Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The politics of Anthropomorphic ClimateChange


RavenHawk

Recommended Posts

I’m pulling this out of the thread http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/300714-is-trump-keeping-his-campaign-promises/?page=1. It started out as a tangent but it took on a life of its own.  As I have more than a passing interest in this subject, I’m going to redirect that tangent here.  I’ve mulled over it and dilly-dallied enough; it’s time to post.  I’m only going to dup my responses here to get the ball rolling.  It began as a comment of how Eisenhower’s Farewell Address was being misquoted:

 

The Military Industrial Complex wasn’t the only thing he warned us about.  He admitted to many things he was concerned about but only discussed two.  The first was the MIC.  The second is what I am calling the ARC or Academic Research Complex.  He said: “The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.  Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”  Is this not what we have with Anthropomorphic Climate Change?  Scientists are sacrificing their ethics for funding.  Science is being used as a weapon to continue the Prog policy of wealth redistribution.  That would make the ARC more dangerous than the MIC.  Scientists give no oath to the nation (as the military does) and are easily bought.

 

And this led to the following…

 

P.S. this is not an easy read.  Make sure you are up to really delve into this subject and prepared to thoroughly study this before proceeding.

 

Edited by RavenHawk
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 11/26/2016 at 4:26 PM, Setton said:

 

You do not know what consensus means. It is the overall conclusion of research into a question.

And I agree with that definition but that is also an opinion.  A very educated opinion but an opinion none-the-less.  That consensus is not 100%.  As long as it is a consensus, the model is constantly changing.

 

Taking an example from outside climatology: Say there are 200 papers published investigating the use of stable isotopes in determining the source of pollution. 180 of them show that the d15N value is higher with agricultural pollution. 20 of them don't show this relationship. The consensus would be that d15N increases with agricultural pollution. The aim should then be to discover what other factors were at play in the other 20 studies.

That’s exactly right.  Even if there was only 1 that didn’t show a relationship, it would still be opinion.  I would even look at it and say that I strongly believe that the relationship is correct, but it is still only my opinion.  If I did the research, I’d know that I’d have a 10% chance of it not coming out the way I had hoped it would.

 

If 1 study conclusively proves that d15N cannot increase with agricultural pollution, those 180 are no longer relevant and the actual relationship needs to be investigated further to come to a new understanding.

Well – HELLO!

 

If there was evidence to disprove ACC (as opposed to not supporting it - these are different), it would not even by a theory, let alone fact.

And I’ve presented that evidence.  As far as I am concerned, it is the definitive proof against ACC.  To say that because man is increasing CO2 into the atmosphere that there is only a correlation to the increase in temperature.  Further, there is no indication of what that increase will do to the existence of Man on this planet.

 

Regardless, you should never see a reputable scientist refer to any theory as 'fact'.

And yet that is what we are seeing.  There are millions in funding on the line for scientists to support the Prog stance.  Now with Trump as President, that funding will dry up and scientists will begin to pull back on ACC.

 

Science does not aim to establish 'facts', it aims to eliminate less likely theories until one remains.

That is what it’s supposed to do.  However, Progs will use science to eliminate competing theories (not on facts but because it threatens power) so they can foist their “government can fix it all” mentality.

 

That one is accepted unless/until disproven.

You mean it’s been bought and paid for.  ACC has been disproven.  It’s the politics that keeps it alive.  The new science of climate change has a lot of research that still needs to be done.

 

The fact that you claim 'ACC is not fact' shows one of two things: a. You do not understand science as well as you claim to.  Or  b. You have conducted research that conclusively disproves the theory of anthropogenic climate change. If this is the case, I suggest you publish it. Because no-one else has. I promise if you do get it published, I will happily learn all the complexities of climatology from you. Until then, I'll stick with those who've actually studied it.

Or c. I’m using a colloquialism.  I don’t need to publish it as it already is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Setton said:

Perhaps I've just missed that post but what evidence exactly have you presented that disproves climate change?

I refer to the Vostok Ice Core.  More specifically, in the past 450,000 that the VIC records, we see 5 peaks in CO2 and temp.  A peak occurs roughly every 100,000 years or so.  The first of the five was warmer than now.  I’m pretty sure that the level of sophistication of Man at that time didn’t cause the warming.  Today we find ourselves at or near the fifth peak.  Given the scale, this peak could still be several thousand years away.  Logic tells us that we will probably see several more local max and mins before then as we have seen in the past 2000 years.  Has the 1.5°C average increase in temp per century changed?  If tolerances are within a few degrees, then Man is not causing ACC.  This is the 800 lbs. gorilla in the room.  ACC supporters seem to try to ignore it.  Only the Progs are responsible for creating the hoax of ACC.

 

As for the second point, I agree there are always issues with neutrality in science, particularly when governments get involved. However, the entire point of the peer-review process is to ensure findings are genuine. There may be competing theories that are underfunded but those disproved are still disproved.

And it is peer-review that has been hijacked by the Progs.  Anyone who proposes any competing evidence that puts doubt on ACC gets attacked and slandered.  They will accuse them of being in bed with energy companies.  They will push for punishment be given out to anyone that opposes ACC.  Is that science?  Sound familiar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Setton said:

Once again, the absolute temperature is not important. I can't stress that enough.

Well, temperature is still important.  It may not be the most important aspect but what it does do is show where the peaks and valleys are and the local mins and maxs.  That is important to understand all the various cycles.  And one of the most important observations is that we are near one of those peaks.

 

The rate of temperature change we are currently seeing is far in excess of anything in the record. That is the danger.

That’s kind of an PC alarmist statement.  Another observation is that these 5 peaks as shown in the Vostok Ice Core is as far as temperature and CO2 go before dropping.  That’s what a peak is.  What these peaks tell us is that there is a natural cap no matter what the rate is.  This pattern is what proves that Man is not causing climate change.  It amazes me that puny insignificant little Man can compete with meteors, volcanoes, earthquakes, flooding, fire, and the natural rhythms of Mother Earth.  The one thing of Man that does outdo her is his arrogance.

 

On a tangent, this is something I find very intriguing.  Although, this is a time that having a scalable chart of the Vostok Ice Cores (or any ice or sediment core) would be nice to have so that one can zoom in.  If you have one, could you please share?  All I usually can find are generic graphs or just data spreadsheets.  Anyway, on the VIC at about 8200 YBP, you see this unusual spike.  Is this an anomaly in the data or in the climate?  If it is in the climate, what could have caused it?  Was it volcanoes, meteors, OR perhaps a FLOOD?  Or maybe even something like the Kurukshetra War??  Back to the program…

 

Your average 1.5 degree increase per century is pure fabrication. I have literally no idea where you got that from.

No, it’s not fabrication.  I was thinking of something else and got sidetracked.  I was looking at a different graph.  My bad.  I’m surprised you didn’t recognize it and correct me??  Anyway…

 

The Vostok ice cores show the climatic forcing of Milankovitch cycles. There are three of these with periodicities of 21000, 41000 and 100000 years. The most recent rise began around 20000 years ago and has raised temperatures by around 6 degrees. That's a rate of 0.0003 per year or 0.03 per century.

I’ll agree with this but your numbers are wrong.  You’re taking a nonsensical average.  It doesn’t take into consideration what the plot is doing.  It’s closer to 8 degrees and that rise took 9000 years, not 20000.  That is being dishonest.  The rate coming out of the last ice age was 0.08°C per century.  But when it got to the Holocene, it fluctuated between a ±1.5°C magnitude range with a slight downward trend from ~8000 YBP which would make the rate something like -.006°C per century.

 

The warming since the industrial revolution (c.1850) is around 0.5 degrees. That's a rate of 0.3 degrees per century. That's ten times faster than the effect of Earth's eccentricity. And if you're going to try to argue it as a small scale fluctuation, it's also ten times faster than the MWP, the last recorded period of warming.

Just to note, 1850 marks when we were coming out of the Little Ice Age so things would naturally get warmer.  Here, you are comparing apples and oranges.  You’re now comparing two different scales (current record vs VIC).  The shorter the period you measure, the faster the rate increases.  That’s a given.  This just creates an anomaly to the VIC.  If you were to merge the current record with the last 11000 years from the VIC, you’d see relative stasis.  So it is natural.  Just because it appears faster than the MWP doesn’t mean it is not natural.  It just means it’s faster.  What happens when you hike up a mountain?  The closer you get to the top, the steeper the climb.

 

This is not natural and anyone with an understanding of data or science should be able to see that.

We have 450000 years of the VIC that says otherwise.  So why don’t you see it?  I’ve pointed out various axioms of data manipulation in the past couple of paragraphs.  The reason you can’t see it is because you are already brainwashed with a particular political agenda.

 

Please add 'peer-review' to your list of things to look up. You clearly don't know what that is either.

I clearly do.  I’m just upsetting your entire time on this thread aren’t I?  Let me put it this way.  You really think that peer-review is objective anymore?  To say it is is like saying the MSM is fair and objective.  As I said, peer-review is tainted, hijacked.  Let me backup, it is the people that do them that are tainted.  They follow a particular political agenda.  Peer-review is still dependent on human interpretation.  Anyone that presents anything that questions ACC is attacked because the agenda must remain intact.  It doesn’t matter what a peer-review discovers.  They’ll take the least significant glitch and use that to dismiss it.  This is what you are doing in this thread.

 

I truly hope that with Trump, this will change.  Return research back to being objective and stop using science as a political weapon.  Once that happens, then science may show that Man effects his environment, he doesn’t create or change it.  Then instead of throwing trillions away that will do nothing, maybe we can begin to prepare and adapt to climate change (whichever way it decides to go).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AGW is no longer a part of science, it is the state religion.  Belief is a requirement or to the stake with you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Setton said:

It's not alarmist when it's measurable in the data. The numbers are right there for you.

It’s not the numbers that is alarmist.  It’s the interpretation people assign to it.  And that interpretation is influenced by a political agenda.  It’s Chicken Little.

 

The pattern does not prove that man is not causing climate change.

Isn’t that a logical fallacy?  You can’t prove the negative?  The pattern does indeed prove that man is not causing ACC.  Man has not been around long enough to establish a climate cycle on the geological time scale.

 

You might think that man can't compete with astronomical cycles.

You’re right, he can’t.  Maybe if we detonated every single nuke, that might significantly change climate cycles (or just a single peak over a century).  It would depend on all the other cycles.

 

What you don't seem to appreciate is that those cycles operate over tens of thousands of years. We are effecting change on the scale of tens or hundreds of years.

That’s what I’ve been pointing out.  Man disturbing the environment for a few centuries isn’t climate change.  There’s a difference between pollution and climate change.  This is the battle that Progs have been waging to steal the wealth of people.  It started out as Man is bad for polluting his environment and when that went cold, it morphed to Global Warming, but when it was shown that we could actually be going toward Global Cooling, it morphed again to Anthropomorphic Global Warming but that was too hard to gain vast consensus.  So the Anthropomorphic was dropped and because there is such a thing as Climate Change, the Global Warming was dropped.  But without explanation, it is just left that way so that people are still thinking (ignorant) that Man is still the cause of bad climate and that there is still some utopian Tahiti-like climate out there waiting for us if we just self-flagellate and fork over our wealth as penitence.

 

We produce something like 6 billion tonnes of carbon a year now. I agree, it's next to nothing compared to Earth's natural cycles. But, if Earth's cycles are in balance, that 6 billion tonnes has nowhere to go. So in ten years, we have an extra 60 billion tonnes in the atmosphere. In 100 years, we have 600 billion tonnes more than we should.

In one sense, we aren’t creating any more carbon.  We’re converting its form in a closed system.  We aren’t adding any more than the system already has.  This is the law of Conservation.  Therefore, it should already be balanced for the amount we have.  With that said, what is the threshold?  What evidence do we have that our closed system Earth cannot tolerate 6 billion tonnes a year more released into the atmosphere?  The rise in temp and CO2 is not proof.  We know life can easily exist (and even does better) with temps and CO2 much higher than it is now.  Earth is a living creature, if she couldn’t handle changes in climate, she would have become a dead world long ago.

 

Here's a good figure to demonstrate it:

I looked on that web site for the key but I couldn’t find it.  So I guess I can only assume that this figure shows the flow of carbon in billions of tonnes annually?  If that is the case then, more is absorbed by nature than she gives off.  Therefore, we see a deficit of 17 billion tonnes.  That’s not that good for plant life.  But then if you add Man, it comes out to adding 12 billion tonnes more.  For one, that encourages more vegetation growth and with more vegetation, more is absorbed.  But the one thing the figure misses is that it *IS* a cycle.  Other than the carbon locked deep in the ocean or deep underground, carbon moves within this system.  The atmosphere keeps the loose carbon in motion.  This is where the coke bottle under a heat lamp experiment fails.  With that, you are dealing with simple chemical reactions.  It doesn’t translate well to a planet system where the carbon flows through that system.

Carbon_Cycle.gif

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

My mistake, long day yesterday, change of 8 degrees but the 20000 years holds (only approximate but the rise starts just over halfway between 50000 and present. So the rate is 0.04 per century.

I’m not going to ding anyone for a little difference in temp.  But your observation is off.  From 20000 to about 8200 you have a 0.06°C/cen. increase.  Then from 8200 to 1850, it decreases (-0.006°C/cen.) (approximate of course).  That averages out to 0.03°C/cen.  Those are two vastly different stories.

 

See you say all of that but, despite passing off my calculations as an 'alarmist PC statement' you still cannot point to a single occasion when temperatures have risen this fast. Not one. Not over long time scales, not over short ones. Nothing.

I’m not passing off your calculations.  I’m passing off your interpretations.  I fully admit that I do not have knowledge of a single such occurrence, but I haven’t spent that much time looking.  But I know better (they’re there or there is a reason why it doesn’t register).  In part, that is why I asked that it would be nice to have a fully scalable timeline so that one can zoom in and do some pattern matching.  I would imagine that there are at least a few places that are just as fast if not close.  But even if there isn’t doesn’t mean squat.  There will always be values that are the mostest or fastest or leastest or slowest.  In a complex system as our climate is, the rate over 150 years isn’t all that important.  A faster rate only means that a peak is reached sooner.  As I brought up before, if you study the VIC, you’ll notice 5 main peaks.  The first is a minimal peak, the second is a maximum peak, third is minimal, fourth is maximum, and fifth is minimal.  They alternate between two caps.  One characteristic is the rapid rise in temp right before it peaks out (this is key to note for us in this local cycle).  Is that rate really important or just that it is rapid?  So, if you notice a rapid rise in rate and you know the timeline of the VIC, you should be able to deduce with all your experience and knowledge, that you’ll shortly hit one of the caps.  There’s no indication that it will just keep going up (the Gore line).  None what so ever!  But you’ll also notice that the length of the Holocene warm period is as long as any other of the past four (the first one seems to be longer).  So that would seem to indicate cooling is happening or about to happen.  Even in an ice age, you see spikes in temp over a century but the ice pack doesn’t completely disappear.  It still remains in an ice age.  Those spikes do subside.

 

By the way, it's science, just throwing out, 'So it is natural' doesn't make you right.

That’s sort of the point.  Neither are you.  ACC is just the flavor of the month.  Scientists continue trying to build that consensus by tweaking the model to make it fit with the agenda.  Instead of just seeing where the science goes.  This is all driven by computer modeling.  Guess what, the programmer is the one that programs the framework.  If the programmer leans toward the agenda, so will the program.  It’s kind of like having that proverbial unplugged clock stopped at 12.  One could claim that it is always 12 and have all the empirical proof and will tweak the model to prove that but it is actually that the clock is broken and it’s right only twice a day.

 

We have 450000 years of data that says the earth warms and cools naturally on a 100000 year cycle. We have precisely no data that says the earth warms at a rate of 0.3 degrees per century under any natural mechanism. If you're going to argue political agenda, I would point out that only one of us holds qualifications in this from an academic institution. Therefore there is one of us more likely to be swayed by politics than the other. I think you may have it backwards.

Like I said before, I’d like to see that.  Not that I don’t believe you but I have to see for myself.  Is there a report on an analysis of every ice core and sediment core, century by century recording the rate?  What and when are some of the fastest rates?  But if rate is the only thing you have to support ACC (including the increase of CO2), I would have to say that’s weak.  Starting about 1850 is considered the end of the Mini Ice Age and we’ve been warming ever since.  Recorded temperature was done by direct observation and after 1950, satellites were also used.  Before 1850, temperature is reconstructed by core samples.  I believe that the merging of the two is problematic.  If core samples are taken 1000 years from now for this period, would it reflect exactly the same temp as from direct observation?  I would think not.  I don’t know if it’ll take a thousand years to calibrate direct to reconstructed but I’d suspect that that 0.3 will diminish (concentration of isotopes) somewhat in the core sample with the progression of time.  And as time traverses back, the amount of data is less robust.

 

We see a 0.3°/cen increase from 1850 to present.  But if we look at the rate between 8200 YBP till now, the rate is -0.006°C/cen (decrease).  And if you go back to 20000, the rate is 0.03°C/cen.  If you go back to 5m YBP, it then becomes -0.0012°C/cen.  The point being is that the longer the time period, the flatter the rate.  But it’s also fluctuates up and down.  And for virtually all of it doesn’t even see Man as a factor.  So it really just depends on the data set you examine.  150 years is just not enough data points to make an accurate guess.  The conclusion is that Man is insignificant.  These natural cycles have been going on for billions of years and any effect that Man causes is negligible.  To say otherwise is to buy into the agenda.

 

Go on then. I'll play. How exactly do you come to the conclusion that those conducting peer review for academic journals are 'tainted' by a political agenda? Given that peer review is anonymous and involves the judgements of academics (politicians don't get a look-in), how is the process hijacked?

I have explained several times.  But I neither hold qualifications from such an academic institution (and neither do I need to) nor am I swayed by a political agenda (unless it’s an anti-political agenda).  But in this case, both fit only one of us.  To paraphrase a quote from a movie, do you know what makes research go?  Funding!  And funding is controlled by the politics.  Climate scientists are bought and paid for (going back to Eisenhower’s Farewell Address).  So peer-review is tainted because if their review doesn’t follow the consensus, then funding becomes threatened.  So anything that doesn’t support ACC doesn’t get the approval.  The attitude of your web site (skepticalscience) seems to belittle anything that isn’t pro ACC.  I find that very dishonest.  An honest web site would present both sides furiously objectively and equal.  How many times do I see something presented placing doubt on ACC and some detractor responds in a self-righteous manner that that’s not disproof of ACC, etc., etc.  When in fact it is.  Focus on the science of climate and not peddle a viewpoint to sell one’s soul for funding.

 

If people presented good science that challenged climate change, it would be published. There might be counter publications but it would be published. The reason I dismiss your arguments in this thread is not because they challenge a theory but because the science is inadequate and unconvincing. If you want to change that, try looking into the academic literature surrounding the topic rather than relying on politicians and the internet.

Well, the minority literature is out there.  Even I have seen it from time to time.  If it wasn’t there then the consensus would be 100% (don’t you think?).  Your requirements seem to be a bit unfair.  Sort of a self-exclusive hermitage and anything on the internet is not legitimate.  The internet is the best way to distribute information and communicate.  What the internet does is diminish these learned institutions.  If such institutions can no longer be trusted to be fair, why should they be trusted to be guardians of knowledge?  I believe people do publish their work but they get ridiculed.  It goes underground like how science went underground in the 1600s because the Church oppressed scientific inquiry.  Science today has become the Church and as such relies on direction of the political agenda.  How can *my* science be inadequate?  It utilizes the existing science. 

 

I will give you one issue I have with the science of ACC however. A theory should be falsifiable yet no-one is ever clear how one can attempt to falsify this one. The only way you could prove it wrong would be to continue producing the amount of carbon we do now and see if we all die. If not, the theory was wrong, if we do, it might be right. Quite a gamble to test a theory.

Well, I’ve certainly presented evidence in very simple terms that puts doubt on it.  Don’t need to present a dissertation to do it.  There is no reason to make it complicated if you can keep it simple.  But likewise, standing on a consensus on ACC is nothing more than opinion.  People are just choosing sides.  What happens if we cut our CO2 footprint and temperature continues to rise?  If we consider the fictitious Kardashev scale, we should reach a Type I Civilization in one to two hundred years.  At this level we’ll be able to harness the total energy of our planet.  That would include all the alt energy forms, burning fossil fuels cleanly, and fusion.  We’re pretty close to that.  This means that we are probably really close to peak CO2 output.  But your premise is a cross between a Hobson’s choice and Schrödinger's cat.  It’s a gamble either way.  The real choice should be, do we spend our wealth trying to prevent or reverse something we are not sure we can do or do we prepare and adapt to the changes in the Earth?  That is a political question.  One option keeps power in the hands of Progs and they are pulling out all the stops to protect their agenda.

 

I don't think we're going to get any further with this here but please, do go and look into the literature on it. By all means, criticise it but make those criticisms of the science behind it, not the conclusions.

You might be right but I present this in its own thread to see if it draws new thought.  There is nothing wrong with the science, the criticism is with the interpretations and conclusions.  These are the weapons that politicians uses to control.  The politicians play the scientists like a violin.

 

I'll finish with this, overused perhaps but rather apt: “What if it’s a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?”

Well, that’s the point.  It’s not for nothing.  It’s estimated to cost at least $22 trillion.  That will break just about every nation on the planet.  Society will collapse and revert to fiefdoms or worse.  There will be wars and famine.  Those that own nukes will use them.  That doesn’t sound better to me.  What does sound good to me is that Man should be better custodians of the planet and learn how to adapt to her changing cycles.  I believe that wealth is a renewable resource but not if you keep throwing it away.  Wealth must be concentrated and used wisely.  ACC is wealth unwisely spent.

up6yu.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

AGW is no longer a part of science, it is the state religion.  Belief is a requirement or to the stake with you.

OK, so I took the long way with 5 long posts to say the same thing!  So what!  :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea it sucks government controls the funding for science. Man made warming is just one area where government forces science to tow a line 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't a discussion thread, this is a diatribe.

You quote Setton in a new thread that he's never participated in and there is no context for me to even relate to the comments he was responding to. It's all Setton said and then I said.

Do you not see a problem with that?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am old enough to remember the fears over the world freezing.

I am old enough to remember the fears over the hole in the ozone layer.

I am old enough to remember summers that didn't start in October/November and go through until April.

I am old enough to remember lots of things that don't happen anymore, or happen far too often. 

 

But Im also old enough to know that it won't be governments that change anything.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lord Fedorable said:

I am old enough to remember the fears over the world freezing.

I am old enough to remember the fears over the hole in the ozone layer.

I am old enough to remember summers that didn't start in October/November and go through until April.

I am old enough to remember lots of things that don't happen anymore, or happen far too often. 

 

But Im also old enough to know that it won't be governments that change anything.

What, 'power of the people'?

Without a democratically elected government the people have no say at all, well, even less than we currently have.

I'm not saying that the current situation is ideal, I'd just love it if someone could come up with a better system.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

What, 'power of the people'?

Without a democratically elected government the people have no say at all, well, even less than we currently have.

I'm not saying that the current situation is ideal, I'd just love it if someone could come up with a better system.

It is rather surprising how many say a "benign dictatorship" is the answer. Doesn't say much for the education system, imo.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A 'benign dictatorship' at least either reconfirms previously held beliefs, or provides them with the excuse of munificent recompense, which is largely "financial compensation" where the screwed over "little person"  actually gets compensated.

Who's not in favour of that?

Edited by Likely Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the OECD, about 2/3 of research is funded by private industry.  I can verify that the funding for the aerospace R&D team I worked on for nearly 20 years came from the company I worked for.  Very little of our money came from defense related or other government grants.  Why does private industry pay engineers and scientists salaries to do research?  Profits of course.  We didn't have to tell anybody outside the company what we were working  on , or share any ideas with any other company or the government. A project that my team worked on in 1992 generated $4 to $6 million dollars in profits (not gross sales) every year through the present.  Something around $150 million dollars.  Not a bad payback for an engineering team of six people.   A famous example might be Bell Labs.  Aerospace and defense are not the only companies that fund research. Tobacco companies, oil companies, and drug companies do the same things for the same reasons.  There is a  lot of money to be made bringing a popular product to market or keeping it there.

None of the corporate executives I worked for were left leaning progressives or government agents, they were good old conservative capitalists.  I don't think drug companies or tobacco companies are repleat with lefties either, but they are not above deception for profit if it comes to that.  Do governments tell lies, sure.  Are all progressives honest? No  But don't stop there.  Corporations and conservatives are just as deceptive and self serving, just different priorities.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it the climate change part or the anthropomorphic potion that is the most troubling?  Raven you mentioned carbon and temperature levels in the past 40k years. Also, there seems to be a lot of geologic evidence for sea level variation prior to and during Homo sapiens stay on earth. If you thought sea levels were going to rise over the next hundred years and also know that a large proportion of metropolitan areas lie on coastal plains, would it not make some sense to make a few contingency plans?  If you were required to think strategically about threats to  and defense of the United States and you predicted that water shortages were going to cause migrations and population unrest across many of the arid regions of the world  would you not prepare responses for the event? Or would you fall back on that famous line about nobody  being able to predict the failure of the levees around New Orleans?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

What, 'power of the people'?

Without a democratically elected government the people have no say at all, well, even less than we currently have.

I'm not saying that the current situation is ideal, I'd just love it if someone could come up with a better system.

Can you honestly see YOUR government doing anything productive?

I sure as hell cant see mine doing anything, given that it's crawling up the **** of Adani Coal Mines and shooting down state based attempts at renewable energy.

 

we little people need to do our part, we need to make doing our part so much a viable proposition the governments have no other choice but to support us. We need to solar cell our roofs (rooves?), grey water in our gardens, collect rain water, use transport that are as close to zero emission as possible. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Fedorable said:

Can you honestly see YOUR government doing anything productive?

I sure as hell cant see mine doing anything, given that it's crawling up the **** of Adani Coal Mines and shooting down state based attempts at renewable energy.

 

we little people need to do our part, we need to make doing our part so much a viable proposition the governments have no other choice but to support us. We need to solar cell our roofs (rooves?), grey water in our gardens, collect rain water, use transport that are as close to zero emission as possible. 

Not really, I was just positing the merits, or not, of a so-called 'benign dictatorship'.

Incidentally, my government has crawled up the **** of Imperial Metals.

If you, or anyone else feel so inclined, look up "Mount Polley disaster". That's my back yard.

Edited by Likely Guy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

This isn't a discussion thread, this is a diatribe.

You’re damn right it is!  ACC is a fraud and I thoroughly (??) explain why.

 

You quote Setton in a new thread that he's never participated in

That’s very true but I only started the thread so he hasn’t had the chance to.  He is more than welcome to chime in if he wants but in his own words he said that might not be that likely.  I’m not putting words in his mouth.  These are pulled from the other thread.  This is just background of what has been.

 

and there is no context for me to even relate to the comments he was responding to.

The comments are all there.  That’s why there are 5 posts.  But I reference the parent thread so if you need more context, you know where to find it.  I warned that this is a thread not for the faint of heart.  One needs to invest a little more into this thread.

 

It's all Setton said and then I said.

Well gee, isn’t that what such a forum like this is all about?  You say something, then I say something, then someone else says something.  It’s not rocket science.

 

Do you not see a problem with that?

There is no problem except for the one you create in your own mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

An Open Letter from Scientists to President-Elect Trump on Climate Change

More than 800 Earth scientists and energy experts (and counting) urge the incoming president to take six crucial steps

~

President-elect Trump has called climate change a Chinese hoax, vowed to dismantle America's climate and clean energy policies, and appointed climate deniers with ties to the fossil fuel industry to his transition team and Cabinet.

In response, more than 800 Earth science and energy experts in 46 states have signed an open letter to Donald Trump, urging him to take six key steps to address climate change to help protect “America’s economy, national security, and public health and safety.”

***

To President-elect Trump

We, the undersigned, urge you to take immediate and sustained action against human-caused climate change. We write as concerned individuals, united in recognizing that the science is unequivocal and America must respond.

Climate change threatens America’s economy, national security, and public health and safety1-4. Some communities are already experiencing its impacts, with low-income and minority groups disproportionately affected.

***

 

  • Scientific American link
 
~

 

Flim flam and a flip flop over U Turns on bigger U Turns ...

 

Quote

 

Donald Trump does U-turn on biggest U-turn, appointing climate ...

www.independent.co.uk/.../donald-trump-scott-pruitt-environmental-protection-agenc...
3 hours ago - Donald Trump, who many thought had recanted his previous denial of the facts of climate change, in fact appears committed to his belief that ...

Donald Trump picks climate change denier who wanted to scrap ...

www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Americas

6 hours ago - Mr Pruitt will most likely eliminate any hope for an "open mind". He is a climate change denier, and said the science behind it was "subject to considerable debate". ... With Scott Pruitt as head of the EPA, the people and the environment will be in the hands of a man who cares about neither."

~

A 'Politicking' Politician personified ... :yes:

~

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

even if the climate is in flux because of the residue of the last Ice Age, and the changes we've recorded are all natural, we're still going to need to act in order to survive as a species. 

Were going to need to maximise growing land for food and air quality, were going to need to design houses to cope with flood events, were going to need to design houses to deal with drought events, were going to need to design cheap reliable renewable energy because once we start maximising growing land, were obviously minimising mining land.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the Sahara turning back into a livable area with vegetation and running water, as it was for millennia before the last ice age, that would be a bad thing?   What makes the current climate the best that there has ever been on earth and what makes us think we can stop it changing?   Whenever someone says the science is complete and no one should question it i get very suspicious and when an economist runs the IPCC then sirens go off.   Silencing dissent is always a warning sign that there is much more going on here than simple scientific study.  

Politics, money, anti-capitalism, fraud as in AL Gore's highly deceitful film and the hundreds of millions he has made starring as the high priest of warming are all signs something is very off about this research and the conclusions reached. The climate changes, it always has and always will no matter what we do on the surface.   Yes we should move off fossil fuels but it shouldn't be at the expense of our entire economy.   There is a reason the UN doesn't bother China but shames the west and when people finally figure that reason out they'll have 90% of the answer.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2016 at 8:48 AM, third_eye said:

An Open Letter from Scientists to President-Elect Trump on Climate Change

 

We, the undersigned, urge you to take immediate and sustained action against human-caused climate change. We write as concerned individuals, united in recognizing that the science is unequivocal and America must respond.

It’s hard to take immediate and sustained action on something that doesn’t exist.  Reminds me of a snipe hunt.  The science is not unequivocal because there is only a consensus and that is due to what Eisenhower warned.

 

Climate change threatens America’s economy, national security, and public health and safety. Some communities are already experiencing its impacts, with low-income and minority groups disproportionately affected.

Low-income and minority groups never weather natural disasters well anyway.  There was the Johnstown Flood of 1889, San Francisco Earthquake of 1906, and the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 are just a few.  More are found here: List of natural disasters in the United States  But most of those affected were Low-income and minority groups and have nothing to do with ACC.

 

At this crucial juncture in human history, countries look to the United States to pick up the mantle of leadership: to take steps to strengthen, not weaken, this nation’s efforts to tackle this crisis. With the eyes of the world upon us, and amidst uncertainty and concern about how your administration will address this issue, we ask that you begin by taking the following steps upon taking office:

After the Obama Apology Tour, the multiple lines in the sand, Iran deal, and the retreat and run from Iraq the world really looks to us for leadership?  That is a joke.  The world wonders if we have it’s back?

 

1 Make America a clean energy leader.

Only the free market can drive the change to cleaner forms of energy.  When the government tries to get involved, you end up with failures like Solyndra.  I find the phrase “expand democratized clean energy” to be troublesome?  If this is science, why does it need to be “democratized”?  What does that even mean?

 

2 Reduce carbon pollution and America’s dependence on fossil fuels.

First of all, carbon is not a pollutant and pollution has nothing to do with climate change (human caused or otherwise).  Man needs to be better custodians of the planet and in time we will have cleaner forms of energy.  This is something you can’t rush.  You can’t dictate innovation.  Imposing tax credits only hurts the people and economy.  Getting the EPA, DOE, & NASA to impose dictator like edicts just isn’t going to work.  That’s not going to encourage newer forms of energy, conserve the environment, benefit the economy, or stop climate change.

 

3 Enhance America’s climate preparedness and resilience.

If we spend $22 trillion to stop climate change, why do we need to be prepared and resilient?  If we’re going to have the power to control climate, we need not fear natural disaster anymore.  Sounds like someone is trying to hedge their bets.

 

4 Publicly acknowledge that climate change is a real, human-caused, and urgent threat.

This is perhaps the most troubling.  Sort of dictating law and threatening that if you support opposing views to ACC, that you need to be punished.  That sounds like the Church when confronted with science hundreds of years ago.  Now organized science controls the soul of Man.  One must repent now and accept ACC to save ones soul.

 

5 Protect scientific integrity in policymaking.

Scientific integrity needs to stay out of political policy making.  Science needs to restrict itself to the realm of the natural world and not be used as a political weapon.  That is how you protect integrity.

 

6 Uphold America's commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement.

Why would we want to commit to the biggest boondoggle since Obamacare?  And if we did, who’s going to pick the costs of those 3rd world nations that can’t follow through with the commitment without fossil fuels?  We can’t and neither should we, so we don’t need to be involved.

 

You have the support of the majority of companies, military leaders, scientists, engineers, and citizens to respond to the threats posed by climate change by reducing carbon pollution and expanding clean energy. Many of America’s largest cities and states are already committed to doing so.

Sounds like a convoluted reach.  The majority of companies are what are responsible for ACC according to scientists.  So why would they be interested in cutting their own throats?  I don’t think that military leaders really believe that ACC created ISIS or war.  Most scientists support ACC because their funding comes from Prog groups and entities that are pushing the agenda.  And citizens also add to the CO2 content, therefore things like carbon taxes will further affect their livelihood.  It’s like listening to those that claimed that England would stay in the EU or that Trump had no chance to be elected President.  Globalization is losing ground.

 

We urge you to decide if you want your Presidency to be defined by denial and disaster, or acceptance and action.

Really?  The science is so weak that they have to revert to shaming someone to play ball?  Don’t you think that if the science was convincing enough that there’d be no argument against it?  It’s not that people don’t understand science, it’s that people understand that there is an opposite and equal viewpoint.

 

It’s the current Administration that is known for denial and disaster.  This letter just showcases how much a sham ACC really is.  Progs have wet-dreams considering that this is the push they need to impose their utopian world on the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/12/2016 at 8:56 AM, Merc14 said:

So the Sahara turning back into a livable area with vegetation and running water, as it was for millennia before the last ice age, that would be a bad thing?   What makes the current climate the best that there has ever been on earth and what makes us think we can stop it changing?   Whenever someone says the science is complete and no one should question it i get very suspicious and when an economist runs the IPCC then sirens go off.   Silencing dissent is always a warning sign that there is much more going on here than simple scientific study.  

Quote

Is there even the slightest evidence of that happening?

 

Politics, money, anti-capitalism, fraud as in AL Gore's highly deceitful film and the hundreds of millions he has made starring as the high priest of warming are all signs something is very off about this research and the conclusions reached. The climate changes, it always has and always will no matter what we do on the surface.   Yes we should move off fossil fuels but it shouldn't be at the expense of our entire economy.   There is a reason the UN doesn't bother China but shames the west and when people finally figure that reason out they'll have 90% of the answer.  

The reason the UN doesn't bother China is because they know Chi a will only ever do as China wills, but there's a slim chance other countries might listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.