alcazar

iTrader: (2)

https://green-watch.net/billions-spe...s-5bd6b5164943

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Follow the money;

Have a look at those that lobbied governments, and in turn had relations with large companies involved in the industries that profited immensely from the subsidies and various green orientated taxes pushing more custom and investment their way.

Much like the ban on Sodium chlorate; the lobbyist that pushed for it later ended up working for Monsanto; the manufacturer of a directly competing product. Who then in turn lobby the EU to allow GM crops, which are designed to be immune to their weed killers and thus their products can be sprayed onto their GM crops without harm; A very lucrative proposition, once the right gears of the system are greased.

hodgy0_2

lol, why do climate denial and gullible brexidiots go hand it hand


http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/opinion/view/379

A number of media reports have asserted that our recent study in Nature Geoscience indicates that global temperatures are not rising as fast as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and hence that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is no longer urgent.

Both assertions are false.

Our results are entirely in line with the IPCC’s 2013 prediction that temperatures in the 2020s would be 0.9-1.3 degrees above pre-industrial (See figures 2c and 3a of our article which show the IPCC prediction, our projections, and temperatures of recent years).

What we have done is to update the implications for the amount of carbon dioxide we can still emit while expecting global temperatures to remain below the Paris Climate Agreement goal of 1.5 degrees. We find that, to likely meet the Paris goal, emission reductions would need to begin immediately and reach zero in less than 40 years’ time.

While that is not geophysically impossible, to suggest that this means that measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are now unnecessary is clearly false.

Authors:

Richard J. Millar
Jan S. Fuglestvedt
Pierre Friedlingstein
Joeri Rogelj,
Michael J. Grubb,
H. Damon Matthews
Ragnhild B. Skeie
Piers M. Forster
David J. Frame
Myles R. Allen

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Says Mr naive, the man who believed the whole of project fear and still does really, and still says climate change is man made, despite the evidence that the "evidence" is crumbling and was lies anyway.




And then goes on to quote people whose living depends entirely on supporting the twaddle.

JackClark

They love the Fake News.

hodgy0_2

They are called "crank magnets" Jack

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism

fake new was invented especially for them

neil-h

So come on then oh great one, if you're not allowed to quote climate change scientists (unless it suits your agenda). Then who should we be quoting?

Tidgy

Has to be said the idea of human influence on climate change is still far from proven and the evidence used to date to prove it has become very shaky at best.

Is there climate changing? yes, are humans causing it? nope, are human changing its affects/speed, unknown.


Simply put looking at 100 years of time in a cycle that takes 10's if not 100's of thousands of years is bad science.

neil-h

The problem is by the time we're in a position to prove if it was/wasn't effected by human intrvention, it's too late.

Besides, surely it's in our own best interest to move towards more sustainable ways of living. Even if it's not altering the climate.

Martin2005

Bit bits are 'shaky at best'


What kind of proof are you looking for?


The climate cycles are known, therefore I'm not sure what your point is


I honestly thought we'd moved on from this kind of baseless scepticism

Tidgy

looking at a cycle based on a fraction of a % of its time isn't going to give a true picture. Given how many of the supposed facts that global warming sold that have shown to be not true or not happening anywhere near as fast as they claimed it would.

Resource preservation is by far the most important thing we should be considering, but it's not and never has been sold as that.

Martin2005

Do you believe that you know more about our climate than the scientific community? Do you think that thee point you make about cycles are new facts, facts not considered by the science?


Seriously this is just ridiculous


Please spell out these flawed claims you now mentioned twice. You can't just make things up and call them facts

JTaylor

With regret, in my experience, you can bundle young earth creationists in with that lot.

Eta: just read the link and I see it lists creationists. That's not quite right, evolutionary creationism is still creationism, but isn't off the scale on the crank-o-meter.

Eta # 2: dug a little further and it does indeed deal with evolutionary creationism. Fair play.

Tidgy

So show me something that proves without shadow of doubt we have caused it, not just a warming trend, but actual proof humans have caused it.

Change is happening, but human influence hasn't been proven.

Martin2005

That's just a deflection.

The current science claims to be 90 odd percent certain that human activity is warming the planet.

That's good enough for me, and so should it be for you too.

Tidgy

i suppose you believe the earth is flat because some scientists said so?

Martin2005

????

hodgy0_2

you are of course talking complete nonsense

but nonsense at such a fundamental level it is difficult to know where to start

I suppose the easiest way is too simply point out that "science" whether that is around Evolutionary theory, Plate tectonic theory, or AGW theory does not deal in "proof"

"proof" is a science denial strawman

you can't "prove" cigarettes cause cancer anymore than you can prove plate tectonics causes earthquakes, or every species on earth has evolved from a common ancestor or human burnt fossil fuels are causing rapid warming leading to climate change


"proof" is for mathematicians and alcoholics

Science simply deals with "an overwhelming body of evidence" that supports (not proves) a theory

and Human caused global warming is one of the best supported scientific theories in science today

every single scientific body in the world agree on this and pretty much every active working climate scientist

(ps if you are to thick to understand what a "theory" is in science I suggest you do some research)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

interestingly you are stage four on the seven stages of denial (a few years ago you where all saying it was not warming)


1. it wont happen (global warming)
2. it is not happening (global warming)
3. it maybe happening
4. it is happening (but not because of Humans)

well done

5.
6.
7.

Tidgy

Actualy i have always understood climates change, they have done since the planet was created and it will go on till the planet is destroyed so there is no stages of anything.

O so were now going to its 'probably' happening, so your downgrading your 'its happening' then, make up your mind.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Quote the ones who say it's NOT happening.

Isn't it even a bit strange to all you beleivers that just after president trump announces it's bollox and that the USA are going to cut back on support, some of the "scientists" are changing their tune?

Even a bit strange?

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

And by that admission was he hung.
How do we KNOW we aren't making it worse?

Ah, now you're talking sense.

Won't be long before all the so-called scientists start with that, and saying, "That's what we meant all along...."


LOL

dpb

If its not being made worse by humans , why is trump actively suggesting china should be stopped before usa

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

To be more pertinent; Its rarely factually quantifiable in a holistic manner on where or when man created the change in climate: The media does not help nor does halfwit politics cashing in on it.....

I digress: To penalise Mrs Moggins with her Euro 6 compliant car that does 3000miles a year to counteract the damage done by swarms of 2stroke Tuk-Tuks buzzing round 3rd world Asia is not solving the problem. It's not even comming close to offsetting it.

Nor does our economy that suckles at the teat of China's production machine without sanctions on its pollution.

Likewise something closer to home where modern refrigeration systems are regulated to force use of more friendly gasses like Y1234f and strict codes of conduct with handling refrigerants, only for Mr Smeghead to dump his old freezer at the end of the drive for the scrap men, who come along, cut out the compressor -venting all the gas out into the air and leave the rest of the freezer on the pavement. I see this almost daily now, trivial maybe? Or not? If I see it everyday where else does it happen, be UK or anywhere else? How does a tax or subsidy mitigate that?

I'm not a denier but do not subscribe to the narrow-minded mantra that follows just because "a scientist said so, so it must be true". Much like me being remain voter, but I refuse to be bundled in with the childish thickskulled remoaners who can do nothing but blurt out spite and stereotype

Martin2005

So if you're not going to listen to the scientists, who are you going to listen to?

Sad Weevil

iTrader: (1)

Apparently, according to the OP, green-watch.net, which is heavily funded by Exxon Mobil, and run by CRC, a right-wing American think tank. Who needs scientists?

Martin2005

Indeed it's such a bizarre thing to say.

Do these people use doctors when they're I'll, or do they just go with what the bloke down the pub tells them?

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Where did I say to ignore them?

My mantra, which stems from my work methodology in diagnosis; Question everything, regardless of source.

And in combination of that, use every resource possible, verify its origin and integrity. For example, I can get several different wiring diagrams for one car from a number of sources; All can be correct and wrong, so one has to extrapolate.

Translating that to the climate; Check the source, the backgrounds of their fields and study plus what data they look at, and it's accuracy (for example can you consider figures taken from 300years ago accurate or arbitrary?). Is it a holistic? For example just looking at polar icecaps and ignoring data from elsewhere.

Looking at Western pollution and neglecting that from the developing world, or even veryfying its integrity; For example local London pollution blamed on diesel cars and employing ULEV limits without properly testing real world pollution from worn vehicles that are in regular use in those areas: Notably buses and taxis (I've lost count of the number of Taxis that I noted that have their EGR systems blanked off, these are supposed to reduce NOx, which is not tested by any current used vehicle test).

Meanwhile what's going on with pollution in China? South America? India? North Africa? China and India seem to show attempts, but who is verifying it? Is there any collaborative efforts?

Stepping back, and ignoring emissions and climate, ask is there a conflict of interest? What are their fields of specialism; if a person's field of specialism is man-made climate change, then he/she is going to study just that; Question if their studies take in account other factors. Where is their funding comming from? If a scientist says there is no global warming and it was found that he or his institution is funded by a Petrolchemical corporation then would you consider a bias? Furthermore, political involvement: Is there tax revenue to be gained? Is there a lobby organisation? Who funds that lobby group? Is there any politician involved with that group and what are their career backgrounds?

Lots more but you should have got the jist by now.

Martin2005

Yes of course there is political and economic bias in this, that's inevitable.
None if that changes the fundamental science though.
You don't need to go through a process of cross checking information, that's what the scientific community does, that's how it works. That's why we end up with analysis that's thoroughly pier reviewed by experts from across the world. Neither you or I have anything to offer in that process.

So could they be wrong? Well yes, there's about a 5% chance that the science is wrong.

hodgy0_2

and as Sad Weevil has said, the original source is fossil fuel funded - as is pretty much everyone one of thr vanishing few scientist who cast doubt on AGW

ditto above


that why there is a whole scientific field/discipline around data homogenisation to look into theses issues - do you really think they just make it up as they go along!!!!!!!!!

https://www.skepticalscience.com/hom...ture_data.html

what on earth does this crap even mean

no science is ever perfect - but it always moves forward to a better understanding of the natural world

and climate science, contrary to what you read in the Mail Telegraph et al, is pretty robust and based on 200year old physics

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

That's the thing though, I do question the fundamental sciences, the scientific community is one of like any other workplace; It can get blinkered in its operations. Not always, but it can; detractors or say, scientists that counter findings get rubbished or ridiculed, sometimes deserved, sometimes questionable; Just look at the elements that have been added, or indeed removed from the periodic table.

You say there is a 5% chance it's wrong, is that right? Question it! It could be 1% or 10%!

And then the science, climatology is not yet a quantifiable science like say, chemistry can be in some instances. Where you can accuratly and fully calculate and predict an outcome with given conditions ( for example, if I introduce some Chlorine into water with a pH value of 7 pH, it will combine to form 75% Hypochlorous Acid (HOCL)and 25% Hypochlorite Ion (OCL); Its quantifyable a reliable formula that can be easily and accurately modelled and predicted (and quite handy if you need to rectify a green swimming pool; something they cocked up in the Brazil Olympics ).

I'm yet to see a climatologist's findings to be purported as a accurate model and therefore 100% predictable. Nor should it, given the unpredictable nature of areas within this science. As you suggest, at the very least 5% could be wrong or influenced by other factors.

Scienctific investigation tends to follow these stages: Theory--Research--Prediction--Testing--Results--Conclusion.

Climate science as a whole is still in the earlier stages of this sequence especially in regards of the man-made elements which whilst dating back 120 years only has seen proper research over the past 50odd years . To me I see a danger where in this infancy there can be instances that testing of immature or biased theory can skew results and hence conclusions. For example, if in controlled conditions an outcome is repeatedly found, thats's fine. The problem in this science is the conditions are not controlled, nor is histroric data aquired from third party sources 100% verifiable. As such what is and published needs to be scrutinised, not just by fellow scientists in that field but by everyone.

I find it worrying that in an age where learning and gaining information is so easy and yet many don't really think about or question what they are told, when compared to my young years where I lost years in the non-fiction section of the local library.