Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Jag

Climate Change a corporate hoax?

43 posts in this topic

The stronger science seems to be that greenhouse gasses don't really do anything.  The "green" industry has become massive.  On the backs of government dollars it is making trillions.  It is a massive energy war.

Do I think we need alternative sources of energy?  Yes, of course we do.  However, our motivation should not be some kind of fear mongering, it should just be wisdom.  Can I get the government to fund my startup?  Can I invest nothing and make billions if I scare people into thinking we will die without my product?

I certainly am a cynic, because I am also educated as a scientist.  I can see the correlation, but when it comes to causation, the evidence is thin.

 

 

Edited by Jag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, there is consensus that the climate is indeed changing, but what is questioned is the extent of human involvement in that change.

No one is willing to step forward and say, “yes, I am responsible for this change.” ... and for good reason.

No one wants to be responsible for up to trillions of dollars in damage attributable to climate change (e.g., flooding or erosion caused by sea level rise, drought, increased preciptation as rain or snow, ecological changes due to increases in annual temperatures, etc.).

I try to stay out of this argument because, just like nuclear war, there really can be no winners ... just survivors.

Edited by Elovia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Elovia said:

As I understand it, there is consensus that the climate is indeed changing, but what is questioned is the extent of human involvement in that change.

 

There is also no consensus that the change is not normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posit that the change could abnormally occur with or without human involvement (i.e, extent of human involvement greater than or equal to zero).

What's that phrase again ... someting about correlation and causation? ;) 

Edited by Elovia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of extrapolation based off false premises.  The fact that he quotes the 97 % thing for scientists shows he is just regurgitating crap he has been told.  There is not enough air on the planet to effectively cause a change in temperature unless the air would reach ludicrous temperatures.  The deeper the freeze, the stronger the planets reaction, we are coming off a record ice age, it is certainly going to get much hotter over the next several hundred years, and nothing will stop it.  The planet will adapt, it always does.  Solar energy is NOT constant.  There are lots of fun statistics at work here as well, I see them in drug studies all the time. .0000001 becomes .0000002  OMG 100% increase!

"So warming oceans release CO2 ( or absorb less, the end result is the same) thus causing a further rise in temperature which feeds back and so on. Except the glaciers/ice-caps start to melt and lower the ocean T and slow down ( or maybe halt) feedback.
Evaporation increases and more heat is lost to space in the upper atmosphere. Land Biomass begins to pick up.
Oceanic CO2 release decreases the acidity of sea water and carbonate fixing biota do better and lock up more CO2 allowing more CO2 to enter the oceans. The climate has demonstrated historically that it is very stable despite quite large changes in the sub-systems modulating the Heat in - Heat out process. Life has equally demonstrated it can cope with large climatic changes and that it actually prefers it to be warmer............. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have the facts Wolf.  There is still scientific progress, but too much energy is wasted these days trying to prove who is right and who is justified, by manipulating the data to fit some other agenda.  That blog you posted has almost no fact at all.  Why is it liberals always cite the twisted evidence for global warming, and conservatives point out, with science, that things are just fine?

Here comes the Liberal side of the argument.  Misdirection and gender confusion.

Like for real....did you just assume my gender?

Edited by Jag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2017 at 0:13 PM, Jag said:

The stronger science seems to be that greenhouse gasses don't really do anything. The "green" industry has become massive. On the backs of government dollars it is making trillions. It is a massive energy war.

Do I think we need alternative sources of energy? Yes, of course we do. However, our motivation should not be some kind of fear mongering, it should just be wisdom. Can I get the government to fund my startup? Can I invest nothing and make billions if I scare people into thinking we will die without my product?

I certainly am a cynic, because I am also educated as a scientist. I can see the correlation, but when it comes to causation, the evidence is thin.

 

 

The "strong science"? You mean oil-funded 'studies' that aren't peer-reviewed? Yes, I trust the Cato Institute when it comes to fossil fuels. 

 

When we see Arctic ice melting at a more rapid rate, a consistent rising of global temperatures, and more frequent violent storms, AND a majority of studies agree that Global Warming is a thing, we, as a people, need to actually say "Damn, maybe we should actually change our lifestyles?"

The problem is that people never care about an issue until it affects them, personally. The Dutch are heavily invested in Greener tech because their country is at great risk. 

Instead of trying to protect your precious profits, or deny there is a problem, try and actually help. Green tech can make good $, and we know investors love $, so the gov't needs to step in and stop providing billions of Corporate Welfare dollars to oil and coal companies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oil is not the cause of global warming.  The end.

But lets say you are all right!  The green industry is in its infancy still, progress will come.  A hundred years, even 500 years in the large scope of things where will we be?  Very, Very close to where we would have been if humans never existed.  I don't see the urgency.

Edited by Jag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wolphard said:

It's unknown to me. But I'm getting old, so there's my excuse. The gender confusion was yours. So congrats, you're a liberal. Anyway Karen Geier is quite a well-know writer, and undeniably a woman. Although the term undeniably perhaps does not apply in your presence. I meant no harm, only posted it jokingly. 

A generalisation, false premise, misapplication and wrong conclusion. All in one sentence.  

On-topic then. Since I'm here now anyway. There is no science that says greenhouse gasses "don't really do anything". It just doesn't exist. Science, in itself, is not political. Nor did liberals/lefties, whatever kind of label you want to put on them, hijack the science. It's there.

A few links.


do agree that nature as a whole will adapt. It just sucks for the people in, say, Bangladesh they will all die because rich people didn't believe climate change was real.

The Identity Liberal movement over here produces a lot of memes. 

 

If you read the comments in skeptical science you can see the evidence for both sides.  Being green is different and trendy, money flows to the organizations that support the movement, so it grows out of control.  I was at a university not that long ago.  Real scientists who don't conveniently ignore data in order to procure funding,  are unimpressed with the whole global warming scare.  I had a physics teacher rant for an hour about fake science one time.  The entire community has become polarized between fame and fortune seekers, and the ones he calls real scientist who still have to sacrifice to make progress.

Edited by Jag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Wolphard said:

It's unknown to me. But I'm getting old, so there's my excuse. The gender confusion was yours. So congrats, you're a liberal. 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That post is exactly my point Wolf, why all this arguing over a climate change we can't fix, and not a focus on why green energy is a great investment.

Green renewable energy will eventually be here, I suppose I just don't see the reason for all the fear  mongering around it.

Are you disputing the fact that climate changes with or without humans?

And the audience thing?  It is just numbers, he did, not that it matters.  Some 47 million.  Whatever.

Edited by Jag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying man isn't responsible for any climate change going on.  We have screwed up this planet 6 ways to Sunday.  However, I have never seen people so sure of themselves about something and so adamant to stamp out any opposing views.

1. We have no baseline.  One thing we can agree on ... the climate is ALWAYS changing.  Whether man was here or not, the climate would change.  So ... what would the climate be doing if man was not here?  Nobody can say.  So we have no idea what the baseline is.

2.  We don't have all the variables.  Scientists love equations.  They work great and we go to great lengths to fine tune them.  Yet in this instance, we do not know all the drivers of earths climate.  There are so many variables that we have no idea their influence.  For instance, we know that we circle the center of our galaxy.  And that we get external energy from intergalactic sources.  Are we currently getting less/more energy from these sources based on our positioning within the galaxy?  Nobody knows.  Yet it influences our climate.

3.  We cannot predict anything.  Part of the scientific method is to make predictions.  We have invested a lot of time and money into generating climate models.  Yet we haven't accurately predicted anything.  Why is that?  Wouldn't the inability to predict the outcome cause us to reevaluate our model and our theories?

4.  Temperature data is calculated and put through an algorithm.  The temperature that your weather man posts, and the temperature used for climate change data are 2 different numbers.  Why?  I outlined this in a previous post:

 

5.  The solutions.  Solution 1 is to invest in renewables.  That makes sense and I am all for that.  But our implementation of forcing it is beyond ridiculous.  Take ethanol ... I can go into an entire post about that.  Burns less efficiently, has to be transported via truck, it damages engines, on and on.  Yet we force it into our gasoline under the guise of environmental.  The second most posted solution is a carbon tax.  I'm not even touching this one as this is just another money grab by governments.  Every energy company in the world has a massive incentive to find the next alternative fuel.  When we get something that works, we'll run with it.

The Earth's atmosphere is made up of roughly .38% CO2.  Mans influence is estimated to be roughly 2-3% of that number.  So to recap, we don't have a baseline, we don't know all the variables, we cannot predict what we see and the numbers we use are massaged.  Yet we are told that all of this is the result of a naturally occurring gas that makes up .0076% of our atmosphere (.38%*.2%). That is a very hard pill to swallow.

And again, I am not saying its wrong.  I am not saying that man isn't influencing the climate.  Our pollution, deforestation, chemical dumping and on and on and on have had consequences.  But the fact that we can't even have a rational discussion with alternative view points is downright frightening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Jazz said:

big picture

See point number 4 in my discussion.  Per NASA's own documents - temperature data is estimated and run through an algorithm.  That graph is a result of an algorithm, not real temperature data from a thermometer.  The future temperatures are estimated based on computer models that have proven to be inaccurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"With so much volatility in the graphs, anyone could play “pick a trend” and depending on which dot you start from, you can get any trend you want."

gisp-last-10000-new.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending on which data set you choose, which of course depends on your agenda, you can find one that suites your needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure all that will be important when we're all dead from global catastrophe.  Not that the people who have the actual power and money to do anything about it will care, since they are the ones who won't be affected by it anyway (they been wanting to cull us for a while now, too many plebs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0