Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
socialist

The Truth About The Climate Change Debate

Recommended Posts

Is the climate change debate nothing more than an attempt by left wing radicals to bring down the West and capitalism? It seems to me that might be the case. Look at left wing darling Naomi Klein. Read what she says in the informative link that I have provided. I think many alarmists really don't know what it is they are arguing for. In all likelihood, they are arguing for the latest flavour of the month without understanding the issue in a deeper sense.

http://blog.heartland.org/2015/08/naomi-klein-admits-in-her-climate-change-screed-that-global-warming-is-all-about-anti-capitalist-polemics-and-has-nothing-to-do-really-with-science/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a bleeding heart socialist, I just assumed I had to beleive the left wing narrative on climate change. As I become more informed, and more libertarian in my ideals I see the climate change scare as a scam and a way to redistribute wealth and blame the west for all the world's ills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The climate change "debate" is a sham because of all the politics involved. It's also a sham because far, far too many people who aren't climate experts (ie: Al Gore, scientists with no expertise in climate, your average right-wing news pundit etc.) have weighed in on the science when they actually are not experts in the science at all, and therefore don't really know what they're talking about, and yet the masses listen to them go back and forth in the news and start believing in whichever side fits their own political ideology.

The only thing REAL in the "debate" is the science (which itself has become tainted with politics). The only people who can properly understand the science are climate-related scientists, and therefore only their opinions matter. Not mine, and not yours (unless you're a climate scientist).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a bleeding heart socialist, I just assumed I had to beleive the left wing narrative on climate change. As I become more informed, and more libertarian in my ideals I see the climate change scare as a scam and a way to redistribute wealth and blame the west for all the world's ills.

I'm the same as you, both my parents brainwashed me at a very young age to the left wing "feminist" propaganda. Once you take a look at the bigger picture, it's easy to realize how foolish all of it is, To both of my parents chagrin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only people who can properly understand the science are climate-related scientists, and therefore only their opinions matter. Not mine, and not yours (unless you're a climate scientist).

Complete and total BS. Climate scientists know nothing of engineering or economics which are the relevant fields when it comes to deciding what (if anything) should be done about the relevant problems. And even when the right people are consulted its is often necessary to set priorities and make value based decisions. When it comes to those kinds of decisions then everyone is entitled to an opinion.

The only reason the "science" is an issue is because narrow minded left wing zealots wanted to push solutions that suited their ideology and think that they can disguise their agenda by claiming "scientists" say only their agenda is acceptable and anyone who thinks different approach make more sense is a "denier".

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on Tim, you sound like Socialist. Your fictitious, unevidential, zealotry is tiresome. I'm not sure if you're simply a foot soldier spreading misinformation or if you actually believe the fake BS you spread, but it's pitiful. You are on the wrong side of the extreme majority of the world's experts...if you think you know something they don't you are just delusional and need help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are on the wrong side of the extreme majority of the world's experts...if you think you know something they don't you are just delusional and need help.

What is so hard to understand about "climate scientists are not qualified to decide how or whether it even makes sense to reduce emissions"? They do not have the expertise in engineering that would tell them what is possible nor are they exclusively entitled to decide on the various social and political trade offs. Your appeals to authority are quite ridiculous. If anyone is delusional is you who thinks a complex debate can be outsourced to a group of self-declared experts.

There is nothing more pathetic than a zealot who cannot understand that question of whether CO2 is a concern is different from the question of what should be done about CO2 given that it is a concern. The second question is what we care about and the opinion of climate scientist on that question is worth no more than anyone elses.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complete and total BS. Climate scientists know nothing of engineering or economics which are the relevant fields when it comes to deciding what (if anything) should be done about the relevant problems. And even when the right people are consulted its is often necessary to set priorities and make value based decisions. When it comes to those kinds of decisions then everyone is entitled to an opinion.

When I said "The only people who can properly understand the science are climate-related scientists, and therefore only their opinions matter." I was talking about the science of climate change, as in who/what/when/where/how/if it's occurring. Obviously anyyone is entitled to an opinion on what to do, if anything, about the effects of climate change. So i agree with you when you said: "...whether CO2 is a concern is different from the question of what should be done about CO2 given that it is a concern."

The only reason the "science" is an issue is because narrow minded left wing zealots wanted to push solutions that suited their ideology and think that they can disguise their agenda by claiming "scientists" say only their agenda is acceptable and anyone who thinks different approach make more sense is a "denier".

That's only one "reason the science is an "issue". Your ideological bias is showing. Yes you have left-wing alarmists jumping to exaggerated conclusions not based on science (like you just stated), but you also have right-wing blowhards using a small minority of "skeptics" (whom I have no problem with, at least the honest ones) to try to undermine the large majority consensus to suit their own political purposes. As I said in my 1st post, you have a lot of people in MSM, on both left and right, who aren't scientists but they're trying to convince the masses about this or that concerning the science. This has been a big part of the "debate", simply trying to convince the masses "who's right" on the science.

Now, re: the debates on what we should do about CC, this completely depends on how the public views the science, which the MSM is trying to manipulate as state above, and 2. yes it legit for anyone to argue what our response to CC should be since it's subjective and concerns us all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complete and total BS. Climate scientists know nothing of engineering or economics which are the relevant fields when it comes to deciding what (if anything) should be done about the relevant problems. And even when the right people are consulted its is often necessary to set priorities and make value based decisions. When it comes to those kinds of decisions then everyone is entitled to an opinion.

The only reason the "science" is an issue is because narrow minded left wing zealots wanted to push solutions that suited their ideology and think that they can disguise their agenda by claiming "scientists" say only their agenda is acceptable and anyone who thinks different approach make more sense is a "denier".

your regular go-to strawman!!! What climate scientists are proposing policy... name them! As I keep reminding you, there is a clear delineation between providing the science to a level that policymakers can understand and your perpetual strawman!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on Tim, you sound like Socialist. Your fictitious, unevidential, zealotry is tiresome. I'm not sure if you're simply a foot soldier spreading misinformation or if you actually believe the fake BS you spread, but it's pitiful. You are on the wrong side of the extreme majority of the world's experts...if you think you know something they don't you are just delusional and need help.

Naomi Klein disagrees with you. You want us to bow down to the agenda because you've been hoodwinked yourself; except you aren't aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Naomi Klein comes out with any book the agenda is anti-capitalism.

If a climate scientist comes out with a book about climate change then it most likely has a climate science agenda.

Well, that was easy, so next thread please.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to the woefully uninformed and misinforming OP, whatever one thinks of the broader Naomi Klein, in this particular focus, she most certainly does not dismiss the science... her position (vis-a-vis her latest book) is to suggest "climate collapse (and the underlying science therein)" reflects upon resource exploitation and the market forces driving it... Of course, that Heartland institute schlock piece... from the Heartland Marketing Director, no less, has its own agenda in line with the Heartland Institute.

and just how does one author, of whatever persuasion, become the standard bearer and measuring reference for any political bent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, re: the debates on what we should do about CC, this completely depends on how the public views the science, which the MSM is trying to manipulate as state above, and 2. yes it legit for anyone to argue what our response to CC should be since it's subjective and concerns us all.

Then we basically agree. However, the science does enter the question when activist scientists attempt to play down the uncertainties and unknowns (which are usually acknowledged in the literature itself). It also reasonable for someone actually read the IPCC WG1 report and point out inconsistencies between what the report actually says and what activist/scientists claim in the media. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then we basically agree. However, the science does enter the question when activist scientists attempt to play down the uncertainties and unknowns (which are usually acknowledged in the literature itself). It also reasonable for someone actually read the IPCC WG1 report and point out inconsistencies between what the report actually says and what activist/scientists claim in the media.

"activist scientists"!!! Name them... you forever trot out your same spiel but you refuse to name scientists and qualify the activism you claim, as you say, "plays down uncertainties and unknowns". Your repeated flip-flop positions on the IPCC reports is heeelarious! You forever denounce it's legitimacy yet you presume to leverage the IPCC reports at your convenience and for your self-serving purpose. You also know that by the time the reports are released, science has already moved forward... given the large gap in iteration release periods, it is not unusual... rather, it should be expected, that new understandings/science has emerged and isn't reflected within the most recent IPCC reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then we basically agree. However, the science does enter the question when activist scientists attempt to play down the uncertainties and unknowns (which are usually acknowledged in the literature itself). It also reasonable for someone actually read the IPCC WG1 report and point out inconsistencies between what the report actually says and what activist/scientists claim in the media.

That's why nobody should rely on the MSM to obtain info about climate science. The MSM isn't peer-reviewed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why nobody should rely on the MSM to obtain info about climate science. The MSM isn't peer-reviewed.

or... one should work to recognize legitimate sources within the MSM - sources that rely upon legitimate scientists doing active research and publishing in recognized peer-review journals. And those sources are growing greater in number as scientists have recognized their own failings in not properly bringing their science forward to journalists for proper dissemination to the general public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or... one should work to recognize legitimate sources within the MSM - sources that rely upon legitimate scientists doing active research and publishing in recognized peer-review journals.

SO you are saying that only anointed scientists priests are allowed to read the IPCC report and discuss what it actually says? Are you also saying that when anointed scientists priests make claims in the media that are not actually supported by the peer reviewed literature that no one else is allowed to call them on their BS? Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SO you are saying that only anointed scientists priests are allowed to read the IPCC report and discuss what it actually says? Are also saying that the when anointed scientists priests make claims in the media that are not actually supported by the peer reviewed literature that no one else is allowed to call them on their BS?

your "anointed priests" labeling pretty much sums up your mentality and inability to discuss much of anything on a rational level. I appreciate you get pissy when you presume your favoured blog scientists are being dissed... regardless of your fevered imagination trying to infer that from anything I actually said. Perhaps you should actually read my statements that you quoted! As always, you forever remain at the mountain-top shouting out your claims of egregious injustice being perpetrated against the denier/fake-skeptic man!... perhaps one day you might climb down from that precipice and provide examples that support your perpetual screech! And I'm sure there will... some... however, as you are repeatedly reminded, in the broader context of a world-wide base of thousands of legitimate working scientists, just how significant might your sampling be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your "anointed priests" labeling pretty much sums up your mentality

I was just mocking the elitist mentality exhibited by your claim that only "active scientists" are entitled to express an opinion on the science. The fact is the IPCC reports exist so people other than scientists can read and understand what the peer reviewed literature says. That implies that there is no need to limit discussion to "active scientists". What matters is that people expressing an opinion on the science can directly reference the IPCC report or the peer reviewed literature as a basis for their opinion. Very few alarmists (include alarmist scientists) speaking in the media can do that. They often simply make crap up. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the climate change debate nothing more than an attempt by left wing radicals to bring down the West and capitalism? It seems to me that might be the case. Look at left wing darling Naomi Klein. Read what she says in the informative link that I have provided. I think many alarmists really don't know what it is they are arguing for. In all likelihood, they are arguing for the latest flavour of the month without understanding the issue in a deeper sense.

http://blog.heartland.org/2015/08/naomi-klein-admits-in-her-climate-change-screed-that-global-warming-is-all-about-anti-capitalist-polemics-and-has-nothing-to-do-really-with-science/

That's all you got? The most important issue of our time, and the furthest you want to delve into it is post a link from an oil-funded think tank. I'm still not seeing any evidence that you spend any amount of time thinking through issues, or can provide reasons why you changed from left to right.

As for that flimsy Heartland attack on Naomi Klein - if the writer did any amount or research other than a google search, would know that Naomi Klein is an anarchist/ not a marxist! There's a difference...a very crucial difference; because a left anarchist may share many or most of the same goals as a marxist, but anarchists seem to think they can change the world without taking over or overthrowing the political system, while the Marxists know that having marches and occupying parks means nothing if you don't take control of the levers of power in a society! But, at least Naomi Klein points out the absurdities of trying to make capitalism eco-friendly.

I guess Heartland is really on the ball. Her book: This Changes Everything has been out for a year, and they're just finding out about it now. Wait till they read James Hansen's new study showing sea level rise is increasing exponentially, and sea levels will likely be three meters higher by 2050.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just mocking the elitist mentality exhibited by your claim that only "active scientists" are entitled to express an opinion on the science.

I suggested you should actually read the statements of mine that you quote... in response to another member's suggestion that, "one shouldn't rely upon the MSM to obtain info about climate science"... I said:

"or... one should work to recognize legitimate sources within the MSM - sources that rely upon legitimate scientists doing active research and publishing in recognized peer-review journals. And those sources are growing greater in number as scientists have recognized their own failings in not properly bringing their science forward to journalists for proper dissemination to the general public."

do you read anything about your imagined statement on the entitlement of expressing an opinion in anything I said? Get a grip!

.

The fact is the IPCC reports exist so people other than scientists can read and understand what the peer reviewed literature says. That implies that there is no need to limit discussion to "active scientists". What matters is that people expressing an opinion on the science can directly reference the IPCC report or the peer reviewed literature as a basis for their opinion. Very few alarmists (include alarmist scientists) speaking in the media can do that. They often simply make crap up.

my particular attachment to "active scientists" is in line with the consensus summation; you know, that summation I provided directly responding to a past thread's post of yours where you stated, "consensus means nearly everyone agrees"... where I wrote:

in the actual domain the consensus position applies to, as you say, 'nearly everyone' of the scientists working in the disciplines that contribute to climate understanding, accepts that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

endorsement expressions of your, as you say, 'nearly everyone' of the scientists working in the disciplines that contribute to climate understanding, reflects upon a past, current and active research of climate science and a past, current and active publication of climate science related papers. Additionally, an endorsement expression also reflects upon related official position statements taken by world-wide country national science academies/bodies, scientific organizations and academia; positions that state most of the earth's recent global warming can be attributed to human activities.

qualification expressions of your, as you say, 'nearly everyone' of the scientists working in the disciplines that contribute to climate understanding, associate to their peer-reviewed scientific publications almost consistently showing that the scientific research from and related opinions of, as you say, 'nearly everyone' of this expert body of scientists, state that humans are causing global warming and/or that climate change is being caused by human activities.

of course... as you imply, anyone can read the IPCC reports (and its peer-review sources, as appropriate), or peer review publications directly. However, limiting challenge of those peer review sources to the confines of your preferred, "post-modern blog science world", is not a proper formal challenge as it is outside the domain of formal peer-review/response. If only... if only... your trumpeted "blog scientists" could only muster the energies to take their blog wizardry and attempt to formally challenge through the peer review/response cycle! If only!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What climate scientists are proposing policy... name them!

James Hansen. 'We need to keep temperatures below 1.5 C above pre-industrial temperatures, atmospheric CO2 below 350 ppm, etc.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait till they read James Hansen's new study showing sea level rise is increasing exponentially, and sea levels will likely be three meters higher by 2050.

This study is nonsense and skipped the peer-review process. There is ZERO physical basis for exponentially rising sea levels. Radiative forcing is rising quadratically not exponentially. Not only that but Hansen doesn't even fit his unphysical exponentially rising sea level model to the empirical data, he just picks arbitrary values from nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James Hansen. 'We need to keep temperatures below 1.5 C above pre-industrial temperatures, atmospheric CO2 below 350 ppm, etc.'

nice try - anyone can float something based on their thoughts, understandings and interpretations... but I'll bite: what scientists in a position to directly influence policy are proposing policy to policymakers... and having that policy enacted? Better?

Edited by waldo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This study is nonsense and skipped the peer-review process. There is ZERO physical basis for exponentially rising sea levels. Radiative forcing is rising quadratically not exponentially. Not only that but Hansen doesn't even fit his unphysical exponentially rising sea level model to the empirical data, he just picks arbitrary values from nowhere.

no - that study is currently undergoing peer-review for the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics... why... at this stage, even you have an opportunity to present your most emphatic unsubstantiated one-liner statements of authority!

on edit: the lead author is Hansen... with 16 other co-authors:

J. Hansen1, M. Sato1, P. Hearty2, R. Ruedy3,4, M. Kelley3,4, V. Masson-Delmotte5, G. Russell4, G. Tselioudis4, J. Cao6, E. Rignot7,8, I. Velicogna7,8, E. Kandiano9, K. von Schuckmann10, P. Kharecha1,4, A. N. Legrande4, M. Bauer11, and K.-W. Lo3,4

1Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions, Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, NY 10115, USA

2Department of Environmental Studies, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, North Carolina 28403, USA

3Trinnovium LLC, New York, NY 10025, USA

4NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025, USA

5Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement (CEA-CNRS-UVSQ), Gif-sur-Yvette, France

6Key Lab of Aerosol Chemistry & Physics, Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xi'an 710075, China

7Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, 91109, USA

8Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, California, 92697, USA

9GEOMAR, Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research, Wischhofstrasse 1–3, Kiel 24148, Germany

10Mediterranean Institute of Oceanography, University of Toulon, La Garde, France

11Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, NY, 10027, USA

Edited by waldo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...