Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Climate change deniers  (Read 2496 times)

David Sutton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1088
    • David Sutton Photography
Climate change deniers
« on: March 22, 2017, 12:59:24 AM »

Hello folks.
I don't want to invest time discussing climate change with deniers, but if you do, here's a stab in the heart for them:
http://www.blastr.com/2017-3-8/if-we-assume-global-warming-hoax-what-should-we-expect-see
Interesting read though, regardless.
David
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9655
Re: Climate change deniers
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2017, 01:31:46 AM »

Hello folks.
I don't want to invest time discussing climate change with deniers, but if you do, here's a stab in the heart for them:
http://www.blastr.com/2017-3-8/if-we-assume-global-warming-hoax-what-should-we-expect-see
Interesting read though, regardless.
David

There are no climate change deniers, who know anything about climate change. At least I've never met one. Everyone with even an iota of common sense and understanding of climate issues, understands that climate has always been changing throughout history and will presumably continue to change.

2,000 years ago there was a warm period during the height of the Roman empire. A thousand years later there was a warm period that allowed the Vikings to inhabit Greenland, grow crops and breed cattle.

In the present time, another thousand years later, we are into the modern warming period. The increase in Co2 is probably a correlation, not a cause of the current warm period.

Increased CO2 levels have a benefit for agriculture and the general greening of the planet. We should capitalise on that fact.
Logged

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 981
Re: Climate change deniers
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2017, 12:04:02 AM »

Hello folks.
I don't want to invest time discussing climate change with deniers, but if you do, here's a stab in the heart for them:
http://www.blastr.com/2017-3-8/if-we-assume-global-warming-hoax-what-should-we-expect-see
Interesting read though, regardless.
David

Yup... we should all strive vigorously for climate stasis.  Humans exhale about three billion tons of CO2 per year.  The solution to the problem of "saving the planet" seems pretty straightforward.   

Rand
« Last Edit: April 08, 2017, 12:12:05 AM by Rand47 »
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1028
    • advantica blog
Re: Climate change deniers
« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2017, 12:13:55 AM »

From the link in OP.
Over time, we’re getting hotter. 2014 was a record hot year, beaten by 2015, itself beaten by 2016. In fact, 15 of the 16 hottest years ever recorded have been from 2001 – 2016.

If the trend continues, we should get ready for a really hot 2017.

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9655
Re: Climate change deniers
« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2017, 05:24:08 AM »

As I've mentioned before, I'm certainly not a climate change denier. I accept that climate is always changing and I'm very glad we are currently in a warming phase. I don't like cold weather.

From the following environmental history site: https://www.eh-resources.org/little-ice-age/

"The Little Ice Age was a period of regionally cold conditions between roughly AD 1300 and 1850. The term “Little Ice Age” is somewhat questionable, because there was no single, well-defined period of prolonged cold. There were two phases of the Little Ice Age, the first beginning around 1290 and continuing until the late 1400s. There was a slightly warmer period in the 1500s, after which the climate deteriorated substantially, with the coldest period  between 1645 and 1715 .

During this coldest phase of the Little Ice Age there are indications that average winter temperatures in Europe and North America were as much as 2°C lower than at present.

There is substantial historical evidence for the Little Ice Age. The Baltic Sea froze over, as did many of the rivers and lakes in Europe. Pack ice expanded far south into the Atlantic making shipping to Iceland and Greenland impossible for months on end. Winters were bitterly cold and summers were often cool and wet. These conditions led to widespread crop failure, famine, and population decline. The tree line and snowline dropped and glaciers advanced, overrunning towns and farms in the process. There were increased levels of social unrest as large portions of the population were reduced to starvation and poverty."


If mankind's activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution are largely responsible for our current warming phase, which I doubt, then we should be eternally grateful.

It's reasonable, and even likely, that all the activities of mankind lumped together, including deforestation, urbanization, industrialization, a population explosion, and even CO2 emissions, might have contributed to some extent to the current warming phase.

However, it would have been a very unusual climate event if the current warming phase had not taken place. The geological record shows that during the past 3,000 years or so there have been successive cycles of cooling and warming of around 400 to 600 year periods.

The last cooling period began around 1300 AD, 700 years later one might reasonably expect a change to warmer conditions, regardless of mankind's activities.
Logged

David Sutton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1088
    • David Sutton Photography
Re: Climate change deniers
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2017, 05:25:11 AM »

From the link in OP.
Over time, we’re getting hotter. 2014 was a record hot year, beaten by 2015, itself beaten by 2016. In fact, 15 of the 16 hottest years ever recorded have been from 2001 – 2016.

If the trend continues, we should get ready for a really hot 2017.

You may be right about 2017, but there's only one way we'll find out.
I just read the replies to the post I made above.
Like I said, I'm not putting energy in to discussing the approaching train with those uninterested in getting off the track.
I think it's all about assessing risk and developing appropriate resilience. What most of us have been doing all our lives in one way or another.
In places that enjoy the Western standard of living there are several likely catastrophes approaching in the next decade or so. Whether they are inevitable or not I have no idea, but I'd be foolish not to look at strategies for coping while I can.
Resilience for me means being integrated in a smaller community where we have access to mental, emotional, spiritual, cultural, experiential and physical resources. Nice place, this.
Living in the South Island of New Zealand we have a special event of our own approaching. The Alpine Fault ruptures on average every 300 years and is due now. Who knows whether it will be in my lifetime, but my risk assessment says I'd be silly not to be prepared.
I lived a few kilometres from the epicentre of the Christchurch earthquake. It threw my home over a metre upwards and sideways at 2g and split it in two. Wooden houses are good. I lived in it well enough for the next 3 years while the insurance got sorted.
When the Alpine Fault goes it will be about 700 times stronger (if I have my Richter scale correct) and the epicentre will be 400 km long. You may see why I'm a little paranoid.  :D
Nothing to be done about the quake itself, but all of the above resilience strategies apply. I'm working now on an inexpensive back up water supply and a hybrid solar system. Maybe a cheap generator to help the neighbours. Then I'll stop thinking about it, keep enjoying my life and maybe even start reading the thread on Trump.
No, I lie. That's going too far.
David
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16033
Re: Climate change deniers
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2017, 10:45:35 AM »

David, why not just go the extra metaphorical mile and just move elsewhere?

Rob

David Sutton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1088
    • David Sutton Photography
Re: Climate change deniers
« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2017, 05:51:51 PM »

Rob, every place has its problems and benefits, as you know living where you do. You can move somewhere and find that that due to climate change the local one-in-100-years floods are now every 5 years. You can step out your door and get hit by a truck.
I like it here, I've put down roots. It may not happen in my lifetime. If it does, there are people from Christchurch spread all over the South Island and we know what to do to help communities survive.
Today the sun is shining, the potatoes need lifting, the apples need storing and Mary, who lives nearby and moved here from Ireland some 70 years ago, has offered me her left over peaches to bottle.
They'll be very nice over the coming winter on my porridge.
David
Logged

David Sutton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1088
    • David Sutton Photography
Re: Climate change deniers
« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2017, 04:21:51 AM »

I'd like to enlarge on a comment I made above. While some may not agree on the cause of change, we may agree that change is coming. The problems we face with climate change are just part of the larger ones coming soon. Here is my list in no particular order.

The end of economic growth.
I realised in the 1970s that only economists and lunatics believed in endless economic growth, but I hadn't thought through the consequences. Now that economic growth has effectively ceased in most countries, and all we have left are ponzi schemes, bubbles and dodgy accounting, that time is upon us. Not just pensions, the banking system, stock markets, and local government, but a lot of our social structures have been predicated on growth. Let's just consider the banking system. As the things I list below take effect, the debt to asset ratio for banks becomes unsustainable as assets (mortgages, loans etc) decline in value. This process is being accelerated by the unprecedented wave of shady lending that has taken place since the 2008 crash. The banking system has moved from "too big to fail" to "too big to bail out".
When you wake one morning to find the atms, banks, and credit cards have closed down for a few months, it will be interesting to see which side the police and armed forces take in the ensuing riots. Likely time frame left: 1 to 3 years.

The end of oil.
 We were given to understand that as oil slowly petered out over 30 or 40 years, the price of a barrel of oil should increase until it was unaffordable. A more likely scenario is thermodynamic. How much energy is used up in extracting, refining and transporting? Barring some technological breakthrough, at some point the energy available from a barrel will be entirely used up in extraction, refining and transporting. At which point oil production ceases immediately and any form of transportation, agriculture, industry, and employment dependent on it will vanish. Under this scenario we'd expect the price per barrel should on average drop as less energy and thus less profit is available from each barrel. In about 2012  50% of the energy per barrel was used up getting the final product out to the world. We are now running at about 75%. Likely time frame left: 10 years.

Climate change.
An unknown time frame but probably not a linear process. So if you live near sea level, now is the time to move. Where to go needs local knowledge as weather events become more extreme making rare drought and floods the new norm.

Economic warfare.
1) Within a country. As economic difficulties increase, the wealthy classes plunder the assets of everyone else. Example: In the USA the salaried class mouth platitudes about "black lives matter" while throwing those same people under the economic bus in order to save a few dollars on the cost of an iPhone. Similarly they will happily see a huge rise in homelessness rather than let the value of their property drop.  The jobless and the soon-to-be-jobless (those on wages) know this and are taking action, beginning with the ballot box. If you think Trump is bad wait until you see what comes next.
2) Between countries.  As economic difficulties increase, the wealthy countries plunder the assets of everyone else. Example: What Germany is doing to Greece, followed soon by Italy, Portugal and Spain until the Euro and/or the ECC collapses.

If you wonder what all this will look like, just visit almost any city in the USA not part of the financial or tourist centres. You'll see cracked footpaths, potholed roads and other infrastructure coming apart, empty shops and houses, an education system that doesn't educate, unaffordable medical care and racketeering disguised as a political system.

The structure of our world is complicated and nobody really knows how or when this will play out. Here are my suggestions for what to do, for what that's worth. Mostly they are the things any human being should be trying anyway.

Humans have always done better in communities. Those who take to the hills will find that there's no place left on Earth without some locals. Locals know if an individual turns up sitting on a pile of food, fuel and cash. What could possibly go wrong? Work on being useful in your community and on making your community resilient.
Avoid making your identity and sense of self worth dependent on your job and possessions.
Without going overboard, have enough cash to cover your needs for a month.
Have enough food in the house to manage one or two weeks without going out. If you live in an earthquake zone add water and fuel to that.
Live within cycling distance of farmers.
Grow produce of your own.
Learn a useful skill.
In the past, economic growth and inflation made borrowing a sensible plan. But now is the time to get rid of debt.
Strengthen yourself emotionally and spiritually.
Assess where you stand and take what action you can, then avoid obsessing about something that hasn't happened yet.
If you have assets, diversify.
David

Logged

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2045
Re: Climate change deniers
« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2017, 09:26:41 PM »

I'm not one that calls this a hoax. That's just crazy conspiracy talk IMO.

It's just that I can't wrap my head around the way the scientific method is being used to prove 100% that we can control the crazy weather we're having by reducing carbon emissions.

Where was the blind side by side repeatable test that confirmed this as proof.

The whole point is that we don't like our crazy weather and we're the cause of it, but there's been no evidence that we can keep alternating El Ninia and El Ninio weather patterns from creating low and high pressure variations from heated Pacific waters from pushing tons of water eastward across Mexico and into Texas where I have to say we've been having some crazy weather patterns.

How do we prove if we reduce carbon emissions we'll see an end to crazy weather in Texas and not just see it show up somewhere else on the other side of the globe?
Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1028
    • advantica blog
Re: Climate change deniers
« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2017, 11:28:03 PM »

I'm not one that calls this a hoax. That's just crazy conspiracy talk IMO.

It's just that I can't wrap my head around the way the scientific method is being used to prove 100% that we can control the crazy weather we're having by reducing carbon emissions.

Where was the blind side by side repeatable test that confirmed this as proof.

The whole point is that we don't like our crazy weather and we're the cause of it, but there's been no evidence that we can keep alternating El Ninia and El Ninio weather patterns from creating low and high pressure variations from heated Pacific waters from pushing tons of water eastward across Mexico and into Texas where I have to say we've been having some crazy weather patterns.

How do we prove if we reduce carbon emissions we'll see an end to crazy weather in Texas and not just see it show up somewhere else on the other side of the globe?

That cannot be guaranteed, and maybe the current trends can't be reversed anymore. But if the pollution continues, there is a good chance that the weather wil become even more extreme and unpredictable (not counting additional natural disasters).
   

David Sutton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1088
    • David Sutton Photography
Re: Climate change deniers
« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2017, 11:29:26 PM »

How do we prove if we reduce carbon emissions we'll see an end to crazy weather in Texas and not just see it show up somewhere else on the other side of the globe?

We don't, we can't. The sort of thinking that caused the problem is now being used to try to solve it. How is that going to turn out well?
David
Logged

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2045
Re: Climate change deniers
« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2017, 11:53:16 PM »

We don't, we can't. The sort of thinking that caused the problem is now being used to try to solve it. How is that going to turn out well?
David

Then I don't see the point in having scientists spend this much money in research to indicate there is a problem that now can't be solved because it's too late and/or can't or won't be able to test if it's solved many years later.

Geez, all this high end, expensive research and measuring to collect data that merely boils down to saying the sky is falling. OK, now we know how are children are going to die, so let's live now.

Doesn't this fall under the philosophical quote..."God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."?

Except it will take a lifetime to plow through all the data collected in hopes we can reverse engineer the weather patterns and tie it to too much carbon emissions.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2017, 01:16:31 AM by Tim Lookingbill »
Logged

David Sutton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1088
    • David Sutton Photography
Re: Climate change deniers
« Reply #14 on: April 17, 2017, 01:05:51 AM »

Then I don't see the point in having scientists spend this much money in research to indicate there is a problem that now can't be solved because it's too late and/or can't or won't be able to test if it's solved many years later.

Geez, all this high end, expensive research and measuring to collect data that merely boils down to saying the sky is falling. OK, now we know how are children are going to die, so let's live now.
Well, there are two issues. The first is finding the evidence that shows there is a problem. That seems money well spent.
The second is "what is to be done?" I wouldn't look to science for that. Not saying that's a waste of money, just that it's as much a political and social issue as anything else.
Interestingly, I read an article today "Doctors have decades of experience fighting “fake news.” Here’s how they win." at
http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/4/14/15262034/fight-fake-news-doctors-medical-community
which addresses the question of tackling deniers in some practical ways.

Doesn't this fall under the philosophical quote..."God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."?
Yes, a profound approach. I don't think climate change, economic collapse and the termination of oil are the end of the world. Just the end of this world. Humans will find new dreams. It's just that we have likely made the transition nasty.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9655
Re: Climate change deniers
« Reply #15 on: April 17, 2017, 04:23:56 AM »

Following are some of the issues as I see them, which I believe are based upon reality, but I'm always willing to adjust my opinions when sound, contrary evidence is provided. The true deniers are those who are in denial about the nature of the scientific methodology which is based upon repeated experimentation in real time and the very essential process of attempts at falsification of any particular theory.

An interesting example of the essential role of falsification attempts in the scientific methodology occurred to me a few years ago when I was reading about the ancient Greek concept of how we visually see things.

I was surprised to discover that the ancient Greeks, or at least many of the notable ancient Greek scholars such as Plato, believed that we are able to see because our eyes project a light onto whatever we are looking at. This is known as the Emission Theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory_(vision)

After first encountering this bit of history, which was probably particularly attention-grabbing because of my interest in light and photography, I puzzled as to why those ancient Greeks were not able to debunk that theory. The theory persisted for many centuries.

The reason would appear to be, that those ancient Greeks, who were among the first to engage in some sort of scientific process, had not really formulated a scientific methodology, which came much later.

A very easy way to falsify the Emission Theory of vision, in those ancient times, would have been to create a completely dark room cut off from all external light. If one person in the room cannot see anything, that might not be conclusive. One could argue that the emission from just one person is not sufficient to light up the room. So one could then progress to admitting more and more people into the room until they were all packed in like sardines. If still no-one could see anything, then the Emission Theory would be successfully falsified, and that would have been progress.

With regard to the effects of slight increases in CO2 levels on climate, falsification is difficult because of the large times scales involved, the great complexity of the issue, and because of the lack of sufficiently detailed and accurate measurements from the past.

However, there are peer reviewed studies that show there has been a time lag between warming events in the past and the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, implying that increased levels of CO2 could be a consequence of warming rather than a cause.

There are also studies which reveal that previous climate changes have been much more rapid than our current warming phase, with temperatures in Greenland rising by 8 to 15 degrees C in just a few decades. When an alarmist climate scientist tells you that our current warming is the most rapid in the past 20 million years, don't believe him.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097

"One of the most surprising findings was that the shifts from cold stadials to the warm interstadial intervals occurred in a matter of decades, with air temperatures over Greenland rapidly warming 8 to 15°C. Furthermore, the cooling occurred much more gradually, giving these events a saw-tooth shape in climate records from most of the Northern Hemisphere."

I could go on, and on, and on, but I'll leave it for now.  ;D
Logged

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6802
Re: Climate change deniers
« Reply #16 on: April 17, 2017, 09:11:25 AM »

With regard to the effects of slight increases in CO2 levels on climate, falsification is difficult because of the large times scales involved, the great complexity of the issue, and because of the lack of sufficiently detailed and accurate measurements from the past.

Not true, there is lots of relatively accurate data available.
Quote
However, there are peer reviewed studies that show there has been a time lag between warming events in the past and the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, implying that increased levels of CO2 could be a consequence of warming rather than a cause.

Not true, have a look at this TED talk by James Hansen at 9:10 to 10:22 it is explained.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWInyaMWBY8
A weak initial forcing was amplified to much larger levels by the release of CO2 and Methane and Ice sheet reduction.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Otto Phocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 634
Re: Climate change deniers
« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2017, 09:26:28 AM »

What I don't agree with is when someone has a disagreement, no matter how slight with the current hypothesis, they are labeled a denier.

I have met very very few climate change deniers.  I have met many people, a lot of them scientists, that have specific concerns about the data and how it is being analyzed.  They are hardly deniers, but more challengers.

To scientifically challenge something is not the same as denying it.

I feel that in some cases, the label denier is used to stifle conversation by dismissing any challenge.
Logged
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light.

David Sutton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1088
    • David Sutton Photography
Re: Climate change deniers
« Reply #18 on: April 17, 2017, 06:21:38 PM »

What I don't agree with is when someone has a disagreement, no matter how slight with the current hypothesis, they are labeled a denier.

I haven't come across that but no doubt it happens.
You are right to say there is a difference between challenging the deductions of a particular study and stifling conversation in general.
When I use the term climate change denier I'm thinking of those who originally denied it was happening, and now have moved on to deny humans are the cause.
As to their motivation, who can say? Perhaps it is an emotional weakness, that they can't face a future without their current way of life. Or maybe an intellectual one in that they are too lazy to examine the huge body of research. Perhaps they are selfish and unwilling to help coming generations, or have vested interests in the status quo or are plain potty. Whatever.
David
Logged

David Sutton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1088
    • David Sutton Photography
Re: Climate change deniers
« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2017, 06:38:21 PM »

Geez, all this high end, expensive research and measuring to collect data that merely boils down to saying the sky is falling. OK, now we know how are children are going to die, so let's live now.

Tim, I was thinking about this overnight. For myself climate is not an issue on which I feel I can make any difference.
The risk we run is being immobilised by helplessness. There are other issues we can work on so future generations won't say we sat on our hands.
Two things I feel I could generate some movement on are the use of palm oil and RoundUp, so I've started with the latter, looking for ways we can engage with each other here and build our networks and strength. You may get some ideas of your own if I may try your patience and outline the strategy.
I began with my local church. They are a national organisation so have ready made connections. I wrote an article on the thinking behind herbicides to radicalise the parish, and the upshot was that a group was formed.
Others from the wider community got involved and we began by drawing lessons from the failure of the climate change movement. We published the relevant studies on glyphosate on the parish website. Aware that nobody would wade through that stuff, and that personal stories work better, we made a poster with the headline "How safe is RoundUp?" with the sub-heading "Monsanto claim RoundUp is safe. Here's what they said about DDT" Underneath is an advert from the 1950s for DDT wallpaper for a child's bedroom. Guaranteed non hazardous.
We are working with the local council and I see no reason change won't happen.

FYI, here is an analysis of why the climate change movement failed, from the point of view of what should have been done:

1_ Consider whose wallets will be most affected if your campaigns are successful. If it is only those on low wages then rethink. Aim to offer something for everyone with no single social class carrying all the costs.
2_ Avoid making entire sectors of the economy feel threatened. Make room for exceptions. Not every farmer uses poisons. Offer positive steps for change.
3_ Avoid a campaign based on "don't". People get fed up and leave. To engage people you need to offer them something to look forward to. This can be better times or blood, sweat and tears and a long struggle, but make sure you carry a vision of a better world.
4_ A campaign only led by scientists will be limited. Scientific thinking is one reason we are where we are.
5_  Avoid developing a culture of intolerance which refuses to acknowledge differences of opinion over questions of long term planning, tactics, and who has the "truth".
6_ Aim for goals that are attainable not evangelical.
7_ Be wary of engaging with party politicians. Supporting one party over another has doomed many a campaign.
8_ Stick to your purpose to conserve your resources and energy; let others help your campaign, avoid helping other people's campaigns.
9_ You cannot do everything. You may be attacked you for using a car or buying imported chocolate. There is no such thing as being compromise free.
10_ "A joyful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones."  Proverbs 17:22
      "Gift us with that light-heartedness of those who know that every cause of ours that is good is
        Yours before it is ours.”  Fr. Richard John Neuhaus talking to God.
      “Angels fly because they can take themselves lightly.” G. K. Chesterton
David
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up