Jump to content

The REAL story behind climate change


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

You haven't a clue what you're talking about Mike.

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

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.

I'm not sure I know what a Warmageddon is, but I don't think I'd believe in one if I did.  The evidence for anthropogenic climate change, though,  has been around since the 1980s, at least. It's accepted as a given that it is happening by pretty much everyone who isn't a loony.  If you have evidence it isn't happening you should produce it.  I imagine they would create a special Nobel Prize for you, at the very least. 

But then, you're one who thought the last US election was stolen from Trump by fraudulent means.  You would have to explain yourself there before they would look at your evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I'm not sure I know what a Warmageddon is, but I don't think I'd believe in one if I did. 

 

It's like Armageddon only with nice weather. Apparently somebody told the Chicken Littles of Progdom the sky was falling and they liked that idea.

Quote

The evidence for anthropogenic climate change, though,  has been around since the 1980s, at least.

Yeah the evidence Carbon Dioxide has a warming effect on the atmosphere was around for some time before that. I forget the name of the guy but I think it was around the turn of the 20th century. 1910 or something like that.

Doesn't matter. That has little to do with the skeptic argument. That argument has more to do with climate sensitivity, and the lack of evidence for "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. 

 

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Infidel Dog said:

It's like Armageddon only with nice weather. Apparently somebody told the Chicken Littles of Progdom the sky was falling and they liked that idea.

Yeah the evidence Carbon Dioxide has a warming effect on the atmosphere was around for some time before that. I forget the name of the guy but I think it was around the turn of the 20th century.

Doesn't matter. That has little to do with the skeptic argument. That has more to do with climate sensitivity, and the lack of evidence for "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. 

 

I prefer miserable Anthropogenic Global Warming.  Catastrophe level is going to be in the eye of the beholder, but I think even those who are not catastrophically affected are going to more miserable for it.  And eventually, of course, the catastrophe people are going to get covetous.

Are you suggesting you are of the opinion that climate change is real, human caused, and bad, but just, not that bad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing. If you're not predicting a catastrophe who really cares?

On this though, specifically...

Quote

Are you suggesting you are of the opinion that climate change is real, human caused, and bad, but just, not that bad?

Kind of...

Of course climate changes. I don't know of anybody who says it doesn't. Best guess is yeah, humans can be responsible for some of the change but nobody knows how much.

There's not much evidence if any evidence we have much to worry about. We'll most likely adapt to any possible harmful change as we have in the past.

I'm with professors like Bjorn Lomberg. Effort and expense could be better spent elsewhere:

 

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Here's the thing. If you're not predicting a catastrophe who really cares?

On this though, specifically...

Kind of...

Of course climate changes. I don't know of anybody who says it doesn't. Best guess is yeah, humans can be responsible for some of the change but nobody knows how much.

There's not much evidence if any evidence we have much to worry about. We'll most likely adapt to any possible harmful change as we have in the past.

I'm with professors like Bjorn Lomberg. Effort and expense could be better spent elsewhere:

 

What people choose to do about it isn't going to be catastrophic either, so why do you care?

Best guess?  Good one.

All that said, I have no problem with the notion that we won't do anything about it, and will waste a lot of money while not doing anything about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

What people choose to do about it isn't going to be catastrophic either, so why do you care?

You mean like wasting trillions of other people's money and putting power in the hands of either nefarious wannabe totalitarians or incompetent agencies at all levels of government including global because they tell us they can and must control the weather? Which is let's face it, ridiculous.

Again I'm with Lomberg. Let's not. Let's adapt to whatever comes and use money and government in a less intrusive, more useful and responsible manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

You mean like wasting trillions of other people's money and putting power in the hands of either nefarious wannabe totalitarians or incompetent agencies at all levels of government including global because they tell us they can and must control the weather? Which is let's face it, ridiculous.

Again I'm with Lomberg. Let's not. Let's adapt to whatever comes and use money and government in a less intrusive, more useful and responsible manner.

Ridiculous?  Maybe.  Catastrophic?  You'll survive. 

If it might help others, what's the problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Ridiculous?  Maybe.  Catastrophic?  You'll survive. 

If it might help others, what's the problem?

The risk reward thing, you mean. 

You want us to invest in your insurance scheme because you predict a catastrophe of nice weather. The price is high. Not just in dollars. You want us to hand power over to you as to how we live our lives and what we do with personal property.

But don't worry, you say, you can control the weather and then everything will be alright. 

Yeah, no thanks. What? No magic beans this week?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Infidel Dog said:

The risk reward thing, you mean. 

You want us to invest in your insurance scheme because you predict a catastrophe of nice weather. The price is high. Not just in dollars. You want us to hand power over to you as to how we live our lives and what we do with personal property.

But don't worry, you say, you can control the weather and then everything will be alright. 

Yeah, no thanks. What? No magic beans this week?

I'm no economist, so I don't know what "risk reward" is.  And if I did, it wouldn't be my insurance scheme.  As I've said, I don't think any of it is going to actually work without the kind of international cooperation we can't even dream about right now.  That's why I like Canadian pipelines.  If someone's going to buy it, it might as well be us who produces it and sells it.

No, what I'm getting at is your notion that climate change might be real, best guess, and as long as you're ok, everyone else is too.  If we are only worried about catastrophes, then sleep soundly.  They aren't going to instigate one at the next conference.  You should be ashamed of such alarmism.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

And if you were to get this "international cooperation" to "save the planet" from nice weather it would most likely appear in the shape of global governance.

Or at least that's a risk I wouldn't want to take with little or most likely no reward.

Well, the idea that international cooperation is not possible is a given because global governance is not possible.  And that's because international cooperation is not possible.  We just aren't built that way.

So you have nothing to worry about.

That doesn't change the fact that climate change is real, human caused, and dangerous.  That's what we were arguing about.  At least you "guess" it might exist now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2021 at 8:42 PM, Michael Hardner said:

I'm prone to conspiracy theories! Because government and corporate institutions today control the news cycle and use it to try to control what people think, feel and believe about a range of subjects. 

For example, at one time I had close to complete trust in what the CBC produced and reported on. BUT, that was a long time ago! Before they turned into the similar advocacy journalism as every US and European narrative manager. 

I may investigate a bit and decide there is no substance to a 'sugar conspiracy' story, but I won't dismiss anything out of hand now, cause I haven't forgot past conspiracies - like "Saddam will use his WMD's if we don't invade and destroy Iraq first!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

There's been a lot of scary scary headlines about the latest IPCC report on climate change. I think this puts things into better perspective.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres called the findings a “code red for humanity” saying we can only avert catastrophe by acting in the next couple of months. Of course, the UN has a long history of claiming catastrophe is right around the corner: The first UN environment director claimed half a century ago that we had just ten years left, and the then-head of the IPCC insisted in 2007 that we had just five years left.

In contrast to the hyperventilating media, the report is actually serious and sensible (and very, very long). It doesn’t surprise, since it is a summary of already published studies, but it reconfirms that global warming is indeed real and a problem.

 

https://financialpost.com/opinion/opinion-ipcc-global-warming-report-is-more-chill-than-you-have-read

Oh, and for the suspicious wondering about his background...

Bjørn Lomborg (Danish: [ˈpjɶɐ̯ˀn ˈlɔmˌpɒˀ]; born 6 January 1965) is a Danish author and President of the think tank, Copenhagen Consensus Center. He is former director of the Danish government's Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI) in Copenhagen. He became internationally known for his best-selling and controversial book, The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001), in which he argues that many of the costly measures and actions adopted by scientists and policy makers to meet the challenges of global warming will ultimately have minimal impact on the world's rising temperature

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 months later...
On 1/31/2021 at 7:12 AM, cannuck said:

 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.

There is a strong relationship between atmospheric CO2 and oceanic CO2 and that is integral in the science behind anthropogenic global climate change.  It is already part and parcel of it since the ocean represents a significant reservoir for dissolving CO2 but also for releasing it. 

One of the greats in oceanography, Roger Revelle, upon completing some studies on CO2 dissolution in the oceans (along with Hans Suess) became concerned about the added CO2 in the atmosphere in the late 50's and he picked up the earlier developed hypothesis about global warming (going back to the late 1800's) and started to investigate it further.

Yes anthropogenic global climate change is very real.  And the oceans plan an integral part in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yessiree Bob...Good ol' Climate Change. Gotta love it for getting people wound like tops.

My view is perhaps...a little fatalist in nature.

Sudbury Ontario, not too many decades ago, was a bit grey looking. They discovered the lack of flora was a result of the gasses being dumped on them by the nickle smelting they were doing. But that stack was so high they they could see the smoke dissipate and blow away. A common mistake. 

Man does indeed have an affect on the ecology of this planet. We've seen the problem...we've alleviated many of the identified problems...and we will continue to alleviate the remaining problems. Are we affecting the global temperature? Sure...perfectly reasonable. Are we all gonna die from this imposition? Highly doubtful. Should we address the issue? Of course. That's what we do. We find an issue and we then set to resolving it. I once worked for a multi-national that installed nuclear and coal burning power generation complexes. I worked building the infrastructure for the IT systems. Now...I know that the term "clean coal" is an oxymoron...but I happen to know about some of the "clean" technology that industry uses now. The precipitator and scrubbing tech is...pretty bloody good.

Knowing this, is our current situation, when weighed against our natural inclination for innovation and...'fixing things'...enough to justify the immediate trashing of the fossil fuel industry, in the Western World only, at the expense of massive economic burden...once again at the Western World's expense?

And my answer is a resounding 'NO SIR!' (or Ma'm or whatever...)

Let man do what man does best...find a problem...fix a problem.

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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,341
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Alex Ray
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • I am Groot went up a rank
      Experienced
    • Adaptablefarmer earned a badge
      First Post
    • CrakHoBarbie went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • CrakHoBarbie earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • reason10 earned a badge
      Posting Machine
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...