How does this fit with the BS "they" feed us on global warming?

[JimO]

Just the sort of post that shows why I do not post on here as often as I used to. Try and add something to the debate instead the flippant and sarco response.

Skyryder

i thought you had committed suicide after labour lost the election

[candor]

Hmm I disavow all subject knowledge... but a mate who's a geologist says they must learn about climates in different time periods since the earths birth and from what he and his geo colleagues discern from intimate knowledge of this planets composition (fossils date mineral deposits amd show climate) is that these climate cycles have been extant since year dot. Man and our doings are so insignificant in this as to be (from memory) under half a percent of an influence.
These fluctuations are massive and naturally driven, our impact is as the impact of a louse on an elephant. Human vanity to claim any more influence.
Logical conclusion - our concern over trying to tweak our influence is ludicrous.
Many point out the economic interests in hyping the issue - what I see is a scheme to distract good activist stock from real issues by "fueling" a sideshow that plays on doomsday fears.

[bikemike]

Check this out - "I cannot recall ever before seeing such a huge mismatch between the views of the establishment — the politicians, the media, the chattering classes — and real people, on any issue."

I am not giving up riding the bike any time soon.

I think this is entirely to be expected, and a worry. While the general scientific agreement holds that the recent rate at which we are changing the environment is so far outside the normal range over the period of our evolution as to be of huge concern, the lay person's innate need for meaning, purpose and a future cannot countenance such an overcast outlook - the common response is fear, transformed by the mob into denial and dismissal.

I wager that the problem of how to convey the very real concern and organise ultimately affordable limiting actions without setting this denial-ism in stone troubles most of this informed 'establishment'. Repeatedly we see revisions where previous worst-case-modelling is superseded by more up to date and accurate data, and modelling. 'They' have tried to show restraint, and caution, believing this is the best way to get us engaged, but in fact, the repeated remodelling and re-sampling is eroding faith in the numbers and models.

This idea that warm-ism is a religion is also to be expected, as for millennia, religions have held the populace in its sway, with fear, hell and damnation. Now a potentially real and near fear is on the cards we can only assume the messengers are religious nutters, as ever - but this is very lazy. For one, it is then to be considered a very unsuccessful religion that counts among its ranks mostly the priesthood and little of the intended flock.

The common complaint against the 'establishment' is that they always say things are better than they are, better chances of winning this war, home by Christmas, sound economy, god on our side, plenty of growth in the market still, great time to buy a house; optimism is what keeps us in the system, fear is what keeps us wanting to believe in the optimism. The Patriotic, Free Market optimism is the new religion, replacing the fear of old. Who wants to go back to the bad old days after all.
I don't see anything to suggest that this is being 'organised' as some kind of Shock Doctrine response either, sure, that approach works and is being used all over, very well, but in traumatic, catastrophic, extreme acute scenarios, not in slow burn, hard-to-pin-down, esoteric, out of reach climate science.

No, this is not a religion, though as an atheist I wish that it were, so that it might be more widely adopted.

[Skyryder]

Now this is new. So what you are say is that the concensus is your belief. I can understand that because if a lie is repeated often enough and loudly enough then it can be taken a a truth. That is what has happened with the idea of concensus.

However actual data is what seperates religion from science and why most skeptics consider the warmist view to be a religion rather than science.



Yes, the methane levels are increasing, and they have been increaing along with CO2 levels since measurements began. I don't believe that the scientific are worried by this at all, it is just something else to observe, comment on and, if possible, explain.

The belief that the planet is getting warmer is not a religion.

I agree that if you tell a lie often enough it can at times be accepted as the truth. this of course holds sway to the climate change deniers as to those that hold an opposite view.

Most of us form opinions on issues that we do not have any kind of expertise, based on consensus. There was a time when the 'consensus' held the view that the world was flat. There are no guarantees that the majority are right but given that the scientific community, that has some expertise in climate change, believes, based scientific data, that the earth is getting warmer, i am not going to disagree. To do so would suggest that there is a conspiracy in the scientific community.

There has of course been dramatic changes in the earths weather over the millenniums but the difference between that and now is the speed of the change that is now occuring.

Bottom line on this Janatar is the queastion

Is the earth getting warmer?

Is the earth getting colder?

is the earth's climate stable?

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...g-skeptic.html

Union of Concerned Scientists

The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.

What began as a collaboration between students and faculty members at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1969 is now an alliance of more than 250,000 citizens and scientists. UCS members are people from all walks of life: parents and businesspeople, biologists and physicists, teachers and students. Our achievements over the decades show that thoughtful action based on the best available science can help safeguard our future and the future of our planet.


http://www.historycommons.org/timeli..._tmln_industry

ExxonMobil disperses roughly $16 million to organizations that are challenging the scientific consensus view that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. For many of the organizations, ExxonMobil is their single largest corporate donor, often providing more than 10 percent of their annual budgets.


Not hard to see where the opposition comes from with climate change. It's just pity so many believe this when the purpose of the opposition to climate change is to reduce the effects of climate change science to corperate shareholders dividends and corperate profits.

There are heaps of links on this. The opposition to global warming has come from those that have a vested interest to maintain the status quo. Sixteen mill buys a lot science. And that is just 'one' corperation.

Skyryder

[Maha]

Global Warming is a phenomenon dreamed up to entice the world population into buying products that have little or no effect on the worlds climate at all.
...even news reports state that 'weather patterns like this have not been seen for over 30 years'..
Really? so its nothing new then? just a weather cycle that happens once or twice in a life time?
I remember living in Taupo in 83' and the temps then were up in the 30's during summer. You dont see those temps in NZ that often 27 years on, if at all.
I just dont buy into it.

[Owl]

Is it too early to start preparing for Y3K?

[carbonhed]

ExxonMobil disperses roughly $16 million to organizations that are challenging the scientific consensus view that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. For many of the organizations, ExxonMobil is their single largest corporate donor, often providing more than 10 percent of their annual budgets.


Not hard to see where the opposition comes from with climate change.
Skyryder

God you're a sleazy, smearing, bottom feeder aren't you?

$16 mill is a derisory sum of money compared to the billions stolen from Western taxpayers to fund your mania! It's been estimated that the US government alone has given 79 billion dollars to feed climate alarm. The UN? The UK? All the NGO's with an axe to grind?

Never mind the conversion of food into bio fuels so that smug lefty halfwits like you can fuel up their Prius' while the worlds poorest go hungry. Swine!

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

So it's getting warmer? .... Well maybe not!

Because they have been disproved over and over about global warming they have changed it from global warming to climate change...

well my answer that the climate will alway change and that there is not a thing humans can do about it. It changed when we weren't on the Earth 5 or 6 times, and it will change again while we are here and it will change again when we are all gone... nothing can change that...

and if any of the super volcano's go again it will start a chain reaction and the cycle will start again... we will then have global warming and if the frozen methan in the oceans melt because of the warming, goodbye to life on earth, and then we have to start the cycle over again... happened before so will happen again... its not a matter of if... its a matter of when..

[Jantar]

.....
Bottom line on this Janatar is the queastion

Is the earth getting warmer?

Is the earth getting colder?

is the earth's climate stable?

Skyryder

Is the earth getting warmer? Not over the past decade. Not over the past 3 months. So probably not at the moment. In order to answer this question with a high degree of certainty we would need to have some method of measuring global temperatures right now. Oh, we do have... The UAH and RSS satelites. Both show that earth is currently cooling on a a daily, monthly or decadal measurement, but warming on an annual measurement.

Is the earth getting colder? Yes, over the past decade. Yes, over the past 3 months. So probably at the moment. In order to answer this question with a high degree of certainty we would need to have some method of measuring global temperatures right now. Oh, we do have... The UAH and RSS satelites. Both show that earth is currently cooling on a a daily, monthly or decadal measurement, but warming on an annual measurement.

Is the earth's climate stable? No, it never has been and never will be.

[Laava]

its got fuck all to do with climate and everything to do with money

Thats right! Politicians have decreed, let there be climate change and then make the population pay for it. Where is all the money from the ETS going to end up? Not in my pocket is my guess!

[Winston001]

I love a good argument - or even a bad one - but for the record, you are debating the wrong issue. The question is not about the earth heating or cooling, or whether man-made emissions are causing it.

Its already decades too late for that.

The real challenge is pollution. 6.7 billion humans are poisoning the planet as we frantically scrabble through our lives. Incidents such as the BP oil-well in the Mexican Gulf bring reality into sharp focus.

The point of the ETS, Kyoto Protocol, IPCC reports etc is to curb the effects of pollution. But the media find it easier to report climate change so that's what they run with.

[Jantar]

....
The point of the ETS, Kyoto Protocol, IPCC reports etc is to curb the effects of pollution. But the media find it easier to report climate change so that's what they run with.

In that case, this debate is even more dishonest than ever. The ETS is the Emissions Trading Scheme, and it is based on carbon, that is not a pollutant.

The Kyoto Protocol is to limit CO2 emissions to halt Global Warming, nothing there about pollution either.

IPCC is the International Panel on Climate Change. Once again no mention of any pollutants. All the IPCC reports deal with climate and the effects of change. No mention on pollution and the effects of change.

There is nothing to suggest its about pollution.

Take the focus away from CO2, CH4, H2O etc and start concentrating on CFCs, heavy metals, aromatics etc and you'll have many more fighting with you than arguinag against you.

[Woodman]

God you're a sleazy, smearing, bottom feeder aren't you?

$16 mill is a derisory sum of money compared to the billions stolen from Western taxpayers to fund your mania! It's been estimated that the US government alone has given 79 billion dollars to feed climate alarm. The UN? The UK? All the NGO's with an axe to grind?

Never mind the conversion of food into bio fuels so that smug lefty halfwits like you can fuel up their Prius' while the worlds poorest go hungry. Swine!

If they are spending $79 billion dollars to feed climate alarm, then maybe there is a problem with climate change. Why do you automatically think its a conspiracy?

[SPman]

aahhh good old Lord Monckton - who, as well as asserting manmade change is nonsense, also maintains that he has invented a cure for HIV, multiple sclerosis, influenza and other incurable diseases.

I rather like Monbiots view..

To dismiss an entire canon of science on the basis of either no evidence or evidence that has already been debunked is to evince an astonishing level of self-belief. It suggests that, by instinct or by birth, you know more about this subject (even if you show no sign of ever having studied it) than the thousands of intelligent people who have spent their lives working on it. Once you have have taken that leap of self-belief, once you have arrogated to yourself the authority otherwise vested in science, any faith is then possible. Your own views (and those of the small coterie who share them) become your sole reference points, and are therefore unchallengeable and immutable. You must believe yourself capable of anything. And, in a sense, you probably are.

of course, that can apply both ways......( I thought I'd get that one in first)