Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

Climate science denial is littered with mud slinging.
When push comes to shove they retreat completely or quickly shift their argument.
The catchphrase "follow the money" often used by denialists is usually linked back to Al Gore. Yet he became wealthy for reasons other than his climate activism: a fact escaping denialists who love to use him as their poster boy.
If the reality I am refusing to see, according to moXJO, is a big business machine supporting activism, then I should be able to easily find it. Instead I have been asking my local parliamentary representatives about what they are doing or will do regarding mitigation. I would be very happy if there was a big business machine supporting activism that I could instead go to.
I thought moXJO could help me out, but unless I join the dots apparently I will never know.
Whenever I have "followed the money" on climate activism it has lead to the very opposite of what denialists suggest. It's led to a myriad of well funded organisations actively denying there is a problem with CO2, or that climate is "always changing," or the scientists are mistaken.
Serious attempts at following the money mostly lead back to fossil fuel interests, but nowadays are cleverly hidden from the average journalist.
Forums in the gamut of websites around the world where opinions on climate can be aired are drip-fed with lies and distortions. And these get built on by those who fall for their nonsense.
WayneL's recent twitter posts in this thread are a prime example. The article in The Australian (post 2556) is actually very good, and is about trying to get the UN’s sustainable development agenda for 2030 funded as it was intended. It has nothing to do with "a new world order" per se as the tweet suggests but, instead, how global financing needs to change in order to tackle climate and environmental issues at multilateral levels.
Kids marching for action on climate haven't fallen for the BS on forums like this and are not being "manipulated," contrary to so many claims from denialists. They don't yet have the vote so are trying to get their message to decision makers in a more visible manner.
Maybe they will have better luck than the scientists whose message they are trying to have heard.

rederob said:

The article in The Australian (post 2556) is actually very good, and is about trying to get the UN’s sustainable development agenda for 2030 funded as it was intended. It has nothing to do with "a new world order" per se as the tweet suggests but, instead, how global financing needs to change in order to tackle climate and environmental issues at multilateral levels.

Click to expand...

Intriguing (but not surprising) how such a story can be distorted to fit a "New world order" agenda.

rederob said:

Climate science denial is littered with mud slinging.
When push comes to shove they retreat completely or quickly shift their argument.
The catchphrase "follow the money" often used by denialists is usually linked back to Al Gore. Yet he became wealthy for reasons other than his climate activism: a fact escaping denialists who love to use him as their poster boy.
If the reality I am refusing to see, according to moXJO, is a big business machine supporting activism, then I should be able to easily find it. Instead I have been asking my local parliamentary representatives about what they are doing or will do regarding mitigation. I would be very happy if there was a big business machine supporting activism that I could instead go to.
I thought moXJO could help me out, but unless I join the dots apparently I will never know.
Whenever I have "followed the money" on climate activism it has lead to the very opposite of what denialists suggest. It's led to a myriad of well funded organisations actively denying there is a problem with CO2, or that climate is "always changing," or the scientists are mistaken.
Serious attempts at following the money mostly lead back to fossil fuel interests, but nowadays are cleverly hidden from the average journalist.
Forums in the gamut of websites around the world where opinions on climate can be aired are drip-fed with lies and distortions. And these get built on by those who fall for their nonsense.
WayneL's recent twitter posts in this thread are a prime example. The article in The Australian (post 2556) is actually very good, and is about trying to get the UN’s sustainable development agenda for 2030 funded as it was intended. It has nothing to do with "a new world order" per se as the tweet suggests but, instead, how global financing needs to change in order to tackle climate and environmental issues at multilateral levels.
Kids marching for action on climate haven't fallen for the BS on forums like this and are not being "manipulated," contrary to so many claims from denialists. They don't yet have the vote so are trying to get their message to decision makers in a more visible manner.
Maybe they will have better luck than the scientists whose message they are trying to have heard.

Click to expand...

It is a version of-if you cannot win an argument ,stuff it up!

chiff said:

It is a version of-if you cannot win an argument ,stuff it up!

Click to expand...

Alternatively put wagging school children and a Swedish 16 year old girl up front to argue for you. Why, you'd be a perfect beast to contradict them!

Logique said:

Alternatively put wagging school children and a Swedish 16 year old girl up front to argue for you. Why, you'd be a perfect beast to contradict them!

Click to expand...

Try again Logique.

You are not arguing with Greta and the people who support for work.
Every single thing she says is is just the distillation of the the thousands of climate scientists, biologists, glaciologists, botanists who have been telling us for years what has been happening to our climate as a result of global warming.

I suppose the social problem is that when a 16 year can see and articulate the issue so clearly it does challenge those who have being in denial since Moses was a lad.

Rob is full of it.
Climate puritan's blinded by their own sanctimonious bs generally try and discredit and label you a denier without any evidence. So I will go over how the business of climate (and most other business work). And how they all tie into one another over the next few posts.

I accept the science. But if you don't accept the science enough then guys like rob try and discredit you based on nothing. There are organizations that target anyone of note speaking out as well with similar tactics. So lets peel the lid back a bit shall we.

Lets first start with Roger Pielke Jr as the first example of how the activists side works. He was a fairly moderate climate scientist. But his message wasn't strong enough for some in the CC community. Now if you deny or create any confusion in the science, you will get drummed out.
Heres one of his articles pretty moderate.
He believed in reducing carbon. But not some of the data coming out on weather. His words: "I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather." He was then basically silenced and branded "Big Oil".
Heres a bit about his story:https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic-1480723518

He also called out Romm to debate but Romm wouldn't do it.

This happened a few years back so more data has come to light so here is an updated post from him with timeline


Couple of names we need to remember from this: Podesta, Tom Steyer, Center for American Progress.

Now lets be clear so rob doesn't go off on another tangent. I'm not interested in if Roger was right or wrong. Its the link of activism/donors/government we are looking at ultimately and how business profits. Some of their tactics also need to be exposed, along with the groups funding it.

So thats his story.

Now we have further proof through the Podesta emails that were released over who coordinated the whole thing.
John Podesta was an advisor for the dems his brother was a lobbyist who went belly up when Hillary lost and then tied into the Ukraine scandal. Will cover this later.

Here is one of the emails that was leaked:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/19569

"The email was sent by Judd Legum, the editor of ThinkProgress, a site that’s part of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the advocacy arm of the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, which was founded by Podesta in 2003.

In his email to billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, Legum described how he believed Climate Progress, the environmental arm of ThinkProgress, got Pielke to stop writing about climate change for FiveThirtyEight."

Center for American Progress also wrote more than 160 articles trashing him through the media. They wrote about 200 for George bush. Those writers ended up at vox and guardian to name a few.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/rogerpielkejr.com/2016/11/14/wikileaks-and-me/amp/

I'll cover lobbying, rentseekers, astroturfing and how activism is used in the next post. This isn't "Green" exclusive by the way. Theres lobbying on either sides.

I'm in no way saying: everyone for climate science has fake intentions. I have no doubt guys like plod, bas, kahuna have genuine motives. I am saying that business will profit immensely and will use PR exercises to do it. Just because its green doesn't mean there isn't greedy business involved.

This isn't some "conspiracy theory" all this happened there are plenty of links for further investigation. All rob has is trying to discredit off nothing.

moXJO said:

Rob is full of it.

Click to expand...

Still no ability to show where this "big business machine" is, despite me asking and asking.
And you go the diversion path.
So let's tackle some of your points:

moXJO said:

His words: "I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather."

Click to expand...

The frequency of hurricane type events is forecast to decline according to most climate scientists.
Frequency of extreme weather events other than hurricane/cyclone etc., has been and remains problematic because of "attribution" issues and the veracity/reliability of long term data for comparative purposes. Nevertheless, we know for certain that a warmer atmosphere can carry more water and therefore be more likely to lead to floods when previously they did not. We know that droughts will be more severe, even if not longer in duration. We also know that the propensity for bush/forest fires to increase in number due to longer warm/hot seasons is most probable. Finally, we know that atmospheric physics ensures that greater energy in a system of any sort will lead to greater intensity of a weather event. These are points broadly accepted in climate science, but not reflected in Pielke's comments.
The remainder of you post was nothing to do with activism being a "big business machine" and more about politics.
Your point "that business will profit immensely" is trivial - that's why businesses are in business. And it's no secret that businesses can be dishonest and greedy.
I'm not really sure where you are heading. You seem to have confused wealthy vested interests and politics with actual "activism."

rederob said:

Climate science denial is littered with mud slinging.
When push comes to shove they retreat completely or quickly shift their argument.
The catchphrase "follow the money" often used by denialists is usually linked back to Al Gore. Yet he became wealthy for reasons other than his climate activism: a fact escaping denialists who love to use him as their poster boy.
If the reality I am refusing to see, according to moXJO, is a big business machine supporting activism, then I should be able to easily find it. Instead I have been asking my local parliamentary representatives about what they are doing or will do regarding mitigation. I would be very happy if there was a big business machine supporting activism that I could instead go to.
I thought moXJO could help me out, but unless I join the dots apparently I will never know.
Whenever I have "followed the money" on climate activism it has lead to the very opposite of what denialists suggest. It's led to a myriad of well funded organisations actively denying there is a problem with CO2, or that climate is "always changing," or the scientists are mistaken.
Serious attempts at following the money mostly lead back to fossil fuel interests, but nowadays are cleverly hidden from the average journalist.
Forums in the gamut of websites around the world where opinions on climate can be aired are drip-fed with lies and distortions. And these get built on by those who fall for their nonsense.
WayneL's recent twitter posts in this thread are a prime example. The article in The Australian (post 2556) is actually very good, and is about trying to get the UN’s sustainable development agenda for 2030 funded as it was intended. It has nothing to do with "a new world order" per se as the tweet suggests but, instead, how global financing needs to change in order to tackle climate and environmental issues at multilateral levels.
Kids marching for action on climate haven't fallen for the BS on forums like this and are not being "manipulated," contrary to so many claims from denialists. They don't yet have the vote so are trying to get their message to decision makers in a more visible manner.
Maybe they will have better luck than the scientists whose message they are trying to have heard.

Click to expand...

rederob said:

Still no ability to show where this "big business machine" is, despite me asking and asking.
And you go the diversion path.
So let's tackle some of your points:
The frequency of hurricane type events is forecast to decline according to most climate scientists.
Frequency of extreme weather events other than hurricane/cyclone etc., has been and remains problematic because of "attribution" issues and the veracity/reliability of long term data for comparative purposes. Nevertheless, we know for certain that a warmer atmosphere can carry more water and therefore be more likely to lead to floods when previously they did not. We know that droughts will be more severe, even if not longer in duration. We also know that the propensity for bush/forest fires to increase in number due to longer warm/hot seasons is most probable. Finally, we know that atmospheric physics ensures that greater energy in a system of any sort will lead to greater intensity of a weather event. These are points broadly accepted in climate science, but not reflected in Pielke's comments.
The remainder of you post was nothing to do with activism being a "big business machine" and more about politics.
Your point "that business will profit immensely" is trivial - that's why businesses are in business. And it's no secret that businesses can be dishonest and greedy.
I'm not really sure where you are heading. You seem to have confused wealthy vested interests and politics with actual "activism."

Click to expand...

Once again you didn't read the post and just took the bits you wanted to in an attempt to discredit.

moXJO said:

I will go over how the business of climate (and most other business work). And how they all tie into one another over the next few posts.

Click to expand...

moXJO said:

Now lets be clear so rob doesn't go off on another tangent. I'm not interested in if Roger was right or wrong. Its the link of activism/donors/government we are looking at ultimately and how business profits. Some of their tactics also need to be exposed, along with the groups funding

Click to expand...

moXJO said:

I'll cover lobbying, rentseekers, astroturfing and how activism is used in the next post. This isn't "Green" exclusive by the way. Theres lobbying on either sides.

Click to expand...

Wealthy vested interests that fund activism through a variety of companies to get an end result.
You want the big business and how it operates then back away with another sideline.

I'll post the lot over a series of posts.

Activism is used to change government positions I'll post a link on a paper related to exactly this. It is then used by various pr companies to astroturf.

I know because my tribe is involved in the same thing with the nz govt.

moXJO said:

Once again you didn't read the post and just took the bits you wanted to in an attempt to discredit.

Click to expand...

I commented on what was worth commenting on, and your claim was false.
You said:

moXJO said:

Now if you deny or create any confusion in the science, you will get drummed out.

Click to expand...

This is just a rubbish claim. If you offer up good science it gets accepted for what it is. Pielke's claims on weather events were curious in that climate science was not saying the things he attributed to them, so your quote is a black kettle.

moXJO said:

Wealthy vested interests that fund activism through a variety of companies to get an end result.

Click to expand...

You claimed activism is a big business machine, and it clearly is nothing of the sort.
You continue to be very confused in your posts.
How about you post on actual climate science and leave the periphery to those who like to play in the mud?

rederob said:

I commented on what was worth commenting on, and your claim was false.
You said:This is just a rubbish claim. If you offer up good science it gets accepted for what it is. Pielke's claims on weather events were curious in that climate science was not saying the things he attributed to them, so your quote is a black kettle.
You claimed activism is a big business machine, and it clearly is nothing of the sort.
You continue to be very confused in your posts.
How about you post on actual climate science and leave the periphery to those who like to play in the mud?

Click to expand...

Mines backed up with history yours is backed up with dribble. He never had a problem with people debating his ideas. But thats not what happened and now you're lying about that.

rederob said:

You claimed activism is a big business machine, and it clearly is nothing of the sort.
You continue to be very confused in your posts.
How about you post on actual climate science and leave the periphery to those who like to play in the mud?

Click to expand...

"Is" part of the big machine.
You asked the question. I have links from the horses mouth and now you want me to stop?

I'd rather expose you as a climate puritan dribbler....

moXJO said:

"Is" part of the big machine.
You asked the question. I have links from the horses mouth and now you want me to stop?
I'd rather expose you as a climate puritan dribbler....

Click to expand...

Indeed moXJO, the grown ups are wise to them, so next, they wheel out the poor indoctrinated children. We're supposed to attack the children, that is the trap they hope we'll fall into.

Explod, you're better than this. You of all people, to associate with this! To exploit children in this way, you know it's not right.

Moderators and host Joe: this and any subsequent 'Climate' threads, should be disallowed on ASF.

Any moral authority the 'climate emergency' boosters may have had, it has been lost

For a million years .... the deep permafrost has been frozen.

It contains 2 trillion or so tons of CO2 trapped. For the record that's 3 times all CO2 humanity has released !! Mixed with even worse frozen Methane.

Much like fossil fuels did .... old vegetation squished into coal or Algae into oil ... this stuff IS ... or should I say frozen. None of this is in IPCC estimates of maybe 2 degrees by 2100 ... because its not meant to occur ever ... according to Saudi Arabia and USA oil and gas interests.

This Video is how futile debating or even discussing the issue is.
75% by extent of cover protecting the permafrost from being release IS GONE ...
90% by volume .... basically all multi year ice is now gone.

I did ask some of the more virulent and dogma types denying any climate issue what aspects of science they did not agree with .... 20 of them. One idiot disputed every single one of them. ALL of them.

Every single one .... CO2 levels going back a million year, via ice bubbles trapped in deep Antarctic .... nope ... CO2 heats things ? Nope .... Measured via 20 ground stations and since 1979 satellites on the temperature .... denied.


I note ... this strange debate whether asbestos filled carcinogenics as to whether they are good for you if also added to cigarettes is denied .... disputed and strangely supported by some. Inhale .... PLEASE inhale after you have built such a cigarette !!


Sadly a picture speaks volumes.



I NOTE ... the nuttiest of the climate deniers, now follows me from thread to thread on this site.

I love you !!! Little man. Inhale !!

On the Arctic Ice and Permafrost ... does it look like its going to melt soon ? Pre 2050 ? It would seem to be a starting date for the release of more CO2 than 150 years of humanity has managed to be released to start and likely occur.

It's not about morals.
It's not about world government.
It's not about political correctness or whose paying for what. These are all irrelevant.

It's just reality, .........unfortunately.

Knobby22 said:

It's not about morals.
It's not about world government.
It's not about political correctness or whose paying for what. These are all irrelevant.

It's just reality, .........unfortunately.

Click to expand...

They are not irrelevant. If governments and major players do not get on board then it will continue on.
How long did it take just for health warnings on cigarettes?
It took an extremely long time and millions died.

Which goes back to my original point. Climate change is being sold to those who are already on board.

moXJO said:

They are not irrelevant. If governments and major players do not get on board then it will continue on.
How long did it take just for health warnings on cigarettes?
It took an extremely long time and millions died.

Which goes back to my original point. Climate change is being sold to those who are already on board.

Click to expand...

I agree. I suppose I was trying to say there are a lot of distractions, deliberate or not, and this stops progress. I suppose it's human nature.

Whilst I've decided to steer clear of this thread for the reasons I've stated, I'll make one exception and say this.

I do find it frustrating the extent to which this issue has become subject to saturation coverage to the point of excluding other things which are perfectly legitimate.

Without going into detail I want the green one. That's the green one as in the red one. All I can find online diverts me to the subject of CO2 which has nothing to do with it at all. Google automatically associates "green" with "CO2" it seems.

It's like finding that someone's tuned every button on an older type car radio to the same station, finding that the drinks fridge in a shop contains nothing but 10 different brands of water or being forced to listen to the recorded announcement on a hot food van non stop all day. Making, baking, cooking all the while.....

The issue is serious, I get that, but it's annoying to say the least and not helping the cause in the slightest when it just becomes a nuisance.

Logique said:

Indeed moXJO, the grown ups are wise to them, so next, they wheel out the poor indoctrinated children. We're supposed to attack the children, that is the trap they hope we'll fall into.

Click to expand...

Actually you should address the issue they raise.
All you do is keep shooting the messenger.
If that is the best you have, then don't bother posting here.

Logique said:

Any moral authority the 'climate emergency' boosters may have had, it has been lost

Click to expand...

Given that Thunberg's message is consistently about the science of climate change, you are creating a false argument.

moXJO said:

Which goes back to my original point. Climate change is being sold to those who are already on board.

Click to expand...

That comment flies in the face of WHY global marches took place.
Action on climate change mitigation is too slow and inadequate, and that's apart from the outright denial and obfuscation that continues, even from you.

Smurf1976 said:

Whilst I've decided to steer clear of this thread for the reasons I've stated, I'll make one exception and say this.

I do find it frustrating the extent to which this issue has become subject to saturation coverage to the point of excluding other things which are perfectly legitimate.

Without going into detail I want the green one. That's the green one as in the red one. All I can find online diverts me to the subject of CO2 which has nothing to do with it at all. Google automatically associates "green" with "CO2" it seems.

It's like finding that someone's tuned every button on an older type car radio to the same station, finding that the drinks fridge in a shop contains nothing but 10 different brands of water or being forced to listen to the recorded announcement on a hot food van non stop all day. Making, baking, cooking all the while.....

The issue is serious, I get that, but it's annoying to say the least and not helping the cause in the slightest when it just becomes a nuisance.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Are you saying people are being pressured to buy products because they are "green", ie don't require as much co2 to make ? I haven't seen much advertising flogging green products, but then I don't watch commercial tv that much.