This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

Jump to new

Admit it Sifu, Bas and Explod finally worn you out.
 

I second that WayneL. I have lived very frugaly, grow my own vegetables, lights off when leaving a room, heat room only when occupied, compost all that is compostable. Buy food as we need it, buy recycled clothes, recycled books, buy economical cars, no big SUVs. Buy virtually no prepared food. Cook from scratch. The most recent furniture I bought was about 25 years ago. My art is done on a computer, so no wasteful artist supplies. Computer stuff is the only exception.

CC isn't a political extremism, it is a cult pure and simple. All this is coming when I am stronger.
 
luutzu said:
Yes, true. But that still doesn't make it better or normal to not give a damn. Or pretend that a lump of coal is harmless and won't bite.
Click to expand...
Agreed there. Renewable energy beats coal most certainly.

I have always been a "put your money where your mouth is" person however. I'm not advocating that anyone lives in a cave or goes without modern technology but we desperately need to move away from this idea of replacing perfectly good electronics, clothes and even houses just because someone decided that a different colour or removing a button was the latest fashion.

That's crazy in the extreme and this idea that TV's last one or two years and houses are knocked down after 40 or 50 years just isn't in any way sustainable.

Go anywhere in Europe and you'll find plenty of buildings which are many hundreds of years old and they're still in full time use today. When they say it was built in the year 450 that's not an error. Heck even in Australia we've got stuff dating back to the time of European settlement of that town or city so it can be done yes.
 
Ann said:
What are you talking about? What 40C hotter, where did I say that?
Click to expand...
I did Ann, and it was in the arctic last winter. I follow all climate news constantly. Fake is for those who choose blind self comfort over reality
 
Isn't it amazing how many CC deniers on ASF are actually frugal, conservationists who are living carefully, recycling their water and growing their own food ! All power to you folks.

It reminds me of George Monbiot. Wayne will immediately remember him from our CC discussions 8-10 years ago. Interestingly enough George was absolutely on heat with CC and in fact wrote a book on it. Also wrote many detailed , well researched articles in The Guardian outlining the disaster of CC.

And then he switched tack. He decided (it seems) that there are only so many ways you can explain CC to people who keep their fingers in the ears and "La. La la". He recognised (and knew) that in fact there are many issues that are destroying the world as we know it. Over consumption and destruction of nature are high on the list. He decided that what the world needed was "re-wilding". Effectively restoring previous environments that had been lost as a result of what we call progress. He also believs this activity offers a very positive vibe for people. His website offers a range of stories on his work in that arena.

https://www.monbiot.com/
https://orionmagazine.org/article/the-great-rewilding/
http://www.danielvitalis.com/rewild...lding-land-people-wildlife-george-monbiot-171
 
Their estimates were low Sdajji.

You claim to be a scientist yet you arent following the data. Its all opinion!
No evidence. No consistency.
Natural climate of course is relevant but there are no acting factors towards warming at present yet there are clear factors as per the graph that clearly indicate correlation.
You are the clasdic denialist, full of insults and lacking scientific
understanding.
If you have any...any..even a small amount of evidence that the amazing global warming of the last 40 years is being caused by natural climate factors then produce it.
And cut repeating the paid for propaganda like a parrot. It makes you sound gullible.
 
basilio said:
Isn't it amazing how many CC deniers on ASF are actually frugal, conservationists who are living carefully, recycling their water and growing their own food ! All power to you folks.
1
Click to expand...
And yet you persist with the purulent logical fallacy of "denial".

The data shows the irony, sceptics and moderates do more for the planet than alarmists. Earth is far better off with "deniers" than virtue signalling alarmists.

The paradox....
 
explod said:
Rubbish Ann, polar regions suddenly measuring 40c hotter in their winters.

Yes we have had it in the past but if you have studied the records it has happened gradually except for the Volcanic one and the meteorite hit one.
Click to expand...

Ann said:
What are you talking about? What 40C hotter, where did I say that?
Click to expand...

explod said:
I did Ann, and it was in the arctic last winter. I follow all climate news constantly. Fake is for those who choose blind self comfort over reality
Click to expand...

I think you mean -40 degrees C ! Stop following the climate news and try to keep up with it! Poles apart as they say explod
 
explod said:
Rubbish Ann, polar regions suddenly measuring 40c hotter in their winters.

Yes we have had it in the past but if you have studied the records it has happened gradually except for the Volcanic one and the meteorite hit one.
Click to expand...

This is a common misconception. The climate scientists don't say this. Various forms of media exaggerate or blatantly misrepresent what climate scientists say, and then others parrot it.

Actual climate scientists debate whether the current rate of change is the greatest in the last few hundred years or the last few thousand years. Virtually none think it was more than about 5,000 years ago that the climate changed more rapidly than now.

Again, to give some perspective, land bridges have come and gone between Australia and PNG, UK and mainland Europe, etc etc, many times over the last few tens of thousands of years. This isn't just one long process which took a few thousand years and happened once, it has happened many times over just tens of thousands of years, and often when it happens, it happens quite quickly. Stop and actually think about how dramatic the climate change is for that to happen, and consider that when it happens, it happens quite quickly as opposed to long gradual changes (google yourself up a climate chart of the last few 10s of thousands of years - the data is freely available and comes from climate scientist consensus).
 

I am literally a scientist, as in, I have qualifications and work history as a scientist. This isn't just an arbitrary claim.

It is all supported by evidence or is self evident eg there is a clear, obvious bias climate scientists have, which anyone with an IQ in the double digits should be capable of recognising. This is not vague opinion, it is clear as the midday sun on a clear summer day.

Correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

It is remarkable that you use many insults, yet hypocritically accuse me of using insults.

Your last line is incredibly ironic. What I talk about literally comes directly from my experience discussing climate data with climate scientists while working as a scientists on projects directly relating to climate science. Someone is indeed repeating propaganda like a parrot, but it isn't me. I am not a denier, I fully acknowledge that people are having an impact on the climate. The deniers don't say this. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone with any notable platform saying what I am saying, because it doesn't fit with either side's agenda. Not surprisingly, that means people on both sides accuse me of believing the lies of the other. Both sides are indeed disingenuous. You are indeed correct that most of what we hear is propaganda with political bias, and this is true of most of what we hear in the media other than what is there to distract us (celebrity gossip, etc). That being the case it should be obvious that we should be sceptical of the loudest propaganda, which is exactly what you are blindly believing.
 
I'll avoid any personal conflicts and just say that with most things the truth is somewhere in the middle.

My avatar is the control panel at an old but fully functional and in current use hydro power station.

I also have some lumps of coal, black as well as brown, should anyone need them. I've got some oil shale too just in case.

That would sum up my view really. Altering the earth's atmosphere is going to have consequences of some sort almost certainly, that's just commonsense, but it is also very likely that some individuals or organisations will make alarmist claims in pursuit of whatever agenda.

That said, I will not dispute that the planet does appear to be warming.
 
Ann said:
I think you mean -40 degrees C ! Stop following the climate news and try to keep up with it! Poles apart as they say explod
Click to expand...
In the arctic winters it is normally 40 to 60 below. In the last winter it was at zero at times and this particularly alarmed the monitoring scientists. My posts said 40 above the normal when in fact I could have emphasized it at the actual 40 to 60 above normal.

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2018/03/09/482836.htm

Note that the article says some 60 hours was around or above the freezing point. I had put other articles up some 6 months back on the climate thread but of course most steer away from what they do not want to know or accept. Truth hurts but not doing something about it if we can is going to be frightfully worse and soon.
 
Smurf1976 said:
I'll avoid any personal conflicts and just say that with most things the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Click to expand...

This much is true, and it makes intuitive sense. Wherever the story of reality sits, it can be skewed in either direction. This is the case with most issues.

Everyone with any significant platform on the issue of climate change has inherent bias. Virtually all scientists, some governments (mostly wealthier and more powerful ones) and some businesses and virtually all mainstream media are biased towards alarmism. The reasons for this are obvious. Some individual politicians in wealthy governments, some governments as a whole and some businesses are biased towards denial. Not surprisingly, we end up with these two opposing views, both of which are both wrong and disingenuous. Anyone speaking without bias and based on evidence is attacked by both sides. Most regular people have no way of understanding any of this and just get brainwashed by one side or the other, and attack anyone being rational, believing they are on the opposite side, which they consider to be wrong.

In most respects the alarmists are more wrong than the denialists, although it is fundamentally more stupid to deny that humans are having zero impact (then again, relatively few of them actually literally make that claim, despite frequently being accused of it).

Our impact is far smaller than the political/media narrative makes out (this is inherently obvious, given the inherent bias towards exaggeration, which should be overwhelmingly clear to anyone who isn't lobotomised). The impact from climate change will be far less than the alarmists say, this is equally obvious for similar reasons; obviously we get the most extreme version they can justify or get away with putting out, so first principles tells us this. Whether man made or natural, climate change will still cause problems, and this too is an issue. Given that even 100% natural climate change would be destructive, which would occur even if we were literally never doing anything to influence the climate, and we aren't even capable of stopping climate change, and climate change wouldn't stop even if we all ceased to exist, we clearly have the wrong focus.

The political/economic motives for the lie that climate change is all about carbon emissions are so obvious it is ridiculous, but the mainstream media is controlled by the folks controlling the narrative, and the scientifically ignorant masses will simply blindly follow what they are told.

One of the big ones is that if we say carbon is the devil and we charge big taxes on carbon emissions, we can stifle competition from being established; the big get bigger and small never get to exist in the first place, which is what the big ones want, both in terms of companies and countries - this is an effective strategy to prevent third world/poorer countries from establishing industries based on cheap, carbon-emitting practises other nations used to get themselves established. It doesn't mean carbon emissions go down of course, no no, China is still expanding its usage of coal despite an out of context propaganda campaign to try to make people think otherwise (the raw figures are freely available if you actually want to look them up), etc etc, but they can afford it.

The majority of people though, will simply believe what they are told, which is the most extreme version of alarmism they can possibly manage to put out without being too blatant to make it obvious to too many people.
 
Sdajii said:
The political/economic motives for the lie that climate change is all about carbon emissions are so obvious it is ridiculous
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough, you can provide no evidence, just opinion, so let's take it on "faith*" that you are correct and scientists, the media are all biased and people are sheep, most with IQs below two digits.
It's usual however for a scientist to have a counter theory when the facts do not align with the data.

def*: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
 
Last edited:

@Knobby22 & @Sdajii

This is why we are traders, our convictions & our core belief differ...

Conviction

A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.

Our core belief system

Our core Belief System refers to the idea that our thoughts, feelings and actions are programmed and set in stone.

When we change our belief system by discarding old beliefs, just as when we change or upgrade software, we immediately get positive changes in our performance. We get immediate improvements in how we think, feel, act and live.

Deeply ingrained

Our belief system is so deeply ingrained in us, but if people are open to the idea of altering their belief system there would be change for the better in them by moving out negative mental beliefs and replacing them with positive ones.

The main issue

People believe what it pleases them to believe.

Humans reject information right in front of their eyes because it is contrary to what they want to believe.

Skate.
 

No faith required. It's surprising you fail to see the blatantly obvious.

The primary, or at least most obvious bias climate scientists have is keeping their jobs. If climate scientists say "No worries, mate, we don't really need to fuss about this climate stuff, I'll just sit here and gather relatively innocuous data, there's not much we can do to influence climate and we really don't have much ability to predict anything", do you really need more than a double digit IQ to see how much funding they're likely to get, compared to if they say "Oh my god!!! The sky is falling and we're in dire trouble! Please give me more funding so I can work out what we need to do and give you more information about what is going to happen!!! This is utterly urgent, and probably the most critical issue facing the world today!!!"

This is not faith, this is just the obvious real world situation anyone with any sense can easily see. It doesn't take a genius to see this concept.

And good grief, do you honestly need me to explain the bias in the media? *sigh* if so...

TV news channel 1 says there was a 15 foot tsunami with little chance of human casualties. Channel 2 saying eyewitness reports estimate the tsunami was 25 foot high, casualties unknown. Channel 3 says completely disingenuously "Estimates show the tsunami was 30 foot high and may have high human casualties!" Can you guess which news station or newspaper will get the highest ratings? Hint: the reality of the tsunami is irrelevant.

Okay, so that's just the ratings aspect, the raw concept which has been biasing news services since forever ago. Now, consider that maybe, just maybe, and I know this is a radical idea, but maybe, mainstream media companies have ties to powerful people and conglomerates with political agendas. I know this is a radical notion, but hey, just consider that possibility if you are brave enough.

But hey, say I am just imagining these things, they are not true because I lack evidence, and am just working on faith.

You know who is working on faith? People who just believe the mainstream media narratives *because they have faith in them* despite the blatantly obvious biases clearly inherent in the system.
 

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?
 
The big thing people fail to understand about the media is what they are in fact doing.

If I hold a press conference tomorrow morning, or simply put out a media release, then the media will report what I said and will probably do so with reasonable accuracy.

What the media will not do is verify that what I said is true.

So if some economics guru says the ASX 200 is about to go up 10% over the next month then the media reports that as the economics guru said that the ASX 200 is about to go up 10%. That doesn't in any way mean the newspaper is telling you they think the market is going up or that there is any evidence to suggest this will occur. All it means is they are reporting that the economics guru said it is going up. Very different.

Just my observation as someone who's not in the media but who has seen how it works through previous employment in an industry that has plenty to say. The media reports what was said at the press conference or is written in the media release, they don't seek to confirm whether or not that is really true.

Anything which is the actual opinion of or has been verified by the media organisation will be editorial material and carry the name of whoever wrote it. TV and radio news doesn't generally do this and with newspapers it's only a small portion of what's printed on any given day. The rest is just reporting what someone else said or wrote.

I'd take a guess that the majority of the population fails to recognise the distinction there
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?
220 221 222
Replies
4K
Views
304K
basilio
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...