Climate change

[Moxie]

^ I'm not sure that I've ever heard of people calling for climate-change deniers to be imprisoned...perhaps you're confusing them with Holocaust-deniers, and only in Germany?  ;-)  Here's a link from Nasa on the issue of scientific consensus on the issue of climate change and the human influence:  Nasa on climate change  My dad was a scientist (marine biologist,) and he was always skeptical of scientific papers used to drum up research money.  But by that he meant small studies, not a barrage of scientific research coming to the same conclusion.  And for the record, he was skeptical about climate change in the 70s, but came around by the early 90s.

If you're willing to agree to green measures because they're better for all of us, (including politically,) then why are you so entrenched on the notion that there is no human contribution to global climate change?  Also, I think you should be careful about conflating individual health issues (the effects of smog, the longevity in Australia,) with the climate change issue.  It's not about individual health.  It's about the effects of melting glaciers on low-lying populations, the ever-worsening natural disasters brought on by warming-cooling changes that effect the weather patterns, and the diminution/loss of animal populations due drastic changes in their environments, amongst other critical concerns.  The general consensus is that we have the opportunity to correct some of these things, if we take steps, as a world community.  Therefore, the COP21.  What can possibly be wrong with that?

 

[britbox]

^ I’m not sure that I’ve ever heard of people calling for climate-change deniers to be imprisoned…perhaps you’re confusing them with Holocaust-deniers, and only in Germany?

Here’s a link from Nasa on the issue of scientific consensus on the issue of climate change and the human influence: Nasa on climate change My dad was a scientist (marine biologist,) and he was always skeptical of scientific papers used to drum up research money. But by that he meant small studies, not a barrage of scientific research coming to the same conclusion. And for the record, he was skeptical about climate change in the 70s, but came around by the early 90s. If you’re willing to agree to green measures because they’re better for all of us, (including politically,) then why are you so entrenched on the notion that there is no human contribution to global climate change? Also, I think you should be careful about conflating individual health issues (the effects of smog, the longevity in Australia,) with the climate change issue. It’s not about individual health. It’s about the effects of melting glaciers on low-lying populations, the ever-worsening natural disasters brought on by warming-cooling changes that effect the weather patterns, and the diminution/loss of animal populations due drastic changes in their environments, amongst other critical concerns. The general consensus is that we have the opportunity to correct some of these things, if we take steps, as a world community. Therefore, the COP21. What can possibly be wrong with that?

You seem to be confusing me with somebody else...

Twice you've said I deny climate change and that I believe humans have no impact on climate change.

I haven't stated either - quite the reverse.

But I believe the impact of humans on climate change is MINIMAL when COMPARED WITH MOTHER NATURE.  The Sun and the Moon have a far bigger impact on the climate than anything humans do.

The hole in the Ozone Layer increases and decreases depending on the season of the year, not how often people use refrigerators or spray  aerosols around.

 

 

[Moxie]

Moxie wrote:
^ I’m not sure that I’ve ever heard of people calling for climate-change deniers to be imprisoned…perhaps you’re confusing them with Holocaust-deniers, and only in Germany?

Here’s a link from Nasa on the issue of scientific consensus on the issue of climate change and the human influence: Nasa on climate change My dad was a scientist (marine biologist,) and he was always skeptical of scientific papers used to drum up research money. But by that he meant small studies, not a barrage of scientific research coming to the same conclusion. And for the record, he was skeptical about climate change in the 70s, but came around by the early 90s. If you’re willing to agree to green measures because they’re better for all of us, (including politically,) then why are you so entrenched on the notion that there is no human contribution to global climate change? Also, I think you should be careful about conflating individual health issues (the effects of smog, the longevity in Australia,) with the climate change issue. It’s not about individual health. It’s about the effects of melting glaciers on low-lying populations, the ever-worsening natural disasters brought on by warming-cooling changes that effect the weather patterns, and the diminution/loss of animal populations due drastic changes in their environments, amongst other critical concerns. The general consensus is that we have the opportunity to correct some of these things, if we take steps, as a world community. Therefore, the COP21. What can possibly be wrong with that?

You seem to be confusing me with somebody else… Twice you’ve said I deny climate change and that I believe humans have no impact on climate change. I haven’t stated either – quite the reverse. But I believe the impact of humans on climate change is MINIMAL when COMPARED WITH MOTHER NATURE. The Sun and the Moon have a far bigger impact on the climate than anything humans do. The hole in the Ozone Layer increases and decreases depending on the season of the year, not how often people use refrigerators or spray aerosols around.

I have not at all said that you deny climate change.  I have asked you why you think that the human impact is minimal, when the evidence is to the contrary.  And I did provide a link.  You can keep believing in Brother Sun and Sister Moon, but the scientists are not on your side.

 

[britbox]

The issue is that it's well know that a lot of evidence that contradicts or questions the "green science" is dismissed or even worse, completely deleted...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

This was a huge scandal in the UK when I lived there.

 

[britbox]

britbox wrote:
<blockquote>
Moxie wrote:
^ I’m not sure that I’ve ever heard of people calling for climate-change deniers to be imprisoned…perhaps you’re confusing them with Holocaust-deniers, and only in Germany?

Here’s a link from Nasa on the issue of scientific consensus on the issue of climate change and the human influence: Nasa on climate change My dad was a scientist (marine biologist,) and he was always skeptical of scientific papers used to drum up research money. But by that he meant small studies, not a barrage of scientific research coming to the same conclusion. And for the record, he was skeptical about climate change in the 70s, but came around by the early 90s. If you’re willing to agree to green measures because they’re better for all of us, (including politically,) then why are you so entrenched on the notion that there is no human contribution to global climate change? Also, I think you should be careful about conflating individual health issues (the effects of smog, the longevity in Australia,) with the climate change issue. It’s not about individual health. It’s about the effects of melting glaciers on low-lying populations, the ever-worsening natural disasters brought on by warming-cooling changes that effect the weather patterns, and the diminution/loss of animal populations due drastic changes in their environments, amongst other critical concerns. The general consensus is that we have the opportunity to correct some of these things, if we take steps, as a world community. Therefore, the COP21. What can possibly be wrong with that?

You seem to be confusing me with somebody else… Twice you’ve said I deny climate change and that I believe humans have no impact on climate change. I haven’t stated either – quite the reverse. But I believe the impact of humans on climate change is MINIMAL when COMPARED WITH MOTHER NATURE. The Sun and the Moon have a far bigger impact on the climate than anything humans do. The hole in the Ozone Layer increases and decreases depending on the season of the year, not how often people use refrigerators or spray aerosols around.</blockquote>
I have not at all said that you deny climate change. I have asked you why you think that the human impact is minimal, when the evidence is to the contrary. And I did provide a link. You can keep believing in Brother Sun and Sister Moon, but the scientists are not on your side.

Another interesting read for you Moxie: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/ozone/king.htm

Mt Erebus is an active volcano, which first erupted in 1982 (coincidentally about when the bigger hole was discovered). Mt Erebus spews out over 1,000 tons of active chlorine every day. Go there and look — it is puffing away all the time. This chlorine, far from being as cold as CFCs, comes out as superheated gas which shoots straight up into the stratosphere. This chlorine does break down the ozone. And Mt Erebus puts out more chlorine per year, all by itself, than all the cars and aerosol cans on earth put together could do in a decade.

It is a little tidbit of science that esteemed experts seem to have overlooked. Moreover, Erebus is not the only active volcano in the world. There are hundreds, thousands, throwing chlorine upwards every second. We can't cap all the volcanoes.

 

 

[Moxie]

Moxie wrote:
<blockquote>
britbox wrote:
<blockquote>
Moxie wrote:
^ I’m not sure that I’ve ever heard of people calling for climate-change deniers to be imprisoned…perhaps you’re confusing them with Holocaust-deniers, and only in Germany?

Here’s a link from Nasa on the issue of scientific consensus on the issue of climate change and the human influence: Nasa on climate change My dad was a scientist (marine biologist,) and he was always skeptical of scientific papers used to drum up research money. But by that he meant small studies, not a barrage of scientific research coming to the same conclusion. And for the record, he was skeptical about climate change in the 70s, but came around by the early 90s. If you’re willing to agree to green measures because they’re better for all of us, (including politically,) then why are you so entrenched on the notion that there is no human contribution to global climate change? Also, I think you should be careful about conflating individual health issues (the effects of smog, the longevity in Australia,) with the climate change issue. It’s not about individual health. It’s about the effects of melting glaciers on low-lying populations, the ever-worsening natural disasters brought on by warming-cooling changes that effect the weather patterns, and the diminution/loss of animal populations due drastic changes in their environments, amongst other critical concerns. The general consensus is that we have the opportunity to correct some of these things, if we take steps, as a world community. Therefore, the COP21. What can possibly be wrong with that?

You seem to be confusing me with somebody else… Twice you’ve said I deny climate change and that I believe humans have no impact on climate change. I haven’t stated either – quite the reverse. But I believe the impact of humans on climate change is MINIMAL when COMPARED WITH MOTHER NATURE. The Sun and the Moon have a far bigger impact on the climate than anything humans do. The hole in the Ozone Layer increases and decreases depending on the season of the year, not how often people use refrigerators or spray aerosols around.</blockquote>
I have not at all said that you deny climate change. I have asked you why you think that the human impact is minimal, when the evidence is to the contrary. And I did provide a link. You can keep believing in Brother Sun and Sister Moon, but the scientists are not on your side.</blockquote>
Another interesting read for you Moxie: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/ozone/king.htm Mt Erebus is an active volcano, which first erupted in 1982 (coincidentally about when the bigger hole was discovered). Mt Erebus spews out over 1,000 tons of active chlorine every day. Go there and look — it is puffing away all the time. This chlorine, far from being as cold as CFCs, comes out as superheated gas which shoots straight up into the stratosphere. This chlorine does break down the ozone. And Mt Erebus puts out more chlorine per year, all by itself, than all the cars and aerosol cans on earth put together could do in a decade. It is a little tidbit of science that esteemed experts seem to have overlooked. Moreover, Erebus is not the only active volcano in the world. There are hundreds, thousands, throwing chlorine upwards every second. We can’t cap all the volcanoes.

That is perfectly interesting, and I'm sure it's true.  But how does that change the fact that the man-made effect on more-rapid climate change is probably greater?

 

[britbox]

Did you miss this bit:

Mt Erebus puts out more chlorine per year, all by itself, than all the cars and aerosol cans on earth put together could do in a decade.

 

[Moxie]

Did you miss this bit: Mt Erebus puts out more chlorine per year, all by itself, than all the cars and aerosol cans on earth put together could do in a decade.

I did not.  What makes you think that chlorine is the only problem?  The main issues are methane and carbon dioxide, but here's an article that debunks my notion that the ozone hole has anything to do with global climate change.  Hopefully that clears a few things up.

 

[britbox]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/clarifications-corrections/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder

 

[Federberg]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/clarifications-corrections/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder

(1) This guy is a journalist, not a scientist

(2) You've used the Express for attribution? This is the most scandalously inaccurate newspaper in the UK. They tend to be sensationalist to draw readers. I'm not saying that's what they've done in this case, but I did chuckle because a friend of mine was talking about how awful they are just last week

(3) You questioned the motives of scientists on the other side of the argument, but you'll take on face value a weather reporter's self promoting polemic?

Many people have questioned his credentials to make this type of statement. Particularly when he has conducted zero academic research

 

[britbox]

Ha, ha - follow the paper trail @Moxie and @Federberg

Yes, the paper is a rag, yes, the guy is not a scientist (neither are we) and yes the guy is drawing a conclusion based on findings (not facts).  Just like most government-funded bodies - except his view is the opposite.  But, he's basing his view on findings from scientists who draw conclusions based on their interpretation of facts.   Note the word 'interpretation'.  Because it's exactly the same as the findings presented to you and me by government-funded organisations.

Now the NIPCC is a non-profit organisation.  They were given access to a lot of raw data (not all of it by any means) and they drew the following conclusion:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate"

It was signed by 31,478 Independent American scientists.

Yet, all government funded bodies keep insisting there is a scientific consensus.... erm, No there is not. The Antarctic Ice Cap actually grew to a record level - https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/ .  That's a fact by the way, not a second hand conclusion.

 

 

[britbox]

...and no @Moxie I'm not stupid enough to be getting mixed up with the claim that some have been suggesting climate change deniers be punished with holocaust denial.

http://gawker.com/arrest-climate-change-deniers-1553719888

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/17/u-s-college-professor-demands-imprisonment-for-climate-change-deniers/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/23/robert-kennedy-jr-we-need-laws-punish-global-warmi/

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gore-climate-change-deniers/2015/03/16/id/630426/

I am neither a climate change denier (climate change is constant - although I believe mankind's influence is minimal), nor am I a holocaust denier - but I think anyone has the right to be one.  I reserve the right to think independently of what a government insists is the "right way" to think.

 

[Federberg]

Read this....

http://scholarsandrogues.com/2015/11/27/six-congressmen-make-false-statements-about-oism-global-warming-petition-project/

 

 

[britbox]

Read this…. http://scholarsandrogues.com/2015/11/27/six-congressmen-make-false-statements-about-oism-global-warming-petition-project/

So they are saying that some shouldn't be classed as scientists because they hadn't used their degrees or doctorates?  Ha ha... good old fashioned smearing.

Have you read any of the spilled emails from ClimateGate? Far more embarrassing buddy... and indicating that plenty of IPCC scientists would sell their own grandmother than admit to anything other than a foregone conclusion.

 

[Federberg]

I'm sure there's fault on both sides. I find a lot of greens annoyingly sanctimonious. But I find those politicians and lobbyists who use false attributions for personal financial or political gain worse. These so called 'climate realists' are primarily in the States where politics is so toxic that if a Republican said a drink is poisoned a Democrat is likely to sip it! I would love to read some output from realists in Europe for example. The quality of the science is just as good. It doesn't shock me that we get this type of stuff in the States at all. To be honest I'm not going to die in a ditch over this issue, as I've said a few times before, in the absence of anything else, from my perspective the cost of being wrong is too high for me

 

[britbox]

These so called ‘climate realists’ are primarily in the States where politics is so toxic that if a Republican said a drink is poisoned a Democrat is likely to sip it!

Lady Astor:
“Winston, if I were your wife I’d put poison in your coffee.”

Winston Churchill:
“Nancy, if I were your husband I’d drink it.”

 

[Federberg]

worth watching..

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh9kDCuPuU8

 

[I.Haychew]

I would say that Philip Fishman's "A Really Inconvenient Truth" and Roy Spencer's "Climate Confusion" and "The Great Global Warming Blunder" are well worth reading.