Politics of Global Warming

[pixelsmith]

Presenting opposing information is obviously not getting us anywhere. Let's bring this back full circle to the very basics and maybe we can all learn something.

A dialogue begins with communication between two people. I am trying to establish a starting point that will lead to a productive discussion. Tyger clearly has the cart before the horse in that he does not understand the most basic fundamentals of the climate topic. If he can simply stop hiding behind his copy pasting everything under the sun and the mods here and just begin a question/answer dialogue we can get somewhere.

In all due respect, the trolling is being done by Tyger (and you Gene) by presenting information that means nothing or is not supported by observed data. Then when you are challenged to explain or discuss it in a scientific way you both side step or tyger complains to the mods. This is not the way science works.

A simple question/answer dialogue between us is clearly the place to start. In light of tyger not knowing about CO2 requirements for plant life this shows he does NOT have the proper understanding of this science and the very foundation of the CAGW subject. A few questions will do nothing but advance his understanding of the basics.

I am trying to be courteous and sensitive to tygers lack of understanding of the topic that he is so passionate about and it would seem you both want to just argue instead of simply answering two very easy questions. To make it easier please simply answer the first one. Feel free to google for the answer. I will not give it to you because you will say it is not true, that is why I am asking for YOU to get the answer yourself. Thanks!


1. what is the minimum amount of atmospheric CO2 that plant life (in essence all life) can live on?

2. does it get warmer or colder after an ice age?

 

[Tyger]

Presenting opposing information is obviously not getting us anywhere.

Because this is not a thread that is debating the science. This is a thread about the politics involved in the situation - as in (for example) the smearing of climate change scientists (one example). Another example, Florida and Wisconsin governors dis-allowing the use of the phrase 'Climate Change' amongst their government environmentalists. All that's the politics of Climate Change.

Let's bring this back full circle to the very basics and maybe we can all learn something.

You need to do that on a thread that is parsing the science. You started one of those threads.

A dialogue begins with communication between two people.

Who mutually want to discuss something - key word is 'mutually'.

I am trying to establish a starting point that will lead to a productive discussion.

Do that on your climate science thread. Seems like a good place to try to strike up the conversation amongst those keen to have the discussion.

Tyger clearly has the cart before the horse in that he does not understand the most basic fundamentals of the climate topic.

Why do you bother with me then? That's the million-dollar question. You're always saying you're going to ignore me. But you never do. It's very disappointing. I guess there are some things in life that just can't be relied upon.

If he can simply stop hiding behind his copy pasting everything under the sun

It's interesting stuff. I'm showing how the politics is being manipulated. You don't like me keeping tabs on the 'man behind the curtain'? Wonder why.

and the mods here

Whoops! A bit testy. Trolls don't like being reeled in, but it's very unwise to nip at the hand that feeds you, Pixel. After all, you post here at their pleasure, and I must say they allow you to get away with lots! Consider that reams upon reams of posts by you that are denigrating to me and other posters are being allowed to stand. Hardly a one-sided hand at work there.

Just to be clear - I have absolutely no issue with you or your thinking. I believe you are a valued member of this site, as is being demonstrated. I have never chosen to interact with you - which is the weird part. My sole 'sin' has been to post on climate change. Everyone else you have either run off or posters just decide it's not worth the interaction with you. Me, I keep posting because I am fascinated by what I post and want to share (plus I know there are others who find the links interesting).

 

[Tyger]

and just begin a question/answer dialogue we can get somewhere.

That question/answer dialog will not be with me - if you could only accept that - and it should not be on this thread. Debating the science of climate change is best done on a debate thread.

Why try to sand-bag this thread? Is it that important to make sure the politics going on around this issue stays obscure and hidden? You are very keen to distract this thread away from it's purpose.

In all due respect, the trolling is being done by Tyger (and you Gene) by presenting information that means nothing or is not supported by observed data.

How to 'unpack' this remarkable sentence!

First off, Gene - as the owner of the site - cannot troll his own site.

Second off, me-self - as the poster that initiated the thread - cannot troll my own thread.

'Presenting information that means nothing' - hmmmm......grasping at straws. We can say that's an opinion. As I have been saying like a mantra: If you are making a point, then spell it out explicitly, preferably using clear and well defined claims of evidence.

'or is not supported by observed data.' So now you are on the science - as you always are. This is a thread on politics - but since you bring it up, deniers do none of their own research. What is happening is the data that is produced by climate scientists is selectively re-worked by the deniers. The deniers are not themselves researchers in this area.

Pixel, you are simply on the wrong threads. The conversation you want is not happening on the threads you try to get the conversation going on. It's pretty simple: find the threads that are having the conversation you want to have.

Then when you are challenged to explain or discuss it in a scientific way you both side step

'you both' - you really think this is a good path to take? You really feel you are that invulnerable? IMO you are straining your friendship with Gene, because it certainly looks to me like you are pissing on someone's front porch.

Sadly, Pixel, you wouldn't recognize a 'scientific way' if it bit you between the eyes.

or tyger complains to the mods.

That's right - when you sand-bag a thread, when you stalk me from thread to thread, when you get (personally) nasty as in trying to smear me - I say something. Surprised? Is it your expectation that when you bully or smear posters they take it and shut-up?

This is not the way science works.

This is funny. Are you really under the delusion that 'science' takes place on a chat site? And that you know how science works amongst scientists? Are you under the delusion that you, as a layperson, can second guess scientists who are studying this topic as a life's work?

A simple question/answer dialogue between us is clearly the place to start.

No, it isn't - not on this political thread - but I'm figuring out why it has to be that way for you. If you can gum up the political thread with your nonsense 'science' questions - or even this nonsense conversation with me - you effectively shut down the political postings. That is interesting to me.

Why must the climate change conversations be shut down by any means? I am really finding this interesting. It has a different 'feel' from most disagreements. This goes beyond a mere variance in views. It's why I am engaging you to the extent I am - because I think this is an illustration of the whole problem.

 

[Tyger]

In light of tyger not knowing about CO2 requirements for plant life this shows he does NOT have the proper understanding of this science and the very foundation of the CAGW subject.

This one sentence alone - if nothing else has up to this point - betrays your utter lack of scientific rigor. There is no way you can be making such a statement - and since you likely don't understand that - it is very unlikely you can discuss anything in a 'scientific manner'. Your reputation precedes you. Your inability to have a real dialog is well known.

A few questions will do nothing but advance his understanding of the basics.

Nope. If you are interested in 'advancing understanding' you need to make your point by spelling it out explicitly, preferably using clear and well defined claims of evidence. You advance nothing by asking leading questions. Socrates you ain't.

I am trying to be courteous and sensitive to tygers lack of understanding of the topic that he is so passionate about

Oh for pity's sake - give it up, Pixel! You're being a jerk and a royal pain. You know exactly what you're doing and it has nothing to do with science.

and it would seem you both want to just argue

Gene speaks for himself - but as far as I can see alls Gene did was to post a few links about climate change that you (pixel) don't like. That hardly constitutes 'arguing'.

For myself, I am doing my best to have nothing to do with you - hardly an argument.

instead of simply answering two very easy questions.

Nope. State your views, Pixel. Show that you can make coherent sense of the party-line you are parroting.

To make it easier please simply answer the first one. Feel free to google for the answer. I will not give it to you because you will say it is not true, that is why I am asking for YOU to get the answer yourself. Thanks! 1. what is the minimum amount of atmospheric CO2 that plant life (in essence all life) can live on? 2. does it get warmer or colder after an ice age?

Poor Pixel! Clueless.

 

[mike_thoth]

Global Warming, the ultimate fatalist subject in my humble opinion. For me the politics and the business of "global warming" is what drives the significant alarm at this point. I recently heard an interview with an Australian scientist who was fully behind the AGW hypothesis. The sceptical person was suggesting was for me far more scientific & was far more clear in his message. There have been 3 warming periods over the last 100 years or so, each one equal in both duration & temp increase. The first two were agreed to be fully natural, without any human factors. The third one according to the standard party line is down to human beings. Given that 97% of CO2 is natural, 3% human, why is it that the first two can be natural variation & the last one man made.

What has swayed me in the direction of being sceptical of these AGW claims is the dubious & poor science that has been first publicised by media, recycled by people of fame and then parroted by political and green advocates the world over. There is a belief system at work here where logic exits the door & emotion is used to "educate" the masses. Another issue is global warming business. If global warming was proven tomorrow to be a natural event, who would lose out? How many departments, companies, lobby groups the world over would lose all funding? How many scientists out there that have become dependant on government grants to in some way tie in their own specialisation into climate change would lose out? The business of Global Warming is now a multi billion dollar industry, a juggernaut & there is far too much money & agenda ingrained in it to let it go.

The increasing Alarm in the predictions is another aspect of this. Claims become louder, longer and more alarmist. The problem for these people is they are dependant on the Earth actually following the party line, which it seems to not be doing. Despite rejections of the Global Warming Pause, many pro AGW scientists are having to write papers to explain why this has happened. They at first reject that the warming has paused, refuse to accept it and then ultimately have to explain it, in the scientific way. What happens if the Earth has stopped warming for the next 30 years and we have a cooling trend again?
There are also many people out there that keep track of the claims made over the years and then remind people of them when their tipping point has been reached. I for one have many examples of this and they do make for some very funny reading.

Climate Gate emails were also a very poor example of how science was being done. I have personally read many hundreds of these emails and they are not misunderstood. Anyone who would think that is incredibly naïve. There was also a great report put out by the Global Warming Foundation regarding the enquiries and to say they were half arsed efforts would be too good a comment on it. In order for the AGW temperature /CO2 correlation to be correct then we need to look at the geological record, not just the last 800,000 years, the last 30 years or last 20 years. We need to look over the period of 500 million years. IS there a correlation, No.

Climate gate was the Blue Book, Condon Committee of climate studies, a recent announcement from the Global Warming Policy Foundation has assigned a group of 6 expert scientists to review the data used by global warming scientists to see if the data has been fiddled. Lets see what they find.

 

[pixelsmith]

We have one that can see.

 

[pixelsmith]

A refreshing voice of reason. mike_thoth see if you can discuss it with "I don't debate" tyger.

 

[mike_thoth]

I have no time at all for people who say the debate is over. One of the things that upset me very much about this emotive subject is the analogies people create. A person like John Kerry who compare climate change (without doubt the most complex subject ever studied by science) to that of gravity, or the temperature ice freezes. This man is likely to make an absolute fortune should carbon trading come into affect, he will personally benefit from this so yes he will support it to the hilt, just like Al Gore, who in the same year released "An Inconvenient Truth" purchased a condo in San Francisco for $4 Million, yards from the sea front, which his movie predicted would rise very soon.

If we take just one aspect of climate, cloud seeding. The weather & climate depend massively on how clouds form. Statistically speaking we know nothing about this subject, virtually nothing. However people think that such a fundamental force of nature can simply be left out of consideration because CO2 is for some reason more important over just the last 50 years?

The result of such ideology & certainty can be measured in dozes of ways, this is just one. I live in the Wales, UK, near here Google Maps

The valley I live inside is now surrounded by these massive windmills that actually don't work for most of the year. The cost of these farms are astronomical and in a time of austerity huge government subsidies are spent to erect these machines that on a good day, provide 3% of our electricity in the UK. The reason these are erected ultimately........ global warming. CO2 apparently is a pollutant to some people, to me its plant food, a vital cog in what I learned in school was the carbon cycle. If I were worried about CO2 emissions, which I am not, then I would be concerned about how much these things firstly cost in cash, but then in carbon emissions, as the metals are sourced all over the world, neodymium for instance, comes from China & the ore is extracted using a very nasty process which pollutes the water table.

This winter I have to read and listen to old people who must decide whether to switch on the heaters at their homes or use the electric blanket at night time because the energy rates are artificially high because of renewable energy.

The way I see it, human contribution of CO2 will have a negligible affect if any in the long term. CO2 is NOT a pollutant, it is vital to the growth of plant life, and therefore, all life on earth. CO2 doesn't track over geological periods. Energy austerity is as bad as financial austerity & we don't need any fake energy solutions like renewable energy.

For energy we have Oil, Shale Gas in the short term. We have Thorium, plentiful reserves. Fast neutron reactors will allow us to use our nuclear waste as an fuel over the next 300 years and we have a global project in the South of France called the eTER which is figuring out a way of using heavy water nuclear fusion, a limitless technology which essentially powers the stars. All of these methods of generating energy have zero pollution, and zero carbon dioxide emissions if one cares about that. I don't.

I was not setting out to put such a long post together but the whole thing angers me because of the irrationality of it.

Support of this AGW crisis comes from some kind of guilt that people have about being human beings. Yes we can be evil and bad, but we can also be brilliant, loving, caring & genius. I prefer to take the positive mind set & I hope others here on this forum join me in the sunshine.

 

[pixelsmith]

Well stated. I see one of the problems we face are people here like tyger who is probably a caring person but doesn't know anything about CO2 which is what the very foundation the pro AGW "religion" is based on. Sad really. He seems intelligent enough to figure it out but emotions, politics or both have blinded him.

 

[pixelsmith]

This is an interesting statement. "Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects."
How many times have we heard this? BUT the quote continues below.

"They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

HUH? Well back in 1975 the very same science Tyger subscribes to suggested this solution to SAVE US ALL from a looming ICE AGE.

Link: Scientists Considered Pouring Soot Over the Arctic in the 1970s to Help Melt the Ice - In Order to Prevent Another Ice Age Washington's Blog

 

[mike_thoth]

That's a good point, there are always groups of people who insist the world needs to be saved, and saved from us. Take a stab at some of these past crisis;
Global Cooling - Ice Age largely because of human CO2
Ozone Layer - CFCs
Population Bomb - Run out of food - Eating our own dead - Humanity as a disease
DDT Ban - Will cause major problems for bird populations amount other things
Eugenics - Human Stock was becoming too weak - Started in the United States before World War 2, the Nazis were behind the US in this particular field & sterilisations were still being given to certain groups in the 50's & early 60's. A real evil.

These are all issues that rely on one thing. The belief that human beings do not advance scientifically or technologically. Food for instance was predicted to run out because of population and room to grow crops. Science resulted in less land being needed for more population. 50,000 kids died each year when DDT was in force, it jumped up to 500,000 per year when it was banned. (these figures I am paraphrasing here). Paul Erlich & John Holdren once made a bet I think in the 1980ss with Julian Simon. The bet was to take 5 commodities & bet that within 10 years these metals chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten would go up in price. They went down as more reserves were discovered because of increased ability to detect them. This is the failure of all these arguments. For instance using Thorium as a liquid fuel in a nuclear reactor was not possible until science advanced enough to learn how to do this.

 

[mike_thoth]

I think it is also important to note that in official UNIPCC records they actually suggest reducing CO2 output by more than 100%. Really! Forgetting the fact that you cant reduce anything by 100%, but reducing the CO2 content of our atmosphere to say 150ppm would start a mass die off in plant life, therefore animal life, and the whole food chain in the natural world would collapse. These policies will result in genocide, no joke as you rightly imply in your own posts Pixel. We need more CO2 in the atmosphere, 1000ppm - 1400ppm would be fine. And for those out there still thinking that Co2 is a pollutant (which it is not), the Navy allows the CO2 in the atmosphere of a submarine to get upwards of 5000ppm for a month at a time.

 

[Han]

Court orders UK to cut pollution - BBC News

 

[mike_thoth]

I would agree with this news item. We should seek to remove pollutants & particulates from our atmosphere, for instance this comes on the back of a recent air pollution issue in the UK, mostly the South West/East where there was a convergence of sand & dust from the Sahara & pollution from Europe. Any reasonable person would like a clean healthy atmosphere. NO2 can be dangerous but at least in the wealthy Western nations we can afford to spend money on cleaning most of our emissions.

 

[Tyger]

That's a good point, there are always groups of people who insist the world needs to be saved, and saved from us.

Saved from 'us' as in our poor decision making 'as a group'. Though that is misleading because generally the decision making is relegated to the powerful and wealthy few. The rest acquiesce - or are compelled to acquiesce - for a variety of reasons.

Take a stab at some of these past crisis;

I am assuming the list you deliver is a list you feel contain bogus claims. Am I correct?

BTW - the term 'crisis' is subjective. You decide how you will see the problems associated with advancing science/technology. How newspapers decide - and decided in the past - to headline news articles is no one's responsibility save the newspapers. They composed headlines that sold copy. No more than that. Example: 'Headless Alien Abducts Child's Pet Squirrel.'

Global Cooling - Ice Age largely because of human CO2

This is an oft repeated statement. Care to give a source for this? In my memory global cooling was and always has been linked to the issue of global warming. The two go hand-in-glove.

Ozone Layer - CFCs

I assume you believe that CFCs were not reduced with the Ozone Layer subsequently recovering.

Population Bomb - Run out of food - Eating our own dead - Humanity as a disease.

Disregarding the sensational phrases (eating dead, humanity as disease) - I am again assuming that you believe we do not have a population problem/explosion, and that food and water (and shelter) are not an issue for a significant portion of the global population.

DDT Ban - Will cause major problems for bird populations amount other things.

Again, I am guessing you rejected the science based on DDT and objected to it's ban.

Eugenics - Human Stock was becoming too weak - Started in the United States before World War 2, the Nazis were behind the US in this particular field & sterilisations were still being given to certain groups in the 50's & early 60's. A real evil.

I would not place eugenics in this list. It's another matter entirely, though it surfaces - and will continue to surface into the future imo - transformed into the debate on how much advanced medical science/technology should be applied to birth and death - the two brackets of life.

 

[pixelsmith]

tyger according to your dooms day science we all died by the year 2000.. lol..

 

[Tyger]

tyger according to your dooms day science

I have no 'dooms day' science. It's crazy, nonsensical statements like this that make you lack credibility.

we all died by the year 2000.. lol..

Never heard that scenario, but of course, you are making a joke.

 

[pixelsmith]

No it is no joke. If you knew your climate science and the doomsday players involved you would know who said it and when. But you don't know your climate science background so of course you haven't a clue.
Wow son. Please keep talking your total ignorance is showing through loud and clear. Thanks! No wonder you won't engage with me totally on the subject you would end up looking very very foolish. Let's just keep chipping away at your knowledge shall we?

 

[Tyger]

No it is no joke. If you knew your climate science and the doomsday players involved you would know who said it and when.

You obviously do know, so why not - because this is a point you are making - give the link to the evidence. It's curious how you avoid giving evidence of your points. Speaks volumes.

Just to clarify - this thread is about the politics of climate change, not the science. Do you understand the difference?

But you don't know your climate science background so of course you haven't a clue.

If you say so it must be true.

Wow son. Please keep talking your total ignorance is showing through loud and clear. Thanks!

Okay, pops!

No wonder you won't engage with me totally on the subject you would end up looking very very foolish. Let's just keep chipping away at your knowledge shall we?

Not on this thread. This thread is about the politics of global warming, not the science.

This is what I find interesting: that you want very much to both sand-bag this thread and divert it's purpose - to reveal the politics around climate change. Interesting.

 

[Tyger]

I love perusing Skeptical Science - a site conveniently dis-respected by deniers. In fact, an aside here - that is the basic MO of deniers - to slime all sources of climate science. Pretty pathetic. Denial, however, is no joke. It's a serious business - with potentially paid puppets. I have no evidence of that, but the 'resident trolls' on such sites like The Guardian whenever a climate change article goes up, suggests something organized is afoot. But that's pure speculation.

Here's an interesting article from Skeptical Science - the comments following the article are a good read.
What I learned from debating science with trolls Posted on 29 August 2014LINK: What I learned from debating science with trolls

TEXT: "I have received an education in the tactics many trolls use. These tactics are common not just to trolls but to bloggers, journalists and politicians who attack science, from climate to cancer research. Some techniques are comically simple. Emotionally charged, yet evidence-free, accusations of scams, fraud and cover-ups are common. While they mostly lack credibility, such accusations may be effective at polarizing debate and reducing understanding.

[...]

"Internet trolls know who their experts are. There are thousands of professors scattered across academia, so it isn’t surprising that a few contrarians can be found. In online discussions I’ve been told of the contrarian views of “respected” professors from Harvard, MIT and Princeton. Internet trolls know who their experts are. There are thousands of professors scattered across academia, so it isn’t surprising that a few contrarians can be found.

"In online discussions I’ve been told of the contrarian views of “respected” professors from Harvard, MIT and Princeton. Sometimes experts are quoted correctly, but they happen to disagree with the vast majority of their equally qualified (or more qualified) colleagues. How do the scientifically illiterate select this minority of experts? I’ve asked trolls this question a few times and, funnily enough, they cannot provide good answers. To be blunt, they are choosing experts based on agreeable conclusions rather than scientific rigour, and this problem extends well beyond online debates.

[...]

"Often attacks on science employ logic so flawed that it would be laughable in everyday life. If I said my car was blue, and thus no cars are red, you would be unimpressed. And yet when non-experts discuss science, such flawed logic is often employed. Carbon dioxide emissions are leading to rapid climate change now, and gradual natural climate change has also taken place over aeons. There’s no reason for natural and anthropogenic climate change to be mutually exclusive, and yet climate change deniers frequently use natural climate change in an attempt to disprove anthropogenic global warming."

​