|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 2, 2014 18:07:33 GMT -5
"We see this in the global warming debate where a few nay saying scientists denying climate change are oddly persuasive for some, forgetting that 95% of climate scientists agree to its existence."
Do you have any evidence of that?
In my opinion the whole global warming claim is a perfect example of how easy it is to manipulate public opinion and deceive people on a large scale. The very fact that you have just cited the figure of 95% (the figure usually cited by IPCC) makes my point. There is no evidence at all to support the idea that 95% of climate scientists accept the man-made global warming theory.
|
|
|
Post by tommy on Feb 2, 2014 18:48:08 GMT -5
I read it on the NASA site: "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources." climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 2, 2014 19:21:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 2, 2014 19:28:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 2, 2014 22:10:50 GMT -5
Getting back to conspiracies, I think we need to be careful not to tar all "conspiracy theorists" with the same brush. There ARE conspiracies. Many conspiracies have been exposed over the years. One has to be careful to distinguish between plausible and implausible conspiracies. It is the quality of evidence that matters. There are certainly many unanswered questions surrounding the 911 attacks. The 911 conspiracy theorists are quite right to be suspicious, and to demand a full investigation (the fact that the Bush admin did its best to block any investigation of the biggest crime in US history is itself reasonable grounds for suspicion). The families of those killed on 911 - who have been demanding an investigation for over a decade now - certainly deserve a proper investigation. It is also important to remember that one of the most effective ways to discredit a conspiracy theory is to deliberately add elements to it that point in the wrong direction, or add elements to it that are patently absurd. The word "conspiracy" conjures up an image of a group of shadowy figures meeting at a secret rendezvous to plot a crime. But more often, conspiracies are tacit agreements between two or more parties with a mutual interest in a certain outcome or event. "Convergence of interests" might be a more appropriate term. But there are also conspiracies in the true sense of the word. There is a danger that people who raise reasonable and well-founded suspicions will be dismissed as crackpots on the grounds that "conspiracy theorist" equals "crackpot". A few years ago I was called a conspiracy nut by certain individuals because I expressed the view that the web, and social media in particular, were being surveilled by the NSA and GCHQ. Many highly qualified observers are convinced that the financial crash was deliberately "engineered" (ie, a conspiracy) and did not arise as a result of negligence. www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/10/state-conspiracy-long-freeCorporations do conspire. Banks and financial institutions conspire. And governments conspire. The US government has a long track record of conspiring against the American people. For instance... The Gulf of Tonkin incident was the pretext for start of the war in vietnam. In August 1964, US naval vessels were reportedly attacked by Vietnamese naval vessels. The American public was outraged, and Congress decided that Lyndon Johnson could defend any Southeast Asian nation from Communism. Thus the war in Vietmam began. In fact the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened. Years later it came to light that the NSA had invented the story to provide the government with the pretext it needed to invade Vietnam. In 1990, all the mainstream US TV channels carried video footage of a Kuwaiti woman, Nayirah al-Sabah, testifying to the House of Representatives that she had personally witnessed Iraqi soldiers invade Kuwaiti hospitals and take newborn infants out of their incubators and throw them onto the cold floor to freeze to death. It was Nayirah’s testimony that galvanized American public opinion in favor of military force against Iraq. In 1992, John MacArthur of the New York Times discovered Nayirah was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador the US, and that her story had been completely fabricated. The CIA had not only paid her to lie, but had paid for her to attend acting classes so that she would appear convincing when delivering her "testimony". The true reason for the invasion had, of course, to do with oil. No babies had ever been removed from their incubators. Then there was Operation Northwoods, in the 1960s, when the entire board of the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed, drafted, and agreed on a plan to invent a pretext for an attack on Cuba. In order to garner public support for the attack, the Joint Chiefs planned to bomb high pedestrian-traffic areas in major American cities, including Miami, New York, Washington DC, Chicago and Los Angeles, and to shoot innocent, unarmed civilians on the streets in full view of hundreds of witnesses. Incredible as it may seem, every single member of the Joint Chiefs signed their approval of this plan. They then sent it to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara for his approval, and then to President Kennedy. When Kennedy received it, he immediately called a meeting of the Joint Chiefs, in which he threatened to court martial every one of them. The fact that this plan got as far as Kennedy gives you some idea of the mind-set of senior politicians at the time. And who knows what would have have happened if a similar plan had been presented to George W Bush when he was president. And then, of course, there was Watergate. Woodward and Bernstein were conspiracy theorists until they found the proof to bring down Nixon. Or look up Operation Mockingbird. Or Project MKUltra. US governments - usually through the CIA or the NSA - have conspired on many occasions to trick the American public into supporting various causes - usually invasions of other countries. Again, each conspiracy theory has to be judged on its merits. Not all conspiracy theories are equally plausible/implausible.
|
|
|
Post by tommy on Feb 3, 2014 0:58:23 GMT -5
You wrote: "Yes, but they are all organizations that are in receipt of funding to find evidence in support of man-made global warming."
I'll be the first to admit that I am probably naive. But why would someone be funding evidence of man-made global warming if the evidence wasn't already obvious?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 3, 2014 1:29:15 GMT -5
AGW was initiated by Margaret Thatcher. It was she who was responsible for the creation of the IPCC. Generous grants were offered to researchers who could produce evidence that human-produced carbon emissions were damaging the environment.
Why did Thatcher launch this project? Because her reputation was in tatters following her decision to close the coal mines. Her decision put thousands of miners out of work in the poorest and most socially-deprived areas of the UK.
Thatcher (a scientist herself) had opted for the nuclear power option, and was a staunch supporter of the nuclear industry.
The miner's strike was a disaster for Thatcher's reputation and "legacy". It became imperative to find "historical justification" for her decision to destroy the coal mining industry.
The setting up of the IPCC was a stroke of genius on Thatcher's part because at the time there was unprecedented concern about the environment. Greenpeace was in the news almost every night, highlighting environmental disasters around the globe, and ecological/environmental causes such as "Save the Whale", "Save the Rainforests", "Save the Tiger" and so on. And the demographic most concerned about the environment largely comprised young liberals who tended to be Labour supporters - in other words the same people who had supported the miners in their strike, and who had traditionally campaigned AGAINST nuclear energy.
Thus, Thatcher was able to recruit the support of the very people who had previously vociferously opposed her policies. Young people who had marched in support of the coal miners were now campaigning for laws restricting CO2 emissions. Others (most notably Guardian environment editor George Monbiot) who had for years led the campaign against nuclear power, "flipped", and were now in favour of the nuclear option.
It didn't take long, of course, for politicians to realise that if there was a carbon problem, this could justify a carbon tax. Which in turn led to the idea of carbon licensing and carbon stocks - from which people like Al Gore amassed fortunes (over $1,000,000,000 in Gore's case).
The point to remember is that the IPCC is a political initiative, not a scientific one. The researchers who submit papers to it are funded to find evidence confirming AGW. Research that does not find evidence supporting AGW, or which find evidence against the theory, are rejected, and funding for those researchers is discontinued.
The bottom line: there has been no increase in global temperature. There was a spike in global temperature in the 1990s which coincided with a period of unusually high solar activity. None of the forecasts made by the IPCC has materialized. They said snow would become a rare event within 5 years. It didn't. They said the temperature would continue to rise year on year. It hasn't. They said sea level would rise, and that some islands would be submerged. It didn't happen. They said polar bears would become extinct. Twenty years later polar bear numbers have doubled. They said global ice would disappear. It didn't happen. In fact global ice levels are currently higher than average. They said there would be more hurricanes and tornadoes. In fact there have been fewer than average hurricanes and tornadoes. And so on. Not one prediction based on their AGW model has come true.
And the irony is that towards the end of her life Thatcher herself said she thought AGW was nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 3, 2014 3:40:17 GMT -5
PS, to answer your specific question, "why would someone be funding evidence of man-made global warming if the evidence wasn't already obvious?" the answer, in a word, is money.
The carbon market is now worth well over $100 billion and that could grow to $1 trillion within a decade, as developing nations use more coal and oil and the demand for carbon credits soars. Carbon will soon be the world's biggest commodity market. Investors make money on the carbon market by buying Certificates in Emission Reductions (CERs). However, this can only be done through licensed carbon fund agencies such as Climate Change Capital. All you need is a minimum of $35 million to set up an account. In other words, only large corporations can afford to invest in carbon stocks. Governments (in Europe it is the ETS) give rewards (carbon stocks that can be traded on the carbon market) to companies that reduce their CO2 emissions. Many of these companies are also in receipt of government grants to develop "green" technology and reduce their CO2 output in the first place. And where does the money come from? It comes from taxpayers who now have to pay "carbon tax" on their electricity supply, on electrical appliances like light-bulbs and so on. In other words carbon taxes transfer enormous amounts of money from consumers - ie, ordinary workers - to governments, large corporations and major investment groups.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Feb 3, 2014 9:39:25 GMT -5
Modern journalism makes this worse. Journalists are encouraged to create conflict, even where there is none, because it makes for a better story. And a good conflict pits two forces of equal power. Every hero needs and equal-but-opposite villain. In other words, even in a situation where 95% of those involved are in agreement, journalism will present the other 5% as if they equal to the majority. Better story that way. 8->
|
|
|
Post by tommy on Feb 3, 2014 10:46:29 GMT -5
Holy cow! I had no idea. You make good points. I thought the evidence that temperatures were rising was pretty firm. My only personal experience is a trip to Alaska a few years ago where I was shocked to see how far the glacier at Glacier Bay had retreated in only two decades. Growing up as Pacific Northwest kid, I've been watching the peaks Mt Rainier, Mt Baker, the Cascades and the Olympic Mountains, all of which are visibly losing their ice. This is always part of the conversation with old friends when I visit. I'll be in Seattle in June again and will see how things look.
|
|
|
Post by tommy on Feb 3, 2014 10:52:38 GMT -5
After looking at the NASA site, it just seems hard to believe that all of the American scientific bodies listed, as well as 200 other scientific organizations world wide would be saying the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Feb 3, 2014 12:19:26 GMT -5
It's been a gradual process. First, there was a question of whether the climate is changing or not. Over several years enough evidence was presented and most people agreed that it is. Next, the question was whether this change is caused by human activity. Over several years enough evidence was presented and most people agreed that it is. Current questions are (1) can we slow the change without wrecking the world economy? (2) can we reverse the change? (3) what will be the result if things continue are they are now?
Still some legitimate discussions in these areas, although most climatologists seem to think that continuing our present course will be far worse for the world economy than any drastic reduction in fossil fuel use. And the real question is how can we use less energy, regardless of source, at the same time our population is rapidly growing.
The big climate change thing in the American Southwest is water. There's a multi-year drought on and cities are already having problems providing drinking water for their citizens. And it will only get worse as underground water sources are expended. Sigh. Too little, too late. 8-<
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Feb 3, 2014 12:36:22 GMT -5
And the real question is how can we use less energy, regardless of source, at the same time our population is rapidly growing. There's a big sign up here in the "Mill" (set construction) on which the Studio boasts about their ecological efforts. It also says that the earth receives from the sun more energy per hour than we use worldwide per year. 24 x 365 = 8760 hours per year. So, it that figure is true, all we need to do is learn to collect 1/8000 of the solar energy that arrives each year to fill all our energy needs.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 3, 2014 13:45:53 GMT -5
Really? Why? These are all organizations that are government-funded, and AGW is a government initiative. You wouldn't get a job in any of these organizations if you expressed scepticism of the AGW theory. Many - perhaps even most - of the individual members of these organizations are AGW skeptics. But if they want funding, and they are pursuing a career in this field, they have no choice but to keep their mouth shut and ride on the bandwagon.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 3, 2014 14:20:19 GMT -5
Not so. There is no evidence whatsoever that the climate is changing any more than it has ever changed. The climate is in a constant state of flux, and always has been. The question is whether the climate is changing to a degree beyond the normal range of variation, and there is no evidence at all that that's the case. The only way to measure this is to compare specific values such as temperature, frequency of hurricanes, snow levels etc. And all these measurements are well within the normal range. Sure, if you talk to any old-timer anywhere in the world, they'll tell you that it was warmer when they were young, or that there was more rain, less snow or whatever. And they're probably right, because these climate trends tend to run in 100 year or so cycles. If you'd asked an old-timer a hundred years ago they'd have told you the same thing (I have actually read letters to the editor of the London Times, circa 1900, from people remarking on how much the weather has changed since they were a boy/girl). There is no evidence that "most climatologists" think any such thing. Population growth is currently at 1.2%. It was at its highest in the in 1960s at 2%. Since then the rate has been steadily decreasing. In fact if population growth continues to decrease at the present rate, we will see a reduction in the number of people on the planet well within this century. The US birthrate reached its lowest ever level in 2011 (63.2 children per 1,000 women), according to a Pew report. www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/11/29/u-s-birth-rate-falls-to-a-record-low-decline-is-greatest-among-immigrants/Arctic sea ice is below average. However, Antarctic sea ice is almost 50% ABOVE average. And the coldest day ever recorded on earth was recently recorded (by NASA's Landsat 8 satellite) in the Antarctic. Globally, ice levels are above average, and there is evidence to suggest that when ice levels increase at one pole, they decrease at the other in a cyclical pattern. The fact is we only have reliable measurements going back to the 1930s. We do know for a fact, however, that ice levels in the Arctic have been far lower on many occasions in the past than they are now, and that at one time - long before before human carbon became an issue - Greenland was ice-free.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 3, 2014 14:49:47 GMT -5
Incidentally, climate researchers only ever talk about the alleged effects CO2 has on the environment. I can think of many other things that would adversely effect the environment. For example, over 2,000 nuclear bombs have been exploded on the planet in the last half century. We don't see these government-funded environmental agencies submitting reports or holding symposiums on the damage these explosions cause to the planet. I wonder why.
|
|
|
Post by tommy on Feb 3, 2014 19:28:57 GMT -5
In other words carbon taxes transfer enormous amounts of money from consumers - ie, ordinary workers - to governments, large corporations and major investment groups. Let's see if I have this straight. The AGW crowd ( large corporations, etc) are promoting this conspiracy of anthropogenic global warming because of their interest in collecting carbon taxes(money), while at the same time, the anti-AGW crowd ( other large corporations) are promoting the notion that this is all baloney because they are interested in profits to be made(money) in, say, the Keystone pipeline project. Here is what the site you posted from the U. of Alberta ( Lefsrud et.al ) had to say: "This drop in endorsement may be a manifestation of increasing taken-for-grantedness (e.g., Green, 2004) of anthropogenic climate science; the rise in disagreement may be a result of increased funding of sceptics by fossil fuel industries, conservative foundations and think tanks (McCright & Dunlap, 2010)." "The largest group of APEGA respondents (36%) draws on a frame that we label ‘comply with Kyoto’. In their diagnostic framing, they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause." "Although there seems to be consensus that anthropogenic climate change presents a profound global challenge, policy makers and companies have opposed the regulations of GHG emissions. As Levy and colleagues (e.g., Levy & Kolk, 2002; Levy & Rothenberg, 2002) argue, business responses particularly in North America have been substantively ineffective"
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 3, 2014 23:24:00 GMT -5
Here's a good commonsense assessment of "climate change".
|
|
|
Post by tommy on Feb 4, 2014 1:09:13 GMT -5
You said that the AGW people are the pawns of corporations and governments. While I remain skeptical, your points are well taken. But how can I tell whether your man above, the geologist, isn't a pawn of the corporate coal and oil industry? I don't want to engage in a mud slinging contest and submit here a counter-video of some equal and opposite expert speaking in support of AGW? That would be too easy. There are moneyed interests on both sides of this debate. Therefore the argument cannot, in my opinion, be resolved by invoking genetics, rather it must be seen somehow in the evidence. And I believe the evidence so far weighs in favor of man made climate change as it pertains especially to the last couple of decades. The fact that climate has changed a lot in the last billion years or so is a red herring. Of course it has changed a lot, but we are concerned with now.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Feb 4, 2014 8:55:39 GMT -5
Zak, we're back to dueling experts again. 8-> One reason they switched to "climate change" instead of global warming is to avoid confusion. Yes, the temps have been rising since the industrial revolution, but what that means is that weather will be changing, not that every spot on earth is warmer all the time. But all the glaciers are melting, the Arctic ice is melting, large ice shelves in Antarctica are breaking off, southern plants, animals, and diseases are moving north several kilometers per year, and so on. Even in states like Texas, where the official position is that climate change is a hoax, state agricultural agencies and such are warming farmers that, gasp, the climate is changing and most farms and ranches in the state will go bust within the next 30 years. Granted, this sort of thing has happened before in nature and the current events are not outside normal fluctuations. But this particular version is man-made. The reason they focus on CO2 is that it geology shows that in times past a high percentage of CO2 produced a greenhouse effect. Yes, governments do try to conceal anything embarrassing to them, like if nuclear testing was the cause. But so do mufti-national corporations. And when it comes to bribing scientists, my vote is on the big money - oil, gas, coal - since trillions of dollars per year would be lost if the world shifted from fossil fuels. Certainly in the US, if not everywhere, the fossil fuel folk pretty much own the government. What looks like government attacks on the fossil fuel biz is really just infighting between different segments (gas people get laws passed to hurt coal, etc.) Anyway, that's my take from reading the dueling experts. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by tommy on Feb 4, 2014 10:45:36 GMT -5
This is a straw man argument, isn't it? It is an argument you want to attribute to the AGW proponents, but it is not the argument I hear them making. Rather, they are saying that climate is changing adversely to human interests now, and it will affect sea levels soon.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 4, 2014 13:26:21 GMT -5
It's been a gradual process. First, there was a question of whether the climate is changing or not. Over several years enough evidence was presented and most people agreed that it is. Next, the question was whether this change is caused by human activity. Over several years enough evidence was presented and most people agreed that it is. Current questions are (1) can we slow the change without wrecking the world economy? (2) can we reverse the change? (3) what will be the result if things continue are they are now? Still some legitimate discussions in these areas, although most climatologists seem to think that continuing our present course will be far worse for the world economy than any drastic reduction in fossil fuel use. And the real question is how can we use less energy, regardless of source, at the same time our population is rapidly growing. The big climate change thing in the American Southwest is water. There's a multi-year drought on and cities are already having problems providing drinking water for their citizens. And it will only get worse as underground water sources are expended. Sigh. Too little, too late. 8-< Fred, I agree that there is climate change and that a big component of it is man-made. But the answers to your questions are (1) No (2) No, not without wreaking the world economy, and (3) We really don't know exactly what the results would be if things continue on their present course. You say that "climatologists think that continuing on our present course will be far worse for the world economy." But climatologists are not economists. That is not their field of expertise, so their opinions here are not really relevant. What do economists say after looking at the climate projections? That is the relevant information here. Governments don't really care about solving problems. Governments care about APPEARING to solve problems while making their supporters rich. Look at gasahol, for example. Even Al Gore had to admit that it has been a failure. It turns out that gasahol puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than even regular gas! And there was a food crisis caused by farmers raising crops to make alcohol rather than food. Yet the government subsidy for gasahol is still in place! Bottom line? Nothing will get done because people are not going to live more poorly now in order to help future generations. India and China are not going to slow their economic advances either. No matter what America and Europe do, they won't be able to stop Chinese and Indian CO2 production. As for the USA and Europe, any programs that do get put into place will only put more money into the hands of politically connected people who are already wealthy. Bob
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 4, 2014 14:45:47 GMT -5
faskew Zak, we're back to dueling experts again. 8-> Yes, but isn't that the point? The GW alarmists claim that the science on "climate change" is "settled", the "debate is over" (in fact there was no debate), and that there is nothing to argue about. This is also the official government line in most countries, including the UK. And this is important because it translates into the suppression of reports refuting AGW theory. This carries over to most mainstream newspapers. The UK's Guardian, for example, refuses to publish articles or reports that express scepticism of AGW. Obviously the issue is not "settled", and many climate scientists reject AGW. So what we have here are governments enforcing acceptance of one theory over many others. As for "experts", I spit in their general direction. "Experts" are almost always wrong, especially when they agree with each other. So how to determine which side is telling the truth, or getting it right? Well, first of all, eliminate scientists who are being financially rewarded for coming up with evidence supportive of the government's position. And second, dismiss scientists who want you to believe that there is consensus on the issue. There is no such thing as consensus in science. As Einstein pointed out, it only takes one person to disprove a theory. And then look at the evidence. Almost all the "evidence" put forward by the IPCC has been based on computer models rather than on actual measurements. And of course the thing about computer models is that they can only give you predictions based on the data you feed into them. And you can be as selective as you like if you are the IPCC (or, rather, the CRU), because the data is *secret*. However, what we do know is that they've been making predictions for over 20 years now, and they've yet to get anything right. In my opinion the analyses of sceptics make far more sense, and are far more scientifically sound, than the arguments of AGW proponents (which don't make much sense at all).
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 4, 2014 14:58:40 GMT -5
ALL the central claims made by the IPCC are refuted and DISPROVEN in this video.
|
|
|
Post by tommy on Feb 4, 2014 21:32:41 GMT -5
Governments don't really care about solving problems. Governments care about APPEARING to solve problems while making their supporters rich. Look at gasahol, for example. Even Al Gore had to admit that it has been a failure. It turns out that gasahol puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than even regular gas! And there was a food crisis caused by farmers raising crops to make alcohol rather than food. Yet the government subsidy for gasahol is still in place! Bottom line? Nothing will get done because people are not going to live more poorly now in order to help future generations. India and China are not going to slow their economic advances either. No matter what America and Europe do, they won't be able to stop Chinese and Indian CO2 production. As for the USA and Europe, any programs that do get put into place will only put more money into the hands of politically connected people who are already wealthy. Bob Nicely said and so sad. Have you read "The Dictators Handbook" by Mesquita and Smith yet? A good summary of our quandary is right here on Wikipedia! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2014 17:24:13 GMT -5
In my opinion the whole global warming claim is a perfect example of how easy it is to manipulate public opinion and deceive people on a large scale. I agree, the idea that the recent drastic climate change does not at least strongly correlate with industrialization and large scale CO2 emissions is preposterous, and yet a small number of politically influential people have managed to create a controversy out of it.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 5, 2014 17:47:10 GMT -5
Idiotic statement. There has been no "recent drastic climate change". Nor is there a cause and effect correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. The correlation is the other way round, and proves conclusively that temperature drives CO2 levels, and not vice-versa. Here's the historical graph.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2014 18:01:00 GMT -5
Idiotic statement. There has been no "recent drastic climate change". Nor is there a cause and effect correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. The correlation is the other way round, and proves conclusively that temperature drives CO2 levels, and not vice-versa. Here's the historical graph. You mean "causation", and that graph does nothing to prove it. I mean that in the literal sense: There is no indication on the graph that demonstrates a causal relationship between the two.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Feb 5, 2014 18:35:36 GMT -5
If I said cause and effect, you can take it that I meant cause and effect. Here's a larger and more detailed graph. The issue is dealt with in the video I posted above.
|
|
|
Post by tommy on Feb 5, 2014 19:39:35 GMT -5
|
|