Climate Change!

[steveo73]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urfPl8bahwc

It's interesting hearing about the fraudulent behaviour that alarmists are using.

I started watching the video and then noticed another video from the same author is titled "Sam Osmanagich On Why The Elites Want To Keep The Secrets Of Bosnia's Pyramids Hidden." I just couldn't take it seriously after that, sorry.

I saw that as well. I tried to get an updated video of that guy. You should watch it. That guy is a leftist. His brother is the leader of the labour party (the left) in the UK. I think he is an astrophysicist and he is definitely a meteorologist.

He outrightly calls out the fraud of climate change and it's hilarious.

Honestly I've known for a while that there was no science behind AGW but now we are starting to get more and more scientists calling out the crap that has been going on. I'm glad I've looked back into it because there was always the chance that it could be right and I've delayed being 100% sure of that because I accept that we need data to prove or disprove the theory. At the moment though it appears to be that it's basically been proven to be false.

You should watch that video.

[Gilberto de Piento]

I’ve generally tried to stay out of issues like this but recent political outcomes have caused me to rethink my policy of avoiding conflict. I used to think arguing on the internet was pointless but I'm starting to think it may have an effect, particularly when only the extreme views are having the discussion.

I’ll put my cards on the table regarding climate change:

• 1. The science seems to indicate that it is happening. We can’t know for sure but the signs are pointing that direction. If it is happening by the time it really shows up it will be too late to act.
  2. My personal observations also support this conclusion.
  3. As far as I can tell, moving away from fossil fuels in a fast-paced but logical way would have a number of positive benefits:
  a. Avoid negative outcomes from climate change as much as is still possible.
  b. Create demand for technological innovation which also creates economic benefits.
  c. Support local jobs like improving building energy efficiency, solar panel installation and maintenance, etc.
  d. Energy independence at the individual level. If I use little power and have a solar array/wind turbine and a method to store energy I don’t have to worry if the power goes out. If my car runs on batteries that I charge from my own sources I don't have to worry about a 1000 mile long supply chain.
  e. Preserve fossil fuels for unknown future uses. 500 years from now we might really wish we hadn’t wasted so much petroleum.
  f. Avoid health impacts of pollution from burning fossil fuels.

Even if you think that climate change is unlikely, doesn’t it make sense to work to avoid it? I’m a big proponent of the precautionary principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle): “The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public, or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus (that the action or policy is not harmful), the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action that may or may not be a risk.”

I can see why fossil fuel companies don’t want change but for the average person I think there may be more benefits than drawbacks if done right, especially if that average person also cares about the people younger than them who will have to deal with any negative outcomes.

[George the original one]

Piers Corbyn does not have a doctorate. He sells weather predictions that are about as accurate as anyone else. In particular, his record for extreme weather predictions are hit & miss. He also claims earthquakes are caused by solar activity and he can predict them. He does not publish his methods for review.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -may-years

[steveo73]

Piers Corbyn does not have a doctorate. He sells weather predictions that are about as accurate as anyone else. In particular, his record for extreme weather predictions are hit & miss. He also claims earthquakes are caused by solar activity and he can predict them. He does not publish his methods for review.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -may-years

The thing is what he says is correct. So you can demonise the person but you can't demonise the science. This has always been the issue with global warming. Piers is a smart well educated person who is also on the left and is calling out the crap that has been going on in this field.

No one can predict the weather perfectly because it's too complex.

[steveo73]

I’ve generally tried to stay out of issues like this but recent political outcomes have caused me to rethink my policy of avoiding conflict. I used to think arguing on the internet was pointless but I'm starting to think it may have an effect, particularly when only the extreme views are having the discussion.

I’ll put my cards on the table regarding climate change:

• 1. The science seems to indicate that it is happening. We can’t know for sure but the signs are pointing that direction. If it is happening by the time it really shows up it will be too late to act.
  2. My personal observations also support this conclusion.
  3. As far as I can tell, moving away from fossil fuels in a fast-paced but logical way would have a number of positive benefits:
  a. Avoid negative outcomes from climate change as much as is still possible.
  b. Create demand for technological innovation which also creates economic benefits.
  c. Support local jobs like improving building energy efficiency, solar panel installation and maintenance, etc.
  d. Energy independence at the individual level. If I use little power and have a solar array/wind turbine and a method to store energy I don’t have to worry if the power goes out. If my car runs on batteries that I charge from my own sources I don't have to worry about a 1000 mile long supply chain.
  e. Preserve fossil fuels for unknown future uses. 500 years from now we might really wish we hadn’t wasted so much petroleum.
  f. Avoid health impacts of pollution from burning fossil fuels.

Even if you think that climate change is unlikely, doesn’t it make sense to work to avoid it? I’m a big proponent of the precautionary principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle): “The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public, or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus (that the action or policy is not harmful), the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action that may or may not be a risk.”

I can see why fossil fuel companies don’t want change but for the average person I think there may be more benefits than drawbacks if done right, especially if that average person also cares about the people younger than them who will have to deal with any negative outcomes.

I'll make some points here:-

1. The science is clearly stating that it's not happening. We have models that are used to predict something that isn't understood but those models aren't working at all.
2. Personal observations are simply not relevant or meaningful. Go and look at the local climate change thread. That is people making stuff up to justify their beliefs. It's completely delusional and completely unscientific.
3. I was thinking that moving away from fossil fuels could be a good thing but now I think we actually need more CO2 in the atmosphere. So long as the coal we are burning is clean coal then I think burning fossil fuels is probably a good thing. The key point is that we are actually in an environment that has a low CO2 concentration. I know that goes against the alarmists theories but they are so wrong it isn't funny.
4. The precautionary principle in this situation is stupid and all environmentalists should be completely against creating a demon that doesn't exist in relation to climate change. All this does is divert resources away from environmental or other issues that do exist and instead focuses them on something that clearly is not an issue.

So if you care about the environment and our future then you should be fighting against any more funding going to any more quacks selling climate change to the masses.

[vezkor]

all sorts of things, such as:
I was thinking that moving away from fossil fuels could be a good thing but now I think we actually need more CO2 in the atmosphere. So long as the coal we are burning is clean coal then I think burning fossil fuels is probably a good thing. The key point is that we are actually in an environment that has a low CO2 concentration. I know that goes against the alarmists theories but they are so wrong it isn't funny.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

@jacob
I am absolutely blown away by your patience. ERE forums truly are one of a tiny number of places where this kind of... discussion? Can happen without a flame war erupting out of the bedrock. Kudos.

As an evolutionary biology graduate AND son of a creationist mother: I don't know how you do it. I'm hoping it comes with age. I'm going to keep lurking and learning. Thanks again for making this place a reality. Happy Holidays!

[steveo73]

Just to add the facts to the picture regarding CO2 refer to this chart:- http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseu ... 07_1.shtml

I'll give another fun fact. Termites are apparently producing 10 times the amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere compared to humans.

Human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere = 4%.

Once you start looking at the facts the whole thing just falls apart. It's been a massive scam. I think it's starting to come unstuck now though which is good.

[ducknalddon]

I'll give another fun fact. Termites are apparently producing 10 times the amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere compared to humans.

From the original paper that "fact" came from:

A critical data gap currently exists in determining the activity rate for these emission factors

[steveo73]

I'll give another fun fact. Termites are apparently producing 10 times the amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere compared to humans.

From the original paper that "fact" came from:

A critical data gap currently exists in determining the activity rate for these emission factors

I'm not surprised the fact in this instance isn't perfect however let's be clear where the science is right now when it comes to AGW. The science doesn't actually exist. There was a hypothesis. The hypothesis never looked likely to be true from the start. Now it looks like a 1 in a million chance of it becoming reality.

It's amazing how many people bought into this fairy tale. What would be interesting would be analysing why people bought into it.

[ducknalddon]

Now it looks like a 1 in a million chance of it becoming reality.

So where is the research I can read that states it's a 1 in a million chance of becoming reality?

[steveo73]

Now it looks like a 1 in a million chance of it becoming reality.

So where is the research I can read that states it's a 1 in a million chance of becoming reality?

That is my assessment but this theory has been around for years with a tonne of financial and political support thrown behind it and the science is pretty clear that it isn't happening. It could be a one in a trillion chance. I think it'd have to be less than a 1 in 100 chance now.

This isn't a new theory that hasn't had the support to get some science behind it. At the moment we have absolutely nothing backing it up and a whole tonne proving it isn't happening.

I think it's amazing how something with so much evidence against it and so little evidence for it has been taken up as a cause by so many people. I honestly think now is probably time to do a review about why quackery such as this actually became a significant political cause.

[ducknalddon]

That is my assessment but this theory has been around for years with a tonne of financial and political support thrown behind it and the science is pretty clear that it isn't happening. It could be a one in a trillion chance. I think it'd have to be less than a 1 in 100 chance now.

I'm going to keep pressing you on this because I'd really like to know the truth, can you point me to some real peer reviewed papers that say AGW isn't happening.

[steveo73]

That is my assessment but this theory has been around for years with a tonne of financial and political support thrown behind it and the science is pretty clear that it isn't happening. It could be a one in a trillion chance. I think it'd have to be less than a 1 in 100 chance now.

I'm going to keep pressing you on this because I'd really like to know the truth, can you point me to some real peer reviewed papers that say AGW isn't happening.

It's not that simple. To understand this you have to take a step back and determine what is happening here. So there was/is this hypothesis stating that AGW was occurring. There are lots of components related to this. One is the increase in CO2. Everyone accepts that CO2 has minimal influence on the atmosphere directly. The warmists/alarmists have come up with a couple of additional hypothesis. They state that an increase in CO2 has positive feedback mechanisms. They also state that the increase in CO2 is leading to more extreme weather.

There is no proof whatsoever that these feedback mechanisms work the way that they state or that there is more extreme weather due to increased CO2.

This hypothesis (AGW) would have died out ages ago but the earth's climate is extremely complex so what they have done is played up to that. They produced statistical models to state this is how the climate works. This has failed completely. So we have a hypothesis with no proof. This doesn't cut it in the scientific community. We aren't talking about religion.

Now as these models have failed these alarmists/warmists have come up with various reasons for their models not working. They now believe that the warmth has gone elsewhere - the oceans and different parts of the atmosphere. There is yet again no proof of this occurring.

So we have a hypothesis with nothing at all to prove that it is in anyway shape or form real. You won't get peer reviewed papers stating that it isn't happening because science doesn't work like that. It's similar to asking me to prove that god doesn't exist. There is no proof that god doesn't exist but i can't prove that he/she doesn't exist.

I think the question should be why would you believe something that has no scientific data to back it up and that goes against all the data that we have to prove that the Earth's climate does not behave in the ways that has been postulated.

I will state that there is a remote possibility that the hypothesis is correct. In stating that there is also a remote possibility that God exists. In both instances though it's extremely unlikely to be true and there is no science that passes any muster that says that God exists or that AGW is real.

[steveo73]

Another point I'd make is to stop taking something as being peer reviewed as being somehow infallible. There are plenty of dumb papers out there with all sorts of palava in them that are peer reviewed. I suggest you go and read that one that was posted on this thread recently in relation to attributing extreme weather events to AGW. It's complete and utter crap but it probably passes the peer review process.

I do agree that peer reviewed papers should pass a certain level of standard but unfortunately when money is involved and we are talking substantial money when it comes to AGW there is a lot of pressure to conform and keep the gravy train coming.

On the flip side it's good when "scientists" (deliberately in inverted commas) publish their papers especially when they have predictions. This is really what has left the warmists/alarmists reeling. Their "science" isn't conforming to reality.

[steveo73]

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... _stick.pdf

This paper is a good read though of how dishonest the warmist "scientists" have been in their quest to retain funding and hoodwink the public.

The environmental extremists, who have already killed 50 million children through malaria by their
now-canceled ban on the use of DDT, the only effective agent against the anopheles mosquito that
spreads the infective parasite, are already eagerly killing millions more through their latest
scientifically-baseless scare – the “global warming” panic pandemic. Food riots are occurring
throughout the world among the poorest of the poor in many countries: but the desperation, starvation,
disease, and death that accompany the sudden famines that the biofuel-driven doubling of world food
prices has engendered are scarcely reported by our news media. In Haiti, they are eating mud pies made
of earth, water, a tiny knob of butter, and a pinch of salt; or they sell the mud pies to less fortunate
neighbours at 3 US cents each. Has any Western news medium reported this, or the hundreds of other
agonizing stories of famine and starvation all round the world? No. Instead, every icicle that falls in
Greenland is paraded as an omen of imminent doom: and, as for the crooked pseudo-scientists who
invented the hockey stick, supported it, and continue to parade it in the mendacious documents of the
IPCC, no journalist would dare to ask any of them the questions that would expose their self-seeking
corruption for what it is. These evil pseudo-scientists, through the falsity of their statistical
manipulations, have already killed far more people through starvation than “global warming” will ever
kill. They should now be indicted and should stand trial alongside Radovan Karadzic for nothing less
than high crimes against humanity: for, in their callous disregard for the fatal consequences of their
corrupt falsification of science, they are no less guilty of genocide than he.

I think this quote is really important for people to read as well. It comes back to my point regarding what it means to be an environmentalist. The alarmists are doing the Earth and humanity a massive disservice with significant consequences.

[Ego]

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... _stick.pdf

This paper is a good read though of how dishonest the warmist "scientists" have been in their quest to retain funding and hoodwink the public.

The environmental extremists, who have already killed 50 million children through malaria by their
now-canceled ban on the use of DDT, the only effective agent against the anopheles mosquito that
spreads the infective parasite, are already eagerly killing millions more through their latest
scientifically-baseless scare

DDT is banned in the US and most developed malaria-free countries. It has never been banned for vector control in malaria prone countries.

[ducknalddon]

But climate change isn't a model, there has been a direct measured increase in temperature, we have records going back a long time in certain places in the world and where we don't have records it is fairly easy to infer the temperature increase from other sources. See http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ or http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/documents/4219 ... 4ac76680c5

[ducknalddon]

Another point I'd make is to stop taking something as being peer reviewed as being somehow infallible. There are plenty of dumb papers out there with all sorts of palava in them that are peer reviewed. I suggest you go and read that one that was posted on this thread recently in relation to attributing extreme weather events to AGW. It's complete and utter crap but it probably passes the peer review process.

I do agree that peer reviewed papers should pass a certain level of standard but unfortunately when money is involved and we are talking substantial money when it comes to AGW there is a lot of pressure to conform and keep the gravy train coming.

On the flip side it's good when "scientists" (deliberately in inverted commas) publish their papers especially when they have predictions. This is really what has left the warmists/alarmists reeling. Their "science" isn't confirming to reality.

I don't consider it infallible, just a minimum baseline worth considering.

[steveo73]

But climate change isn't a model, there has been a direct measured increase in temperature, we have records going back a long time in certain places in the world and where we don't have records it is fairly easy to infer the temperature increase from other sources. See http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ or http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/documents/4219 ... 4ac76680c5

It's far from this simple. The temperature has not increased significantly and definitely the temperature is not out of normal ranges. The Earth's temperature has been hotter and cooler than what it is now. CO2 levels have been a lot higher. We are actually at a low range of CO2 within the atmosphere.

Climate change isn't a model. The climate changes all the time. It's part of the way the Earth changes by nature. AGW is a hypothesis that can't be proven so scientists produce models to predict what will happen. The predictions haven't been reflected in reality. The hypothesis basically isn't working. We now have facts to state that AGW is a false hypothesis.

[steveo73]

Another point I'd make is to stop taking something as being peer reviewed as being somehow infallible. There are plenty of dumb papers out there with all sorts of palava in them that are peer reviewed. I suggest you go and read that one that was posted on this thread recently in relation to attributing extreme weather events to AGW. It's complete and utter crap but it probably passes the peer review process.

I do agree that peer reviewed papers should pass a certain level of standard but unfortunately when money is involved and we are talking substantial money when it comes to AGW there is a lot of pressure to conform and keep the gravy train coming.

On the flip side it's good when "scientists" (deliberately in inverted commas) publish their papers especially when they have predictions. This is really what has left the warmists/alarmists reeling. Their "science" isn't confirming to reality.

I don't consider it infallible, just a minimum baseline worth considering.

I agree with this. I'd much rather a peer reviewed study than a generic blog post. It's just that there are a lot of AGW supportive peer reviewed studies when the evidence is pretty clear cut that AGW isn't occurring.