Do You Believe in Man-Made Climate Change?

[Infidel Dog]

If you graph the increase by full degrees it disappears and becomes a straight line. 

You can only see it if you graph it by tenths of a degree. 

Now show me how it is an "objective reality" that we can measure global climate precisely to a tenth of a degree. Scientists agree climate changes. There is disagreement on how much and what causes what portion of it.

Doesn't matter though. What I really want to see is:

Quote

 this objective evidence of what you call "the scale of the problem," 

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

 If you graph the increase by full degrees it disappears and becomes a straight line.   You can only see it if you graph it by tenths of a degree. 

Now show me how it is an "objective reality" that we can measure global climate precisely to a tenth of a degree. Scientists agree climate changes. There is disagreement on how much and what causes what portion of it.

Doesn't matter though. What I really want to see is:

 

 I don't get it.  Are you doubting the graph ?  What is this 1/10 of a degree stuff -where did you get it ?

[oops]

10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes, but interestingly we were more naive back then even without the internet.  Mass media didn't think to ask the scientists.  If they had, they would have had to retract.  But climate concerns and disinformation were not remotely threatening at the time.

Of course that is the point. It took time for people to be aware of the problem, and see the need to address it. That is what is being done now, but it will take time to turn the tide, and longer still for the media to stop their tales of woe. If it sells toothpaste, they will tell their story. Fortunately we have time, and people are working on it.

[Infidel Dog]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

 I don't get it.  Are you doubting the graph ?  What is this 1/10 of a degree stuff -where did you get it ?

OMG, Mr Science...seriously? You want to lecture me about climate graphs and don't know the common ones you're most likely pretending expertise on where you see the rise since the thaw following the little ice age are measured in tenths of a degree Celsius?

There is a graph where they measure the change by full degrees and it's one straight line along the horizontal axis. I'll see if I can find it for you.

Edited January 25, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[Infidel Dog]

Here ya go Mike. See if you can figure it out by this one:

If you're still having trouble it's explained here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/11/graph-vs-graph-political-journalism/

Although the watemelon boys tell me you're not allowed to read Wuwt.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. You want to lecture me about climate graphs and don't know the common ones you're most likely pretending expertise on where you see the rise since the thaw following the little ice age are measured in tenths of a degree Celsius?

2. There is a graph where they measure the change by full degrees and it's one straight line along the horizontal axis. I'll see if I can find it for you.

1. I asked you what the problem is with the measurement - can you just answer that instead of accusing me of being a pretender ?  I'm not an expert - I know the basics only.
2. So your problem isn't with this graph ?

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

Here ya go Mike. See if you can figure it out by this one:

If you're still having trouble it's explained here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/11/graph-vs-graph-political-journalism/

Although the watemelon boys tell me you're not allowed to read Wuwt.

Yes - I agree that "he graph zooms “out so much that it makes it seem like global average temperatures haven’t changed at all.”

Is this what you're talking about ?  You can see from the blue graph that the average temperature has gone up only a few degrees.

[Infidel Dog]

No. The graph on the left doesn't zoom out. The graph on the right magnifies so that you are concerned with tenths of a degree. Normally when we think of weather we think of it in full degrees. When it becomes climate we pretend we can see it clearer in a magnification to tenths of a degree. We can't but you can get a better reaction when you pretend you can.

My point was you can't actually measure earth's climate precisely to a tenth of a degree so this assertion of yours that you are the one concerned with objective reality is objectively incorrect. We come to conclusions on climate based on estimates.

We estimate the global temperature has risen about a degree in the last century or so. Don't be fooled by the difference between Fahrenheit and Celsius in the 2 graphs I showed you. Global temperature rise is usually presented in Celsius and is claimed to be about 1 to 1.5 degrees since 1850.

A cabal of scientists predicts that in another century or so it will rise 2 degrees or 1 degree more than it did in the last 100 years. They imagine this extra degree will come out of postulated positive feedbacks. It's just a hypothesis but they predict this extra degree will lead to catastrophes that exist at the present time wholly in their imaginations. That's where it becomes political. Not from any what you call "objective reality" but from subjective projections. It's like, "OMG! We're all gonna die. Quick raise taxes. Give us global political control."

The politicizing of imagined problems is the problem. 

If you sincerely want to impress me with your objectivity and what you call "the obvious scale of the problem" first of all tell me specifically what that is and what your evidence is for it. Otherwise you're just falling into the trap of politically charged subjectivity. This while you tell me I have no objectivity.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. Normally when we think of weather we think of it in full degrees. When it becomes climate we pretend we can see it clearer in a magnification to tenths of a degree. We can't but you can get a better reaction when you pretend you can.

2. My point was you can't actually measure earth's climate precisely to a tenth of a degree so this assertion of yours that you are the one concerned with objective reality is objectively incorrect. We come to conclusions on climate based on estimates.

 3. That's where it becomes political. Not from any what you call "objective reality" but from subjective projections. It's like, "OMG! We're all gonna die. Quick raise taxes. Give us global political control."

4. The politicizing of imagined problems is the problem. 

1. That's a completely useless take on it.  Who cares if the average person thinks in full degrees?  The temperature doesn't jump in full degrees, it's what is called in mathematics a real number.

2. The measurements are aggregated.  So overall the increase estimate is accurate.

3. Sort of.  There's hysteria of course but I would say that warning of risks is fair politics.

4. There's no reason to expect that this topic would be treated less hysterically than others.  But I'm pretty sure politicians also believe in doing things to help people, and scientists definitely do.  If someone's argument hinges on large groups of people lying to get rich then I stop listening to them.

[Infidel Dog]

Who cares if the weather is delivered in full degrees? The same person who can't help noticing that you can't actually precisely measure global climate to tenths of a degree with any kind of reliable precision.

We know precise measurement aren't possible for a fact because they have to keep adjusting said measurements. The current fad is to adjust older temps colder and more recent temps warmer - thus allowing warmiacs to pull their hair out over the scary 10th degree graphs.

Different climate measuring estimators from satellite to land measuring services come up with different estimates. And neither of those claim to have fully accurate measurements for the poles. They estimate.

So my point is when you're getting scared of what you call "the obvious scale of the problem," even though you don't seem to be able to tell me what that is or why you so "objectively" find it so scary you're coming to your conclusions based on estimates and predictions you don't actually know the accuracy of.

[Infidel Dog]

On "warning of risks" we could talk about the precautionary principle if you like or discuss the mitigation versus adaptation choices of dealing with possible problems.

I'm an adaptation man myself. 

[Michael Hardner]

38 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

 ...discuss the mitigation versus adaptation choices of dealing with possible problems.

Yes we have talked about that on here... years ago if I recall.  But why would you engage in such a discussion unless you are allowing that we are indeed at risk ?  

[Infidel Dog]

Possible risk. And I'm for adapting to any problems as they appear. That would include a meteor strike or the explosion of the Yellowstone super-volcano. Or for that matter an alien invasion. 

[Infidel Dog]

26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes we have talked about that on here... years ago if I recall.

Oh so you've resolved the mitigation versus adaptation debate have you? Good for you. Congratulations. How did you do that? The rest of the world would like to know.

[Michael Hardner]

40 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Oh so you've resolved the mitigation versus adaptation debate have you? Good for you. Congratulations. How did you do that? The rest of the world would like to know.

Are you just trying to start a fight over anything ?  I didn't say resolved, I said we talked about it in response to your suggestion that we "could" talk about it.

Well we did. 

Given that, are we done ?  Seems like we agreed to our differences.  Cheers.

[Infidel Dog]

You sound like you're looking for an out.

Go then.

But if you ever do want to have a serious discussion on how to handle possible risks of climate problems I'm here for you.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[Michael Hardner]

38 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

1.You sound like you're looking for an out.

2. Go then.

3. But if you ever do want to have a serious discussion on how to handle possible risks of climate problems I'm here for you.

1. Well, yes.  I don't think there's anything else to talk about.  We covered the main points and I don't feel like these exchanges have to be resolved.  Nor do you need to scratch around for another topic once the first one is done.

2. Thanks.

3. We can talk about adaptation next, if it's time for that.  I would think it needs another thread though.

[The Messenger]

On 1/25/2021 at 1:28 PM, Infidel Dog said:

Watermelon people are green on the outside, red on the inside but don't blame the Chlorophyll. 

I know exactly where you are going with that post. Your post actually acknowledges my worries that Climate Change or GREEN, as I prefer that term, is a Trojan Horse. Many people like me are worried that some people are using this issue to achieve unachievable political goals that they would never be allowed to accomplish through the democratic process. 

I remember a few years ago, when President Obama was elected and wanted to go hard on the issue of Climate Change - many commentators, pundits and some scientists sounded the alarm while pointing out that climate activists where like watermelons - GREEN on the outside and Red (Communist) on the inside. 

It was this type of thinking that got me interested in trying to understand what GREEN is. I have done some research, and I am fairly certain this Trojan Horse is not Marxist in nature. But make no mistake, I view many in the GREEN movement to have extremist characteristics, policies and intentions. Even though it does seem authoritarian in nature like Communism, with their demands for radical structural and systemic changes to how our economy works, it does not match up with any relevant writings about Marx about command and control. 

In fact, Communism was sold as an ideology about workers and sustainable prosperity for all. Now, as history has shown, it never lived up to its own propaganda. But GREEN seems no different. Green is always portrayed as people friendly, and that it has only the best of intentions and says equality for all will be its guiding light when it comes to who will benefit by their decisions to save the planet. How often have we in this country heard of the need to create good GREEN jobs? 

Yet, just this week with the canceling of the Keystone XL pipeline thousands of people will be laid off. That means whole families will suffer even more in this pandemic. Some children will even go hungry in the middle of winter. Now, I am not a fan of the Tar Sands in Alberta, but if GREEN means some children in this country must suffer for the greater good, I must say the GREEN Climate Movement is a force for something other than doing good. 

Going further, I am willing to say that from my limited research on this topic, GREEN encompasses far more than just a carbon tax that will limit the temperature of the planet to a certain degree. Constantly the legacy media and the current government in Ottawa talk of a plastics ban or initiatives to limit the types of energy we can use to heat our homes. All sold under the banner of GREEN. 

Now, I certainly think something should be done to address the issue of global-warming, but that does not mean I see the need or necessity to reinvent our Canadian society from the ground up as the GREEN Climate Movement (GCM) wants. 

Which brings me to this topic in this forum as it is entitled -the moral and ethical challenge that man-made Climate Change present to the people of Canada today. 

In essence, the question I am trying to answer is this… 

Is GREEN morally and ethically good? 

With a clear conscience and with what I know at this time, I would have to say NO.

[Infidel Dog]

22 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. We can talk about adaptation next, if it's time for that.  I would think it needs another thread though.

I thought you said you knew all about the mitigation versus adaptation question. It's central to the climate change debate?

 Look up "Bjorn Lomborg climate change."  

 

[Infidel Dog]

You know, Mike, the term Climate Change is politically charged. If you want to talk specifically about the science concerning AGW in particular perhaps it's you who needs another thread. Although I don't know why you'd want to talk about that topic specifically because you don't seem to know a lot about it. Unless you're looking for a learning experience.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. I thought you said you knew all about the mitigation versus adaptation question. It's central to the climate change debate?

2. Look up "Bjorn Lomborg climate change."  

 

1. I didn't say that.  Why are you trolling ?
2. Actually, no.  I tried to have a conversation with you and you keep saying dumb things.
 

[Infidel Dog]

No. It is you who is trolling by trying to control what people can say on a thread about climate change. Climate Change has a distinct political element. In spite of knowing very little about the science of AGW yourself you seem to be locked into insisting everybody else can only center on that.

If you don't want me to counter-troll you stop making nutty demands like I should open another thread if I want to discuss the thread pertinent issue of how a future risk might be dealt with from the current non-problem of what's called "Climate Change."

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

No. It is you who is trolling by trying to control what people can say on a thread about climate change. Climate Change has a distinct political element. In spite of knowing very little about the science of AGW yourself you seem to be locked into insisting everybody else can only center on that.

If you don't want me to counter-troll you stop making nutty demands like I should open another thread if I want to discuss the thread pertinent issue of how a future risk might be dealt with from the current non-problem of what's called "Climate Change."

We expressed our disagreements - I thought you wanted to talk about adaptation next ?  You don't have to start a new thread - I'll find one if you like.

[Infidel Dog]

Tell you what...I'll answer the question in the title specifically.

Do I believe the climate changes? Yes.

Do I believe man can have some influence on climate. Yes.

However, do I believe that noticing and remarking on how political motivation has hyped exaggerated conclusions drawn from these accepted facts  offering deceivers more money and control than they need or deserve is a troll. No. It's a pertinent and important issue that needs to be discussed.

If you actually do have a link to Mitigation versus Adaptation, sure give it to me.

Won't stop me from discussing it here when it fits though.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. Do I believe the climate changes? Yes.

2. Do I believe man can have some influence on climate. Yes.

3. However, do I believe that noticing and remarking on how political motivation has hyped exaggerated conclusions drawn from these accepted facts  offering deceivers more money and control than they need or deserve is a troll.

4. No. It's a pertinent and important issue that needs to be discussed.

5. If you actually do have a link to Mitigation versus Adaptation, sure give it to me.

Won't stop me from discussing it here when it fits though.

1. 2. 4. Great !!!

3. ?. Well... That sentence for sure is NOT carbon neutral.  I think I know what you mean anyhow.

5. 

6.  Discuss what ?  There's no here here.