Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
batvette said:
You can all just think about this:

The years since the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol have seen Global GGE not only rise, but their rate of increase has risen as well. Yet more of the same is all that is being discussed, and you people don't seem to care one bit and seem content to merely use it as a tool for political capital.

The reasons for this are probably as complex as they are simple and stupid. Like DC and Bill Gates, confused ideologies which have conflicting goals you will refuse to admit are just plain silly.

Political capital for some of you means nothing more than being able to point at a bogeyman and give you something to postulate upon, like labeling me a "denier" when I made it clear I DON'T know the science on this and it's too hard to determine when it's become so tainted by ideologues on every rung of the ladder, who will stoop to the lowest tactics to further their agendas.

Your agreement is never going to be a prerequisite for these issues to have merit, and since not one of you has seriously approached why Kyoto has failed your own actions more than validate my observations.
Click to expand...

So we shouldn't have another non-binding agreement like Kyoto. I'm fine with that. We should have a much stricter, binding agreement.

Next.
 
batvette said:
Why do you care what my position is on AGW?
Click to expand...

You are here in an AGW thread voicing your opinion on the topic.

This is not to be confused with accepting your opinion blindly, which is why we’ve asked you for evidence supporting your opinion. Opinions of random non climate scientists on the internet are neither evidence nor relevant.
 
batvette said:
You can all just think about this:

The years since the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol have seen Global GGE not only rise, but their rate of increase has risen as well. Yet more of the same is all that is being discussed, and you people don't seem to care one bit and seem content to merely use it as a tool for political capital.

The reasons for this are probably as complex as they are simple and stupid. Like DC and Bill Gates, confused ideologies which have conflicting goals you will refuse to admit are just plain silly.

Political capital for some of you means nothing more than being able to point at a bogeyman and give you something to postulate upon, like labeling me a "denier" when I made it clear I DON'T know the science on this and it's too hard to determine when it's become so tainted by ideologues on every rung of the ladder, who will stoop to the lowest tactics to further their agendas.

Your agreement is never going to be a prerequisite for these issues to have merit, and since not one of you has seriously approached why Kyoto has failed your own actions more than validate my observations.
Click to expand...

what do you think is my ideology?

what would you have done?
was it expected before the kyoto protocoll was implemented that the CO2 emission would continue to rise? was it even expected that also the rate of increase would increase? yes indeed. we knew that before. nobody but a fringe group of lunatics wanted radical solutions that would immediatly stopp CO2 emissions, the others knew that it is not possible.

what would you have done differently? what would your solution have been?
 
batvette said:
Why do you care what my position is on AGW? What in heaven's name bearing would that have on the issue, besides give you an opportunity to attack my person?
Let's see, I posted evidence of a US Senate inquiry into an attempt to marginalize dissent about climate change.
I posted a link to a book by a Telegraph UK environmental journalist, who documents an atmosphere of tactics including censorship and character assasination.
And I posted a link to an article about a former BBC wildlife broadcaster who was "shunned for his views on climate change" while his six years older colleague who toed the line on consensus easily found work.

You describe something else. I did not post any links to Alex Jones, though I am not surprised to see such a misportrayal.

As for this topic I see in the OP it describes this as for "general global warming discussion". I don't see how the failed policies are outside this.
Click to expand...

The senate inquiry does nothing to disprove the science. Heres a link a link to somebody who was called as the only witness for the GOP at a subcommittee hearing on climate science threatening to sue somebody who did a very polite reply to his views on climate science. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-tries-to-censor-John-Abraham.html

Delingpole is a political commentator with no scientific background. What did you think posting the blurb for a book of his proved anyway? It is rather telling that he appears on a show promoting conspiracy theories.
Bellamy is at least a respected botanist but very much in the minority of scientists who think that AGW is not happening. Nothing you posted about him added to the discussion in any way.
 
Last edited:
quarky said:
I'll have to reconsider my objections.

Still, I'm having trouble understanding what is in it for the trolls?
It's not like they are selling products. They aren't promoting the wonders of the Amega Wand in this.

Therefore, I must suspect that they are simply uninformed...or, on the outside chance, have a viable objection to the mainstream consensus.
Click to expand...

They are simply conspiracy theorists and contrarians. The question about what's in it for them is the same question that is often asked on these fora about any conspiracy theory. I don't think there's much psychological research into why people believe in crazy ****, but from what I've seen, I believe it has to do with feeling superior to other people by being in possession of "special" or "secret" knowledge.

ETA: There's also a definite ideological slant to it. The climate deniers are almost exclusively right wing "conservatives" or libertarians. Climate change doesn't mesh with their ideology, so it must be denied. It's actually a fairly interesting mechanism of the human psyche.

When it comes to the gurus, the answer is almost exclusively money. Denialism is big business now with climate change, like it was when it was about denying cigarettes caused cancer. Interestingly, the same people are involved in both cases.

quarky said:
I may be naive in my liberalism in this matter.
It wouldn't be the first time.
Yet, I don't see the gain in name calling and hostilities.
Click to expand...

As I said, it's frustration.
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
They are simply conspiracy theorists and contrarians. The question about what's in it for them is the same question that is often asked on these fora about any conspiracy theory. I don't think there's much psychological research into why people believe in crazy ****, but from what I've seen, I believe it has to do with feeling superior to other people by being in possession of "special" or "secret" knowledge.

ETA: There's also a definite ideological slant to it. The climate deniers are almost exclusively right wing "conservatives" or libertarians. Climate change doesn't mesh with their ideology, so it must be denied. It's actually a fairly interesting mechanism of the human psyche.

When it comes to the gurus, the answer is almost exclusively money. Denialism is big business now with climate change, like it was when it was about denying cigarettes caused cancer. Interestingly, the same people are involved in both cases.



As I said, it's frustration.
Click to expand...

Well,
You expressed that very well, and I thank you for the time you took in addressing my concerns.

As per the money in denialism, isn't that mostly in the realm of big coal and oil concerns?
That sort of denial comes from people (whores?) with vested interests, whom are simply willing to ignore their science backgrounds for the sake of more bucks?

We aren't apt to see a Rush Limbaugh on these forums, are we?

But I get your point about the special feeling one might work when one is going up against the goliath of opinion. It is very special.

I guess that's a good enough explanation for me. Still, I'm stuck with politeness.
Don't take it as caving in to fringe opinions. It's not my case.
 
Last edited:
I think a clue to what makes the deniers tick is the references to socialism. communism etc. They seem to think that this is a battle between left and right wing rather than a discussion about science. I live in the UK but I'm guessing that it didn't help the discussion in the USA when Al Gore started to promote AGW discussion. Even though I believe he is right I am guessing that polarised opinion in the USA?
 
ArmoredDragon said:
Well if I'm part of the problem, then how come you just ignored the short piece I wrote about how the environmentalism movement is actively going against what you term "responsible" behavior? I mean you're calling me blind, yet every perfectly valid point I make you just dismiss as if it was never there. For a forum that's supposed to be for thinkers, you don't do very much of that.
Click to expand...

And the title of this thread is?

And you want to start a Politics discussion in the SMT forums because ...
 
ArmoredDragon said:
For the most part, you are spot on. Except there are two key areas where they intertwine:

- The environmentalist movement is the biggest driving force against nuclear energy.
- Nuclear power goes a long ways towards reducing the carbon footprint that climate scientists are concerned with.
Click to expand...

that is not climate science in the least... they don't intertwine.
 
quarky said:
I do.

(Though I'd rather discus your new puppy.)
Click to expand...

We can discuss the puppy in the appropriate place. I wager I shouldn't show him to any glaciers because they'd melt he's so cute.

We're starting to see the dirty snowbank effect with Greenland. There is a dark layer that forms as ice melts and the particulates stay behind as the water percolates down through cracks in the glacier. It gets covered over every winter, but if the summer is warm enough it gets exposed and then the melt accelerates.
 
batvette said:
Sigh....

The years since the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol have seen Global GGE not only rise, but their rate of increase has risen as well.
Click to expand...

And this has to do what exactly with climate science? You realize that you are in the science forum here, yes? If you want to peddle your private conspiracy theories, please, feel free to do so in the CT forums. Or in politics. Around here, we are dealing with physical realities. I would like to discuss those without getting interrupted by paranoid waffling.
 
batvette said:
Sigh....

The years since the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol have seen Global GGE not only rise, but their rate of increase has risen as well.


Facts.



Can you show me your credentials as a Climate Change Researcher, because if not this whole milquetoast "I'm all butthurt over being reminded Scientists are guilty of human faults like allowing their ideologies to influence their work" thing is getting a little silly. You seem to be missing the entire point anyway with your very complaint. Climate Change Research has a unique opportunity for those who enter the field to focus on one conclusion to be found. Most other science does not.
Need I remind you that plenty of people in the "scientific community" were pissed off at some of the behavior of the climategate principals?
While an inquiry glossed over some of their actions and some of it was much ado about nothing, there were some things left on the table and if indicative of a tip of the iceberg leave very troubling evidence of just the kind of thing I've been saying. Marginalizing dissenters, rigging the peer review process. Keeping data away from the media when they were courting funding. You know damn well those things did happen.
This is why I say I don't know the science and taken by the standards some of you asserted here "XXXX isn't a climate change scientist" none of you do either, but science is done by humans who have faults and ideological motives just like anyone else.
Take James Hanson, who spends his weekends getting arrested for his beliefs. I'm sure he takes a real objective angle to his work.
Click to expand...


Well that isn't a fact for a start. There were several independent inquiries. None of which found any significant wrongdoing. We don't need to have inquiries to see the tricks the denialists get up to. For instance Professor John Abraham did a superb debunking of Lord Moncktons views. Monckton of course being somebody else who is welcome to speak on Alex Jones' programme.
 
Last edited:
batvette said:
Sigh....

The years since the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol have seen Global GGE not only rise, but their rate of increase has risen as well.


Facts.
Click to expand...

what should have been done instead? what solution were you advocating back then? How would you solve the problem?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom