Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BarBoBot wrote:
It conveniently doesn't go back as far as 1998 because it would show that we haven't been as warm as that year since, and in order for the agenda to go forward the temerature has to keep going up.

Why would a single year or decade matter?

It matters because the fearmongers would have you believe that the earth will be irreversibly hot in 20 years.

If the temp has actually been LOWER than it was 15 years ago it doesn't fit the agenda ergo doesn't get included in their pretty graph.

 Minx wrote:

 whembly wrote:


bs graph

That's the thing here... you have powerful groups (the UN/IPCC) trying to project something in the future, that is slanted with a political agenda.

The yellow band, is that the one, two or three sigma region? What's the baseline for the temperature difference? Why did they choose that particular time interval? Considering the variance of the data, is it perhaps a way too short interval to see what they and you claim?

The yellow band is from IPCC original projection...

In fact, IPCC’s mid-range estimate of global warming from 1990 onward was 0.35 Cº/decade. At that time, it was advocating a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions. Funny now that the IPCC is now predictingg less than half that, at 0.17 Cº/decade.

They keep changing their minds.... do you know what that really means?

It means that climate science is an extremely complex and nuanced science with a bajillion different factors going into it.

Which is what I'd like to say... we don’t quite know what we don’t quite know.

That’s not to say that it isn’t a serious problem and that human activity can be contributing variable... but, when climate scientists and bureaucrats make huge, sweeping, and obviously politicized conclusions, ie "It's Settled", "feth the Climate Deniers", "et, el.”... it makes it really hard to have a decent conversation about it.

feth, even a respected scientist asked to have his name TAKEN OFF of the latest IPCC report.

Far from "settled" bro...

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I realize that there's many, many things that we don't understand about our climate and our potential impact. But, I view many "studies" by both the government and UN regarding climate whenever the "science is settled" crap.

I'm sorry, you don't view the studies by the US government and the fething UN as legitimate. I don't even see any point in debating you if you ignore facts to support your view.

I'm sorry... you think the IPCC, in fact an arm of the United Nations, is all about legitimate facts?

O.o

You do know who's in the UN... right? It consists of countries mostly rated as either “not free” or “partly free” by Freedom House, and which Russian and China both having veto powers. You think they're all concerned about outright facts and legitimancy?

Dude...

All of which have a definite and massive interest in getting money without, er doing anything.

I have no idea how someone can be so ignant. The UN has achieved lots, in fact they are a world leader in the use of bright blue military helmets.

They also have a great use of tunnel vision when it comes to human rights. Australia is apparently regarded by them atm as a place with a terrible human rights record, I'm not sure but there should be places with far worse records, then again what do I know i never had the genius idea of blue military helmets.

btw whembly keep up the good fight, I feel like I have nothing to contribute to this discussion whilst you are talking. I will say I find it funny that the warmists seem to reply with insults in response...it's almost like it's a dogma they are defending

 BarBoBot wrote:

What gives any person on this planet the idea that we know what the temperature is supposed to be?

It isn't really a matter of what the temperature is supposed to be, or purely a matter of temperature. It is a matter regarding whether or not the Earth's climate is changing such that it will negatively impact human life, and whether or not humans are the cause of such a change if it is occurring.

 whembly wrote:

You do know who's in the UN... right? It consists of countries mostly rated as either “not free” or “partly free” by Freedom House, and which Russian and China both having veto powers. You think they're all concerned about outright facts and legitimancy?

The US and its citizens have proven time and again that they don't always care about facts, or legitimacy. So rejecting a UN report out of hand on the basis that there are countries that you don't like (that do the same) in the UN is a bit ridiculous.

 whembly wrote:
feth, even a respected scientist asked to have his name TAKEN OFF of the latest IPCC report.

But that one scientist is supported by Big Oil, right?

Right?




Sorry, but climate doomsayers always annoy me, and I agree with everything you just said whembly. "Settled" science? HA!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 whembly wrote:
feth, even a respected scientist asked to have his name TAKEN OFF of the latest IPCC report.

But that one scientist is supported by Big Oil, right?

Right?




Sorry, but climate doomsayers always annoy me, and I agree with everything you just said whembly. "Settled" science? HA!

AND DO WHAT? BE SPECIFIC AND PLEASE PROFFER SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T PUT US BACK IN THE STONE AGE BUT LEAVES THE REST OF THE WORLD UNTOUCHED.

 whembly wrote:
I'm not denying that there's climate change... as in, we have fething weather.

I'm all for "green energy alternatives" and for practical, sensible policies on human waste.

But the IPCC pushing the hockey stick data point loses all credibility for me.

Also, "Carbon Tax" initative is nothing more than a wealth transfer mechanism. It's a scam.

And if anyone keeps pushing this "the science is settled on this" has no fething clue.

97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities is pretty close to the "science is settled" on this, what percent do you need where you feel convinced.

DO WHAT? FEEL GUILTY AND THEN HAVE FEEL GOOD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HOW 'BIG POLLUTERS' ARE TO BLAME AND OUTLINING VAGUE IDEAS ON HOW TO 'SOLVE' THE PROBLEM ALL THE WHILE IGNORING THAT THE BIGGEST POLLUTERS ARE SOCIETY ITSELF NOT 'BIG POLLUTERS' .

How to solve this problem without dismantling consumerism I really have no idea. This point seems to be conveniently ignored when warmists talk about this issue. 'Big polluters' are there to service our consumerism , but it seems like it's the done thing to point the finger at them as an easy target. 'Big polluters' seem to be the Kulaks of the 21st century. I wish I could join this movement and get on my high minded, low solution horse and ride around flailingly tilting at windmills.

 BarBoBot wrote:
Thats right, tank our economy, while the people who lead the charge don't stop anything they do, because they can afford "carbon credits"

Well if you don't practice any sustainable methods you won't have much resources for an economy either...

Fearmongering at its best.

Agree with me or we WILL DIE!

Next you'll say "its for the children!"

 Cheesecat wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm not denying that there's climate change... as in, we have fething weather.

I'm all for "green energy alternatives" and for practical, sensible policies on human waste.

But the IPCC pushing the hockey stick data point loses all credibility for me.

Also, "Carbon Tax" initative is nothing more than a wealth transfer mechanism. It's a scam.

And if anyone keeps pushing this "the science is settled on this" has no fething clue.

97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities is pretty close to the "science is settled" on this, what percent do you need where you feel convinced.

That's been debunked dude.

 whembly wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm not denying that there's climate change... as in, we have fething weather.

I'm all for "green energy alternatives" and for practical, sensible policies on human waste.

But the IPCC pushing the hockey stick data point loses all credibility for me.

Also, "Carbon Tax" initative is nothing more than a wealth transfer mechanism. It's a scam.

And if anyone keeps pushing this "the science is settled on this" has no fething clue.

97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities is pretty close to the "science is settled" on this, what percent do you need where you feel convinced.

That's been debunked dude.

By who?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Fearmongering at its best.

Agree with me or we WILL DIE!

Next you'll say "its for the children!"

Gailbraithe?

 Cheesecat wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm not denying that there's climate change... as in, we have fething weather.

I'm all for "green energy alternatives" and for practical, sensible policies on human waste.

But the IPCC pushing the hockey stick data point loses all credibility for me.

Also, "Carbon Tax" initative is nothing more than a wealth transfer mechanism. It's a scam.

And if anyone keeps pushing this "the science is settled on this" has no fething clue.

97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities is pretty close to the "science is settled" on this, what percent do you need where you feel convinced.

That's been debunked dude.

By who?

Google "97 climate scientists debunked".

Here's my favorite:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Now that we have a multi-governmental report, something might actually change.

That line might be the finest piece of political satire this side of Yes Minister.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
But the IPCC pushing the hockey stick data point loses all credibility for me.

Also, "Carbon Tax" initative is nothing more than a wealth transfer mechanism. It's a scam.

And if anyone keeps pushing this "the science is settled on this" has no fething clue.

You are scientifically and economically mistaken. There is no other way to put it. You are simply rejecting established knowledge.

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
But the IPCC pushing the hockey stick data point loses all credibility for me.

Also, "Carbon Tax" initative is nothing more than a wealth transfer mechanism. It's a scam.

And if anyone keeps pushing this "the science is settled on this" has no fething clue.

You are scientifically and economically mistaken. There is no other way to put it. You are simply rejecting established knowledge.

"Established Knowledge™"? Don't tell me that you fall into the "Science is Settled You Guys" camp?

 BarBoBot wrote:
I live near chicago, and we set a record for days under zero this winter. We had several feet of snow that stuck for 4 months.

That doesn't fit the "man made global warming" agenda however, so now its "climate change" and raising temps can lead to more snow and colder winters...

The agenda continues.

Actually, models that go in to local climate detail and don't just abstract an overall warming pattern have been part of the science for two decades. It took media reporting a while to catch on and start using 'climate change' over 'global warming', and the deniers still haven't cottoned on to that, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been there for a long time, and people who think otherwise don't know what they're talking about.

No one on this planet is qualified to say what the temperature or climate of the earth is "supposed" to be.

As such, we know we have warm periods, and we have cold periods. We had a warm period recently. That in no way proves the earth is being irreverseably damaged by man.

Which is, to put none to fine a point on it, a really fething silly load of nonsense. No-one anywhere, gives a gak about what temperature 'should' be. The issue is simply that we've built our societies and infrastructure for the current temperature and weather patterns, and if that changes to rapidly it will cost a hell of a lot to adapt, and so, where possible, we should seek to minimise the part we play rapid changes in temperature and weather patterns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
"Climate Change" is the new euphemism for the "Global Warming™" hysteria.

The term is decades old.

I realize that there's many, many things that we don't understand about our climate and our potential impact. But, I view many "studies" by both the government and UN regarding climate whenever the "science is settled" crap.

Do you think NASA is lying to you?

 Cheesecat wrote:
97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities is pretty close to the "science is settled" on this, what percent do you need where you feel convinced.

Ah, the old "97%" line. I'm amazed people still believe that.

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
"Climate Change" is the new euphemism for the "Global Warming™" hysteria.

The term is decades old.

That's true... but the term's usage evolved a bit.

I realize that there's many, many things that we don't understand about our climate and our potential impact. But, I view many "studies" by both the government and UN regarding climate whenever the "science is settled" crap.

Do you think NASA is lying to you?

Yup.

It became a weapon for them to secure more fundings. Not that I really blame them... NASA's budget these last few decades took enormous hits.

gak... I remember numerous articles from the scientific community criticising NASA for jumping on that issue... (need to find it... brb).

 sebster wrote:
The term is decades old.

You know what else is decades old? The climate catastrophism that said we were heading into an ice ace... in the 70's I believe... and all because of what we were doing to the environment.

 whembly wrote:
"Established Knowledge™"? Don't tell me that you fall into the "Science is Settled You Guys" camp?

Yeah, me and NASA. Drink from the same kool aid.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
"Established Knowledge™"? Don't tell me that you fall into the "Science is Settled You Guys" camp?

Yeah, me and NASA. Drink from the same kool aid.

And the failed hockey stick study too... amirite?

*sigh*

Let me ask you this same question I asked the other posters: What would you have us do... specifically?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You know what else is decades old? The climate catastrophism that said we were heading into an ice ace... in the 70's I believe... and all because of what we were doing to the environment.

Yeah, let's put a handful of speculative reports put out at the beginning of the beginning of the field of climate science on the same pedestal as massive meta-research reports compiled by hundreds of people across the planet, using decades of research data.

That's as sensible as claiming that medicine is all a load of junk because Plato used to think the uterus floated around the body and affected women's moods.

 whembly wrote:
Let me ask you this same question I asked the other posters: What would you have us do... specifically?

Stop approving coal power plants and start approving much cleaner nuclear/solar/hydroelectric plants instead (and the anti-science morons and NIMBYs can stfu and deal with it), impose a mandatory deadline for moving 95% of new car production to electric-only (and invest in the infrastructure to make that possible) so that only the occasional hobbyists and collectors are burning gas, promote a cultural shift away from buying useless stuff just for the sake of owning stuff, and transfer the entire US military budget into developing practical fusion power along with efficiency improvements in power distribution and similar areas. Nuclear power and an all-electric infrastructure get emissions down immediately, while fusion provides a clean long-term solution.

 whembly wrote:
That's true... but the term's usage evolved a bit.

Maybe, it doesn't really matter. But it's thirty different kinds of bs to try and discredit the science of climate change by complaining about how entirely different parties politically address the issue. It could be revealed tomorrow that Greenpeace are a scam that's attempting to use climate change to corner the market on hemp clothing to fund their dreams to put Hitler's brain in to a blue whale... and it still wouldn't change the basic, overwhelming nature of climate science.

Yup.

Then we have nothing to discuss. Can't debate science with someone who is happy to reject the findings of scientific organisations. Makes the whole thing really fething pointless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
And the failed hockey stick study too... amirite?

Wasn't failed. Some scientists have specific technical issues with the study, and other people (including the original authors but not just them) have specific technical answers, and meanwhile the whole of the field moved on with more complex and sophisticated models that they continue to refine.

Let me ask you this same question I asked the other posters: What would you have us do... specifically?

Reduce carbon emissions. Simplest way to do this is through making it expensive for industry to emit carbon. By fixing a price to emission you get an incentive to reduce current practices or move to entirely different practices.

Of course, this won't happen, because, essentially, people are fething insane. Staring at a cost to their daily living of 1 to 3%, they will freak the feth out, and when given extensive research that tells them the long term cost of refusing that mino cost... they will simply deny it. This can be established by reading this thread.

Instead, the rich countries will have the resources to adapt, and the poor countries will get shafted. Human history as it always is.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Let me ask you this same question I asked the other posters: What would you have us do... specifically?

Stop approving coal power plants and start approving much cleaner nuclear/solar/hydroelectric plants instead (and the anti-science morons and NIMBYs can stfu and deal with it),

Abso-fething-lutely! I know coal power plants are knarly industries and I only object to shutting them down if no alternatives are being supplied.

We need to bring that same spirit when the TVA first started.

And more nukes. Nothing is cleaner, safer and more efficient than a nuke plant.

impose a mandatory deadline for moving 95% of new car production to electric-only (and invest in the infrastructure to make that possible) so that only the occasional hobbyists and collectors are burning gas,

Not sure I'd go that far... instead, promote/optimize public transportation. (more mono rails, electric buses, TRAINS!).

promote a cultural shift away from buying useless stuff just for the sake of owning stuff,

How? End "consumerism" as we know it?

and transfer the entire US military budget into developing practical fusion power

Um... Darpa is already working on this.

along with efficiency improvements in power distribution and similar areas. Nuclear power and an all-electric infrastructure get emissions down immediately, while fusion provides a clean long-term solution.

Our power grid definitely need upgrades. It'll take most of our lifetime to get that done though...

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Let me ask you this same question I asked the other posters: What would you have us do... specifically?

Stop approving coal power plants and start approving much cleaner nuclear/solar/hydroelectric plants instead (and the anti-science morons and NIMBYs can stfu and deal with it), impose a mandatory deadline for moving 95% of new car production to electric-only (and invest in the infrastructure to make that possible) so that only the occasional hobbyists and collectors are burning gas, promote a cultural shift away from buying useless stuff just for the sake of owning stuff, and transfer the entire US military budget into developing practical fusion power along with efficiency improvements in power distribution and similar areas. Nuclear power and an all-electric infrastructure get emissions down immediately, while fusion provides a clean long-term solution.

Wow... Talk about whack...

Having possessions is now bad... Just WHO decides what is useless?

I'll bet you think my big scary black "assault weapon" is useless right along with a anything else that fits the left wing agenda.

Typical. Its not enough for you to live your life, you have to make sure everyone is living theirs just like you.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And diverting all the military defense money?

Are you a child? Do you think that if the USA stopped supporting its military that countries that don't like us WON'T take advantage of that? FFS that's the most moronic thing ive ever heard...

 BarBoBot wrote:
Having possessions is now bad... Just WHO decides what is useless?

No, having possessions just for the sake of having possessions is bad. The problem isn't buying stuff that you actually want to have, it's the fact that businesses spend obscene amounts of money on advertising whose sole purpose is to convince you that you want something you didn't want to buy. It's a culture where we buy something on impulse (often using money we don't have) and then quickly throw it away or put it in storage because we didn't really have any need for it. And it's a culture where the thought of not upgrading your electronic devices every few months is just unbearable, not because you see any real benefit from the upgrade, but because the marketing industry has convinced you that you absolutely need the newest toy and should just throw away the old one.

And nobody decides what is useless. The point is that I want to promote a cultural change where people take responsibility for their own purchases, and stop buying useless garbage.

I'll bet you think my big scary black "assault weapon" is useless right along with a anything else that fits the left wing agenda.

That depends: do you have that gun because you really enjoy owning it and taking it to the gun range to play soldier and fantasize about stopping the evil UN black helicopters, or did you just buy it along with a dozen others just like it and then put it in the gun safe until you finally need some cash and have to sell it? If you're actually enjoying it then feel free to own whatever gun you want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Do you think that if the USA stopped supporting its military that countries that don't like us WON'T take advantage of that?

Obviously that's an exaggeration to make a point, but you could slash the US defense budget to a tiny fraction of what it is now and not lose anything besides the ability to invade other countries and have pointless budget-destroying foreign wars. Seriously, we have oceans on two sides and friendly countries on the other two. Insisting on current levels of military spending for "defense" is nothing but paranoia.

I think somewhere along the line you missed the part about America being a FREE country.

If I decide its in my best intrest to upgrade my electronics, I don't need some sap telling me what I should do with my money.

You know what I do when I see advertising that doesn't appeal to me? I ignore it.