Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

[Darc Knight]

So Andrew Bolt, Wayne and Sdajii are now believers in human induced G.W.
Does that leave only Ann, BigKangaroo and Logique in the deniers camp?

As serious as this is, its also interesting psychology.

 

[Smurf1976]

There has been a seismic shift in the global warming debate within the doubters. There now seems to be a large number of people that have realised that global warming is real

The quality of data is dubious but there’s simply too much of it to ignore.

Or to be more precise, one freak weather event or new temperature record can be ignored as natual variation but we’re now seeing new records set on a routine basis. Meanwhile the concept of towns being wiped off the map by fires has gone from unheard of to somewhat common in less than a decade.

Individually that could dismissed and the data considered of fairly low quality in terms of “proving” climate change. But there’s just too much of it for any objective analysis to not conclude that something is going on with only the details being uncertain.

 

[Sdajii]

So Andrew Bolt, Wayne and Sdajii are now believers in human induced G.W.
Does that leave only Ann, BigKangaroo and Logique in the deniers camp?

As serious as this is, its also interesting psychology.

Interesting psychology as in people like you can't grasp the concept that virtually everyone including everyone in this thread understands that humans are having some impact on the climate, but that doesn't mean they all believe in global warming (some do, some don't) and the question is not whether or not the climate changes or whether or not humans are causing it to change, and anyone who thinks those are relevant questions has absolutely no grasp of the basics of what's going on, yet that is a common thing among people including those with passionate opinions and desires to speak loudly about it?

 

[wayneL]

So Andrew Bolt, Wayne and Sdajii are now believers in human induced G.W.
Does that leave only Ann, BigKangaroo and Logique in the deniers camp?

As serious as this is, its also interesting psychology.

No no no

*have always been moderates*

Different narrative bro

 

[SirRumpole]

and the question is not whether or not the climate changes or whether or not humans are causing it to change, and anyone who thinks those are relevant questions has absolutely no grasp of the basics of what's going on,

I really don't see that there are any other relevant questions other than whether the climate is changing and what is causing that change.

If you can think of other relevant questions please let us know.

 

[Sdajii]

I really don't see that there are any other relevant questions other than whether the climate is changing and what is causing that change.

If you can think of other relevant questions please let us know.

There is no debate among anyone who has even the slightest grasp of even the tiniest bit of substance on the issue - the climate is changing. It has never, ever been static. The planet is billions of years old and the climate has never, ever been static.

"Is the climate changing?" is not a question anyone worth listening to or worthy of speaking is asking - though yes, there are plenty of people stupid enough to ask it. I don't know if anyone in this thread is that stupid and I suspect not, but if there are, they are few.

Humans weren't causing the climate to change thousands of years ago, or millions of years ago, or billions of years ago. Many things have been influencing the climate and causing it to change over that incredibly long period of time, and they all still exist. Humans recently came into existence. Humans are carrying out various activities on the planet, and anyone who is not a complete and utter imbecile should understand that any activity on the planet influences the climate. Some things influence the climate to a small extent, some large.

"Are humans influencing the climate?" Is not a question anyone worth listening to or worthy of speaking is asking - though yes, there are plenty of people stupid enough to ask it. I don't know if anyone in this thread is that stupid and I suspect not, but if there are, they are few.

Do you honestly think these are the questions being debated? If so, you have not only failed to grasp the basics of the topic, but the basics of the primary viewpoints of the people in the debate, or what the debate is.

 

[wayneL]

I really don't see that there are any other relevant questions other than whether the climate is changing and what is causing that change.

If you can think of other relevant questions please let us know.

You are equating chaos with binary.

Not happening, it's not scientific.

 

[explod]

There is no debate among anyone who has even the slightest grasp of even the tiniest bit of substance on the issue - the climate is changing. It has never, ever been static. The planet is billions of years old and the climate has never, ever been static.
.

In the longer term yes, but in the huge change we have had over the last 100 years no. We could not have formed nor survived without long term periods of climate stability.

I have recently moved back to where I grew up at Hawkesdale in Victoria's South Western District. As a kid the mud on our farm was up to our knees from the Warrnambool May Races till the end of November; every year till around 1966 when the first dry came in line not far behind massive land clearing. Gumboots are no longer needed and dams have turned into salty clay pans. This of course is not Co2 but mostly the earth losing its ability through the loss of trees to absorb the Co2. Of corse most of the rain comes from the trees taking in the moisture from the ground and exhaling it through the leaves. Trees are the real lungs of our earth.

Those trying to assert that these variations on this scale are normal are wrong. Have you read "The 6th Extinction" 1996 by Richard Leakey. Very well and scientifically notated puts it all into proper perspective. The same title of this text by Elizabeth Kolbert 2014 now virtually blocks out Leakey"s book on the Google search, and looking it over tells me the anti climate lobby would be behind that.

 

[SirRumpole]

"Are humans influencing the climate?" Is not a question anyone worth listening to or worthy of speaking is asking - though yes, there are plenty of people stupid enough to ask it. I don't know if anyone in this thread is that stupid and I suspect not, but if there are, they are few.

I must be missing something because I thought you may have been fairly intelligent.

Are humans influencing the climate and to what degree is a perfectly rational question to ask, I don't see why any intelligent enquiring person would not ask it, why do you think it's a stupid question ?.

As for other factors, well there were a lot of active volcanoes millions of years ago spewing out greenhouse gases and only a few now. Not relevant according to you ?

 

[Sdajii]

I must be missing something because I thought you may have been fairly intelligent.

Are humans influencing the climate and to what degree is a perfectly rational question to ask, I don't see why any intelligent enquiring person would not ask it, why do you think it's a stupid question ?.

These are two questions, not one. The first is the stupid, the second is reasonable.

As for other factors, well there were a lot of active volcanoes millions of years ago spewing out greenhouse gases and only a few now. Not relevant according to you ?

Seriously, you're looking at volcanoes in this context? The climate has been doing its thing for *billions* of years. Not sure why you're talking about volcanoes or *millions* of years in this context (well, I am: ignorance), but you clearly need to go back and educate yourself on the basics. Have a look at a climate chart of the last billion years or so. You'll see the fluctuations are dramatic and don't have much to do with variations in volcanic activity. You may also like to look at the last few million years, the last million, and the last 100,000 years. Looking at a finer scale over smaller amounts of time (say, a random 100,000 years from a few hundred million years ago) would also be extremely interesting and useful, but unfortunately such data is not available and probably never will be. In looking at all of this, you may be surprised that climate change of the cataclysmic nature everyone is terrified of is just a regular day at the office in normal, natural climate change, it's just that for the first time in modern history (not even the first time in human history - we were nearly wiped out once before, and that was before we were doing anything relevant to the climate) we are observing it, and possibly making it zig rather than zag.

 

[basilio]

Watch the elbows Sdajii. Seriously it is often better to say little and have people wonder if your a fool rather than spill your guts and prove it beyond doubt.

In looking at all of this, you may be surprised that climate change of the cataclysmic nature everyone is terrified of is just a regular day at the office in normal, natural climate change, it's just that for the first time in modern history (not even the first time in human history - we were nearly wiped out once before, and that was before we were doing anything relevant to the climate) we are observing it, and possibly making it zig rather than zag.

Sure there have been many climate changes over billions of years. And in 2018 we do have a far better grasp of the various factors that have changed the earths climate and the consequences of these events.

But in 2018 we are watching the earth heating up at a rate unparalleled in history. In geological terms 50-100 years is a blink of an eye. But in this period of time we are observing changes to temperatures on land and sea, accelerating melting of ice caps, changes in weather patterns and extremes of weather events that are not part of our recent experience.

Why is this happening ? Regardless of your ramblings this current climate change is absolutely no xxxxxxxx mystery at all Sadajii.

Scientists are certain that increasing Greenhouse gases will trap more heat and , all else being equal, warm the earth. Humans have poured billions of extra tons of GG into the atmosphere in the last 50-100 years and as a direct consequence
1) CO2 levels are now at their highest level for 800,000 years
2) We are cooking

 

[wayneL]

1) CO2 levels are now at their highest level for 800,000 years
2) We are cooking

If so, nothing us Ozzies can do to change that, ergo:

3) Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

 

[Sdajii]

Watch the elbows Sdajii. Seriously it is often better to say little and have people wonder if your a fool rather than spill your guts and prove it beyond doubt.



Sure there have been many climate changes over billions of years. And in 2018 we do have a far better grasp of the various factors that have changed the earths climate and the consequences of these events.

But in 2018 we are watching the earth heating up at a rate unparalleled in history. In geological terms 50-100 years is a blink of an eye. But in this period of time we are observing changes to temperatures on land and sea, accelerating melting of ice caps, changes in weather patterns and extremes of weather events that are not part of our recent experience.

Why is this happening ? Regardless of your ramblings this current climate change is absolutely no xxxxxxxx mystery at all Sadajii.

Scientists are certain that increasing Greenhouse gases will trap more heat and , all else being equal, warm the earth. Humans have poured billions of extra tons of GG into the atmosphere in the last 50-100 years and as a direct consequence
1) CO2 levels are now at their highest level for 800,000 years
2) We are cooking

Are you lying or just mislead? Perhaps you should take your own advice.

The current rate of change is not unprecedented. Not by a long shot. It's not even that unusual.

This isn't me making things up. If you can't be bothered looking anything up, just consider some hard, raw, undisputed facts. Consider the amount of change required to freeze things to the point the sea levels dropped so that PNG and Australia were one single land mass, and the UK with mainland Europe (and countless other examples all around the world). Massive, right? Now consider that *many times* over just the last few *tens of thousands of years* this has occurred, and then reversed, and then back again, and so on. This rate of change is not constant or on a nice stable sine wave, it is chaotic, and when it moves, at times, it really moves.

It is a myth that the current rate of change is unprecedented. Climate scientists themselves do not make this claim and they know it is not true. Media exaggeration, social media gossip, etc, formed this myth.

CO2 levels are at their highest level for 800,000 years, but interestingly, the temperature is not. CO2 is not the biggest factor in the climate situation, not by a very long shot. Water vapour is far, far more important. CO2 is mostly a distraction, so that people don't look at the more important environmental issues such as land clearing and toxic pollution.

Again, I am not saying the climate doesn't change (amazingly, I am often accused of this immediately after describing how massively it routinely does!), and I am not saying humans are having no effect (again, I am often accused of making this claim immediately after saying humans obviously are - clearly, the climate alarmists don't know how to think, they just know how to regurgitate familiar catch phrases like 'climate denier' and the familiar accusations, despite them making no sense in reference to me, which really shows where their heads are at).

Your claims are false, your information is incorrect.

 

[Smurf1976]

CO2 levels are at their highest level for 800,000 years, but interestingly, the temperature is not.

Commonsense says it will take quite some time for the temperature to stabilise following any change in those things which influence it.

How long I won't claim to know but I'd expect the answer would be measured in decades given the mass involved (rough estimate, someone has likely worked it out properly).

As for silly questions, I'll simply note that the standard of discussion and debate on ASF is an order of magnitude higher than that which takes place in parliament and via the mainstream media these days. ASF would be a very long way down the list of places to find people raising silly questions.

 

[Sdajii]

Sure, there's likely to be a lag in the effect. The effect is likely to be negligible if we look at actual data rather than political narratives and biased reports. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, pretty much negligible compared to others, especially water.

But it's funny you ignore all the blatantly obvious stuff which shoots your narrative down and focus only on an unknown.

The climate has warmed by around 75% of 1 degree Celcius in the last 100 years. If you know anything at all about climate science, it is absolutely off the chart ludicrous to say that has never happened before humans started playing around, and no climate scientist makes that claim. Even with their bias, they can't say something that utterly absurd. The scientifically illiterate media, however, can, and their scientifically illiterate viewers blindly believe like the sheep they are. Never mind the virtually perfect record of climate scientists to get their predictions wrong in the direction of prediction things far more extreme than what eventuates; everyone just ignores that and continues believing that the new predictions must be accurate! It is literal insanity for anyone informed, ignorance and gullibility for most of the others, or in some cases, literal insanity, to believe the mainstream version of the story as delivered to the public.

 

[SirRumpole]

so that people don't look at the more important environmental issues such as land clearing and toxic pollution.

Good point, but they are still a result of human actions, and their relative importance compared to co2 is debatable.

If you know anything at all about climate science, it is absolutely off the chart ludicrous to say that has never happened before humans started playing around, and no climate scientist makes that claim.

Maybe if humans were around at those times they would have been wiped out. If we want that to happen now, then we should just sit back and do nothing.

 

[Darc Knight]

And herein lies the problem; the deniers, whatever their motives (financial or otherwise) are preventing change, change which is needed to protect the planet and ourselves.

 

[cynic]

And herein lies the problem; the deniers, whatever their motives (financial or otherwise) are preventing change, change which is needed to protect the planet and ourselves.

Herein lies the problem; the zealots expect the heretics to support their apocalyptic religion.

 

[Darc Knight]

Herein lies the problem; the zealots expect the heretics to support their apocalyptic religion.

Better to err on the side of caution and take a bit pain than to risk the possible consequences of doing nothing.

 

[cynic]

Better to err on the side of caution and take a bit pain than to risk the possible consequences of doing nothing.

When was the last time you attended a confessional?