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

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new

Good old noco, information minimum, insults maximum.

I doubt if the new year will bring any improvement.

 
bellenuit said:
Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/u...ate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

I guess it is a matter of what you want to believe in.

If you are an alarmist you will believe one thing...If you are a skeptic, you will believe in something else.

One is right and one is wrong.

Some believe in God because others have convinced them into believing there is a God whether you have proved it or not and there others who don't believe in God because there is no proof that God exists

There will always be those who are convinced they are right and will always try to persuade others to think like them and it is the same as alarmists and skeptics....It is one scientist against another and sometimes the so called peer reviewed articles have been falsified to to suit the one paying the money...
 
.It is one scientist against another and sometimes the so called peer reviewed articles have been falsified to to suit the one paying the money...
Click to expand...

Well put Noco. As you would have noticed from reading the article that is an excellent summary of Dr Soons work on climate change. He was paid by the fossil fuel industry to produce scientific papers that would dispute the causes of global warming.

He was paid around $1.2m for these papers. Even when they were completely debunked on the basis of flawed data and interpretation climate deniers still routinely quoted Willie Soon.



For complete details of Mr Soons career check out the following URL


______________________________________________________

Additional background on Dr Willie Soons science activities

http://www.polluterwatch.com/willie-soon
 
noco said:
I guess it is a matter of what you want to believe in.
Click to expand...

Says it all really for the common man....every untrained person in science from the Prime Minister down meets that description. As Dr Spock from Star Trek said, humans don't act logically.
 
Never mind the science, this is what I find disturbing and what every one should be resisting. IMO



Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm#ixzz3WmDbWilu
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
 
Good to see you back Wayne. Thought you had turned into a hippy reading that other thread.

Anyway, real article follows.
http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-b...he-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

Note she never said her aim was to destroy capitalism, but I knew this as soon as I saw the denier term "warmist" in the original article. (sigh)

Transforming the economic model does not equate with destroying Capitalism.

Hottest year ever last year!

 
There seems to be conflicting results from different datasets, the interpretation depending whetehr one sides with libertarians or Orwellians.

One simply cannot seriously ignore the political influence upon that.

See woodfortrees.org
 
Very nice site. Love to see a bit of Fourier analysis. If only we had a longer data set.
 
I can't get my head around this:

For close to a Billion years, increasingly complex life forms have captured the sun's energy and converted part of it into carbon compounds against the trend of entropy. Some of these compounds were then buried under sands and water, accumulating a store of Gazillions of Megawatts.

And then humans discovered the secret of liberating the stored energy, using processes that create a small percentage of power and a large amount of heat: a direct consequence of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Doubters, see http://physicsforidiots.com/physics/thermodynamics/

Since the onset of the Industrial Age, humans have been converting the stored sunshine of fossil fuels into heat at an ever increasing rate, using air and water as agents to transport excesses away from the point of heat generation into the Earth's Biosphere where it accumulated and continues to heat the environment.

What I fail to understand: How can intelligent people not understand this simple principle? A process that took hundreds of Millions of years to absorb heat is now reversed within a couple of human generations, releasing the stored heat into the environment. How can the result not be called man-made?

Forget farting cows, belching volcanoes, and fluctuations in sun cycles. Those are natural phenomena that have been happening since the dawn of life, and the mass of oceans and atmosphere has buffered the impact in cycles of Thousands and Millions of years. Human industry is the one factor that's now different, polluting the Earth's Biosphere at a rate that exceeds Earth's capacity of absorption. Whether industrial pollution adds two degrees or ten to the general warming is a moot point. Fact is, it does add at an increasing rate. If that rate is not reversed and the effects neutralised, Earth won't have a Biosphere much longer.
 
Excellent post Pixel. A very critical summary of how we are liberating gigatons of stored carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2 where it is capturing more and more heat from the sun.

You pose the rhetorical question of How can intelligent people not understand this simple principle? Hell Pixel many intelligent people still insist that the earth is not significantly warming and that tens of thousands of climate records are misleading or wrong or altered.

Many intelligent people also insist that the tens of thousands of earth scientists, climate scientists, natural scientists, geologists, who explain what is happening to the cliamte and the effects on our planet are completely mistaken if not deliberate liars.

And finally many very intelligent people can make bucket loads of money selling stories, in many cases creative to ficticious, to the masses, politicians, investors whoever. I appreciate that is a very broad statement which can be interpreted in many ways. But the key point is when one can make far more money selling stories rather than acknowledging more objective truths our society will go for the money.
 
Pixel. Very few sceptics will deny the role of increased co2 in the atmosphere. That isn't the issue.

The issue is the magnitude of effect, the feedbacks and the effect on the environment. In addition, it is not known how other anthropogenic and natural factors play into the mix.

So far, the worst case scenario has not played out at all.

The argument is not binary - catastrophe or nothing. There are infinite possible outcomes. Siding with a particular outcome is an article of faith, rather than science. This is the crux of the sceptics case, not denial as is attempting to be portrayed by some.

Then there are the obvious political agendas polluting proper discourse.....
 
wayneL said:
So far, the worst case scenario has not played out at all.
Click to expand...

Is that perhaps because we are not at 2100 yet ? In any case "the worst case scenario" is catastrophe. An earth that is an average of 6C hotter than currently and incapable of supporting 99% of the current ecosystems and certainly not humans.

There are lesser scenarios. 4C warming. Perhaps 2C warming. These are are barely acceptable scenarios spelt out IF. IF we somehow manage to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the immediate future.

This isn't an academic exercise where being a little off track just means we have to wipe down the whiteboard and recast some figures.

The sad part about the situation is that putting climate change aside we should be moving to a renewable energy based economy and sustainable resource use simply because we will run out of material resources at the rate we are going.

http://skepticalscience.com/climate-best-to-worst-case-scenarios.html
https://gisclimatechange.ucar.edu/
http://www.newscientist.com/article...-worstcase-warming-scenario.html#.VSdXSfDKr1E

______________________________________________

There is a paper that examines and analyses the impacts of projected global warming scenarios and the likelihood of averting these outcomes.

Beyond ‘dangerous’ climate change: emission
scenarios for a new world
Click to expand...
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/20.full.pdf+html
 
Bas

We can also stop thermal runaway.
A few strategically placed nukes, a bit of nuclear winter (not too much) and she'll be right.
I believe there are powerful people in the USA also looking at other less drastic methods.
 
wayneL said:
Pixel. Very few sceptics will deny the role of increased co2 in the atmosphere. That isn't the issue.
Click to expand...
Wayne, I wasn't talking CO2, I was talking anthropogenic waste heat that is directly increasing the temperature of air and water in addition to all the heat that Nature keeps producing.
The issue is the magnitude of effect, the feedbacks and the effect on the environment. In addition, it is not known how other anthropogenic and natural factors play into the mix.

So far, the worst case scenario has not played out at all.
Click to expand...
Lucky for us that it hasn't. But the folks on Vanuatu may have different thoughts about that.
My question in that context is: Can we afford to risk the worst-case scenario when there are clear and feasible alternative options.
The argument is not binary - catastrophe or nothing. There are infinite possible outcomes. Siding with a particular outcome is an article of faith, rather than science.
Click to expand...
On this, I have to disagree: Thermodynamics is not a faith. It's Science. Yes, there are many possible outcomes. All are bad within one or two human lifetimes, some are catastrophic much sooner.
But irrespective of the magnitude of potential consequences, I condemn the attitude displayed by politicians and representatives of Industry, who are continuing to pollute the environment to the detriment of current and future generations.
 
The question that Pixel raises on why intelligent people can't/won't accept clear evidence on a particular issue gets a going over in the current issue of New Scientist.

http://www.newscientist.com/special/living-in-denial

Cheers
 

The issue isn't how other anthropogenic and natural factors play into the mix, the issue is that what pixel described is an absolute fact, a simple historical and scientific fact, and many usually smart people seem to want (looking at you) to dance around this.

Also please lets not forget Methane, its not all about co2.
 
Nice ad homs there fellows, dressed up a bit, but just ad hom.

Pixel,

I don't think the laws of thermodynamics apply as you think they do. Can you elaborate on this.

Anyhooz from woodfortrees.org



In addition there is the problem of extreme weather events... or lack thereof.

This all points to a scenario playing out, other than the alarmist worst case scenario.

By the way, every time anyone invokes the "D" word - you lose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
19K
ducati916
February 2025
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
ducati916
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
11K
basilio
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...