking the question

[mikeinnaples]

Skeptic to convert... what will the other skeptics do now that an oil industry funded climate study is saying that the science supports AGW and that the temperature chance in the last century is nearly entirely man made?

http://www.wundergro...l?entrynum=2163

[rwac]

New study[lead author: Anthony Watts] shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial

I don't know, was Muller ever a skeptic? The media seems to be passing him off as a skeptic without giving a reason. Can you find a quote by him which suggests he was ever skeptical?

[mikeinnaples]

New study[lead author: Anthony Watts] shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial

I don't know, was Muller ever a skeptic? The media seems to be passing him off as a skeptic without giving a reason. Can you find a quote by him which suggests he was ever skeptical?

Huh? Muller himself is the one stating he is a converted skeptic.

[rwac]

Huh? Muller himself is the one stating he is a converted skeptic.

But was he really?

This is Muller from 2003:
"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium."

http://muller.lbl.go...balwarming.html

[mikeinnaples]

So you believe he is a fake skeptic

[rwac]

So you believe he is a fake skeptic

I believe he may have been skeptical about some of the issues with the science, and thus described himself as a 'skeptic'. He may still have missed the bigger picture.

[Mind]

Here is something interesting - possible data massaging (or fraud) in some data sets. I can't vouch for the veracity of the author, but it is disconcerting that past data has been deleted from the GISS and other climate data websites. As a member of the AMS, I get a "State of the Climate" tome every year. I will have to go back and look if there has been changes in the relative warmth of various years. I suspect there are logical statistical reasons for the changing of the various graphs and data sets (if the above article is not a "fake", which has happened before) but it seems to deserve some scrutiny.

A few years ago I discussed the data sets with Hansen from GISS. There was a continuing trend in GISS press releases stating that "the world had warmed to X degree", and the "data proved an X degree rise in temperature". The problem is that there were, at the time, a handful of research centers around the world tabulating global temperatures, using different data sets, and different statistical methods. GISS data was consistently the warmest. I implored Hansen to be more specific in their press releases stating that "GISS data and methods indicate X trend in temperatures". It is not as much of a concern nowadays as climate research is becoming more consolidated, but it is a little worrying that the data sets are being curated by a smaller number of people, which increases the chance of manipulation - if even only slightly.

Edited by Mind, 31 July 2012 - 05:37 PM.

[platypus]

The Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula are warming up and changing extremely rapidly - there's no way that massaging of datasets could have caused this.

[JChief]

The cyclical madness of crowds.... Nevermind the global cooling hype from the 70s. The CIA was even serious about this. Great thread btw. May we all dare to turn from supranatural reality to nature, from faith to reason, from community to the individual, from duty to rights, from inequality to equality, from order to freedom, and from self-sacrifice to self-interest.

[JChief]

My own observations with regard to current mainstream economic theory, for one, leads me to believe that to not be in the majority (be it politics or current "science") does not mean you aren't correct. If fact many times its a count in your favor. The very people that predicted our current economic problems are largely ignored by the masses.

[JChief]

In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place.
Mahatma Gandhi

One man with courage is a majority.
Thomas Jefferson

The minority is sometimes right; the majority always wrong.
George Bernard Shaw

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.
Marcus Aurelius

[platypus]

The cyclical madness of crowds.... Nevermind the global cooling hype from the 70s.

There was no such "hype", it was just a hypothesis some researchers held. The arctic areas are warming up extraordinary rapidly at the moment (since a couple of decades), only time will tell whether this is just short-term variability..

[Lazarus Long]

The hyper politicization of science, regardless of motives, makes for bad politics and even worse science.

The current argument about climate is one that is impossible to resolve in a manner beneficial to humanity. We are ignoring the anthropogenic factors till it is too late to do anything about them, then we will fight over the results and the blame.

The science is a tool that tells us something is going on and provides reasonable ideas about what to do about it that vested interests around the world blithely ignore to the detriment of all.

This thread highlights that conflict and conflict in this case will continue to worsen to the lasting detriment of solution.

Climate change is fact not belief. It is observable and supported by global readings.

That part aside as that was the first argument of denialists; why there is climate change includes an anthropogenic component that denialists ignore. Whether that component is the dominant factor or a secondary causal factor MIGHT be up for debate but the fact that we can influence that manmade component is NOT debatable, only what are the most effective means we have to influence climate change in a positive rather than negative manner.

Also about the science, most predictions made in this thread by denialists have been wrong over time and most predictions made by those of us that argued climate change is driven by human activity have been validated by climate trends.

Observable data and predictive hypotheses that is what the science provides as well as a workable and rational theoretical model of the global mechanisms involved. Science is not concerned with geopolitics, socioeconomics, and market interests however those seeking solutions to the dilemma are because that is the vested interest that is obstructing implementation of solutions.

[JChief]

There is little debate over the changes in the Earth's climate - what what extent is debatable. To say man is the main reason is giving us far too much credit I'm afraid. Time will tell if I'm wrong. Nothing we can do about it anyway. I do know that there are certain groups that stand to benefit financially from green initiatives. I remain skeptical. What do you all think of this??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac

http://wattsupwithth...h-of-the-1970s/

http://en.wikipedia....ail_controversy

Edited by JChief, 10 August 2012 - 06:55 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

There is little debate over the changes in the Earth's climate - what what extent is debatable. To say man is the main reason is giving us far too much credit I'm afraid. Time will tell if I'm wrong. Nothing we can do about it anyway. I do know that there are certain groups that stand to benefit financially from green initiatives. I remain skeptical. What do you all think of this??

When the science was emerging, there were also certain, extremely well funded groups that stood to continue benefiting financially by preventing green initiatives and mucking up the science by casting doubt. They were VERY successful in doing so.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 13 August 2012 - 02:06 PM.

[platypus]

There is little debate over the changes in the Earth's climate - what what extent is debatable. To say man is the main reason is giving us far too much credit I'm afraid.

The changes humans have already made on this planet are quite staggering, so it's not far-fetched at all to think that we might influence the climate. The Earth is small.

The loss in Arctic sea ice volume and end-of-summer ice extent are now so large that talk about them being caused by "natural variation" look ludicrous. The 2007 sea ice minimum is likely to break in the coming weeks..

http://www.realclima...e-minimum-2012/

Edited by platypus, 13 August 2012 - 03:54 PM.

[Mind]

Fastest way to lessen our impact on the environment - people should stop having so many kids. Considering the hundreds of billions of dollars fighting AGW battles and on nearly useless initiatives (like grain ethanol in the U.S.), I think we would have been better off starting a persuasion campaign 2 decades ago. It would probably be paying big dividends by now with lower population. Since even environmentalists can't stop popping out kids, we will have to hang our hat on continued technological progress to ensure a positive future with a cleaner environment.

[platypus]

Fastest way to lessen our impact on the environment - people should stop having so many kids. Considering the hundreds of billions of dollars fighting AGW battles and on nearly useless initiatives (like grain ethanol in the U.S.), I think we would have been better off starting a persuasion campaign 2 decades ago. It would probably be paying big dividends by now with lower population. Since even environmentalists can't stop popping out kids, we will have to hang our hat on continued technological progress to ensure a positive future with a cleaner environment.

I'm pessimistic. The fossil fuels will be burned. Perhaps geoengineering can help but still we need to kiss the current climate status quo goodbye...

[robomoon]

I'm pessimistic. The fossil fuels will be burned. Perhaps geoengineering can help but still we need to kiss the current climate status quo goodbye...

With a mentally more alert population it does not need to go on with overconsumption of fuel. Here's http://www.dailymail...kes-flight.html a new article mentioning the superiority of lighter-than-air vehicles over other aircraft. Such a vessel would barely burn much petrol for staying afloat around somewhere. It uses an expensive lifting gas saving energy. But a does not burn so much fuel like helicopter. In the past, civilian airship sometimes crashed in stormy weather, when combustible constructions got aflame, mishaps during the landing, or an awkward mooring technique in bad weather. Military hitech and discipline might lower the chance for those mishaps. Btw., airship are good for civil aeronautics too, also to get a better overview of new climate changes.

[Lazarus Long]

I'm pessimistic. The fossil fuels will be burned. Perhaps geoengineering can help but still we need to kiss the current climate status quo goodbye...

With a mentally more alert population it does not need to go on with overconsumption of fuel. Here's http://www.dailymail...kes-flight.html a new article mentioning the superiority of lighter-than-air vehicles over other aircraft. Such a vessel would barely burn much petrol for staying afloat around somewhere. It uses an expensive lifting gas saving energy. But a does not burn so much fuel like helicopter. In the past, civilian airship sometimes crashed in stormy weather, when combustible constructions got aflame, mishaps during the landing, or an awkward mooring technique in bad weather. Military hitech and discipline might lower the chance for those mishaps. Btw., airship are good for civil aeronautics too, also to get a better overview of new climate changes.

Geoengineering is not aeronautical engineering but there is an overlap. Funny you should say that about dirigible tech though, I've only been designing advanced dirigibles for 40 years to deaf ears.

Feel free to join my Yahoo group "Bouyant Sky" and we can have a a discussion on dirigible tech there. It is a private group so the tech we discuss can be protected.
http://groups.yahoo....up/buoyant_sky/



Everyone interested in real future flying tech is welcome to join but most of the interest today is in drone tech. BTW solar powered drone dirigibles are already under development by the DoD. Blade runner is coming to a neighborhood near you real soon.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 14 August 2012 - 08:44 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

Just to remind us to get back on topic here is a recent article about how the polar melt off is happening faster than predicted, not slower.


http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-19244895
13 August 2012 Last updated at 14:05
Arctic sea ice 'melting faster'
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst

That is in addition to a record glacial melt of the Greenland cap and multiple record breaking warm months of March and July this year already. We are about to go into the record books as the warmest year on record following some of the previously warmest years on record.

Do you denialists see a trend here?

Or do you still want to blame the observer?

Edited by Lazarus Long, 15 August 2012 - 11:48 AM.

[revenant]

It's not our fault! It's the damned polar bears and walruses! They are pissing too much!

[revenant]

perhaps we could try shooting a bunch of them from aircraft

[JLL]

I'm pessimistic. The fossil fuels will be burned. Perhaps geoengineering can help but still we need to kiss the current climate status quo goodbye...

There is no such thing as a "climate status quo".