Take the $100,000 Global Warming Believer Challenge!

[TheDemonLord]

You guys crack me up

Most of us are not scientists, engineers, or doctors. I have studied some science at Uni, enough to know that Scientific Method is one of the most rigorous of all human research and knowledge. Simply put, everyone checks everyone else's work.

That is the medical equivalent of having a cardiac surgeon, neurosurgeon, orthopedic surgeon, present in the room each time you visit the GP.
Not that science is perfect, but scientists are careful not to make mistakes, because they know other scientists will find them. Finding a mistake in another scientists work is about as good as it gets for a scientist.
Engineering appears more rigorous, but that is because things are over engineered.
But bridges don't generally fall down, so engineers must know what they are doing.
Similarly if I needed heart surgery I would get a cardiac surgeon, not Alan Jones or Rupert Murdoch.
If you understood Scientific Method you would know how scientific theories like Climate Change are formed and evaluated.

They are formed to explain real world measurements and results, and they are constantly evaluated by well qualified experts who have the detailed knowledge to carefully evaluate and conduct experiments to prove/disprove theories.
Now if 97% of engineers told me a bridge was under engineered and likely to fall down, I would not drive over it.

If the so called flaws in CC theory were real, how come they don't convince 97% of the scientific experts in this area, who are qualified to judge?

Oh yes, of course.....they're all "sucking off the public teat" and modify the data to suit their results!

I love the Scientific method - I truly do, and understand that Peer review is one of the most rigorous testing and checking methods known to us and the Basis for just about every single advancement in the last 200-300 years has been due to the Scientific method and Peer Review.

Unlike others - I'm not saying Humans haven't influenced the climate, I'm merely saying that at the last time I checked - the causes of global temperature changes (that are observable in the Fossil/geological record) are not fully understood and are the current subject of Scientific debate. In essence - this is your control test, if we could determine what the cause of previous global temp changes where, then we could determine definitively whether or not the Human factor was major, Minor, Contributing or catalyzing.

All of that is an aside for me - as stated, now is a good time to look at reducing our reliance on Fossil Fuels and coming up with better alternatives.

[TheDemonLord]

For all you scientific wizards on here explain the logic behing Carbon Credits and Taxes as to how money paid for them can actually stop global warming?

Lets assume the paper definition and not any cynical definitions:

Carbon Credits make traditional fuels less competitive, whilst making alternatives a more viable option. In theory when the Carbon Credits are paid, they are used to:

Plant forestry to offset the Emissions and fund R&D on technologies to reduce the output of existing technologies and refine emerging technologies to the point where they can be brought to market.


The Cynical explanation is that Carbon credits are one of the most retarded ideas ever - its getting Paul to pay Peter for the privledge of polluting, whereas the obvious solution is just to stop Paul polluting in the first place.

[flyingcrocodile46]

So.. 97% (in a flawed survey the number is far far less than that.. its been discounted multiple times now) of (not actual) scientists, who stand to gain millions, if not billions of dollars in research grants (the climate "science" industry is worth billions now), and who are known to, and actually report on and state how much they manipulate the data to make it "conform to expected temperature levels", should be taken as authoritative over the thousands of other proper scientists from varying disciplines who have studied from their various fields and determined that even were it not manipulated, it cant possibly be true, since the "Science" shows something completely different?

Honestly, if this was not a government/UN sanctioned ponzi scheme, its perpetrators would be in prison for fraud by now.

That is the most sickening thing about it. They get away with it because "97%" of people blindly rely on the MSM propaganda machine to keep them informed about stuff like this and they are subsequently exposed to sensationalized lies absent any retractions when the lies are exposed as lies. So, as far as the 97% are concerned the original lie is still the truth. The MSM are every bit as corrupted and complicit as the UN/IPCC. You only have to look at Spam to see how well it works for them.

[SPman]

That is the most sickening thing about it. They get away with it because "97%" of people blindly rely on the MSM propaganda machine to keep them informed about stuff like this and they are subsequently exposed to sensationalized lies absent any retractions when the lies are exposed as lies. So, as far as the 97% are concerned the original lie is still the truth. The MSM are every bit as corrupted and complicit as the UN/IPCC. You only have to look at Spam to see how well it works for them.

About time you stopped proselytizing the Alex Jones website

Scientific consensus is typically thought of as the agreement among the scientific community and most popularly expressed as the near-unanimous agreement between actively researching climate scientists. Numerous surveys of the climate science community have been conducted since the early 1990s to determine the level of consensus that humans were causing global warming. Over time, the percentage of climate scientists who agreed that humans are causing global warming has increased steadily, demonstrating a strengthening consensus
Two of the most recent studies adopting different methodologies have arrived at strikingly consistent results.
One study led by Peter Doran et al. in 2009 surveyed over 3,000 Earth scientists and found that for areas of expertise more relevant to climate change, the agreement about human-caused global warming was higher. For the most qualified experts, climate scientists actively publishing peer-reviewed research, there was 97% agreement.

This result is echoed in a separate study that compiled a database of scientists from public declarations on climate change, both supporting and rejecting the consensus. The publishing record of each scientist was then scanned to determine their level of expertise on climate change. Among scientists who had published peer- reviewed papers, there was 97% agreement. The authors tested the robustness of this result by employing different thresholds for the number of climate papers published. For varying thresholds, agreement varied between 97 and 98%, strikingly consistent with the Doran survey (Anderegg et al. 2010)
The consensus on climate change also manifests in the published statements of prestigious scientific organizations throughout the world. Academies of Science from many countries endorse the consensus view, as do many prestigious scientific organizations such as NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Royal Society of the UK.

But...of course, this is all lies,driven by greedy scientists in cahoots with scheming politicians (if only) who want to enslave the world and take all your money.......oh wait.....New Zealand rated no5 in "the most ignorant country" list....after Mexico, India, Brazil & Peru..........who'd a thunk it.

[Jantar]

....

Scientific consensus is typically thought of as the agreement among the scientific community and most popularly expressed as the near-unanimous agreement between actively researching climate scientists. Numerous surveys of the climate science community have been conducted since the early 1990s to determine the level of consensus that humans were causing global warming. Over time, the percentage of climate scientists who agreed that humans are causing global warming has increased steadily, demonstrating a strengthening consensus
Two of the most recent studies adopting different methodologies have arrived at strikingly consistent results.
One study led by Peter Doran et al. in 2009 surveyed over 3,000 Earth scientists and found that for areas of expertise more relevant to climate change, the agreement about human-caused global warming was higher. For the most qualified experts, climate scientists actively publishing peer-reviewed research, there was 97% agreement.

This result is echoed in a separate study that compiled a database of scientists from public declarations on climate change, both supporting and rejecting the consensus. The publishing record of each scientist was then scanned to determine their level of expertise on climate change. Among scientists who had published peer- reviewed papers, there was 97% agreement. The authors tested the robustness of this result by employing different thresholds for the number of climate papers published. For varying thresholds, agreement varied between 97 and 98%, strikingly consistent with the Doran survey (Anderegg et al. 2010)
The consensus on climate change also manifests in the published statements of prestigious scientific organizations throughout the world. Academies of Science from many countries endorse the consensus view, as do many prestigious scientific organizations such as NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Royal Society of the UK.

[FONT=serif] ........

He surveyed over 10,000 earth scientists of whom 3146 replied. However he only selected 79 of those for his analysis. Of that 79, 76 agreed with question 1 and 75 out of 77 agreed with question 2. Thus the 97% is 75 responses out of more than 3000.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...9EO030002/epdf

[husaberg]

Lets assume the paper definition and not any cynical definitions:

Carbon Credits make traditional fuels less competitive, whilst making alternatives a more viable option. In theory when the Carbon Credits are paid, they are used to:

Plant forestry to offset the Emissions and fund R&D on technologies to reduce the output of existing technologies and refine emerging technologies to the point where they can be brought to market.


The Cynical explanation is that Carbon credits are one of the most retarded ideas ever - its getting Paul to pay Peter for the privledge of polluting, whereas the obvious solution is just to stop Paul polluting in the first place.

Its far more retarded than that, as some of the worlds biggest polluters don't cough up a cent at all as they didn't sign up to it.
Negotiations were held in Lima in 2014 to agree on a post-Kyoto legal framework that would obligate all major polluters to pay for CO2 emissions. China, India, and the United States have all signaled that they will not ratify any treaty that will commit them legally to reduce CO2 emissions.

[flyingcrocodile46]

About time you stopped proselytizing the Alex Jones website

But...of course, this is all lies,driven by greedy scientists in cahoots with scheming politicians (if only) who want to enslave the world and take all your money.......oh wait.....New Zealand rated no5 in "the most ignorant country" list....after Mexico, India, Brazil & Peru..........who'd a thunk it.

Alex Jones eh! (spit). When trapped like the rat you are, you attempt to divert attention by false claims (lies). I guess it's to expect that when you develop a taste for being fed lies, that's all you are going to shit out the other end.

No 5 eh! I can see by your determination to ignore the overwhelming truth of your gullibility, that you are pushing hard to get us to 4th place. Carry on.

[yokel]

About time you stopped proselytizing the Alex Jones website




But...of course, this is all lies,driven by greedy scientists in cahoots with scheming politicians (if only) who want to enslave the world and take all your money.......oh wait.....New Zealand rated no5 in "the most ignorant country" list....after Mexico, India, Brazil & Peru..........who'd a thunk it.

Not knowing something is not being ignorant you dam fool, not wanting to know or to ignore something is.
eg, how you ignore the fact that the claim "97% of climate scientists agree in global warming" is complete bullshit.

[SPman]

eg, how you ignore the fact that the claim "97% of climate scientists agree in global warming" is complete bullshit.

Of course, you have conclusive proof that this is fact - 97% of published Climate Scientists surveyed - ostensibly the experts in their field, did not concur? I should, perhaps, believe the spiel put forth by The Heartland Institute, that runs on a similar vein to you and Jantar? Those well known guardians of the corporate good!

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field, surveyed here, support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

So, it's 97%.

No warming trend since the 50's???? Well, Hadcrut 4, global mean, 1955 - 2015 and satellite troposphere data from 1979 on, overlaid. Looks like a trend - .7C increase, to me.
Troposphere readings from satellites are lower than surface temps, but, the trends tend to correspond.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut.../to:2016/trend

Geez Flying Croc - you've excelled yourself in innovative vituperation on this thread - winding you up is definitely worth it.....such fun....

No - I don't take anything at face value - I check it out as thoroughly as possible then make up my mind on the solid evidence available. If it's contrary to yours - tough! I could have similar rabid opinions on your..... beliefs, but it's not worth the wasted effort.

[yokel]

Of course, you have conclusive proof that this is fact - 97% of published Climate Scientists surveyed - ostensibly the experts in their field, did not concur? I should, perhaps, believe the spiel put forth by The Heartland Institute, that runs on a similar vein to you and Jantar? Those well known guardians of the corporate good!
So, it's 97%.

No warming trend since the 50's???? Well, Hadcrut 4, global mean, 1955 - 2015 and satellite troposphere data from 1979 on, overlaid. Looks like a trend - .7C increase, to me.
Troposphere readings from satellites are lower than surface temps, but, the trends tend to correspond.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut.../to:2016/trend

Geez Flying Croc - you've excelled yourself in innovative vituperation on this thread - winding you up is definitely worth it.....such fun....

No - I don't take anything at face value - I check it out as thoroughly as possible then make up my mind on the solid evidence available. If it's contrary to yours - tough! I could have similar rabid opinions on your..... beliefs, but it's not worth the wasted effort.

Ok, so what's your definition or criteria of "conclusive proof" ?

[iYRe]

No - I don't take anything at face value - I check it out as thoroughly as possible then make up my mind on the solid evidence available. If it's contrary to yours - tough! I could have similar rabid opinions on your..... beliefs, but it's not worth the wasted effort.

The problem with this is, the evidence is fake, and the ones who have faked it do it blatantly, and even admit it.

Honestly, who ever believes a politician about anything?

[Brett]

So whats wrong with trying to lessen our impact on the planet/environment/climate?

This.^^^^^^^

Maybe "Climate change" or "man-made global warming" is indeed a load of bollocks. Let's put that to the side for now. Let's consider all of the OTHER ways that we are fucking the earth:

1) Plastic. Go to many large cities around the world and you will see plastic bags blowing around everywhere and old plastic bottles littered like stones. The ocean has FUCKING ISLANDS made out of plastic waste and we have various animal species dying from consuming plastic, becoming trapped in plastic etc. Plastic takes a very long time to break down organically, however breaks down into small particles rather quickly. We now have entire eco-systems and bio-chains that are "contaminated" with plastic particles.

2) Oil. We have entire chunks of certain third world nations that are devastated by oil contamination. In part due to accidents and leaks from oil extraction and conveyance equipment (leaking pipes etc) and from "criminal" activity where organised crime or in some cases poor locals are tapping into the oil pipes and creating massive messes. We have regular oil spills that decimate areas of coastline.

3) Contaminants from industrial processes. Toxins, heavy metals etc. that are not properly treated or captures and make their way into our ecosystem.

3) Mining. Brazil Samarco damn. Case in point. We have ruthless operators who focus only on their profitability and couldn't care less for the externalities that are pushed onto others. In this one instance (and there are MANY MANY MANY instances) there is the loss of life, the contamination of a HUGE tract of land and the contamination of the ocean with toxins and heavy metals.

4) Ocean resource consumption. We pillage our oceans for seafood. We fish unsustainably, in many instances the methods for the fishing have negative implications for the wider environment - seabeds getting fucked up, by-catch issues, reefs being mowed over.

5) Wildlife - so many species under threat that it would take me more time than I have to list them. Fueled by deforestation, traditional medicine trades, pet trades and poor agricultural practices. We will shortly lose several animal species that we are only just beginning to understand. Google search spindle cells and the research as it pertains to elephants, oceanic mammals, dogs, whales, dolphins. Fucking amazing, and we have only just begun to understand the depth of this.

6) Habitat destruction. In our drive to create resources such as palm oil or land for other forms of farming, we are mowing down huge areas of virgin land, irreversibly destroying huge amounts of flora and fauna. It is highly likely that we have made extinct species of creatures that we have not even discovered yet! Reefs which are home to huge numbers of our oceanic wildlife.

I could go on and on and on.

The stuff above makes me sound like a raging hippie. I am not. I am a capitalist businessman but also someone who loves our natural world and cares for protecting what we have on the only known life-sustaining planet in our known Universe. I believe that a balance can be struck between developing our living standards and improving our social wellbeing while also protecting that which is MOST valuable to us. Much of what we do cannot be undone.\

So yeah, maybe man-made climate change is a farce. Maybe it isn't. Regardless, we have reached (or passed) a point a no-return where we are doing irreversible damage to our world and we need to stop with the utmost expediency.

[iYRe]

No one is saying we dont need to care for the planet, and undo the damage human's do.. deforestation for example, or finding alternate fuels etc, however, stealing money off people on a planetary scale for a non existent "issue" is horrific.

Greenpeace came and asked me for money, and I asked them if the money I gave would be used for reforestation, saving endangered species, etc. They said "no, currently all our resources are going into climate change".
And so I said, can I give you money and specify what it is to be used for.. they said no. So I said no money for you then.

It's a scam, run by criminals, and they need to be stopped, and prosecuted. You cant just ignore it, they are stealing BILLIONS already, and it will become more. Eventually it will cost so much that no one will be able to pay... imagine what will happen then.

[mashman]

This.^^^^^^^

Maybe "Climate change" or "man-made global warming" is indeed a load of bollocks. Let's put that to the side for now. Let's consider all of the OTHER ways that we are fucking the earth:

1) Plastic. Go to many large cities around the world and you will see plastic bags blowing around everywhere and old plastic bottles littered like stones. The ocean has FUCKING ISLANDS made out of plastic waste and we have various animal species dying from consuming plastic, becoming trapped in plastic etc. Plastic takes a very long time to break down organically, however breaks down into small particles rather quickly. We now have entire eco-systems and bio-chains that are "contaminated" with plastic particles.

2) Oil. We have entire chunks of certain third world nations that are devastated by oil contamination. In part due to accidents and leaks from oil extraction and conveyance equipment (leaking pipes etc) and from "criminal" activity where organised crime or in some cases poor locals are tapping into the oil pipes and creating massive messes. We have regular oil spills that decimate areas of coastline.

3) Contaminants from industrial processes. Toxins, heavy metals etc. that are not properly treated or captures and make their way into our ecosystem.

3) Mining. Brazil Samarco damn. Case in point. We have ruthless operators who focus only on their profitability and couldn't care less for the externalities that are pushed onto others. In this one instance (and there are MANY MANY MANY instances) there is the loss of life, the contamination of a HUGE tract of land and the contamination of the ocean with toxins and heavy metals.

4) Ocean resource consumption. We pillage our oceans for seafood. We fish unsustainably, in many instances the methods for the fishing have negative implications for the wider environment - seabeds getting fucked up, by-catch issues, reefs being mowed over.

5) Wildlife - so many species under threat that it would take me more time than I have to list them. Fueled by deforestation, traditional medicine trades, pet trades and poor agricultural practices. We will shortly lose several animal species that we are only just beginning to understand. Google search spindle cells and the research as it pertains to elephants, oceanic mammals, dogs, whales, dolphins. Fucking amazing, and we have only just begun to understand the depth of this.

6) Habitat destruction. In our drive to create resources such as palm oil or land for other forms of farming, we are mowing down huge areas of virgin land, irreversibly destroying huge amounts of flora and fauna. It is highly likely that we have made extinct species of creatures that we have not even discovered yet! Reefs which are home to huge numbers of our oceanic wildlife.

I could go on and on and on.

The stuff above makes me sound like a raging hippie. I am not. I am a capitalist businessman but also someone who loves our natural world and cares for protecting what we have on the only known life-sustaining planet in our known Universe. I believe that a balance can be struck between developing our living standards and improving our social wellbeing while also protecting that which is MOST valuable to us. Much of what we do cannot be undone.\

So yeah, maybe man-made climate change is a farce. Maybe it isn't. Regardless, we have reached (or passed) a point a no-return where we are doing irreversible damage to our world and we need to stop with the utmost expediency.

Brilliant post. I think there are very few people who don't feel like that towards each and every point you have raised. And in the spirit of going after just that, and as much as you may not want to hear it, the problem is an entirely financial one:

1) Plastic. It's a mess because it is easy to discard that which you can get again. Why is it cheaper to ship bottled water than it is to shit the water and put it in some form of dispenser? That way you only need to make a bottle for the individual, and as that is their bottle, they will look after it. Replace plastic bags for hemp bags. The problem is that the bottle manufacturer would be put out of business pretty quickly as would the plastic bag manufacturer. This will also have an effect on those who supply the components for bottles and bags etc... Sure they could move into the Hemp market, but once people have their bags, why would they need to buy more? Under such conditions, divestment is only a short term measure.

2) Oil. It is stolen to sell. Money, plain and simple. If there's no need to steal it, then there's no need to tap into the pipeline in a way that leaves contamination for financial profit. Bye bye crime, bye bye climate issue.

3) Contaminents. They are a byproduct of the Supply and then generate a Demand economy. Production for productions sake i.e. to earn a living and create jobs etc... will never be sustainable. That's an entirely money related issue. We don't need advertising and marketing, just the best product for the job. That means that there'll be huge development using a vast range of chemicals, so as not to infringe on IP etc..., in areas where there's money to be made and any "fallout" will have already had the cost of destruction factored into the cost of production. Make what you need, not what you need to sell.

3) DAM! A dam that was built and maintained to cost.

4) Fish n shit = money.

5) The economy must take precedence over the ecology. Tis the sole reason that people doom the Greens to 3rd place.

6) Money money money money money money money.

Our solutions are derived from what can be afforded, not what we are capable of.

In fact, if you ditch the financial system, and produce what is needed and take a break from what is produced to sell, there would likely be enough of an environmental impact that future generations will find easy to measure . NOW, that is a fact

[TheDemonLord]

Brilliant post. I think there are very few people who don't feel like that towards each and every point you have raised. And in the spirit of going after just that, and as much as you may not want to hear it, the problem is an entirely financial one:

Your post entirely presupposes that NOW will fix the issue - I'll skip the lengthy argument and reply with - it won't because reasons*.

That said - Brett has hit the nail so very squarely on the head.



*most of those reasons being humans.