The REAL story behind climate change

[cannuck]

 I am adamantly opposed to wasting ANY time, money and effort on such things as electric vehicle conversion and a lot of other misguided, virtue signalling issues. What has technically bothered me for a decade or so, rise in atmospheric temperature FOLLOWS rise in atmospheric CO2 - and that make sense. BUT: it seems these factors are PRECEDED by rise in oceanic CO2 and then temp. I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that the oceans are THE major short-term variable in the carbon cycle (geological material being the most stable long term). Being very much a physical kind of guy - very weak on the bio side - it has always been a bit of a mystery how the aquatic side of the carbon cycle actually works. If finally found a very, VERY informative and highly credible explanation, that you can find cruising through the following link: https://www.goesfoundation.com/

I often seem to be some sort of Forest Gump when it comes to technology and some other things - just seem to stumble into THE most interesting people. When working with one of my Euroweenie buddies, I had some questions about the filtration medium he was using in his work, and one thing led to another and we ended up on the phone for two hours with Dr. Dryden - the guy mostly responsible for the Goes Foundation. One of the participants was himself a celebrated and awarded bio scientist I have known for years, and he came away from that session stating he had learned more in that short session than from ANY single event in his career.

So, if you take the time to read the few pages in the link, it should explain why we are chasing absolutely the WRONG thing in dealing with climate change and sustainability.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

 Being very much a physical kind of guy - very weak on the bio side - it has always been a bit of a mystery how the aquatic side of the carbon cycle actually works. If finally found a very, VERY informative and highly credible explanation, that you can find cruising through the following link: https://www.goesfoundation.com/
 

 

This is not very credible... lacking supporting data...from the link:

 

Quote

Well we are in that position, except it's not just whales but all life in the Ocean, 50% has been killed over the last 70 years, and the remaining plankton life is dying at a rate of 1% year on year. On our research yacht COPEPOD, we are out on the oceans trying to stop the destruction by;

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

 So, if you take the time to read the few pages in the link, it should explain why we are chasing absolutely the WRONG thing in dealing with climate change and sustainability.

So... sorry who is this guy you stumbled on ?  What's his funding source and agenda ? 

[cannuck]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

So... sorry who is this guy you stumbled on ?  What's his funding source and agenda ? 

You will find all of that on the website.  Their chief scientist is also their chief DONOR, not benefactor.  His agenda is to teach the science.  Made his money long ago - by being productive, not some kind of speculator.

[cannuck]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

This is not very credible... lacking supporting data...from the link:

I think a brief summary of his credentials are somewhere on that site.  I agree, there are a lot of statements that need supporting data to make a better case.  Will be asking about that.   

As far as his credibility is concerned: that is beyond reproach.

Edited January 31, 2021 by cannuck

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, cannuck said:

You will find all of that on the website.  Their chief scientist is also their chief DONOR, not benefactor.  His agenda is to teach the science.  Made his money long ago - by being productive, not some kind of speculator.

Ok.  So a crackpot millionaire... ok.

[cannuck]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok.  So a crackpot millionaire... ok.

Actually the billionaire academic (PhD) with endless accolades and awards from his academic, professional, philanthropic and business accomplishments and contributions.  I thought there might have been better bio on the site, but when I looked it was pretty skimpy.  But, I suppose to you...a crackpot for actually DOING something about things that matter to the planet.

Edited January 31, 2021 by cannuck

[Michael Hardner]

57 minutes ago, cannuck said:

  But, I suppose to you...a crackpot for actually DOING something about things that matter to the planet.

What else to say about someone who builds his own platform to drown out established institutions...

[cannuck]

Don't know what YOU say, but I say someone who is willing to stake his valuable reputation pointing out the scientifically obvious that "established institutions" ignore for the privilege of scamming taxpayers, consumers and businesses over this CO2 nonsense.   What I don't think they mention on the GOES website is that IF oceans have a massive dieoff the biota that normally fix CO2 will instead decay, releasing instead of much less harmful CO2 or O2 (depends on the organism) they will release methane - a FAR more damaging greenhouse gas.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, cannuck said:

Don't know what YOU say, but I say someone who is willing to stake his valuable reputation pointing out the scientifically obvious that "established institutions" ignore for the privilege of scamming taxpayers...

The scientists don't get carbon tax money... so.... 

[Argus]

On 1/31/2021 at 9:32 PM, Michael Hardner said:

The scientists don't get carbon tax money... so.... 

I think we've seen numerous cases of scientists adjusting their studies in order to please the organizations which dole out billions in annual research funding. There is a huge pile of money available for research in climate change, but it dries up in an instant if you veer from the established consensus.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

I think we've seen numerous cases of scientists adjusting their studies in order to please the organizations which dole out billions in annual research funding. There is a huge pile of money available for research in climate change, but it dries up in an instant if you veer from the established consensus.

Maybe individual instances ?  But we know for SURE that Oil Industry groups pay for gadflies & kooks to make a lot of noise and blur the lines on the science.  Maybe not so much lately though.

I don't have research on this but I will bet the pro-climate change examples are slight. You would have to change a LOT of research to make a difference in the consensus.

[cannuck]

I will give you an example of just how ONE measley bad (and sponsored) bit of work changed the beliefs of the vast majority of academia.  I can't recall the exact study, but it was commissioned by the early food processing business, and concluded that animal fat wasn't good for you.  Entire generations of academics taught this in nutrition classes for decades.  Of course, it was utter BS, but the "scientists" all jumped on the bandwagon and persisted until fairly recently.  No different from the global warming...oops, well, climate change (as if nobody noticed it has NEVER been "unchanging") and demonizing carbon in the form of CO2.

Here is what we now say about margarine vs. butter (which IIRC was the foundation of the original study, the change of margarine from animal fat to processed vegetable fats).  https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/butter-vs-margarine

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, cannuck said:

  I can't recall the exact study, but it was commissioned by the early food processing business, and concluded that animal fat wasn't good for you.  Entire generations of academics taught this in nutrition classes for decades.  

This is a good reminder that leftists are more prone to conspiracy theories than most understand.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/the-sugar-conspiracy-ant-field-medics-burping-lava-and-more-1.4537876/corruption-bribery-and-cover-ups-is-the-sugar-conspiracy-too-sweet-1.4537885

[cannuck]

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is a good reminder that leftists are more prone to conspiracy theories than most understand.

Great link, thanks.   I don't think it comes down to "left vs. right" politics, but the discipline missing from many people in science.  Sorry to have to say: this is far more of a US problem than a Canadian one, mostly because the money behind most major brand names in food and medicine are US based.  But: NEVER doubt that the $$$ commands more than anything else inside of most businesses.  One of our family members is a retired medical researcher, and has spoken internationally on his specialty during his long career.  He would be one of the very first to explain how he could clearly see the "sponsorship bias" in peer reviewed scientific research - which he, as a Canadian government employee never (or, I should comment SELDOM) felt, but NEVER accepted.

And, yes, this plays very clearly into the "climate change" industry that does indeed thrive on tax dollars - but from an extremely narrow bias the reminds me of the anti-nuke days.  The new villian of those who live off of scaring the public cow for the front seat sucking on the teat has become carbon in general, and petrochem in particular.   Unfortunately, most don't seem to have the scientific discipline to be thorough and brutally honest.  To me, the greatest injustice of all is ignoring, distorting or missrepresenting the science.

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, cannuck said:

  The new villian of those who live off of scaring the public cow ...

Sure but isn't the bigger problem the 30% of the population who refuses to accept authoritative information ?

We can find examples where a scientist removed a sentence from their conclusion on a paper so as to not offend a sponsor or some official... but how about many millions of people thinking that Jewish space lasers are burning down our forests ?

Do you see one issue that maybe needs to be prioritized here ?  

Granted, they are both symptoms of the same problem: the bifurcation of the masses into a kind-of-Public and the great deplorables.  

[cannuck]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sure but isn't the bigger problem the 30% of the population who refuses to accept authoritative information ?

We can find examples where a scientist removed a sentence from their conclusion on a paper so as to not offend a sponsor or some official... but how about many millions of people thinking that Jewish space lasers are burning down our forests ?

Do you see one issue that maybe needs to be prioritized here ?  

Granted, they are both symptoms of the same problem: the bifurcation of the masses into a kind-of-Public and the great deplorables.  

You make some really good points.

I think a good part of the problem is that we have watched the power and influence of the media grow so great that it is difficult for people to separate fact from fiction.  That IMHO happens for two reasons:  education has shifted from STEM to basket weaving and everyone is expected to be graduated since it feeds the massive bureaucracy that sells substandard education in exchange for a paycheque.  Secondly: we live in such an incredibly wealthy society people have a great deal of time to watch mindless media entertainment since there is so little need to get off their ass and learn a trade or profession and practice it.

Of course, electing political leaders who's qualifications are basically what is politically correct by definition means we have zero credibility from THAT source.

Edited February 4, 2021 by cannuck

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

1) we have watched the power and influence of the media grow so great that it is difficult for people to separate fact from fiction. 

2) That IMHO happens for two reasons:  education has shifted from STEM to basket weaving and everyone is expected to be graduated since it feeds the massive bureaucracy that sells substandard education in exchange for a paycheque. 

3) Secondly: we live in such an incredibly wealthy society people have a great deal of time to watch mindless media entertainment since there is so little need to get off their ass and learn a trade or profession and practice it.

4) Of course, electing political leaders who's qualifications are basically what is politically correct by definition means we have zero credibility from THAT source.

1) Hmmmm.... that's an interesting take, but... if we had just ONE source of information mandating facts and fictions (ie. Ministry of Truth) then this wouldn't be a problem at all right ?  And if EVERYONE had access to facts and the tools to discern fact from fiction we also wouldn't have a problem right ?  My assessment is that problems with "who controls the truth" have happened before, such as when the printing press was invented.  Knowledge is power and when the tools to share knowledge change, there are power shifts.  And... wars... 

2) There are some obvious problems with your remedy, which is presumably a return to STEM.   "STEM" isn't a magical topic that makes people "smart".  We need more basket weavers than nuclear scientists.  We don't need people to understand science at depth, as much as we need them to understand how to criticize/trust scientists and authority general to the right level.  And also - economics is an arts topic not a STEM topic and there is a major misunderstanding of economics today, as there has always been really.

3) I agree with this, but we actually have adjusted our cultural values to deal with other problems of the affluent society such as consuming unhealthy food and not exercising.  Why can't we do it for information ?  And how would that look ? 

One thing is for sure you would need to share power in designing a new approach.  This would be the hardest for the liberal who is used to 'owning' the agenda.  The fact of the matter is if something, and the obvious example could be identity politics, is not a priority for the entire community then it won't be prioritized as such.  Conversely, there is no reason to enact anti-tolerance policies to punish groups you don't agree with.  "Live and let live" has worked in the past and de-escalating the politics around this would clear the table to work on things like economic concerns, education, health and above all unity and democratic reform.

4) Like... since 2000... Donald Trump and George W. Bush ?  There's definitely no "lock" on political correctness.  To me, the amount of noise on this file damages the ability of communities to talk about bigger problems...

LIKE CLIMATE CHANGE.

[cannuck]

The whole purpose of basing education on STEM is that people become aware of and adept at the discipline of seeking the absolute truth - as that is the foundation of good science and theoretically ALL science.   We learn to identify good science and we can then accept it.   An example is the Canada Food Guide.   THAT is health care at its best, and as Canadians we do a fairly good job of disseminating such information and accepting it as trustworthy.  Not so South of the 49th where distrust of government is deeply engrained, and somewhat earned.

I have a kid who is a food scientist (among four degrees) and to listen to her explain the real science and truth behind foods is quite an eye opener.  From her vantage point, pretty easy to identify that almost every food/nutrition fad is wildly inaccurate or even opportunistic lies.  Give more kids a really good education that DEMANDS proof of understanding to be graduated, and you have a much larger body public that can smell the BS.

 

Gotta run: deep in the middle some Capitalist Pigging to pay the bills.

Edited February 4, 2021 by cannuck

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, cannuck said:

1. The whole purpose of basing education on STEM is that people become aware of and adept at the discipline of seeking the absolute truth - as that is the foundation of good science and theoretically ALL science.   We learn to identify good science and we can then accept it.    

2. I have a kid who is a food scientist (among four degrees) and to listen to her explain the real science and truth behind foods is quite an eye opener.  From her vantage point, pretty easy to identify that almost every food/nutrition fad is wildly inaccurate or even opportunistic lies.  Give more kids a really good education that DEMANDS proof of understanding to be graduated, and you have a much larger body public that can smell the BS.

 

Gotta run: deep in the middle some Capitalist Pigging to pay the bills.

1. I hadn't thought of it that way.
2. Ask her why "Canadian maple syrup" comes from Vermont.  I think high school should just be training the folks to be basic citizens.  For climate change, it means getting them to know the basics of it.  If you taught them the whole poodle they would all fail.  It's too complicated.

[Infidel Dog]

This is all people really need to know about what "they" are calling "Climate Change."

[Video] Absolute Control: “Screw Turning” Sociopath REPUBLICAN Climate Czar Admits Goal of Climate Policies... “We Will Break You”

Quote

In a shockingly casual and honest video (below) that was leaked from a Zoom conference, Massachusetts climate ‘czar’ under anti-Trump pro-voter fraud mail-in voting RINO Republican Charlie Baker, David Ismay admitted what climate policy is truly designed to do...

The rest is at the link. Basically it's all BS designed to break your spirit with high prices and controls and prepare populations for the "Great Reset." Doesn't matter how much STEM you study.

[Infidel Dog]

And here's how they do it:

"

At an environmental forum, Julian Simon once asked: “How many people here believe that the earth is increasingly polluted and that our natural resources are being exhausted?” 

After a roomful of hands shot up, Simon then asked: “Is there any evidence that could dissuade you?” Encountering silence, he followed up: “Is there any evidence I could give you—anything at all—that would lead you to reconsider these assumptions?”

After more silence, Simon answered: “Well, excuse me. I’m not dressed for church.”

Today’s Church of Climate holds three resolute beliefs:

1. The human influence on climate is pronounced and controlling
2. That influence cannot be positive or benign, only catastrophic
3. Global governance can and must solve this problem                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/03/inside-the-church-of-climate/

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

And here's how they do it:

"

At an environmental forum, Julian Simon once asked: “How many people here believe that the earth is increasingly polluted and that our natural resources are being exhausted?” 

After a roomful of hands shot up, Simon then asked: “Is there any evidence that could dissuade you?” Encountering silence, he followed up: “Is there any evidence I could give you—anything at all—that would lead you to reconsider these assumptions?”

After more silence, Simon answered: “Well, excuse me. I’m not dressed for church.”

Today’s Church of Climate holds three resolute beliefs:

1. The human influence on climate is pronounced and controlling
2. That influence cannot be positive or benign, only catastrophic
3. Global governance can and must solve this problem                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/03/inside-the-church-of-climate/

I think, when you come up with the evidence, you should present it.  That way, if anyone refuses to change their minds, given you have shown they are wrong, you can mock them for not believing the evidence and instead sticking to mindless denial of the facts.

[Michael Hardner]

52 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I think, when you come up with the evidence, you should present it.  

Exactly.  I haven't heard about any published papers that have made any impressions lately against human-caused climate change.  Of course, the chucklef*cks claim it's a conspiracy just like everything is.

That blogger Watt "published" something on the oil lobby website and that's as far as they get towards publishing.

In fact, Koch's anti-climate group has shut down their climate disinfo group:
 

Quote

"While it is true that, with the departure of Pat Michaels, we have deactivated our Center for the Study of Science, we continue to work on science policy issues," Khristine Brookes, the spokeswoman, wrote in an email. She didn't mention climate change.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060419123

[Infidel Dog]

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I think, when you come up with the evidence, you should present it.  That way, if anyone refuses to change their minds, given you have shown they are wrong, you can mock them for not believing the evidence and instead sticking to mindless denial of the facts.

Why? Did you have evidence of an imminent Warmageddon coming?

Then by all means produce it. I and many others would love to see it.