Republican-Controlled Committee Legislates That Climate Change Does Not Exist

[photon]

Originally Posted by HOOT

How do they know what green house gases were 2000 years ago? Are they sure those numbers are accurate? Could they have changed in the 2000 years it took for us to actually be able to test it?

There are various sources. Ice cores with trapped air bubbles can be measured directly, and there's various proxies for CO2 and other gases in sediments, rocks, etc.

As to how accurate they are, they will give the error bars in whatever paper it is so one can see how accurate they are and why.

Where the different methods overlap they of course check to see if the values fall within each others' error bars.. if they don't then obviously something is amiss and they have to go back and figure out which one was wrong and why.

We also know how much CO2 in our atmosphere currently is due to human production; the ratio of isotopes is different in sources like oil and natural gas so you can use those ratios to determine that.

Originally Posted by HOOT

Personally I think we are giving man kind way too much credit to think we could destroy this planet.

It's not about destroying the planet, it's about enough influence to negatively impact us and the other life. A 1cm rise in sea level is different than a 10cm rise, a 1m rise, a 10m, rise and a 100m rise. Each would have different impacts. A warming ocean changes the ocean's ecosystems, resulting in different food chains that may or may not impact us depending on how severe they are.

The planet and the life on it will long outlive humanity I'm sure.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Still waiting for that research showing that this recent warming trend is related to solar activity there Hack&Lube.

I agree with you that there are very complex feedback mechanisms built into the biosphere and that those are the dominant climate altering mechanisms. I don't think any climate scientist would argue otherwise. What they are point out is the role of 'forcing' that GHGs play. The most sophisticated models and historical research of course tries to account for the natural feedback mechanisms. They then overlay that with the current conditions and find the forcing from GHGs.

So my point is that you're just side stepping the difficult points. Infact, what you're saying is mostly platitudes designed to obfuscate the debate. The earth is very old, we are only observing a very small part of the climate timelines, we are too small to have big impacts, all of your arguments have been summarily addressed in the literature. It's you who has the onus of proof to show me that this literature is, in fact, untrue.

Then the other conjecture you throw out, climate scientists have bias, there's momentum to climate research is just plain old conservative blog garbage. The science stands on its own merit. The broad conspiracy theories are just mind bogglingly stupid. Who has a vested interest in climate change? Who stands to gain? Where's the motive? It's not there.

I don't appreciate the goading.

I've said time and time again. My issue is not with the science. My issue is with climate change activism. With people like you. With the argumentative stance. With the ideology. With the pragmatism. With the politics. I cannot stand it.

I am not going to give you links and evidence to prove one aspect of the things that I have read over many years. If you want, go and look yourself but the business of posting graphs and charts and studies on internet forums is pointless to me. That it exists is true. That evidence of climate change due to emissions exists is also true. I do not accept one science and discount the other or claim there is no shred of evidence to either of them as you do. I'm pretty sure you are not actually waiting for it anyway as much as you are waiting to discount it. I did post a link to google scholar as I don't have access to my UofC academic journals account anymore, nor would most people not currently in University or academia.

The thing I've learned from this thread is not to play devil's advocate on internet forums as that has a statistical 0% probability of actually changing the world. Rarely, it may change minds.

I have said time and time again, I believe in climate change. I believe in decarbonization and protecting the environment. While the earth and certain hardy species and systems may not be as fragile, biological life and ecosystems are always in danger.

I am simply not on the bandwagon because I cannot stand people who demand answers and action and who are zealous and get combative about their position in internet threads and real life discussions. My experiences with this are that some people just cannot accept that you don't have to be for or against everything in black and white. The amount of emotion and pathos that people put into these things (in my experience) astonishes me. I always seek compromise as the best way to sooner-than-later solutions.

The real way to get change is to get people to work together and find economic incentives as positive feedback to get businesses and industrializing countries to see decarbonization as financially viable. Not to argue about one thing or the other or to get flippant or fanatical about ideology to force regulation down people's throats.

I started off by explaining that my stance on this issue is driven by the social and political implications, not the science. I have repeated that over and over again. We are arguing about completely different things.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I've said time and time again. My issue is not with the science. My issue is with climate change activism. With people like you. With the argumentative stance. With the ideology. With the pragmatism. With the politics. I cannot stand it.

So, I guess the question is, if you accept that climate change is occurring and is the result of human activities, do you think it's a problem and, if so, what are you doing personally to solve the problem? Does it affect what you buy, who you vote for, what you do at work?

I think that's the ultimate thrust of "climate change activism", you don't have to rant and scream on websites, or in people's faces, but you can buy unbleached toilet paper and fluorescent lightbulbs.

If you believe that is is a problem, but you actively make decisions that exacerbate it because you're annoyed by 'activists', then you're just a crochety a-hole. Like Captain Crunch, and no one wants to be that.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by driveway

So, I guess the question is, if you accept that climate change is occurring and is the result of human activities, do you think it's a problem and, if so, what are you doing personally to solve the problem? Does it affect what you buy, who you vote for, what you do at work?

I think that's the ultimate thrust of "climate change activism", you don't have to rant and scream on websites, or in people's faces, but you can buy unbleached toilet paper and fluorescent lightbulbs.

If you believe that is is a problem, but you actively make decisions that exacerbate it because you're annoyed by 'activists', then you're just a crochety a-hole. Like Captain Crunch, and no one wants to be that.

I don't believe that there is anything we can do on a personal level through our daily habits without government intervention or fostering of certain industries or economic incentives.

If you really are concerned about the reduction of emissions, the only solution is to make it economically viable and offer incentives to people, companies, and countries to operate in that manner.

In Germany, private solar panels are on millions of houses and farms. Any unused energy they have can be sold back into the grid. People save on their energy bills and are given incentives in the way of being back to make back money on their investments. It has also created another positive feedback loop in that the purchase of so many solar panels has created a good inventive for companies to invest in solar technology research and manufacturing there which makes them a world leader in a new business. Things like that - if promoted by government or business are the only solutions. I honestly don't see why we don't have something like that in Canada.

By far, some the greatest carbon emitting countries in the world are industrializing and developing countries and their contribution will only increase as their populations get bigger and the 1st world grows more reliant on them for raw materials and manufacturing. What you and I can do personally on a daily basis won't put a dent into anything. It's just a drop in the bucket. With the booming industrialization of China and the billions of people there, the whole business of carbon offsets and trying to get industrializing countries to regulate themselves is futile until they are given more time to develop a more socially and environmentally conscious society.

These are the debates we should be having. Not the ones the Republican committees are trying to have or the ones some posters in this thread are goading us into having. Solutions are good for everyone. Being argumentative and defensive on internet threads only wastes time and exhausts me. That's why I don't like the activism. Many I have met give me the impression they value arguing more than trying to find solutions in science and business. I apologize if that colors my impression of certain posters in this thread as it is prejudicial of me.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by photon

There are various sources. Ice cores with trapped air bubbles can be measured directly, and there's various proxies for CO2 and other gases in sediments, rocks, etc.

Ya I guess I just don't understand how they can be 100% certain that these air bubbles haven't been effected by sitting in ice/rock for 1000's of years. Do we know for sure that in 4010 when they take air bubble samples for 2010 that they could show the same CO2 levels that were actually present in 2010?

I'll be the first to admit I know nothing about this stuff besides what is said on the TV, movies and the paper which seems to be conflicting at the best of times. I'm not the type to believe humans aren't messing with the Earth but I think at times it might be blown out of porportion because we don't have enough evidence. For a planet that is 4.5B years old it seems wrong to draw conclusions from 2,000 years worth of data....a percentage I wouldn't even want to try and calculate.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Ya I guess I just don't understand how they can be 100% certain that these air bubbles haven't been effected by sitting in ice/rock for 1000's of years. Do we know for sure that in 4010 when they take air bubble samples for 2010 that they could show the same CO2 levels that were actually present in 2010?

I'll be the first to admit I know nothing about this stuff besides what is said on the TV, movies and the paper which seems to be conflicting at the best of times. I'm not the type to believe humans aren't messing with the Earth but I think at times it might be blown out of porportion because we don't have enough evidence. For a planet that is 4.5B years old it seems wrong to draw conclusions from 2,000 years worth of data....a percentage I wouldn't even want to try and calculate.

I've been an advocate of using a larger timescale as well but Photon is right that our methods of measuring the carbon content of the atmosphere back hundreds of thousands of years are reliable whether it is based on core samples or proxies such as carbon deposits or other indicators. We can even make decent estimates about the carbon content and the chemistry of the atmosphere millions of years ago.

Despite our disagreements, Cole436 is right in that it is obviously easy for human activities to have a huge effect on our planet as you can see in the flucations of the hole in the Ozone layer (which has began to recede as CFCs were regulated). I just believe that argument needs to be tempered and that temperature change is an aggregate effect of many factors, one of which may only be anthropogenic and may in fact be something out of our control if it is due to natural forces such as solar activity. That doesn't mean that we should stop trying to find better environmentally solutions for society and industry.

[MelBridgeman]

"The Planet isn't going away, we are" - George Carlin

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

"The Planet isn't going away, we are" - George Carlin

And George decided he would leave first rather than wait.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by photon

Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
You posted that he lied at 1:30 of the video and I asked you what exactly. This is now 3 posts in which you have not answered.

So?

You don't have anything. I would even surmise that you did not even watch the video when you posted this....

I got one minute 30 seconds in before I heard an absolute bald faced lie.

So much for his credibility.

3 posts and you haven't even given a crumb of an explanation of what was the lie at 1:30 of the video.

Nor have you given any credible reason why a man who believes in AGW would lie about scientific evidence agreeing with his position.

Now you are doubling down....

I watched the rest of the video and the whole thing is a lie or a misunderstanding of what data was used and why. You are right it does defy logic, all his claims about what data is used and why are explained fully in the sources. Maybe he just didn't read the papers and listened to too many people who thought the emails were a smoking gun? Who knows, ask him, I can't explain someone else's motivations.

The person lacking credibility is you.

[photon]

You are welcome to your opinion.

[mikey_the_redneck]

The science is definately not complete, and there is no consenus among the science community, although I get why people would perceive it that way.

The corporate mainstream media typically only shows one side of the debate, and gives very little attention to alternate perspectives, and even mocks them at times.

The climate alarmists/activists have went and dis-credited themselves by making things up, exaggerating and fear mongering. Between climate-gate, himalayan-gate and the UK court that ruled Al Gore's film to be tragically flawed, this makes it hard for the public to trust the science now.

They are even so desparate as to use shock advertising showing AGW deniers being blown up for having an alternate opinion.

The IPCC is a political panel, not a balanced science panel. That's why it is called the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. It seems that the IPCC has no variety or dissenting views among them. That to me, shows a bias.

And then there is the great solution the elites came up with to have a carbon tax system in place. Any pin-head can figure out that carbon taxes are not going to save the planet from anything, especially since China, India etc. are not willing to participate. It would basically halt growth in western nations and make everything in our lives more expensive, so we are all living a 3rd world lifestyle. The banks meanwhile, will make money from carbon trading, and will collect the taxes, to then lend out at interest to these other countries to develop "green" energy technology.

If you're a fan of big-brother and big-government, then carbon taxes and agenda 21 are for you!

[Flame Of Liberty]

Pay carbon taxes, save the Earth!

[Yasa]

Photon wins: fatality.

[Flame Of Liberty]

If you want to know how much you can trust the predictive power of climate scientists, all you have to do is look back at the great Global cooling fiasco. To say that current science has the ability to construct credible models (with understanding of all variables that come into play) with any kind of predictive power 50-100 years into the future is well...crazy.

Climate science is where the funding is. There's boatloads of money to be made in the save the planet hysteria, and climatologists want to eat as well. Simple as that.

[MarchHare]

Climate science is where the funding is. There's boatloads of money to be made in the save the planet hysteria, and climatologists want to eat as well. Simple as that.

I don't buy this argument at all. Don't you think there's even bigger boatloads of money to be made from industry groups who want to seed uncertainty and doubt about current climate science?

Not to mention science is inherently self-correcting. That's the beauty of the scientific method and peer-review -- anyone repeating the same experiments under the same conditions should receive the same results. If the science was flawed, there are industry groups with VERY deep pockets who would be paying big bucks to discredit every study linking man-made CO2 emissions to climate change.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

The corporate mainstream media typically only shows one side of the debate, and gives very little attention to alternate perspectives, and even mocks them at times.

Ah yes, that amorphous blob of evil known as the "corporate mainstream media". Curse their iron control!

It's odd, though, that all this debate - pro and con - is playing out across the media with, if anything, a disproportionate amount of attention paid to the deniers. Someone at Bilderberger Central must be asleep at the switch.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by jammies

Ah yes, that amorphous blob of evil known as the "corporate mainstream media". Curse their iron control!

It's odd, though, that all this debate - pro and con - is playing out across the media with, if anything, a disproportionate amount of attention paid to the deniers. Someone at Bilderberger Central must be asleep at the switch.

I find most "deniers" get ridiculed one way or another. I view television media as being very pro AGW....not just the news but programming in general.

Btw the Bilderberg group will be meeting June 9-12 in Switzerland.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I don't buy this argument at all. Don't you think there's even bigger boatloads of money to be made from industry groups who want to seed uncertainty and doubt about current climate science?

Not to mention science is inherently self-correcting. That's the beauty of the scientific method and peer-review -- anyone repeating the same experiments under the same conditions should receive the same results. If the science was flawed, there are industry groups with VERY deep pockets who would be paying big bucks to discredit every study linking man-made CO2 emissions to climate change.

No, I think governments and international agencies spend much more and even if any industry group tried to fund "alternative" research, it will be a PR disaster regardless of what their research will find. The hysteria is way beyond the point of rational discussion.

As for clima-science, how exactly their experiments could be conducted under the same conditions? How do you recreate "state of the climate" 1000 years ago? 10 000 years ago? Climate is not static and any "scientific" models must be simplified because the reality is just too complex and variables are not fully understood.

The problem is that these simplified models simply do not have any predictive or explanatory power (which is imperative for any scientific model) so all the can do is hand pick random data from the past and draw random curves 100 years into the future. The trend is "up" so we'll keep drawing an upward curve until something happens that will dramatically change the trend but no one has any idea if and when and how will this something happen... Just like when mainstream economists "predict the future:" all good, all good, going strong...#%@$ now we have a recession....

[jammies]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Btw the Bilderberg group will be meeting June 9-12 in Switzerland.

Yah, I already got my invitation, thanks. I understand the theme this year will be "Marginalizing the Already Self-Marginalized - Should We Bother?"

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

No, I think governments and international agencies spend much more and even if any industry group tried to fund "alternative" research, it will be a PR disaster regardless of what their research will find. The hysteria is way beyond the point of rational discussion.

Yeah, why bother trying to back up your argument with evidence when you just know someone is going to disagree with it, no matter how right you are? That'd be crazy!

It's much more effective to pay for campaign contributions, think tanks, lobbyists and PR firms to promote your interests, instead of trying to prove those interests aren't damaging the pesky old earth.