Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

[Sdajii]

This is a very cynical view. Do you apply this to all scientists? They all operate with bias and self interest at heart? They are not professional, or do not take pride in the quality & accuracy of their research and findings?

I don't really think it's cynical, just realistic. No, of course it doesn't apply to every single individual scientist. It didn't apply to me, but then again, that's why I threw my science career in and went on to other ventures. I saw that I could not survive as a scientist who just practised good science, I would need my life to revolve around money and politics. This didn't sit well with me, I am not interested in politics and mixing science with lies held no appeal. A few manage to hold their positions while being genuinely good scientists, but in a politically-charged field like climate science it is virtually impossible. Some of them just make careers out of being politicians and con men, others genuinely love science and put as much of that in as they can while doing what they need to survive as a scientist, and in some fields it's possible to just be a really good scientist if you come up with some genuine new findings. Climate science is one of, perhaps the most extreme field effectively enforcing bias. Biology is actually pretty close. Things like medicine are mixed (you can come up with really useful stuff, and generally new drugs and medical techniques are relatively accurately described, but there is still a bias towards treatments rather than cures because of the economics - keeping people sick and ongoingly treating them is more lucrative of curing them and destroying your market, and exaggerating the efficacy of your goodies obviously has its incentives).

I think most people who get into science start out with an interest in or love of science, but the system is such that the disingenuous will easily outcompete the genuine folks, so to ongoingly survive you need to play the game, which requires you to lie. The people who have been brainwashed and believe the narratives enthusiastically go hard trying to prove their work, which makes them freely, happily misrepresent things. Others just do it because they want to get their work published and get their next grant and they know it's the only way. Political correctness is also an issue - there are plenty of basic facts well known to geneticists which would literally get people imprisoned if they tried to publish them. This suppression of basic facts is another thing I didn't like, which made me walk away. I have seen many people walk away for similar reasons, and again, this helps to establish the world of science being what it is. I love fundamental science, but I do not like what science (the industry) has become.

 

[Junior]

I don't really think it's cynical, just realistic. No, of course it doesn't apply to every single individual scientist. It didn't apply to me, but then again, that's why I threw my science career in and went on to other ventures. I saw that I could not survive as a scientist who just practised good science, I would need my life to revolve around money and politics. This didn't sit well with me, I am not interested in politics and mixing science with lies held no appeal. A few manage to hold their positions while being genuinely good scientists, but in a politically-charged field like climate science it is virtually impossible. Some of them just make careers out of being politicians and con men, others genuinely love science and put as much of that in as they can while doing what they need to survive as a scientist, and in some fields it's possible to just be a really good scientist if you come up with some genuine new findings. Climate science is one of, perhaps the most extreme field effectively enforcing bias. Biology is actually pretty close. Things like medicine are mixed (you can come up with really useful stuff, and generally new drugs and medical techniques are relatively accurately described, but there is still a bias towards treatments rather than cures because of the economics - keeping people sick and ongoingly treating them is more lucrative of curing them and destroying your market, and exaggerating the efficacy of your goodies obviously has its incentives).

I think most people who get into science start out with an interest in or love of science, but the system is such that the disingenuous will easily outcompete the genuine folks, so to ongoingly survive you need to play the game, which requires you to lie. The people who have been brainwashed and believe the narratives enthusiastically go hard trying to prove their work, which makes them freely, happily misrepresent things. Others just do it because they want to get their work published and get their next grant and they know it's the only way. Political correctness is also an issue - there are plenty of basic facts well known to geneticists which would literally get people imprisoned if they tried to publish them. This suppression of basic facts is another thing I didn't like, which made me walk away. I have seen many people walk away for similar reasons, and again, this helps to establish the world of science being what it is. I love fundamental science, but I do not like what science (the industry) has become.

Interesting. I'd love to hear a candid view from an ex-climate scientist.

 

[satanoperca]

Just some thoughts :
Has the climate been changing over the last 10,000 years? YES
Is climate change real? Based on above answer YES
Are humans responsible for the change in the environment? The question being debated here
Are us humans dependent on the environment? YES
Are humans become parasitic on the earth, over population? YES
Are humans polluting the planet, the rivers, oceans, fields, atmosphere? YES
Do we need to change our behaviors? YES which leads to the next question
Will we change our behaviors before it is to late? NO

Based on the above and regardless of what people/scientists think, we need to stop consuming and cannibalizing the earths natural resources.

Who will win the argument or more importantly what will become of the planet and its occupants? Over the next 1000 years, it is clear to me, there will be only one winner, mother nature, which he/she will adapt and survive, the question is will us mortal humans still be part of planet earth.

Unfortunately I fear not, humans have one fatal floor in their makeup, greed.

 

[satanoperca]

Would like to add:
The earth is no different to the aquariums I have maintained for 20 years
Both are a closed eco system - but there are differences, bare with me.

What is a closed eco system, one where the inhabitants cannot remove themselves from.
To date, humans only have one aquarium, planet earth

Aquarium :
To maintain a successful aquarium over any period of time there is one objective : to keep the inhabitants alive - fish and plants in this case, and further more the bacteria in the filters that help keep all the elements in equilibrium. This is no easy process and requires an understanding of the complex systems your are trying to maintain and thrive.
What are you dealing with, fish sh..it, just like use humans, they consume, that waste needs to be dealt with. Well you can not deal with it, ie CC and over time everything dies, or you can deal with it, by implementing systems/filters that grow bacteria that break down the waste, and use some of the waste to grow plants, than in turn oxygenate the water. (same as our forests)
But not all waste and chemicals can be removed within the system

Bare with me on the last statement.

Planet Earth : One Big Aquarium for Humans
So just like my fish tanks, the earth is no different, is a closed eco system, if not kept in balance, it will go rotten and the inhabitants will die.

BUT? There is a difference
In my fish tank, I can remove pollutants that build up over time by replacing the water/atmosphere with clean water (for us humans - air). Keeping the system going forever, well sort of, a bit more stuff needs to be maintained.

What is planet earth/aquarium meant to do when the pollutants become to high, that they start effecting the lives of the inhabitants (humans) and we can no longer survive/live.
We cannot change the water, we have no other source of fresh water/air or place where we can take the toxic air/atmosphere and dump it somewhere and replace it with fresh air and water.

So what is the real question to be debated and it is not CC?
Are we fu..king the planet so future generations will not be able to survive and live their lives?

We live in a closed eco system that is without borders, if all on this planet do not start working together to maintain our closed eco system we and our children and their children are f---kd

 

[Smurf1976]

Humans likely won’t act until forced. Human behaviour tends to follow that pattern.

In the Australian context it’ll take something like a real cyclone actually hitting Sydney and causing damage to the point that multiple major buildings in the CBD end up being demolished to force change.

Probably the least bad thing which could occur in that sense would be a major heatwave in Melbourne. By “major” I mean 50 degrees and government steps in with whatever laws that basically shut down all normal activity unless it’s truly essential.

That’s probably the least bad thing that would be sufficient. Any other event causes more lasting damage. Anywhere smaller won’t gain sufficient attention.

In the absence of something drastic like that it’ll be business as usual apart from a bit of tinkering around the edges.

 

[satanoperca]

Humans likely won’t act until forced. Human behaviour tends to follow that pattern.

In the Australian context it’ll take something like a real cyclone actually hitting Sydney and causing damage to the point that multiple major buildings in the CBD end up being demolished to force change.

Probably the least bad thing which could occur in that sense would be a major heatwave in Melbourne. By “major” I mean 50 degrees and government steps in with whatever laws that basically shut down all normal activity unless it’s truly essential.

That’s probably the least bad thing that would be sufficient. Any other event causes more lasting damage. Anywhere smaller won’t gain sufficient attention.

In the absence of something drastic like that it’ll be business as usual apart from a bit of tinkering around the edges.

So regardless of what is discussed here, we are f---kd.

Time for me to enrage my 13 year old to take action, as it seems adults are no longer capable of doing so.

 

[Sdajii]

Humans likely won’t act until forced. Human behaviour tends to follow that pattern.

In the Australian context it’ll take something like a real cyclone actually hitting Sydney and causing damage to the point that multiple major buildings in the CBD end up being demolished to force change.

Probably the least bad thing which could occur in that sense would be a major heatwave in Melbourne. By “major” I mean 50 degrees and government steps in with whatever laws that basically shut down all normal activity unless it’s truly essential.

That’s probably the least bad thing that would be sufficient. Any other event causes more lasting damage. Anywhere smaller won’t gain sufficient attention.

In the absence of something drastic like that it’ll be business as usual apart from a bit of tinkering around the edges.

You're right, people don't act until forced. This isn't just human nature, this is the nature of living things.

Even if a cyclone flattened Sydney, Australians wouldn't change, and if they did change, the climate wouldn't change (as in, it would continue to change, the change wouldn't stop).

A major cyclone hitting Sydney is not likely in any scenario. Neither is a 50 degree heatwave in Melbourne.

 

[Smurf1976]

So regardless of what is discussed here, we are f---kd.

Time for me to enrage my 13 year old to take action, as it seems adults are no longer capable of doing so.

Please note I’m observing what I think probably will actually happen and that’s not my view of what should be done.

Same concept as saying shares in xyz are going down. It’s an attempt to predict the future not saying I actually want it to happen.

My observation is just based on what I see happening thus far. There are some individuals, businesses and governments taking action yes but thus far emissions of CO2 are still going up not down.

 

[Smurf1976]

A major cyclone hitting Sydney is not likely in any scenario. Neither is a 50 degree heatwave in Melbourne.

Agreed but I’ve deliberately picked extreme scenarios to make the point that it will take something drastic to shake the masses and governments into action.

50 degrees in Adelaide seems more plausible, it’s only 3 degrees or so above the present record, but SA isn’t a major national decision making centre so it wouldn’t have so much impact.

 

[Knobby22]

Yea, the complete melt of the north pole ice cap wouldn't be enough. Maybe New York being hit by hurricanes 3 years in a row might.

 

[Sdajii]

55 degrees or a super cyclone or whatever wouldn't change people's actions, and if it did change their actions, that wouldn't change the climate appreciably, and if it did change the climate appreciably, in that humans stopped having any impact on the climate, whatever our impact has or hasn't been over the last 2-300 years, extreme weather events would still occur, the climate would still change, because that's what it naturally does.

All these people saying 'Oh, why don't people listen and take action!?' - take a look in the mirror for the first available example of someone who isn't doing something. Next attempt to change that person, see that it's impossible for you to even change that person, and consider the odds of the world as a whole changing.

 

[satanoperca]

Next attempt to change that person, see that it's impossible for you to even change that person, and consider the odds of the world as a whole changing.

So after 10 pages of discussion, my opinion hasn't changed, we are f--kd.

After 2 hours of yoga to calm my hostile brain, I am still angry that we have no leaders to take action.

I will wake in the morning, look at my child and say in my mind, mate schooling and everything I have tried to teach you doesn't matter, because ultimately, we humans are determine to screw ourselves.

But then again, I will more than likely, talk to him about speaking out and demanding action, having a voice, being heard and demanding change.
Fight for change, demand it.

 

[satanoperca]

I am deeply concerned about overall general pollution and habitat destruction, always have been, which I think has been overshadowed by the silly CC political extremism.

Found this quote, this is what we should be discussing and how to change it.

 

[explod]

Agreed but I’ve deliberately picked extreme scenarios to make the point that it will take something drastic to shake the masses and governments into action.

50 degrees in Adelaide seems more plausible, it’s only 3 degrees or so above the present record, but SA isn’t a major national decision making centre so it wouldn’t have so much impact.

How about transferring the divergence from last winter in the arctic to a 70 to 90 deg c day in Adelaide. Taking out the total population would do it but by then far too late. Such a divergence could occur now in my view.

 

[Sdajii]

So after 10 pages of discussion, my opinion hasn't changed, we are f--kd.

After 2 hours of yoga to calm my hostile brain, I am still angry that we have no leaders to take action.

I will wake in the morning, look at my child and say in my mind, mate schooling and everything I have tried to teach you doesn't matter, because ultimately, we humans are determine to screw ourselves.

But then again, I will more than likely, talk to him about speaking out and demanding action, having a voice, being heard and demanding change.
Fight for change, demand it.

You are trapped in a state of conflicted reasoning. On one hand you understand the nature of the world and the people who live in it. You accept the inevitable. This is good.

However, you also refuse to accept it on another level, and remain determined to behave in a frustrating and futile way, as though the inevitable you have already acknowledged is inevitable is not inevitable. This will only cause you pain, disappointment and sadness.

You say you will teach your son to demand others to take the action you and your son will not take. This is the common pattern. I do not have a solution for the big picture, I do not believe one exists, but for the individual such as yourself, a mindset based in reality will make you feel better and save you frustrating, futile effort, and understanding the situation and being at peace with it may make you feel better.

You say fight for change and demand it, yet you refuse to change even yourself. We all do, me too, but I do not fool myself. I know I am as much the problem as you, and that people like you and me are the problem. I know I can not change others, I know that I am powerless to change the big picture. You are too.

Along with being greedy and not sacrificing our own situation for the greater good, even in situations which will result in the death of most or all of the population of your own species (not just a human trait, but a trait of all living things), humans have an inability to see situations as hopeless. There is no evolutionary benefit in giving up. In situations which are genuinely hopeless, humans (and other animals) will generally maintain optimism until the end. In almost all natural situations this is either a benefit (giving up virtually never helps - either there is a chance and you make it, or fighting a futile fight doesn't cause any extra harm), but in a big picture like this, it can cause prolonged frustration and anguish. My hope is that humans survive the upcoming disasters (which I don't think will be at all related to climate change), but I can't change the outcome, so I'm enjoying life (doing a fantastic job of it these days!) and will hope my children are among the survivors. I won't teach them to live in frustrating futile battles, I will teach them to see the inevitable, accept it, be at peace with it, and do whatever will serve them best.

 

[Darc Knight]

Looks like a few "deniers" are crossing over. Welcome ;p

How about transferring the divergence from last winter in the arctic to a 70 to 90 deg c day in Adelaide. Taking out the total population would do it but by then far too late. Such a divergence could occur now in my view.

You saying 70-90 degree temperatures are possible now?

 

[satanoperca]

You are trapped in a state of conflicted reasoning. On one hand you understand the nature of the world and the people who live in it. You accept the inevitable. This is good.

However, you also refuse to accept it on another level, and remain determined to behave in a frustrating and futile way, as though the inevitable you have already acknowledged is inevitable is not inevitable. This will only cause you pain, disappointment and sadness.

You say you will teach your son to demand others to take the action you and your son will not take. This is the common pattern. I do not have a solution for the big picture, I do not believe one exists, but for the individual such as yourself, a mindset based in reality will make you feel better and save you frustrating, futile effort, and understanding the situation and being at peace with it may make you feel better.

You say fight for change and demand it, yet you refuse to change even yourself. We all do, me too, but I do not fool myself. I know I am as much the problem as you, and that people like you and me are the problem. I know I can not change others, I know that I am powerless to change the big picture. You are too.

Along with being greedy and not sacrificing our own situation for the greater good, even in situations which will result in the death of most or all of the population of your own species (not just a human trait, but a trait of all living things), humans have an inability to see situations as hopeless. There is no evolutionary benefit in giving up. In situations which are genuinely hopeless, humans (and other animals) will generally maintain optimism until the end. In almost all natural situations this is either a benefit (giving up virtually never helps - either there is a chance and you make it, or fighting a futile fight doesn't cause any extra harm), but in a big picture like this, it can cause prolonged frustration and anguish. My hope is that humans survive the upcoming disasters (which I don't think will be at all related to climate change), but I can't change the outcome, so I'm enjoying life (doing a fantastic job of it these days!) and will hope my children are among the survivors. I won't teach them to live in frustrating futile battles, I will teach them to see the inevitable, accept it, be at peace with it, and do whatever will serve them best.

Thanks Sdajii, but your comments point to one thing, it is people like you who make assumptions about others that is the problem.

I could pull apart your comments, but have better things to do.

Survival is about fighting, how it has been and will always be.

"I know that I am powerless to change the big picture." This is weak, we all have the power to make change, grow some balls, stand up for what you believe is right.

 

[Sdajii]

Thanks Sdajii, but your comments point to one thing, it is people like you who make assumptions about others that is the problem.

I could pull apart your comments, but have better things to do.

Survival is about fighting, how it has been and will always be.

"I know that I am powerless to change the big picture." This is weak, we all have the power to make change, grow some balls, stand up for what you believe is right.

Weak is cowardly avoiding the discussion, not so much with me, but not having the courage to see what is happening within yourself.

It's not weak to realistically acknowledge your own abilities. I simply do not have the ability to change the world. I was young and ideal once, and if everyone was the same, sure, we could make a difference, but you can not fight the basic laws of biology on a large scale, and attempting to do so is foolish, and taking on a fight you can not win wastes your efforts which can otherwise be directed to somewhere more important.

If you think you can change basic human biology (which is the basically biology of all living things) on a global scale, hey, knock yourself out trying If you want to call me weak for understanding that this task is literally impossible, then I will consider you to be wrong, perhaps even delusional. I could even say you are weak, in that you lack the courage to face the reality you wish was not there.

 

[TheBigKangaroo]

Ann, expect to be attacked for any deviation from the doctrinaire narrative of human induced 'climate change'. And besides, the alarmist/globalist crowd long ago jumped ship from 'global warming'. Therefore hot or cold, their theories can't be disproved.

Only by making electricity expensive, and re-distributing western wealth to the Third World can 'climate change' be fixed

Ha ha Logique. You cynical person!!! But I agree and love you thinking. cheers

 

[basilio]

What can one person do ? Tens of thousands of students around the world have spoken up about the effects CC will have on the world we are leaving them. But why did these students decide to take action.

They were inspired by another young student from Sweden. Leadership.
'Our leaders are like children,' school strike founder tells climate summit
Greta Thunberg, 15, told UN summit that students are acting in absence of global leadership

Damian Carrington in Katowice

@dpcarrington
Tue 4 Dec 2018 22.10 AEDT Last modified on Tue 4 Dec 2018 22.38 AEDT

Shares
2,843



Thunberg during her Friday climate change protest. Photograph: Hanna Franzen/EPA
Action to fight global warming is coming whether world leaders like it or not, school student Greta Thunberg has told the UN climate change summit, accusing them of behaving like irresponsible children.

Thunberg began a solo climate protest by striking from school in Sweden in August. But more than 20,000 students around the world have now joined her. The school strikes have spread to at least 270 towns and cities in countries across the world, including Australia, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the US and Japan.

“For 25 years countless people have come to the UN climate conferences begging our world leaders to stop emissions and clearly that has not worked as emissions are continuing to rise. So I will not beg the world leaders to care for our future,” she said. “I will instead let them know change is coming whether they like it or not.”

“Since our leaders are behaving like children, we will have to take the responsibility they should have taken long ago,” she said. “We have to understand what the older generation has dealt to us, what mess they have created that we have to clean up and live with. We have to make our voices heard.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ounder-greta-thunberg-tells-un-climate-summit