Mythsquashing: Warmer Climes
- Thread starter dewi
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, We're having our annual Winter Moot and we'd love you to come. PLEASE LOOK HERE to secure your place and get more information.
For forum threads CLICK HERE
I must admit that this whole discussion made me look a lot deeper into the whole thing, simply because I already had the funny feeling that something fishy was going on with this whole climate change/ global warming thing. Something did not add up.
And I ended up reading sites like http://www.c3headlines.com/ and http://green-agenda.com/index.html
To say I was astounded would be putting it mildly.....
What more to read, what more to believe or not believe. It all boils down to one thing and one thing only; total control of humanity in whatever shape, form or number.
And I ended up reading sites like http://www.c3headlines.com/ and http://green-agenda.com/index.html
To say I was astounded would be putting it mildly.....
What more to read, what more to believe or not believe. It all boils down to one thing and one thing only; total control of humanity in whatever shape, form or number.
The problem is that those involved on the outer circle of the global warming theory want the world to be a better place. Those who've took the centre ground have worked out how to turn the argument into a capitalist's dream.
I don't doubt those who believe in the global warming theory, they are genuinely concerned that we're making the planet uninhabitable... and arguably we are, but not by heating it up with CO2. We're making it uninhabitable by ignoring the real issues... since the 80s we've seen oil spills greater than any before... the answer... monetary fines. We've seen thousands of hectares of forest decimated... the answer... monetary fines. We've seen rivers polluted past the point of return... the answer... nothing.
All those graphs show a rise.Can't help yourself with the insults eh Charly... the old ones are always the best
Nope, not disagreeing with those graphs at all... you are aware that we're not responsible for warming pre-1983? So when you look at the mean temperature on each of those graphs, it levels out around the late 90's towards 2000. You've just posted up something that backs up what I'm saying. Temperature has risen a degree since the 70's and not at all in the past 18 to 19 years. I particularly like the one labeled Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change, that illustrates my point perfectly.
So what's you point? You're agreeing with me but telling me to check my tinfoil hat? Here's a closeup of the last 18 years for you
http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/0...ttle-to-no-global-warming-over-past-18-years/
I suspect what you did was look at that nice big curve without looking closely at the data (or understanding when the climate scientists are saying we started to effect the environment with our gases)... posted it up with what you thought would be a funny line... and now you're going to have to have a rethink.
*** are you talking about with your 'no change' and 'levelled off' statements?
Those graphs show rises that are small but they are applying to whole hemispheres. In some areas the rise has been very large - Greenland for one.
Next you'll be claiming that the northwest passage hasn't opened up at all.
So you're ignoring what BR posted up then? You're ignoring the independent satellite data? And you've not looked close enough to see the leveling off of the temperature based on the scale of the graph?
And I'm the one classified as the 'denier'?
Excellent... while we're running off down the path of pedantry... define 'business'.
That should give us a starting point for discussion.
What I'm saying is that it's easy to understand the financial motivation of the enormous fossil fuel industry when it comes to climate change. Is there money involved in the alarmist position? I'm sure there is, but some nebulous claim that " the global warming theory has become a massive business, and the governments (particularly in the Western world) have realised what a money spinner it truly is" may be true (or not) but it sure sounds vague to me.
If the entire world were to adopt a position that we must act to curb CO2 emissions it would cost the fossil fuel producers billions, trillions over time. I suspect it would be really hard on those who finance terrorism. That is simple enough to understand. Who would be the winners in that case? Manufacturers of wind generators and solar cells, contractors who install and maintain them, some engineers and researchers probably, The countries who would benefit from the improvement in their trade deficit because they now produce instead of buy energy, the workers who would produce energy at home instead of in the middle east maybe. Sure - there would be a lot of money involved, but I don't see those actors as being able to work in concert at this time to perpetrate an elaborate international fraud.
No doubt both sides are guilty of spin. Surprise surprise. No matter what you read or hear it's going to be filtered through someone else's bias and agenda - so what do we base our opinions on? The opinions of the people we have respect for and our own observations - my observations are that 50 years ago when I was a kid we had several 4"-7" snows a year that would close schools and businesses - now we rarely have a snow that completely covers the ground - glaciers have receded or disappeared - the mythical Northwest Passage is no longer a myth - extreme weather events seem to be more extreme. Only anecdotal (and only weather rather than climate) I know, but since everyone seems to be lying my own direct observations are the most reliable thing I have to go on. And because of that I tend to believe the people who reinforce my own confirmation bias - I can admit that. Can you?
Anyway, what I think about it doesn't make a tinkers damn worth of difference. I'm an aging man without PHD after my name, and when I talk about anything like this peoples eyes glaze over and my wife makes a pained expression. No one wants to hear it. You may have experienced the same issue. I try to curb my tongue unless my opinion on such things is asked for or provoked out of me - and I should probably curb my tongue then as well. Climate change isn't something I'm obsessed about - I have enough of those already - so I have no doubt that you are more informed about it than I am on the subject. But I do know this. Minds are seldom changed by opinionated rants - even if the facts are on your side.
Good luck - If it turns out you are correct, I hope you find a way to convince the world - but I wouldn't get my hopes up.
Merry Christmas.
If the entire world were to adopt a position that we must act to curb CO2 emissions it would cost the fossil fuel producers billions, trillions over time. I suspect it would be really hard on those who finance terrorism. That is simple enough to understand. Who would be the winners in that case? Manufacturers of wind generators and solar cells, contractors who install and maintain them, some engineers and researchers probably, The countries who would benefit from the improvement in their trade deficit because they now produce instead of buy energy, the workers who would produce energy at home instead of in the middle east maybe. Sure - there would be a lot of money involved, but I don't see those actors as being able to work in concert at this time to perpetrate an elaborate international fraud.
No doubt both sides are guilty of spin. Surprise surprise. No matter what you read or hear it's going to be filtered through someone else's bias and agenda - so what do we base our opinions on? The opinions of the people we have respect for and our own observations - my observations are that 50 years ago when I was a kid we had several 4"-7" snows a year that would close schools and businesses - now we rarely have a snow that completely covers the ground - glaciers have receded or disappeared - the mythical Northwest Passage is no longer a myth - extreme weather events seem to be more extreme. Only anecdotal (and only weather rather than climate) I know, but since everyone seems to be lying my own direct observations are the most reliable thing I have to go on. And because of that I tend to believe the people who reinforce my own confirmation bias - I can admit that. Can you?
Anyway, what I think about it doesn't make a tinkers damn worth of difference. I'm an aging man without PHD after my name, and when I talk about anything like this peoples eyes glaze over and my wife makes a pained expression. No one wants to hear it. You may have experienced the same issue. I try to curb my tongue unless my opinion on such things is asked for or provoked out of me - and I should probably curb my tongue then as well. Climate change isn't something I'm obsessed about - I have enough of those already - so I have no doubt that you are more informed about it than I am on the subject. But I do know this. Minds are seldom changed by opinionated rants - even if the facts are on your side.
Good luck - If it turns out you are correct, I hope you find a way to convince the world - but I wouldn't get my hopes up.
Merry Christmas.
Last edited:
That isn't what I asked. I asked whether you could define 'business'.
You can't claim it's a 'nebulous' claim without analysing the business aspect of this... but your goal was never to really challenge anything I said was it? Your goal was to try to pick a pedantic point, and when you realised that I was going to argue your pedantic point... you switched tack to your preferred bias, the fossil fuel providers.
If you notice, my argument isn't for fossil fuel providers. I think they should answer for their environmental effect more than anyone.
Opinionated rants eh? Nicely argued.... except there is nothing in this thread that is a rant from my side, it is based on opinion and it is backed up with fact... the facts provided from the same information source that claims the opposite... so unfortunately your attempt to derail the argument wasn't successful this time.
Now onto the meat... why do you respect the opinions you've mentioned? What papers have you read that they've written? Have you read papers with opposing views? What conclusions did you come to after reading both sets of papers? Can you argue a point without adding in things that haven't been mentioned or discussed just for the sake of attempting to discredit me with other people's poor arguments?
As far as admitting listening only to the people who can confirm my bias... I have no bias. I've looked at the data from a neutral position, I've formed my own opinion based on looking at that data available. Can you say the same?
You win. Your appetite for this discussion far exceeds mine.
Again - Good luck, and a Merry Christmas to you.
Again - Good luck, and a Merry Christmas to you.
I don't win... nobody has got your true opinion... nor an answer to the question.
The discussion is poorer for it.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C Clarke
"Any argument sufficiently aggressive is indistinguishable from a conspiracy theory." Toerag
This discussion is loud enough that the aim seems to be to win/hurt rather than prove one's own position or convince anybody. Dewi, I find myself automatically dismissing what you post because the tone seems to me to be that of a zealot. That's not to say you're wrong, but the way you present your argument makes me want you to be.
"Any argument sufficiently aggressive is indistinguishable from a conspiracy theory." Toerag
This discussion is loud enough that the aim seems to be to win/hurt rather than prove one's own position or convince anybody. Dewi, I find myself automatically dismissing what you post because the tone seems to me to be that of a zealot. That's not to say you're wrong, but the way you present your argument makes me want you to be.
Okay... so as well as trawling through science papers, articles written both by scientists and crackpots... most of the time figuring out which is which... on top of debating with 'believers' who seem incapable of answering straight forward questions and constantly tell me I'm doing something wrong by debating something indisputable... along with doing maths and having to watch every word I'm saying because of the pedantic nature of some... and despite having to ignore veiled insults and try to keep the thread as good humour'd as possible.... now you'd like me to alter my tone to suit you because you interpret it a certain way?
To be blunt, there is enough going on in the debate without me second guessing what I'm saying just to suit your sensibilities... if you don't like my tone, or you want to disagree with my argument because of it... I couldn't give a monkies. Either get over it, or don't view the thread.
Is that sufficiently aggressive enough or have you another 'Toerag' quote you want to adapt from Clarke??
To be blunt, there is enough going on in the debate without me second guessing what I'm saying just to suit your sensibilities... if you don't like my tone, or you want to disagree with my argument because of it... I couldn't give a monkies. Either get over it, or don't view the thread.
Is that sufficiently aggressive enough or have you another 'Toerag' quote you want to adapt from Clarke??
Similar threads
