Di Wonderin wrote:What's the consensus here about this climate change religion??


I'm not quite sure why it's trendy to be highly sceptical of climate science. Sure, it's an inexact science, but the evidence is growing every day, and like the way the theory of evolution is still actually the Theory of Evolution, I think it's well past the time of it being actually challengeable.

I'm sure part of it is that some of the effects of global warming mean that we get more severe weather, and record low temperatures in some places.

Di Wonderin wrote:I don't just mean the fact that the planet changes it's climate with alarming regularity according to the cycles. I mean this 'religion' of shoving 'climate change' down our throats to 'prove' it exists by claiming every bloody hailstorm is a 'record' for Woop Woop or something?


In wouldn't say it's a religion, but I can see why it seems like that. You know you're using the exact same tactic as young earth creationists use when discussing evolution - it's full of gaps, some of it has been wrong, etc, ad nauseum.

Let's just assume for a minute that climate change will result in sea level rises of 5 metres and average temperatures by 2 degrees Celsius. That will kill around two billion people through a combination of drought, famine disease and being forced to flee flooding countries like Bangladesh.

I can see why scientists who see that as a very, very high probability want to try to educate people to the extent that they'd be seen as zealous.

Di Wonderin wrote:It's been big on some forums and I argue the massive con angle of it rather than the science, there's smarter researchers out there doing that job for me. I see it as analogous to a new religion, structured to scare people into donating to the 'Church of AlGore Rythms' to placate the Universe while enriching the UN and Green Technology investors. Sounds a familiar tactic doesn't it?
Not looking for a fight, just interested and too lazy to go back over all the threads.


That's another question - why people would prefer to see that angle than the angle that we have concrete evidence that oil companies have spent millions of dollars trying to promote climate denial.

I get a bit of amusement that conspiracy theorists blame "big oil" for 911, while denying climate science, which really is funded by big oil!

Di Wonderin wrote:Better lay out my view.
I don't totally swallow the anthroprogenic causes, it's happened too many times without any help from us whatever to accept that we wondrous humans have done it unassisted by sun cycles and other perfectly explainable causes which are way beyond my comprehension. But I'll accept it as a possibility because I don't know enough to have made up my mind one way or the other.


That doesn't gel with what you're saying. I may be a little biased, but these comments would make me think you have made your mind up one way:

"I argue the massive con angle of it

I see it as analogous to a new religion, structured to scare people into donating to the 'Church of AlGore Rythms'

but then the 'con' is political imo"


I've been bleating about the 'Carbon dioxide con' and said I'd find a tax on nature more palatable had they just come out and called it a Pollution tax instead of blinding us with junk science.


Now, that is the real crux of the matter - personal finances.

Governments around the world are all hitting the same problem: doing something about climate change is going to hit people in their pockets. It must increase taxes at a time when the world is verging on recession, having not fully recovered from the sub-prime fiasco and the ongoing Eurofiasco.

Our government, once a leader in legislatively attacking climate change, has reduced the budget for climate science from $1b in 2012 to zero in 2013. When you're facing deficits, nobody wants to be spending money on something which won't really affect anyone for a couple of generations. The future, who gives a fuck?

The irony in the NZ gov't failing to live up to its responsibilities is an analogy for every government. On one hand, we have Sir Peter Gluckman, world-renowned scientist and the government's own appointee as Chief Science Advisor, likening climate denial to Holocaust denial, and on the other hand, voters. In the case of NZ, those voters include an enormous majority of farmers, and farming animals is one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gases we know. Animals take stored carbon - plant matter - and turn it not just into CO2, but methane, a far more dangerous greenhouse gas.

Opponents to taxes on farmers turned it into a joke by calling it a "fart tax" and promoting climate scepticism.

Worked.

Note that I am anti-Green politically, but I'm not looking for a side in the climate debate anyway; it is a simple science vs propaganda match for me, and from where I see it, science is winning, but few people realise it. I'm not at all green myself - I drive a big fat Boss Falcon, use aeroplanes frequently and have a bigger carbon footprint than ten Brazilian logging companies, but at least my rationale is that why the fuck should I give anything up when most people won't even accept that it's a potential species-destroying change we''re creating.

Why should I stop driving a car when not even one government in the world is prepared to take on China for being the biggest carbon producer by a light-year? USA will never introduce measures of real value when they're trying to protect their precarious economy. Greenies who think they're going to save the planet one bicycle at a time are fuckwits; I'm a cynical hypocrite, but proud to admit it.

Climate theory in the 1970s 'proved' that we were on the verge of an Ice Age. 'The Science' was in! We had scientific consensus.

Sorry, but that's just wrong.

I know it's a comment bandied about by deniers, but it is absolutely incorrect. There was no scientific consensus whatsoever, and it involved one scientist. Just one. That point has been proven time and time again. Shit, I was fucking there and I can recall the dick getting some air time just as dicks get air time now, but his idiot ideas were thrown out by the scientific community. Jesus, Erich von Daniken had more supporters than the new ice age, and everyone I knew recognised von Daniken as a lunatic.

I think I'm right in saying that not only was there no genuine belief in an new ice age, but that not a single peer-reviewed article was issued on the subject. Not one.

Even AGW denial, as you saw earlier, can point to a tiny number of peer reviewed article, but ice age, did not happen.

Have any opinion you like on climate and AGW, but please don't propagate blatantly incorrect points.

I don't blame you for thinking it - I've heard people who accept the climate science agreeing with the idea that it was widely believed. All of them about 30 - it's been a persistent urban myth along the lines of Paul McCartney having died in 1970 or whenever it was.
 

Di Wonderin wrote:Evolution may be technically a theory too, but I don't imagine too many sane scientists are presenting facts and figures to dispute it. Unlike Climate theory which is an absolute shitstorm of graphs from qualified scientists showing opposite, errored modelling, and sometimes proven fraudulent results from various quarters.

13,950 to 24 is a shitstorm of contradiction and opposites?

That would be 99.83% of graphs in favour and 0.17% against.

I thought as an experiment I'd put it to the Google test. "climate change" returns the first three pages of entirely science, governmental and Bloomberg & Guardian. You could call the Guardian left, but not Michael Bloomberg! Not a single anti amongst the top 30 returns. That both surprises and pleases me - you had me worried that maybe the denial was worse than I thought, but it seems not.

Far from being some kind of 50-50 mishmash that you're making out, it appears that you actually have to look for denial "evidence"

That gels nicely with the 0.17%. Less than two out of every thousand.

Funnily enough, there is probably at least as high a percentage of creation "science" articles in peer review. There's always a shitload of christian scientists around, but denier scientists are few & far between. Like 911 deniers, they like counting people with degrees in their fellowship, but like 911 CT, the degrees are in subjects like marketing or software engineering. Even christians can point to 3% of the NSA being christian. I bet there isn't a single climate denier, though.

I accept the fraud, but one example does not negate the overwhelming number of non-fraudulent studies.

Note that the fraudster was exposed and thrown out - hardly the work of a conspiracy that agreed with him, but I guess being caught might have been the problem.

Di Wonderin wrote:Maybe, as you mentioned, I'm reluctant to accept 'the science' because of the occasional dissenting view I see from some talking head on TV.

Yep, I do understand that. I know that Jeremy Clarkson is a huge denier and takes the piss out of climate change. There's a bloke who is probably the world's worst denier: he's hugely popular, he takes the piss out of it in a funny way, and he attacks some very clever targets.

Di Wonderin wrote:But how do most of the utterly convinced people get their info on this?? What are they basing their decisions on?? What info do you base yours on?

By listening to reputable scientists whose opinions I respect, mostly. An average person can't possibly assimilate all the information, which is why denial is easy. I go to science-based websites and read information written in simple terms.

Di Wonderin wrote:Would Current TV have been worth that much without it's audience garnered through it's sale of the climate calamity message? Wasn't he the 'face' of it? Wasn't it his climate message that built it's business profile and profitability? If that ain't a vested interest I must be misinterpreting the term.

So, he's supposed to ignore a commercial opportunity on a principle?

I don't think even a psychic would have said that you could build a multi-million dollar media company on a green agenda, so if it was all a cynical plan by Gore to make a buck, then he's a lot smarter than I give him credit for - and I am no Al Gore fan, but I'm not going to shit all over him without due cause and I really don't get it. It's worthy of its own CT - he builds a media company on the back of greeniness then sells out to big oil! How smart was that? How come nobody else, out of all the media entrepreneurs saw that coming? Murdoch must be gutted.

Even if he is a cynical exploiter, it doesn't have any bearing on the climate change position, but for the record, I don't think he is.

Di Wonderin wrote:You. are. kidding!? You should watch more TV TA, really, you should. Kids do. Every damned doco has 'the message' embedded in it. Just when you think you are watching a nice bitta scenery some spin is inserted into the narrative to give the impression that the whole thing will vanish tomorrow in a puff of pollution.

Seems like a better reason to continue not watching it!

Di Wonderin wrote: No ifs or buts about their Climate change convictions are there? They're 'selling' it big time.

You see sales, I see people presenting scientific information.

Di Wonderin wrote:This little pearler isn't dramatic hyperbole either? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-06/k ... re/4413150
 

Coastal residents around Australia are being asked to photograph coming king tides to illustrate the potential impact of climate change on rising sea levels.

King tides? Really? Don't recall Kirribilli being submerged by one yet. Is that as bad as the 'rising sea level' menace will get?
That kind of twaddle does the pro change camp no favours either. It just burrs me up as being a very poor sales pitch.

Sun activity absolutely does affect the climate - it is the only reason we have a climate.

We know a lot about its activity. though, and the warming period over the past 50 years neatly coincides with a very quiet period for the sun. It has reasonably regular cycles, and we are about to enter into a period of more intense activity.

As I said to Shiner, it's a bit of a Sherlock Holmes attitude to figure out what's happening. There is no other cause that can be found, and we know that past high CO2 levels have coincided with a warmer earth, so we can be pretty sure it is the CO2 warming it this time.

Now, that said, I don't believe the results are set in stone.

1 A huge volcanic eruption could easily cool the planet at any time.
2 A warmer planet may increase evaporation and bring more rain across the planet, ultimately reflecting enough sun to cool us down again.
3 A warmer planet may cause an explosion of CO2-eating single-cell organisms which dramatically decrease CO2 levels.

I'm not saying any of those are likely, but they're all possible.

It'd be quite funny if we did get another Krakatoa, and the degree we've warmed up in the past 50 years saved us from serious damage by dropping a couple because of the ash cover. That would have a nice kind of karma about it.

Unfortunately, we may not have the luxury of waiting.

Di Wonderin wrote:Shouldn't skeptics toss the dissenting views , and anomolous results into the mix as part of their overall assessment? Not all the dissenting figures are wrong, just anomalous. Are they exceptions that prove the rule? Or are they exceptions that disprove 'the science*'?
*By the science, I mean the anthroprogenic dogma. The political use of the term "the science is in." to obviate any further explanation, discussion or dissent of their stance.

You got the sceptical enquiry into denial absolutely right. It was by examining denial releases and claims that I became convinced of the reality of it. I'd never really given it much thought - it's a century away, I won't be here, tough shit for those who are. I severely doubt that it will impact on the western world that badly whatever happens. Africa & Asia will bear the enormous brunt of disaster caused by changes in the climate.

I started checking what was being said, and especially because there were three deniers I knew and had a bit of time for: David Bellamy, Augie Auer, former weather forecaster, and Bryan Leyland, electrical engineer, member of the World Development Bank and one the world's top hydro-electric engineers. Even though I knew these blokes and respected their opinion, I wanted to check on their facts and found that what they were saying was completely wrong, and everything I found was backed by the scientific consensus.

I'm not kidding, either, that's exactly how it went.

I knew Bellamy from working with his team when they out here in the 1980s, through an outdoor group I was involved in and had several long talks with him into the small hours. Love the man, but he's picked the wrong boat on climate change. Augie Auer I got to know through my interests in meteorology, and Bryan was a customer of mine with whom I did a huge amount of business in the 1990s. They were both extremely respected guys.

Di Wonderin wrote:I don't even 'deny' that humans cause 'emissions' in amounts over and above what would naturally occur.

I just get down on my knees and thank FSM that it's not another kind of emission that's the problem.

Di Wonderin wrote:I don't deny that we need better technology to do a lot less of it. I don't even have a problem with 'Green technology' as a way to do it, only with the way it is pushed as the Great Green God instead of simply plain new technology.

Unfortunately, a lot of that is driven by price. Take Toyota's Prius and other hybrid vehicles. They are no better - and possibly a lot worse due to toxic chemicals in their batteries - than many very efficient normal cars. The system they have is more expensive, so it helps Toyota to sell them at the higher price.

People are stupid.

Di Wonderin wrote:I have to ask though why the pro people are so vehemently derisive of any who dare question the dogma as written by media true believers. They sneer at any mention that the warming trend levelled out some years ago. Why? Is it false? I don't know, do they? So why the outrage? Doesn't suit their agenda, or their 'climate religion'?? Can't stand to contemplate that they may have gone a bit over top with the disaster porn? Find it embarrassing? Hell we all get wrong, about most things, sooner or later.

I think people get sick of butting heads against the same old fallacy. For instance, the 1970s ice age one gets right up my tits - like I said, I was there, I remember it, yet some 30 year old fuckwit will try to tell me it's true. I can't help but get a bit abusive in that case. You need to take note that just like 911 CTists, young earth creationists and Holocaust deniers, the climate deniers are lying all the time. There are no numbers that dispute the facts, so they make shit up.

The idea that the trend levelled out some years back is easily proven false by USA having broken temperature records across the nation last year, with the warmest year on record by an immense one degree Fahrenheit. And 1 degree is fucking immense - it doesn't sound a lot, but it is enormous in climate terms.

As with any statistics, there will be ups within the downs and vice-versa. Nothing ever operates to a smooth pattern.

Di Wonderin wrote:Why don't the likes of Tony Jones explain WHY it's wrong if he and his ilk are so convinced? (I just use him as a prime example of the media posers who annoy me most.) Surely if they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are right they should have no trouble explaining exactly why they are right instead of just shutting down an argument with a sneering, "we'll take that as a comment" and making snide remarks about 'deniers.' / 'heretics?'

No idea who he is, but I wonder if he's just a bit sick of them. Like Dawkins' refusal to debate with creationists.

Di Wonderin wrote:I have no idea why I'm so skeptical and cynical. I just always lean that way, it's the way I'm wired. I always look for the cloud behind the silver lining. Others are wired to accept whatever sounds like a good idea at the time unquestioningly. Who knows why we do that?

Sceptical and cynical is good - I'm a bit that way inclined myself, but there comes a point where evidence is evidence and bullshit walks.

It only becomes a problem when we persist with that instinctual decision despite proof to the contrary because we must preserve the notion that we are infallible and must 'win' the argument at all costs to prove it.

Di Wonderin wrote:TV is the new Church, only the denominations differ according to the agenda of whoever owns the broadcasting company. Even soap operas and cop serie's have taken to being riddled with 'messages'. Just because you don't watch it doesn't mean everyone else won't. You're missing the state of play mate.

Give it 5-10 years and TV will be like newspapers, a relic of the 20th century.