Is the Whole Anti-CO2 Hysteria Campaign Just a Distraction??

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by bringiton, Sep 27, 2019.

  1. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,189
    Likes Received:
    245
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I've just witnessed a huge demonstration protesting "climate change." It was the biggest I've seen in many years, maybe 100K people, and the protesters seemed to be almost all students. It suddenly struck me that a very practical purpose is being served by this enormous campaign of absurd nonscience: diverting people's attention from real issues and injustices they could actually do something about if they took the trouble to understand them. Thanks to anti-CO2 hysteria, none of these misinformed kids has any room in their consciousness to think about the institutions of finance capitalism that are grooming them to be nothing but economic cannon fodder, suitable to be robbed and enslaved their whole lives by rich, greedy, privileged parasites. Do any of them understand how half of everything that is produced is being taken from the productive by banksters, landowners, IP monopolists, etc. in return for nothing? Enough hysterical distractions, and they will never be able to figure out how the treadmill they are on powers the escalator the privileged ride up at their leisure.

    It's just another in the long litany of distractions and diversions to stop people from understanding the real reasons their lives are so blighted: blame immigrants; blame gays and transexuals; blame the blacks; blame the Hispanics; blame the Jews; and now it's blame the fossil fuel industry that makes modern life possible! It's also much like all the religions with their anti-sex dogma: if you can just make people feel guilty about something they can't change and is actually good for them, you can not only rob and enslave them but make them love you for it.
     
  2. Idahojunebug77

    Idahojunebug77 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2017
    Messages:
    818
    Likes Received:
    350
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Bringiton, that was a very good post. If you dropped the landowner from your list of evil doers it would have been an excellent post. I wholeheartedly agree with most of your message.
     
  3. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    27,896
    Likes Received:
    5,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Progressive Democrats depend on hysteria to gain votes. They consistently create fake crises and claim to be the only ones who can fix the problems. Clear thinkers realize the hoax and are then branded by the Democrats as deniers of the need to save humankind from the crises the Progressive Democrats have manufactured. The Progressives have basically taken over the public school educational system and are brainwashing our young people into becoming their foot soldiers.

    If anyone wants a tragic example that will make your blood boil read "Why Meadow Died: The People and Policies That Created The Parkland Shooter and Endanger America's Students" - Andrew Pollack & Max Eden - 2019.
     
    bringiton likes this.
  4. gottzilla

    gottzilla Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Even if the climate changing effects of human emitted CO2 were a net negative for human civilization, couldn't it still be that the proposed medicines are even worse? Even if the proposed medicines aren't worse than the supposed disease, couldn't it still be that merely the attention given to it and thus diverted from other issues is by itself even worse still? Is it that important? Wouldn't the same attention and effort given to other issues instead have more of a benefit for human civilization?

    The language itself by proponents makes me very skeptical. Dishonest terminology like "climate change" and the resulting "climate change denier", so that you automatically implicitly get smeared as some idiot if you're having doubts on human CO2 emissions having catastrophic effects on our planet and/or human civilization. To me that's just pure, brazen, dishonest propaganda.

    I also don't like the claims that the "science is settled". Is it truly understood well enough to leave no room for debate? Are all the factors that contribute to the climate that well understood? Do we even know all the factors? If the claim was "We cannot explain current changes in the climate by known and well understood natural factors, so perhaps it's best to assume that humans are causing it as a matter of practicality and precaution" then that would be one thing, but the constant claims that the "science is settled" makes me additionally skeptical, as it doesn't seem very scientific to completely close the door that way.

    What are the well understood known factors and the not so well understood known factors? What are some plausible yet unverified factors that may contribute?
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2019
    drluggit and AFM like this.
  5. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    27,896
    Likes Received:
    5,479
    Trophy Points:
    113

    The reliance on this so-called global average temperature calculation based on incomplete and corrupted temperature measurement data to produce believable and actionable changes of tenths of a degree Centigrade is absurd.


    https://www.academia.edu/35571845/D...h_the_most_extensive_peer_reviewed_references
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2019
    drluggit and gottzilla like this.
  6. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    4,990
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your inability to understand basic statistics is only your problem.

    Anyways, I see you're back to reciting religious scripture from your Bible.
     
  7. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    4,990
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    First, it's a standard tactic for fringe cults to tell their members that they're one of the elite few who possesses secret knowledge of the RealTruth. It gives the cultists emotional warm fuzzies to think that, and thus ensures they come back to the cult for more.

    Second, truth is an absolute defense, and the AGW science is true.

    Third, fallacy of the "humans can only think about one thing."
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2019
  8. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    4,990
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Under that standard, science couldn't say about anything. It would be eternally paralyzed, as there's no way to rule out unknown causes with 100% certainty on anything.There goes the germ theory of disease, as we can't absolutely rule out demon possession.

    That's why science rejects the "If you can't absolutely prove fairy magic isn't the cause, you have to assume it is" standard. Instead, science goes with the best theory that explains the observed evidence, like AGW theory.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2019
  9. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    27,896
    Likes Received:
    5,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Alarmist pattern —->> personal attacks and insults to avoid addressing the obvious fallacy of arguing that a 0.1 degree difference is statistically meaningful when the uncertainty is an order of magnitude higher.
     
  10. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    27,896
    Likes Received:
    5,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The AGW explains nothing. There is nothing different about our current warming period than the previous 9 in the Holocene.
     
  11. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,571
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. Immediate cessation of fossil fuel extraction would likely be catastrophic from a socioeconomic perspective. Fortunately that's not the only option nor is it one that anyone is seriously considering.

    Maybe. There are several globally important issues that must be tackled. We need to rank them in order of importance and priority and then live with the consequences of our decisions.
    Terminology like "climate change" has been around for decades. We also have examples from those who were politically opposed to action who preferred that terminology (see the Luntz memo). So I don't think there is enough evidence to seriously consider "climate change" as offensive language. I personally think calling people "deniers" isn't helpful. Offensive? Maybe. I will say that I get called a lot of names because I advocate for an evidence based approach to the issue and science in general. I'm not offended by the labels given to me. But that's me...

    Among the agents that can induce a global scale energy imbalance at the surface solar forcing, aersol forcing, and GHG forcing are very well understood. Clouds can also induce a global scale energy imbalance at the surface and they are not yet satisfactorily understood. On one side you have the claim that clouds are a negative feedback (Lindzen's iris theory for example). But on the other side there is the claim that clouds are a positive feedback. Research is ongoing, but at present the negative feedback hypothesis are getting falsified one-by-one while support is continuing to build for the positive feedback hypothesis.

    It's settled in the same way that General Relatively and Quantum Mechanics are "settled". Note that between GR and QM they combine to make what is often called the worst prediction in all of science. The point..."settled" does not mean that our knowledge is perfect. Like GR and QM perfect knowledge of the climate is unobtainable. But our knowledge is sufficient to draw important conclusions and make informed decisions that can and have had a positive impact on humanity.
     
    gottzilla likes this.
  12. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,571
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The uncertainty on monthly global mean temperatures from satellite datasets is about ±0.10, conventional datasets is about ±0.05C, and reanalysis is about ±0.025C. An uncertainty of ±1.0C was about what it was in the 1800's. We've made a lot of improvements in measuring and data processing techniques since then.
     
  13. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,571
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FACT #1: CO2 and other polyatomic gas species act as thermal barriers for outgoing longwave radiation but not incoming shortwave radiation.

    FACT #2: CO2 concentration is now higher than at any point during the Quaternary period.

    FACT #3: Humans are responsible for 100% of the increase.

    FACT #4: The magnitude of the radiative forcing for 2xCO2 is 3.7 W/m^2.

    FACT #5: The climate sensitivity is 0.5 - 2.0C per W/m^2.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  14. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    27,896
    Likes Received:
    5,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet the previous 9 warming cycles of the Holocene have occurred a constant CO2. Why is not the entire scientific community not focused on explaining that ???
     
    Nathan-D likes this.
  15. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    27,896
    Likes Received:
    5,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You actually believe that when
    many of these measurements are corrupted by urban heat island and land use effects plus the inclusion of sea surface temperatures which have nothing to do with atmospheric re radiation ???

    BTW have you read the reference I’ve linked to and shown why it’s wrong ???
     
  16. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    58,573
    Likes Received:
    38,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Climate change is not really going to affect the older population - they will be dead before the big impacts arrive but this next generation - they have grown in seeing the impacts of the increased ferocity of hurricanes and cyclone the record breaking heat waves the longer hotter summers and the “droughts and flooding rains” and they are PISSED

    Pissed that they will have to clean up the mess WE made
     
    Montegriffo and Robert Urbanek like this.
  17. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    58,573
    Likes Received:
    38,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Oh! What!

    Please get up to date

    The urban measurements are adjusted to account for any variance caused by the “heat island effect” and what percentage of the total do you think that urban temperature readings represent in any event?
     
  18. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    58,573
    Likes Received:
    38,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    They HAVE

    Just because you have not bothered to read the research does not mean it does not exist
     
  19. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    58,573
    Likes Received:
    38,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    No it has been scientifically proven that while Democrats use the insular portion of the brain to process information relating to issues the republicans use the Amygdala which relies on emotion rather than cognitive processing
     
  20. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    27,896
    Likes Received:
    5,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nice story but not true.
     
  21. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    27,896
    Likes Received:
    5,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How are measurements corrupted to record temperatures 2 - 3 degrees Centigrade higher by urban heat accurately corrected ???

    In the US they are ~ 10%. In the other databases urban heat affected measurements comprise a much higher percentage.
     
  22. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    27,896
    Likes Received:
    5,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, they have. I have read the research, all of it.
     
  23. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    27,896
    Likes Received:
    5,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That’s hilarious.
     
  24. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    58,573
    Likes Received:
    38,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Then why not quote or link to it?

    Might give your posts some credibility and is a chance to assist you in differentiating between blogs on conspiracy theory websites and a systematic review of literature and research
     
    Montegriffo likes this.
  25. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    58,573
    Likes Received:
    38,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    It is true

    Want the links to the research? Backed by more than one paper BTW
     

Share This Page