Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

The Climate Change People are Lying to Us

Recommended Posts

And 

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I thought "warmagedon" was your construct?

And "Denier" is yours. 

Whatever you're calling this proposed coming of a global warming apocalypse if it actually is a concern the current proposed solutions would be useless against what's being hypothesized. The human species has had better luck adapting to the climate. We've never been better equipped to do so than we are presently with modern technology.

Edited by Infidel Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

And 

And "Denier" is yours. 

Whatever you're calling this proposed coming of a global warming apocalypse if it actually is a concern the current proposed solutions would be useless against what's being hypothesized. The human species has had better luck adapting to the climate. We've never been better equipped to do so than we are presently with modern technology.

No it's not.  That's silly.  I didn't invent the term, which is a perfectly reasonable one.

If you didn't invent warmagedon, which is anything but reasonable, then say so, I just assumed you did.

I just call it climate change.  Apocalypse implies a timeline.  As in, something happening fairly suddenly.  I don't think climate change is happening with any suddenness.  It is inexorable, though, and any evidence you have of the human species adapting to a changing climate had better involve 8 billion of them, or it's just so much smoke.

Technology might do the trick.  A sudden discovery of cheap and easily available cold fusion might do it.

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting proposal: That as an invented term or definition of a term "Climate Change" is more reasonable than "Warmageddon." 

Doesn't have much to do with the larger debate but it does sound like fun.

So as I remember it we used to call the issue "global warming." But the world wasn't warming at the rate it was supposed to, to authorize the scare. So they changed the name to "climate change." Then it was more like climate end times is coming but it doesn't really matter when, cause, you know, climate. Climate is slower. Here's the thing that those of us who dare to notice can't help noticing about the term "climate change" though. Climate is always changing. It's kind of what makes climate. The change. But the new definition infers a necessary fear of it. Kind of bogus if you ask me.

"Warmageddon" on the other hand has no pretense. It is what the term suggests it is - a silly end-times slogan of almost religious fear perpetrated on the masses. Oh, and no, I didn't invent the term.

Edited by Infidel Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Infidel Dog said:

Interesting proposal: That as an invented term "Climate Change" is more reasonable than "Warmageddon." 

Doesn't have much to do with the larger debate but it does sound like fun.

So as I remember it we used to call the issue "global warming." But the world wasn't warming at the rate it was supposed to, to authorize the scare. So they changed the name to "climate change." Then it was more like climate end times is coming but it doesn't really matter when, cause, you know, climate. Climate is slower. Here's the thing that those of us who dare to notice can't help noticing about the term "climate change" though. Climate is always changing. It's kind of what makes climate. The change. But the new definition infers a necessary fear of it. Kind of bogus if you ask me.

"Warmageddon" on the other hand has no pretense. It is what the term suggests it is - a silly end-times slogan of almost religious fear perpetrated on the masses. Oh, and no, I didn't invent the term.

Sane proposal.

The world is warming due to human emitted greenhouse gases and that is causing the climate to change.  More change than would be happening if the world were not warming due to human emitted greenhouse gases.  You can call it warmagedon if you want.  Or warmageddon.  Nevertheless, it is happening, and it will continue to happen, regardless of any of our efforts to stop it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Sane proposal.

The world is warming due to human emitted greenhouse gases and that is causing the climate to change.  More change than would be happening if the world were not warming due to human emitted greenhouse gases.

That's not just a sane proposal it rises above the category of simple hypothesis into the more respected realm of theory.

It's supportable by the scientific method.

What isn't is if you leap from that to suggesting you know how large the effect is, that it necessitates a catastrophe that has to be stopped and you know how to stop it.

Globalization and increased government control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Infidel Dog said:

That's not just a sane proposal it rises above the category of simple hypothesis into the more respected realm of theory.

It's supportable by the scientific method.

What isn't is if you leap from that to suggesting you know how large the effect is, that it necessitates a catastrophe that has to be stopped and you know how to stop it.

Globalization and increased government control.

I wouldn't dream of suggesting I know how large the effect is, or is going to be.  However, as I think it will not be stopped, I think it's safe to say I assume it will be fairly large. 

You can try globalization and increased government control if you want.  It won't help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You can try globalization and increased government control if you want.  It won't help.

Me? I'm vocal, even loud, against it. It's the priority of what I'm against. What language would you like me to speak to communicate that to you.

If you're against it too,  yipee. How can we stop it? Let's start by stopping the carbon tax. International conferences and accords to put a global governing body in charge of supposedly stopping the imagined apocalypse of nice weather are dumb, right? How about some pipelines, BCsapper?

Edited by Infidel Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Me? I'm vocal, even loud, against it. It's the priority of what I'm against. What language would you like me to speak to communicate that to you.

If you're against it too,  yipee. How can we stop it? Let's start by stopping the carbon tax. International conferences and accords to put a global governing body in charge of supposedly stopping the imagined apocalypse of nice weather are dumb, right? How about some pipelines, BCsapper?

I'm not against it.  I just don't see it helping.  You just kept bringing it up.  I thought that secretly you were for it.

I like taxes.  I think we pay too little for what we have, so I'm not opposed to a carbon tax.  It won't stop climate change, but it might fill a few potholes. 

Conferences are a useless waste of greenhouse gases, I agree.  They are the only way to avoid actually having to either do something, or admit there's nothing we can do.  They are a good way of occupying a safe middle ground until some other poor sap takes over.  Not much different from politics in general, really.

I like pipelines.  Canadian and American pipelines.  I figure, if it's going to be burned, it might as well be ours.

Edit>  I should make it clear that even though I like taxes, I am frequently disgusted with what a government does with them. 

 

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I like taxes. 

Well my first impulse is to insult you, of course, but that would make me the even bigger dick, so I read on. Overall you seem willing to be reasonable. Wish I was so rich that i wanted to pay more taxes to accomplish nothing though. Glad you agree that's what often happens. Now we just have to show why that's what happens with a carbon tax.

Saved-by-Taxes.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Well my first impulse is to insult you, of course...

Good heavens!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seem to be two debates here:

1. Is AGW happening? 
 

2. What should we (individuals, provinces, countries) do about it? 
 

I’ve just been admonished for quoting too much so you’ll have to take yourselves over to the google machine to answer question 1. Given the data available, I can’t see reasonable people coming any conclusion other than yes at this stage. As to 2, no country wants to go first, obviously. I think the private sector will tend to lead there until the consequences of continued inadequate action become more severe. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

There seem to be two debates here:

1. Is AGW happening? 
 

2. What should we (individuals, provinces, countries) do about it? 

Not exactly. The real debate would be on the idea that humans are causing an eventual catastrophe of warming. Also, even if you want to suggest a precautionary principle of doing something about possible crises of warming as an insurance policy what would the best way be to handle it - Mitigation or Adaptation?

Pretty much all skeptics agree some warming has happened since the end of little ice age. Almost all agree humans could have some affect on climate. They don't agree that anybody knows how much or that models can predict this proposed catastrophe of warming. There is no scientific consensus on that. Fear of Warmageddon and the proposition of global management of a proposed problem that has yet to been shown to exist is political not scientific. It's not the warming it's the imagined apocalypse of nice weather that's the debate.

Edited by Infidel Dog

Share this post


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

Not exactly. The real debate would be on the idea that humans are causing an eventual catastrophe of warming. Also, even if you want to suggest a precautionary principle of doing something about possible crises of warming as an insurance policy what would the best way be to handle it - Mitigation or Adaptation?

I would imagine that mitigation and adaptation are complementary strategies and both will be needed. Adaptation is easier to achieve locally in the short-term to address the problems we can see already. For example, we’ve probably only seen the start of the megafire phenomenon in Western North America, storms in the East and flash flooding everywhere. 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me an example of Mitigation working.

I can show you all kinds of examples of Adaptation working. We can start with Holland if you like.

With Mitigation - so far and most often - the cure seems worse than the disease. We can talk bat and rare bird choppers or friars and rare earth metal mining environmental disaster. wood fuel pollutants as alternative energy and so on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The biggest problem with pouring money into mitigation though is it's money better spent on adaptation.

Do you know who Dr. Bjorn Lomborg is? He's the most well known champion of adaptation over mitigation.

But he may be talking about something like what you're talking about when he talks about adapting to climate change by financing research over alternatives that at present seem ineffective.

 

 

Edited by Infidel Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2020 at 3:53 AM, Abies said:

So far denialists have failed to produce any evidence for their claims that AGW is not real.

It's clear the earth is warming. It's not clear how much of that is the result of human activity (and the UN admits as much). It's also not clear the more hysterical claims about where it's going are remotely true. And it's most definitely not clear that the present practice of heavily taxing cabon emissions in a couple of dozen western countries - thus encouraging their industries to flee to the 170 other nations which do not tax cabon, is going to do anything for the environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2020 at 5:48 PM, bcsapper said:

It doesn't matter which model one uses.  Most of them have provided some good data and some bad.  Personally I'm surprised that any scientist worth his or her salt would make any public prediction based on a model.  If the model is correct, you get nothing.  It was the model that predicted it.  If the model is wrong, you get ridiculed for believing it.

And the problem with the models is the further out you take them the less reliable they are and the greater room for error. Which means, as Jordan Peterson pointed out, that we can't even know what will help because we can't measure the likely outcomes of what we do and won't know for forty years or more.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2020 at 10:36 PM, Abies said:

The problem as we can see here is that arguing with deniers makes them think their ideas are on the same level as a scientist who studies the topic. It's no different than arguing with Holocaust deniers and Armenian genocide deniers.

This is simply untrue. Almost no one denies the world is warming somewhat. The question is how much and where it's going, and the models which go into the future are fraught with guesswork. Plus, there are no mainstream historians lying about the Holocaust, while we've seen lots of mainstream climate scientists admit they 'exaggerate for effect' on the topic of global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Shellenberger, once christened a 'hero of the environment' points out the deficiency of the responses so far. And in particular, why renewable energy is simply not going to make any difference.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2020 at 9:21 AM, Argus said:

It's clear the earth is warming. It's not clear how much of that is the result of human activity (and the UN admits as much). It's also not clear the more hysterical claims about where it's going are remotely true. And it's most definitely not clear that the present practice of heavily taxing cabon emissions in a couple of dozen western countries - thus encouraging their industries to flee to the 170 other nations which do not tax cabon, is going to do anything for the environment.

No it's actually pretty clear that human activity is the cause of the current warming. https://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-basic.htm

Carbon taxes are something economists have been pushing as being more effective at curbing carbon emissions. Also pointing fingers at others does not absolve one of their responsibility.

On 7/3/2020 at 9:28 AM, Argus said:

This is simply untrue. Almost no one denies the world is warming somewhat. The question is how much and where it's going, and the models which go into the future are fraught with guesswork. Plus, there are no mainstream historians lying about the Holocaust, while we've seen lots of mainstream climate scientists admit they 'exaggerate for effect' on the topic of global warming.

You missed the point. Climate change deniers and holocaust deniers aren't interested in academic/scientific rigour. They want to espouse a certain view.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No it's actually pretty clear that human activity is the cause of the current warming. https://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-basic.htm

They are not quoting the IPCC. Who say they believe human activity is the dominant cause, but aren't entirely sure how dominant.

2 minutes ago, Abies said:

Carbon taxes are something economists have been pushing as being more effective at curbing carbon emissions. Also pointing fingers at others does not absolve one of their responsibility.

That's a meaningless statement. If I close down an auto plant in Canada due to carbon emissions and it reopens tomorrow in Mexico I've accomplished nothing in terms of environmental impact.

2 minutes ago, Abies said:

You missed the point. Climate change deniers and holocaust deniers aren't interested in academic/scientific rigour. They want to espouse a certain view.

And so do the climate change crowd. The politicization of science, which scientists themselves admit, is responsible for a big chunk of the skepticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Abies said:

Climate change deniers and holocaust deniers aren't interested in academic/scientific rigour. They want to espouse a certain view.

They are liars.  Because they are supported by fake personas ( not even talking about anonymous posters ) their dead and disproven ideas need to be destroyed with prejudice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Argus said:

They are not quoting the IPCC. Who say they believe human activity is the dominant cause, but aren't entirely sure how dominant.

That's a meaningless statement. If I close down an auto plant in Canada due to carbon emissions and it reopens tomorrow in Mexico I've accomplished nothing in terms of environmental impact.

And so do the climate change crowd. The politicization of science, which scientists themselves admit, is responsible for a big chunk of the skepticism.

Quoting scientists is fine and the IPCC is based on the science performed by those scientists in which they are 95% certain that humans are the dominant cause. Science does not give 100% certainty.

Majority of emissions in Canada is by the way we live not industry. We certainly have a choice in how much we produce. There are many means in which to deal with goods from places that do not follow good environmental practices.

The climate change crowd have the backing of science.  And anything relating to major policy changes which AGW requires is going to be politicized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Abies said:

No it's actually pretty clear that human activity is the cause of the current warming. https://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-basic.htm

What doesn't seem clear to you is what you're responding to.

What he said was:

Quote

 It's not clear how much of that is the result of human activity (and the UN admits as much). It's also not clear the more hysterical claims about where it's going are remotely true.

So you can have warming, even human caused warming but that is not the same thing as knowing how much warming or what possible danger it might insinuate or when that scary danger you postulate might occur.

You don't know any of that. None of the links you posted or the links from the links show it. Nice try though.

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...