NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

[Steve R.]

If you focus entirely on what you are assuming is the proper response you miss that there could be other issues at play. As we KNOW there are other factors besides carbon emissions that impact the environment and the climate, seems rather silly to think only one item needs be addressed to fix the problem.

I provided a brief summary on this thread in Post #68 concerning other issues that need to be considered and how "global warming" (aka "climate change"), is being deceptively sold.

 

[Mark_]

Steve,

You may have missed one point. People are willing to spend an excessively on fear. Those selling fear can become very wealthy.

As Al Gore has been mentioned, lets see how "Carbon is the only thing to worry about" has done for him?

 

[Steve R.]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez excessive fear mongering video clip: The World Will End In Twelve Years!

Responding to the video clip, Matthew Kohen wrote: "The world is going to end if you dont give us all your money." Followed up by a second comment: "The world is going to end is the oldest con in the book. It usually comes from the religious right but now it's coming from the green left. Al Gore ran this scam and made a billion dollars. A.o.c. is trying to run this scam and we're fools if we fall for it ."

 

[Galaxiom]

Michael Mann's infamous "hockey-stick" graph uses INCONSISTENT data sources and somehow whitewashes data in a way that I find unconscionable. I've seen comparisons of the data and to be honest cannot believe that his paper wasn't outright rejected over questionable data treatments.

Sounds like the same attitude as the religious rejecting Evolution because of the Piltdown Man fake. There was one thing wrong therefore everything is wrong.

Like them you prefer to presume that hundreds of thousands of scientists are all in a grand collusion.

 

[Galaxiom]

Those selling fear can become very wealthy.

Definitely. Fossil fuel corporations have made an artform of convincing the gullible that life would go back to the stone age without fossil fuels.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Definitely. Fossil fuel corporations have made an artform of convincing the gullible that life would go back to the stone age without fossil fuels.

I agree! So you accept the idea that some people are corrupt and will lie and deceive to achieve their aims.

Are you willing to accept that there are people on the other side, people promoting global warming that might also be willing to lie and deceive to achieve their aims?

And to answer the question for you, I don't think you are, I think you feel that the global warming crowd are good people fighting for a noble cause and can do no wrong! And anyone that raises their eyebrows at them, anyone that suggests that they might be disingenuous in some way, is some sort of devil and should be shot.

You are so trapped in the goodness, the rightness of your cause that you have lost the ability to think.

I'm going to go upstairs now and watch out of the window for the Newbury branch of the KKK (Klimate Khange Klan) to arrive with their hockey sticks to dispose of another climate change denier!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Galaxiom]

Are you willing to accept that there are people on the other side, people promoting global warming that might also be willing to lie and deceive to achieve their aims?

The fossil fuel industry executives have clear financial motives for deceit.

I don't see poorly paid scientists wasting their whole life conspiring to make up stuff.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

The fossil fuel industry executives have clear financial motives for deceit.



I don't see poorly paid scientists wasting their whole life conspiring to make up stuff.

Now you reveal yourself...

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Galaxiom]

Now you reveal yourself...

At least my position is logical.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

At least my position is logical.

Well no not really, if you Go with logic, then logic dictates that both sides will lie and cheat and massage the figures.

Unless of course you think that scientists are above all that? And if you say that is so, then how do you explain that some scientists are working for the oil companies. They generate misleading information that the oil companies use to counter the climate change figures. It's as if you are saying because a scientist works for a noble cause, then they are above such things.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I don't see poorly paid scientists wasting their whole life conspiring to make up stuff.

Exactly, so why do you dismiss scientists who have contrary views?
Answer: because they all work for EXXON, BP or the Cato institute. After all only real scientists align with your point of view.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

NO, G. Bad analogy because a LOT of the alarmist noise comes from Mann's work and a LOT of the noise comes from people who cried "gloom and doom" literally DECADES ago, only to have things turn around completely. YOU DON'T GET IT. Does the Australian culture have the story of the boy who cried "Wolf" among its childhood fables?

It absolutely IS possible that a climate disaster will occur. The "great American Dust Bowl" was an example. The great blizzard of 2019 in the USA Midwest and northeastern states is an example. But like the boy who cried "Wolf" so often that he lost credibility, we have heard so many climate-based - and eventually WRONG - speculations that they lose their impact. Because people dismiss the claims as "that was weather, not climate." Well, HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE for a weather disaster of wide-spread area and long duration to start to cross over from "weather" (short term effects) to "climate" (long term effects)?

Can you not see that at least for some of us, we feel that we have too many conflicting dire warnings and not all of them CAN be true (because of the basic nature of the conflicts involved). I am starting to see more videos where the scientists who post them are sensitive to the claims being made, so include references to their data sources.

 

[Mark_]

Definitely. Fossil fuel corporations have made an artform of convincing the gullible that life would go back to the stone age without fossil fuels.

Oil companies saying "Don't question or you'll loose everything".
Agro saying "Don't question or you'll starve"
Politicians saying "Do it my way or we all die"
Those who've bought in to ONE fix saying "Follow my voice or we'll all die"
Politicians saying "But we have to change society to or we'll die in 12 (15) years"

All are invested in fear and are horrible for the future as they refuse to accept new ideas. All are a danger since they refuse to allow others to ask questions of their closely held positions.

Many of the most vocal supporters of "Limiting carbon is the ONLY fix" do have other agendas they are actually pushing. To them, if their mantra is questioned (especially if we find other ways to resolve the issue) they loose the support for their real agenda.

They also include those who'd hate to have people look to closely at other environmental issues, such as mining for battery components, looked at too closely.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Oh, G... if I were a religious man I would pray for your lost soul. But as we both know, neither of us believes that way. Which leaves me the sad head shake as wonder why you don't see the excesses perpetrated by the climate alarmists.

 

[NauticalGent]

I agree! So you accept the idea that some people are corrupt and will lie and deceive to achieve their aims.

Are you willing to accept that there are people on the other side, people promoting global warming that might also be willing to lie and deceive to achieve their aims?

And to answer the question for you, I don't think you are, I think you feel that the global warming crowd are good people fighting for a noble cause and can do no wrong! And anyone that raises their eyebrows at them, anyone that suggests that they might be disingenuous in some way, is some sort of devil and should be shot.

You are so trapped in the goodness, the rightness of your cause that you have lost the ability to think.

I'm going to go upstairs now and watch out of the window for the Newbury branch of the KKK (Klimate Khange Klan) to arrive with their hockey sticks to dispose of another climate change denier!

I was going to quote snippets and respond individually but your whole post was impressive Tony. I avoid conversations like this because tempers flare (especially mine!) and any good intentions get lost. I am too uninformed and uneducated to participate on this subject and after reading all there is to read, all that is left is what makes sense to me or what I WANT to believe.

But your comments about how both sides get wrapped around the axle is spot on.

Well done

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

It's official, global warming has been increased by a decrease in the number of pirates!

https://youtu.be/BgQ79evjylc?t=569

I'm not going to mention the penis size chart which precedes this one!

 

[Galaxiom]

Well no not really, if you Go with logic, then logic dictates that both sides will lie and cheat and massage the figures.

Unless of course you think that scientists are above all that? And if you say that is so, then how do you explain that some scientists are working for the oil companies.

In any scientific field there will always be a relatively small number who have motives other than discovering the truth or are just incompetent.

Note that 97 percent is not "a relatively small number of scientists". The proportion deniers do match "a relatively small number of scientists".

The unscrupulous have always been able to get work with the companies that deny it for their own gains. For example, Fred Singer, who was denier for hire on tobacco, CFCs and climate change. There have been many others.

But you just go ahead and believe that countless thousands of scientists are all in a big conspiracy while you have nothing at all to explain why we keep having year after year of record weather conditions.

 

[Mark_]

Note that 97 percent is not "a relatively small number of scientists". The proportion deniers do match "a relatively small number of scientists".

Just to clarify,
You do mean that the vast majority of scientists who are looking at data supplied by one or two governmental organizations are coming to the same conclusion based on the provided data, NOT that the vast majority of scientists have their own sets of data gathered independently.

As to the 97%, that is off. 100% of accredited climate scientists agree that there is climate change and that, over periods, the temperature goes both up and down. Those who deny that the climate changes would need to be living in a cave as that is about the only type of terrain where one would not expect to see change.

Of course if Uncle Gizmo is right, it would only take a small number of scientists working for government funded government organizations (who are government employees subject to the whims of the government to retain their employment) to influence what others would see. But of course we all know governments never try to deceive us...

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Mark, your analysis is spot on and you beat me to it!

G. - the "97%" claim is CRAP. A Mr. Cook did a literature search. The CORRECT statement of what he found was that

a) Of about 12,000+ articles, a keyword search OF THE ABSTRACTS turned up a reference to "global warming" or "climate change." They DID NOT SEARCH THE BODY OF THE PAPERS!

b) 97% of them agree that Man contributed SOME PART of that warming

c) Cook did NOT repeat DID NOT claim that 97% agreed that Man was the primary cause.

GET OFF THAT 97% NUMBER. You betray your closed-minded nature when blindly clinging to it. When you go bandying about that number, you sound like a brainwashed proselytizer wrapped up in a religious mantra. Science is NOT CLOSED-MINDED. Science WELCOMES new information. You do not.

Since you like references:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhener...on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#71ec2dd61157

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexep...e-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#3ddd87683f9f

You will find many articles both ways on this issue. But you need to see that there is considerable doubt in the accuracy of the 97% claim. And I'm not talking a few percentage points. The doubt is about the body of the claim, not the numbers.

 

[Mark_]

For an odd reference that does play into this discussion,

https://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/08/the-greenhouses-of-almeria.html

Massive numbers of greenhouses in southern Spain are cooling the area. They are also causing a massive environmental problem with refuse of assorted types. I would hate for someone to look to this as the "One" solution and decide we should cover the Sahara in white plastic. It does speak to how changing how reflective the planets surface is can reduce the transfer of heat to the atmosphere.