|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Sept 30, 2013 17:48:47 GMT -5
Well, yes, it's just a comedy routine in one sense.... but of course Carlin was a very intelligent and thoughtful man, and not your average, run-of-the-mill stand-up comic.
Obviously there is way too much pollution. No argument there. The rivers and the oceans (especially) are full of crap. To a considerable extent, though, the obsession/preoccupation with CO2 - which is not a pollutant, of course - has distracted attention and diverted funds from *real* (as opposed to imaginary and theoretical) environmental problems.
Humans are responsible for between 2-3% of all CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. There is zero evidence that this is A/ causing the earth's temperature to rise (it isn't rising), B/ causing the climate to change (the climate has been changing constantly for billions of years), C/ causing an increase in natural disasters like hurricanes, earthquakes etc (if anything there has been a reduction in disasters of this kind in the last 50 years), or D, having a detrimental effect on the global environment. If anything, the beneficial effects of a rise of a few degrees in temperature (even if it happened, which there is no indication will happen) would far outweigh any detrimental effects.
The theory that increases in CO2 emissions could result in a minute rise in the earth's temperature was at least coherent (if not supported by factual observation); but the notion that higher levels of CO2 can result in disaster level "climate change" is junk science. There is no evidence at all to support such a claim, nor is there any known mechanism by which such a causal relationship could arise.
The whole "global warming" movement was put in motion by British PM, Margaret Thatcher. It was on her direct initiative that the IPCC was set up (with the object of finding evidence *supportive* of the MMGW theory). Thatcher was motivated by a desire to vindicate herself for her decision to close Britain's coal mines (which had a devastating effect on mining towns and communities and made her a figure of hate) and support the nuclear power industry. By proving that burning fossil fuels was having a negative effect on the environment, Thatcher hoped to shoe that she had made the right decision in destroying the coal industry (and the unions). The founding of the IPCC was, in other words, an entirely political decision, not an environmental one.
And lo and behold, the highly-funded IPCC researchers confirmed that man-made CO2 was, indeed, causing damage to the environment. The irony (or the cleverness) was that the population demographic that had previously been strongly opposed to Thatcher and her policies - left-wing environmentalists, ecologists, anti-nuclear campaigners, people who had protested in support of the miners etc - lined up to hitch a ride on the MMGW band-wagon because it suited their own agenda. Thus you had (and still have) arch environmentalists and anti-nuke campaigners like the Guardian's environmental editor, George Monbiot, writing editorials in support of the nuclear fuel industry.
The other irony is that Thatcher herself regarded the man-made global warming theory as absurd (she studied chemistry at Oxford), and admitted as much in interviews towards the end of her life.
|
|
|
Post by juliet on Sept 30, 2013 19:41:55 GMT -5
I can't recall his name, but the defenders of the status quo asked an 'acceptable' scientist to look at the data and tell them human-caused global warming was bogus. He looked at the data, went through it carefully, and told his employers that it was real.
Are you going to tell us that the 'global warming conspiracy' was able to outbid incredibly wealthy oil and coal interests?
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Sept 30, 2013 23:46:57 GMT -5
The "defenders of the status quo"? Who are you talking about? The status quo is that there is no global warming, no climate change, and no scientific evidence supporting the claim that man-made CO2 will cause warming or climate change in the future.
As for the major oil companies, they are the ones who stand to gain most (trillions of dollars) on the carbon derivatives market.
There is no "global warming conspiracy", by the way, merely a global warming fraud.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Oct 1, 2013 9:39:01 GMT -5
Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change www.ipcc.ch/"A total of 209 Lead Authors and 50 Review Editors from 39 countries and more than 600 Contributing Authors from 32 countries contributed to the preparation of Working Group I AR5." So, Zak (or anonymous writer who sounds exactly like him), you would have us believe that all 859 of these people, along with their assistants and staff and the organizations where they work, as well as all the other researchers throughout the world whose work shows that the planet is warming, are engaged in a massive conspiracy to defraud the entire human race? I'm not buying it. For anyone interested in reading the new report from the IPCC, I suggest that you begin with the "Summary for Policymakers." It's only 36 pages, and not too technical for the general reader. www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Oct 1, 2013 13:12:34 GMT -5
The new report is a crock of s***. More doubletalk, and the same spurious "science".
Of course there are hundreds of contributing authors. They all being well paid to support the case for MMGW. Many of them staked their reputations on the MMGW theory early in their careers (to get grant money), and now their reputations are on the line. And most of the researchers who submit contributions are not experts in this (or any) field. The point is, the IPCC is a politically and commercially-motivated venture. The people at the top of the MMGW industry (and it *is* an industry) stand to gain trillions of dollars from climate change legislation )the principal beneficiaries being Wall Street, major corporations like General Electric, oil companies like Shell - and, of course, the people who run the IPCC. You seriously find it hard to believe that people would "massage" the statistics in order to obtain vast amounts of money? I find that very naive. Thousands of independent scientists reject MMGW completely. Their views are being suppressed in the mainstream media. In fact it is scandalous that the media publish reports from the IPCC as if they were proven facts, without questioning them or giving air time to MMGW skeptics.
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Oct 2, 2013 18:44:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Oct 27, 2013 19:05:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 27, 2013 19:25:04 GMT -5
Hi Mike! How have you been? We miss you! Bob
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Oct 27, 2013 20:18:25 GMT -5
I've been fine, and now recently retired. Not liking this guest sign in thingy with ads and quizzes so I suppose I'll have to rejoin the forum. Good to see the old names still hanging in there. Mostly anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Oct 27, 2013 20:33:55 GMT -5
The Guardian "climate change" journalists are off-the-wall fanatical. They put the "mental" into "environmental". I wouldn't believe anything I read on the Guardian on this subject. And they actually have an editorial policy of not publishing any facts or opinions that contradict the "official" (IPCC) position.
As for the heat being stored in the lower layers of the ocean, that's baloney. The most accurate temperature measurements are those made by satellites, and they measure the combined incoming and outgoing heat. This is just another of the many excuses the IPCC has come up with in an attempt to account for the fact that the increased temperature they predicted failed to materialize.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2013 21:44:07 GMT -5
I've been fine, and now recently retired. Not liking this guest sign in thingy with ads and quizzes so I suppose I'll have to rejoin the forum. Good to see the old names still hanging in there. Mostly anyway. Do it, Mike! Do it , do it.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 28, 2013 8:54:27 GMT -5
I've been fine, and now recently retired. Not liking this guest sign in thingy with ads and quizzes so I suppose I'll have to rejoin the forum. Good to see the old names still hanging in there. Mostly anyway. Do it, Mike! Do it , do it. For once, I completely agree with Lily! It would be great to have you back Mike. Bob
|
|
mike
Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by mike on Oct 28, 2013 9:51:19 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2013 13:22:09 GMT -5
Mike, I'm so happy about that. I Really am.
Bob, I would really love for you to select an avatar from your Profile, at least, even if you don't want to select a picture from your computer or the internet. When you post, I keep feeling that you've just existed a flying saucer. I really think you have much more of a character in you than that.
|
|
mike
Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by mike on Oct 28, 2013 14:09:50 GMT -5
Zak wrote: I wouldn't believe anything I read on the Guardian on this subject. And I would be unlikely to believe anything I read coming from a real estate salesman claiming to have psychic powers. So where does that get us in terms of understanding the science?
Zak wrote: And they actually have an editorial policy of not publishing any facts or opinions that contradict the "official" (IPCC) position. That is not their policy. They are still, apparently, working out what their policy should be, guided by this reasonable approach: "So I would be unhappy about an absolute ban on those who might be grouped together as climate change deniers, but would need to see a strong case to run anything from them (and know something about what commercial interests they might be linked to)." www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/27/publishing-letters-climate-change-deniers
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Oct 28, 2013 14:44:07 GMT -5
"And I would be unlikely to believe anything I read coming from a real estate salesman claiming to have psychic powers. So where does that get us in terms of understanding the science?"
But - apart from the fact that I am not a "real estate salesman" - I'm not asking anyone to believe in "climate change". They are the ones making the claim, not me.
And it is and has been their policy to disallow any and all "dissent" on the man-made global warming issue, regardless of what they say. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof in this case is the fact that they have never carried an article or opinion piece which contested the official IPCC position (despite the fact that many have been submitted for publication by highly-qualified scientists and climate journalists). Posts expressing a "dissident" viewpoint are routinely deleted, and posters who persist in disputing the IPCC's claims are banned. In fact some of the Guardian's most popular CiF contributors have been banned for questioning "climate change" science. In fact the very language they use - which I notice you also use - to refer to "climate change" skeptics is intentionally designed to be offensive and dismissive. The term "deniers", for example, is more closely associated with Holocaust denial, and is used in an attempt to imply that the views of MMGW skeptics are as reprehensible as those of Holocaust deniers. They also refer to skeptics as "heretics", which implies that MMGW theory is sacrosanct - an issue which is beyond challenge - and that those who question it deserve to be treated as outcasts.
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Oct 28, 2013 16:23:13 GMT -5
"And I would be unlikely to believe anything I read coming from a real estate salesman claiming to have psychic powers."
And by the way, why do you find it necessary to be offensive and insulting? Do you have insecurity issues? Or are you just a dickhead? I mean I post a totally reasonable comment which you are perfectly free to disagree with. But no, you have to come back straightaway with the personal insults. As if a "real estate salesman" (if that's what I was) isn't entitled to have an opinion. What's YOUR job, anyway? Are you a climate scientist?
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Oct 28, 2013 17:05:35 GMT -5
Most men on this site have always been offensive, insulting & dickheads to you, if I remember correctly. The reasons for that? Don't want to pursue. Wish they'd quit it, once & for all. Grow up, Boys.
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Oct 28, 2013 17:09:16 GMT -5
Zak:
As someone who understands language & its various usages quite well, I think you raised a very interesting point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2013 18:06:21 GMT -5
The one undeniable fact about denying that climate change is happening is that you never have to be held accountable for that if you turn out to be wrong. What are you going to do? Roll out of your grave and announce that wow, I was wrong. And does anyone have any water wings I can borrow? The only obvious reason for being so adamant about it is the economics of it and how it will impinge on your bank account personally.
|
|
mike
Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by mike on Oct 30, 2013 10:58:12 GMT -5
Most men on this site have always been offensive, insulting & dickheads to you, if I remember correctly. The reasons for that? Don't want to pursue. Wish they'd quit it, once & for all. Grow up, Boys. OK Joan, since you ask so nicely I'll do my best. Does anyone have anything substantive to say about the RealClimate blog post? Since we know that there is an imbalance between energy entering and energy leaving the planet that energy is going somewhere on the planet. If it is not manifested in atmospheric temperature rise then it is most probably going into the sea. The RC post gives a clear explanation as to how this could occur.
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Oct 31, 2013 22:56:03 GMT -5
Here's what I think. Suppose you had, say, a billion dollars to give away, and you wanted to find evidence to support a particular theory - let's say you wanted to find evidence to support your theory that people with brown eyes are more creative than people with blue eyes (or any other proposition for which no definite evidence existed either way). So you go to a poorly-funded research institute bristling with impoverished PhD scientists and you say: "Hey, guys, I have a billion dollars to spend on research supporting a link between brown eyes and creativity. Would you guys be interested in doing some research into this for me? Oh, and by the way, the funding will last for as long as you keep finding evidence to support the theory."
Are these researchers going to find evidence to support the theory or not?
I say they are. Even if they don't consciously cheat (although the researchers at the CRU *did* deliberately cheat), they are going to find the evidence they are looking for, through bias in their data selection, bias in their interpretation of data, mutual positive reinforcement and so on. It would be psychologically impossible for them *not* to find evidence to support the theory they are being paid to prove.
And this is *exactly* what happened when Thatcher initiated the IPCC, offering generous funding to the CRU (Climate Research Unit) at Anglia University. (Her motive? To justify her support for Nuclear power and her closing of the coal mines. Others immediately saw in the theory an opportunity to apply a carbon tax - ie, a tax on air! - and a carbon offset market).
And when you add to the financial incentive the fact that these researchers were enthusiastic environmentalists, it is hardly surprising that, lo and behold, they did find evidence to support the theory (it is worth noting that they themselves did not come up with the theory).
And that's the thing in a nutshell. It was, and is, politically motivated. It was initiated as a political device, and quickly became a financial opportunity (for the likes of Al Gore, who made over a billion dollars on the carbon "stock market").
The researchers who submit their findings to the IPCC are neither objective or unbiased. They are part of a community whose raison d'ĂȘtre is to prove and defend the global warming theory.
|
|
mike
Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by mike on Nov 1, 2013 8:38:10 GMT -5
My question was: Does anyone have anything substantive to say about the RealClimate blog post?
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Nov 1, 2013 14:48:52 GMT -5
Yes. It's baloney. For the reasons I've outlined above. RealClimate is a group of dyed-in-the-wool Warmists whose livelihood depends on proving "climate change". Most of their conclusions are based on computer models. Not one of the predictions made using these models has ever materialized in the last 20 years. To wit:
The earth's temperature hasn't gone up in 18 years (they predicted a year-on-year rise). There has been no "catastrophic rise" in sea levels, and no islands have disappeared under the sea. The polar bear population has not become extinct. On the contrary, polar bear numbers are at an all-time high, to the extent that there are now calls for them to be culled. Snow has not disappeared or become "a rare event". On the contrary, it is still as plentiful and as commonplace as it ever was. The incidence of "extreme weather" - hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts etc - has not increased at all. In fact the frequency of hurricanes, tornadoes etc is lower than it has been for at least five decades. Sea ice is at the same level it was at 100 years ago.
So what are we talking about here? The weather is normal, the climate is normal, the temperature is normal, sea level is normal, ice levels are normal. The only thing that isn't normal is the number of deluded and self-deluded people who believe that the less than 2% of the CO2 that humans produce is going to destroy the planet. It's sheer lunacy.
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Nov 1, 2013 14:55:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Nov 1, 2013 17:46:37 GMT -5
Talking to Zak about global warming is a bit like discussing evolution with a creationist. Why bother?
|
|
mike
Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by mike on Nov 1, 2013 18:30:35 GMT -5
You're right of course so I won't bother.
However, Bob's original post said the current anomaly needs explaining and that's what the RealClimate post does - it explains how the heat is going into the oceans instead of the atmosphere, and this is supporetd by the steady continuation of sea level rise. I'd really like to see some serious discussion about this topic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2013 18:55:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Nov 1, 2013 19:04:39 GMT -5
"Talking to Zak about global warming is a bit like discussing evolution with a creationist. Why bother?"
That's rather an idiotic statement, isn't it? Discussing global warming with me is nothing at all like discussing evolution with a creationist. Did you say that because you thought it sounded clever? It doesn't. Only an idiot would (and did) agree with you.
Evolution is a proven scientific theory. Not only is global warming not a proven scientific theory, there IS no global warming.
And yes, Lily, sea level is rising at the rate of 4-8 inches per century (not 20 meters, as Al Gore claimed), and it has been for a couple of centuries now. That's because the earth is still emerging from a mini ice age. It has nothing at all to do with CO2 emissions.
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Nov 1, 2013 19:09:47 GMT -5
And for the record, please note that I am RESPONDING to insults and offensive remarks. I made no offensive comments or insulted anyone. Why certain people here seem to feel compelled to be offensive I have no idea.
|
|