How to talk to a climate change denier, and then what?

[Belfrey]

You may be interested to know that the biggest impact on the Antarctic ice is actually from volcanic activity in the area and not as suggested because of man.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=1541

Scientists from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) have discovered previously unknown volcanoes in the ocean waters around the remote South Sandwich Islands. Using ship-borne sea-floor mapping technology during research cruises onboard the RRS James Clark Ross, the scientists found 12 volcanoes beneath the sea surface — some up to 3km high. They found 5km diameter craters left by collapsing volcanoes and 7 active volcanoes visible above the sea as a chain of islands.

http://iceagenow.info/2012/05/hidden-volcanoes-ice-melting-antarctic-glaciers/

Scientists find "big variations in the temperature in the mantle across parts of Antarctica."
"Scientists have used radar and other imaging technology to uncover some astounding finds under the East Antarctic Ice Sheet," says this article on Live Science. "A vast mountain range that rivals the Alps, and Lake Vostok, one of Earth's largest lakes."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...dersea-volcanoes-antarctica-science-tsunamis/

I looked at all of your links. Funny thing, none of the primary source material - not the British Antarctic Survey Link, not the livescience page that was the reference for the "skeptic" iceagenow blog post, nor the natgeo page - actually support the conclusion that "the biggest impact on the Antarctic ice is actually from volcanic activity in the area and not as suggested because of man." I can't find anywhere that the scientists involved in the study, or who otherwise study the region, support that conclusion.

 

[Boston]

I was replying to Joe. He was writing about weather modification.



It's a human attempt at categorization so that's unlikely.

Huh, are you suggesting that the difference between weather and climate is not quantified within the sciences ? The difference between the two is extremely well defined ;-)

There is no climate science view of a CO2 crisis to attack. There are only people who think that there is a crisis, as usual. One day they'll even be correct, no doubt.

Debunked

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...FhsEfQ&usg=AFQjCNFpZxYTX42uzlW58ae8oqdVT3sF8A

I think the juxtaposition between the panicky "chemtrail" types and "climate crisis" advocacy is interesting. Essentially, many seem to be engaged in the time honored practice of saying that the sky is falling* and that we should try to hold it up in some way. Perhaps it's just that some seem to fall more toward the rural peasant side of things (chemtrailers) and others seem to be more likely to be scientists working for universities/corporations/governments (climate crisis).

Yikes, clearly there is a basic misunderstanding of the chemistry involved. Increase the levels of CO2 by 33% and what happens ? Exactly what was predicted 130 years ago by a guy named Arrhenius ( best known for the Arrhenius equation but also made climate predictions still holding true today )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrhenius_equation

The simple reality is that optical physics dictates that molecules of a certain size and shape "reflect" certain wave lengths of corresponding proportions. Its a fundamental reality, failing to understand this is most likely what is leading your failure to comprehend the basic chemistry involved.

But for the sake of argument let's say that there is a crisis that will get here before the petrodollar hits the fan or wars really do cause "climate change" and so forth.

So.... what do you think that we should do about it?

Classic
So now I'm expected to present a solution to the worlds most complex and critical issues before you are willing to snap out of your denial

*Whatever happened to the Ice Age we were supposed to be living in by now, anyway?

now we are supposed to ignore the changes in atmospheric chemistry and focus on predictions of 60 or so years ago ? Sorry but science is a organic process, it grows as it absorbs more knowledge in a dynamic system of endless proportions, there will never be an end to the process because there is always more out there to learn.

New findings of "atomic timekeeping" suggest that North America may be headed into another major Ice Age, a Government geologist said today.
(Get Out the Ear Muffs: New Ice Age Forecast
The New York Times; Nov. 11, 1956, pg. 40)

Ahahaahahahahaha E gads I was right. Predictions of 57 years ago but close enough.


Wow, OK so you have zero scientific data to support your view, and instead you present 60 year old diatribe about an ice age. Yet you refuse to consider the scientific data which clearly shows a dramatic rise in the green house gas CO2 since that 60 year old analysis was presented.

And your point Isssssss

what
?


OK so lets just start with the basics

are you suggesting that the rise in CO2 isn't happening
are you suggesting the rise in CO2 is not caused by man
are you suggesting that CO2 isn't a green house gas
are you suggesting that the only response to CO2 within the atmospheric system isn't warming
are you suggesting that a rapid rise or drop in CO2 didn't precede each of the major extinctions

What exactly is it you are trying to say ?
cause so far all I hear is a blatant denial of science

love
B

 

[mynym]

Huh, are you suggesting that the difference between weather and climate is not quantified within the sciences ? The difference between the two is extremely well defined ;-)

It always is, except when people start asking too many questions.

Yikes, clearly there is a basic misunderstanding of the chemistry involved. Increase the levels of CO2 by 33% and what happens ?

I'm not sure how you got that from a juxtaposition of chemtrailers and climate changers.

It's obvious that the climate can be changed through chemistry. 33%? Figures.

The simple reality is that optical physics dictates that molecules of a certain size and shape "reflect" certain wave lengths of corresponding proportions. Its a fundamental reality, failing to understand this is most likely what is leading your failure to comprehend the basic chemistry involved.

With respect to the topic of the thread, if you want to convince people not to be "deniers" then this probably isn't a very effective way to go about it.

Classic
So now I'm expected to present a solution to the worlds most complex and critical issues before you are willing to snap out of your denial

I didn't deny anything. As far as presenting a solution, I thought that was the point of convincing people not to be deniers and so forth.

now we are supposed to ignore the changes in atmospheric chemistry and focus on predictions of 60 or so years ago ?

No, just a little perspective before the campaign gets going against the deniers and so forth... too late. Another aspect to having some perspective would be to take a look at the history of the eugenics movement from within the bowels of the body politic and the widespread scientific consensus and scientific literature that it produced. All just old bunk, in retrospect. But it seems to me that people might be a little more careful about running off to "save civilization" or "save the planet" based on a scientific consensus if they knew more about it.

Also, with respect to proposing solutions to complex and critical issues I already mentioned a few scenarios if you're successful in your campaign and so forth. Shut down the military industrial complex, I think you'll find evidence that it's using too much energy... if you're willing to look for evidence of that sort. There again, I guess depleted uranium and all the rest of it can't be linked to climate change. But surely some of it could be, unless the target is really just the American middle class in the end and not the global banksters seeking to monetize the air they breath and so forth. Does flying a private jet to a private island and so forth cause climate change, I wonder? Does shipping in precious minerals and so forth to make a $100,000 "green" car for Justin Bieber instead of building a natural gas infrastructure cause climate change and natural catastrophes, if not extinction in the future?

I wonder.. maybe some scenarios could be invented in which people could just kill Justin Bieber and save the planet. Just kidding. So when it comes to "solutions" it's most likely to be more extravagant and energy intensive forms of entertainment to save the planet and more $100,000 cars for him to drive around in and so forth, no doubt.

Sorry but science is a organic process, it grows as it absorbs more knowledge in a dynamic system of endless proportions, there will never be an end to the process because there is always more out there to learn.

It's still possible that you're progressing on to your next mistake instead of looking at old mistakes with respect to attempts to "save civilization" and so forth. Not to mention the fact that from your own apparent perspective where progress is assured, whatever you're claiming to be right about today might be proven wrong and just a bunch of old bunk tomorrow. So there is that, even from what seems to be your own perspective.

In any case, I'm fine with we have to go with what we know for now. But a little perspective might not hurt some people talking about "deniers" and so forth, especially when people have apparently fixed their wagon to resonate with what may be the falling star of Zionism on that one. Because there never was a sacred sacrifice of the symbolic "six million," a sacred number to some that was reported well over twenty times before Hitler even came to power and killed a lot of people due to eugenic attitudes and so forth. But it would seem that "deniers" of the necessity of the sacrifices proposed by the ruling classes are often the only people interested in the actual evidence these days.

Do you see what I mean about hitching your wagon to what is likely to be a falling star by talking about "deniers"? "How to talk to climate change deniers." Well, not like that... to begin with. Consider that you may be causing the disease that you're purporting to cure.

I'm not sure what other term you could use but just like your "failure to comprehend the basic chemistry involved" argument, this seems unlikely to convince people. And that is your goal, correct? "How to talk to people..." and all that. To begin with, you probably shouldn't assume that they're deniers or too stupid to comprehend basic chemistry and so forth. That's usually self-fulfilling as far as creating "deniers"... not for me... but for many of the "red state" reactionaries that you'll need to convince you're getting off on the wrong foot. Seems unlikely that you'll get anywhere. There again, maybe that's why you haven't?

Wow, OK so you have zero scientific data to support your view

What view is that? It's unlikely that there is zero evidence for it, whatever view it is.

Yet you refuse to consider the scientific data which clearly shows a dramatic rise in the green house gas CO2 since that 60 year old analysis was presented.

That's incorrect.

OK so lets just start with the basics

are you suggesting that the rise in CO2 isn't happening

No.

are you suggesting the rise in CO2 is not caused by man

Maybe. But it doesn't really matter to me either way.

are you suggesting that CO2 isn't a green house gas

No.

are you suggesting that a rapid rise or drop in CO2 didn't precede each of the major extinctions

Given all lines of evidence, it's likely that the catastrophic events in the past most likely to have laid down the fossil fuels that people are using to fuel civilization as we know it now had little to do with a mere rise or drop in CO2.

What exactly is it you are trying to say ?
cause so far all I hear is a blatant denial of science

You seem to be hearing what you've been conditioned to listen for. Which may be my fault for trying to provide some perspective based on things that anyone involved in the "debate" for any length of time probably already knows about.

Shrug. I do the same thing sometimes as far as listening goes. Although my friends tell me that I'm a great listener. And I try to be aware of it... or at least maintain an openness to being aware of it. After all, if you only hear what you're listening for then you might miss out on a lot in life.

 

[Boston]

Boston said: ↑
Huh, are you suggesting that the difference between weather and climate is not quantified within the sciences ? The difference between the two is extremely well defined ;-)
Click to expand...
It always is, except when people start asking too many questions.

it always is, period, there are no questions that negate the simple fact weather is a local phenomenon and climate is a planetary phenomenon, which is why weather predictions are subject to edge effects and climate is only subject to radiative forcing vs Watts p/m^2

Yikes, clearly there is a basic misunderstanding of the chemistry involved. Increase the levels of CO2 by 33% and what happens ?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how you got that from a juxtaposition of chemtrailers and climate changers.

It's obvious that the climate can be changed through chemistry. 33%? Figures.

Went from 280 to 400 which is an additional 120 ppm or roughly a 33% increase ;-)

The simple reality is that optical physics dictates that molecules of a certain size and shape "reflect" certain wave lengths of corresponding proportions. Its a fundamental reality, failing to understand this is most likely what is leading your failure to comprehend the basic chemistry involved.
Click to expand...
With respect to the topic of the thread, if you want to convince people not to be "deniers" then this probably isn't a very effective way to go about it.

So explaining the physics of why CO2 is a greenhouse gas "isn't" an effective way of explaining the science. Or are you suggesting that by pointing out the science, somehow the deniers are turned off to the concept ? The simple reality is that the science is extremely well established, going back roughly 160 years or so.

I've learned over the years that deniers are so named because of there denial of even the most well established of scientific principals that go into the theory of rapid global climate shift. Which brings us back to your suggestion that by quoting those simple scientific realities isn't going to be a very effective manor of discussion with a denier. Very telling indeed ;-)

Classic
So now I'm expected to present a solution to the worlds most complex and critical issues before you are willing to snap out of your denial
Click to expand...
I didn't deny anything. As far as presenting a solution, I thought that was the point of convincing people not to be deniers and so forth.

Didn't deny anything ??????? see previous response as well as the one concerning that 33% I'd mentioned

now we are supposed to ignore the changes in atmospheric chemistry and focus on predictions of 60 or so years ago ?
Click to expand...
No, just a little perspective before the campaign gets going against the deniers and so forth... too late. Bla bla bla

Political rambling will not be considered a viable argument against the science of climate shift.

Sorry but science is a organic process, it grows as it absorbs more knowledge in a dynamic system of endless proportions, there will never be an end to the process because there is always more out there to learn.
Click to expand...
It's still possible that you're progressing on to your next mistake instead of looking at old mistakes with respect to attempts to "save civilization" and so forth. Not to mention the fact that from your own apparent perspective where progress is assured, whatever you're claiming to be right about today might be proven wrong and just a bunch of old bunk tomorrow. So there is that, even from what seems to be your own perspective.

actually its not

What is possible is that the atmospheric chemistry was subsequently altered in such a significant manor as to negate a previous prediction
based on the Milankovitch cycles and obviously cyclical nature of the interglacial period. What we have today is an entirely different ball game not based on a view of the past but based of changes in the atmospheric chemistry since those predictions were made. Or is that something else best not mentioned due to its being a bit to scientific ? Dhooo

Wow, OK so you have zero scientific data to support your view
Click to expand...
What view is that? It's unlikely that there is zero evidence for it, whatever view it is.

Uh that would be your view

There is no climate science view of a CO2 crisis to attack. There are only people who think that there is a crisis, as usual. One day they'll even be correct, no doubt.

Yet you refuse to consider the scientific data which clearly shows a dramatic rise in the green house gas CO2 since that 60 year old analysis was presented.
Click to expand...
That's incorrect.

Ahahhahhahhahahahaha oh wow, so now there is no rise in CO2 or the other greenhouse gasses. Sorry bout fell outa my chair on that one. If you don't want the moniker of a denier, you might want to stop denying the facts. CO2 has been measured up one side and down the other and every single result is the same. Yet you claim "that's incorrect". Oh man your killing me.

OK so lets just start with the basics

are you suggesting that the rise in CO2 isn't happening
Click to expand...
No.

seems entirely contradictory given your previous answer to that statement

are you suggesting the rise in CO2 is not caused by man
Click to expand...
Maybe. But it doesn't really matter to me either way.

Really ? You might want to watch a lecture on how the oceans are reacting to climate shift by a guy named DR J Jackson at Browns university ( uber cute presenter by the way ) called "a brave new ocean"

are you suggesting that CO2 isn't a green house gas
Click to expand...
No.

Seems entirely contradictory given your previous answer to that statement

are you suggesting that a rapid rise or drop in CO2 didn't precede each of the major extinctions
Click to expand...
Given all lines of evidence, it's likely that the catastrophic events in the past most likely to have laid down the fossil fuels that people are using to fuel civilization as we know it now had little to do with a mere rise or drop in CO2.

Ahahhaahahahahaha ahem, uh, yah, got me on that one. I gotta admit the fine art of comedy is all about timing. I wasn't expecting that one at all. OK so again, gotta get straightened out in my chair, if you don't want to be considered a denier they why are you denying that there is in fact a huge amount of data all suggesting that the great extinctions were accompanied by alterations in the atmospheric chemistry including dramatic changes in the levels of CO2 ?

What exactly is it you are trying to say ?
cause so far all I hear is a blatant denial of science
Click to expand...
You seem to be hearing what you've been conditioned to listen for. Which may be my fault for trying to provide some perspective based on things that anyone involved in the "debate" for any length of time probably already knows about.

You mean your rant on Justin Bieber or that bit about the holocaust ? Cause you've presented not a shred of scientific evidence to support your view, you've instead made wildly inaccurate claims which you left entirely unsupported with a single viable reference. Oh lord the doors have now been opened for the inevitable barrage of quotes from Christy or whatever denier disciple is handy.



I cannot think of a more applicable moniker for the utter and complete denial of the sciences than exactly that already applied, Denier fits the bill perfectly. What your basically saying in all this is that you dont think discussing the science is a viable approach to climate denier but rambling on about Justin Beiber and his car is.

The simple reality is that every climate shift discussion should focus on the science, which is irrefutable and leave off the political diatribe, as it adds nothing of substance to the conversation.
​

 

[mynym]

The simple reality is that optical physics dictates that molecules of a certain size and shape "reflect" certain wave lengths of corresponding proportions. Its a fundamental reality, failing to understand this is most likely what is leading your failure to comprehend the basic chemistry involved.

I didn't deny that the climate is changing or that man has a role in it changing.

I'm still for people taking a deep breath and focusing on the most likely scenarios instead of imagining natural catastrophes in the future due to their actions though. Because it seems to me that events created and/or shaped by the ruling class and the owners of the petrodollar have a higher probability of causing more climate change than the actions of their serfs and so forth.

So explaining the physics of why CO2 is a greenhouse gas "isn't" an effective way of explaining the science. Or are you suggesting that by pointing out the science, somehow the deniers are turned off to the concept ?

No, I'm suggesting that reading denial into everything is often a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sort of like trying to take a bone from a dog by yanking it out of their mouth because you already expect them to bite down it, the equally natural reaction of most dogs is to clamp down or snarl at you and so forth. So it's usually better to offer them a piece of steak if the goal is convincing them. Isn't that your goal? So... where's the beef?

I've learned over the years that deniers are so named because of there denial of even the most well established of scientific principals...

And you can't teach an old dog new tricks... except when you can.

Which brings us back to your suggestion that by quoting those simple scientific realities isn't going to be a very effective manor of discussion with a denier. Very telling indeed ;-)

It's more about the presentation. We're all going to die but it's not as if everyone panics. There is nothing new under the sun.

It would be interesting for the sake of debate to quote the deniers and so forth but I'm not going to do that.

Didn't deny anything ??????? see previous response as well as the one concerning that 33% I'd mentioned

Well, I don't really blame you for reading into that based on your years of experience as an old dog fighting over bones of contention or what not. But actually I just thought that it was funny that 33 resonates with the symbolic number of many secret societies, the schuman resonance, the age of the Son at His death, etc. That's a favorite number for some people. But you thought that I was denying it, given your perceptions of me as a denier. Which is fine, I can see why you would think that.

Political rambling will not be considered a viable argument against the science of climate shift.

Do you happen to remember the specific date when global warming shifted to "climate shift" or climate change?

What is possible is that the atmospheric chemistry was subsequently altered in such a significant manor as to negate a previous prediction
based on the Milankovitch cycles and obviously cyclical nature of the interglacial period.

I would be careful with the word obviously.... but suit yourself.

Wow, OK so you have zero scientific data to support your view

What view is that?

Uh that would be your view

I'm not sure that your perceptions of my view and my view actually match.

seems entirely contradictory given your previous answer to that statement

That's probably because there's a difference between your perceptions and my view. As far as the rhetorical sledgehammer of "denier" goes, it is a bit like debating the idea of a holocaust/sacrifice made by fire in which a sacred six million died... which then gave some Europeans a right of return to somewhere that other people were living and so forth. Basically if one even questions the numbers or "estimates" that people are coming up with or disagrees with the overall conclusion about what sacrifices have been or must be made, then they're a "denier." But the fact remains that what counts as a sacrifice worthy of changing geopolitical realities or a "crisis" worthy of trying to change the entire world is a matter of perspective. If you're not even aware of or don't allow for the existence of different perspectives, seems to me that you won't now how to talk to people as effectively as you otherwise could. Your goal is communication and so forth, correct? "How to talk to..." etc.

Really ? You might want to watch a lecture on how the oceans are reacting to climate shift by a guy named DR J Jackson at Browns university ( uber cute presenter by the way ) called "a brave new ocean"

Everything in the ocean is going to die, there's a 100% extinction rate under the sun.

But I already agree with you, we're creating problems for ourselves and others and we could do a lot better than we are before heading the way of the Dodo and so forth. I'm still suggesting that your rhetorical sledgehammers aren't very effective and your way of talking to climate change "deniers" and assuming that people are "deniers" and all the rest of it isn't very effective. Just something to consider, given that your movement hasn't been very effective over all. I could be wrong, maybe rhetorical sledgehammers and yanking the bone from the dog's mouth is the way to go.

So maybe the failure is mainly Al Gore's fault for presenting himself as a spokesman while being such a big fat hypocrite? Whatever the cause, you haven't gotten very far no matter how "obvious" the crisis and reason to panic is from your perspective and so forth.

I still think that my metaphor would be an old dog (the average American) with a bone in its mouth (American way of life is non-negotiable). Don't make it into a bone of contention needlessly. Find a way to offer it steak and it might drop the bone? Just saying. Thus my scenario about sacrificing Justin Bieber in a "shared sacrifice" and giving away his $100,000 car in order to save the planet and so forth. Of course, I'm kidding. But you could probably come up with better ways of convincing people than getting out the it's all just "science" sledgehammers and so forth. It isn't all just science or a game of bunkerball, not when you're talking about how to convince people that don't quite fit in a test tube or talking about how to come up with inherently political solutions involving people and so forth.

OK so again, gotta get straightened out in my chair, if you don't want to be considered a denier they why are you denying that there is in fact a huge amount of data all suggesting that the great extinctions were accompanied by alterations in the atmospheric chemistry including dramatic changes in the levels of CO2 ?

There always seems to be huge and overwhelming amounts of data when it comes to the game of bunkerball. But even from your apparent perspective, if mankind is currently in the process of creating catastrophic events in the future and so forth (and that seems likely, one way or another) then won't people be the fossil fuels of the future? They could be the sources of energy and change that they've been waiting for. Yes you can, etc.

But anyway, I hope you're not suggesting that there will be a global flood when the catastrophic events come. Because that would be crazy. Obviously. And then what would we do... build an ark and invent a technology to draw species to it, two by two? Hope that alien gods put in an appearance... or what?

Oh lord the doors have now been opened for the inevitable barrage of quotes from Christy or whatever denier disciple is handy.

Actually I do know of someone working at the university that I live right next to that has a history of being what you would call a "denier." But I'm not interested in the "denier" aspect of it today or generating that debate and finding evidence that other people are willing to look for. You've convinced me to be a climate changer for today. Now what? How do we change the temperature of the planet and so forth? Let the record show that I just took a deep breath, in any event.

Ever notice how some fundamentalists say that natural catastrophes are caused by people having sex with the wrong people and so forth? Maybe Hollywood and Justin Bieber could team up with them, given that their memes are basically convergent with respect to imagining how to prevent natural catastrophes. On a side note, at least it turned out that dropping atomic bombs on cities only caused "weather change" and not "climate change"... huh? Because with some of the stuff the military industrial complex does, one might be forgiven for thinking that they might be causing as much "climate change" and "weather change" as peasants and serfs driving different cars and so forth.

What your basically saying in all this is that you dont think discussing the science is a viable approach to climate denier but rambling on about Justin Beiber and his car is.

No... it's just that denier isn't a viable approach to someone that didn't actually deny anything. That's all.

The simple reality is that every climate shift discussion should focus on the science, which is irrefutable and leave off the political diatribe, as it adds nothing of substance to the conversation.

I thought that this was a discussion about how to talk to a climate change denier and "then what." You've convinced me of something I didn't really disagree with, although I disagree with some of the techniques that you used to do so. But let's say that you talked to me as a climate change denier and then changed my mind. Success! So now I'm all for change, except when it's bad... like climate change. Then what?

Now what? We don't get to take Justin Bieber's $100,000 car away, sell it to a rich European* and use the proceeds to try to build real local forms of energy independence and so forth.... do we? No, I doubt it. After all, apparently people will only vote for more hopium and change and more entertaining rain dances. Meanwhile, back in reality drones are flying around in the background and huge tankers full of fossil fuels are headed in our direction over dying oceans and so forth. Apparently that's the answer to: "then what." Not that it matters given how likely it is that Syria/Iran and the petrodollar will blow up long before a critical mass of Americans, Russians and Chinese perceive climate change as a crisis. People will probably just blow themselves up along with the rest of the planet and so forth before it warms or "changes," the climate will change but the perception of a climate crisis will be averted... and new forms of fossil fuels created if that sort of scenario comes to fruition.

Seems like a likely scenario, hope I'm wrong... but I'm probably not:

So about those solar powered ponies that can poop rainbows of tolerance and love on everyone... what is the military industrial complex actually running on in reality, again? Death, destruction and the fossil fueled fires of chaos created by the catastrophes that destroyed the old global empire of "Atlantis" light up the elite's Cremation of Care holocausts/sacrifices in the "New Atlantis" to this day and so forth, seems to me. But the idea of "order out of chaos" that seems to be the owners of the petrodollar and the bankster's motto only lasts as long as a preexisting order immanent in an ecological or biological body being destroyed lasts in the fires of the "sacrifice," right? What I'm saying is probably disappearing into "babble" or hieroglyphics again for some, huh? If this looks like another ramble, then all I can say is that you're talking about a "big picture" or global problem and global catastrophes here. And global is usually about as big picture as it gets for us, so rambling on and on would seem to be necessary.

*Rich Europeans was supposed to be the original market for the Karma, wasn't it? What a name for a car... and one of the others was named the Tesla. Seriously, people.

 

[Cairenn]

I am putting the above rambler on ignore. I have not seen much of a conversation from them, but a lot of their opinions.

 

[mynym]

I thought she said that before. Hopefully this time it works so that I don't have to read about how much she's not reading and so forth.

Debating climate change without discussing the exponential growth rate and expansion programmed into the petrodollar and all the other "big picture" type stuff of the ruling class is like having a presidential debate on the economy without mentioning the Fed and the paradigm "the economy" exists in. It can be done. But you're often not really saying much of significance. There's a reason that people are consuming so much and causing climate change, it's written into their economic paradigm or the "big picture" shaping events within their cultural petri dish. Is it their responsibility or merely human nature like in the Youtube vid "Man," somewhat. But is their consumption also being instigated and "snowballed" into even more consumption by the economic paradigm being created by bankers creating money out of nothing, yes.

Refusing to become a "big picture" thinker or a rambling man is partly how we wind up with hopium and change while drones fly around in the background and huge oil tankers on their way to add more fuel to the fires of chaos being created by Team America, World Police. Enjoy the view from the peephole in the bunker, though... Cairenn.

 

[Oxymoron]

I looked at all of your links. Funny thing, none of the primary source material - not the British Antarctic Survey Link, not the livescience page that was the reference for the "skeptic" iceagenow blog post, nor the natgeo page - actually support the conclusion that "the biggest impact on the Antarctic ice is actually from volcanic activity in the area and not as suggested because of man." I can't find anywhere that the scientists involved in the study, or who otherwise study the region, support that conclusion.

Must be an original thought then...

 

[Belfrey]

Must be an original thought then...

Or one might say, an unsupported claim.

 

[Oxymoron]

So Boston, if this is such an exact science as you suggest, how about breaking it down into what are the main methods that mankind is releasing CO2. How many cars do we need to get rid of worldwide? How many people need to not use central heating or air con? How many 'old ladies' need to die of hypothermia? How many people need to stop using internet search engines? How much time must I spend separating garbage into different materials and posting it in the correct bins to be recycled (or is it transported by lorry halfway around the world to go into a landfill in the Philippines)?

Or is it really about how many developing nations need to be held back by imposing carbon tax restrictions and trading Carbon Credits on the exchanges?

Which is better for the environment, poor people in huts breathing in toxic fumes from burning plastic bottles and bags on fires to keep warm or providing a cheap alternate fuel source? How does it work?

Please explain.

 

[Oxymoron]

Or one might say, an unsupported claim.

Or logical deduction? What is more likely to melt the Antarctic ice... a butterfly fluttering it's wings in the Amazon, parents driving their kids to school thousands of miles away or a vast active range of volcanoes directly under the ice spewing out millions of tons of magma and gasses?

Content from external source
Scientists find "big variations in the temperature in the mantle across parts of Antarctica."
"Scientists have used radar and other imaging technology to uncover some astounding finds under the East Antarctic Ice Sheet," says this article on Live Science. "A vast mountain range that rivals the Alps, and Lake Vostok, one of Earth's largest lakes."

So what accounts for these "big variations"?

 

[Drew]

Debating climate change without discussing the exponential growth rate and expansion programmed into the petrodollar and all the other "big picture" type stuff of the ruling class is like having a presidential debate on the economy without mentioning the Fed and the paradigm "the economy" exists in. It can be done. But you're often not really saying much of significance. There's a reason that people are consuming so much and causing climate change, it's written into their economic paradigm or the "big picture" shaping events within their cultural petri dish. Is it their responsibility or merely human nature like in the Youtube vid "Man," somewhat. But is their consumption also being instigated and "snowballed" into even more consumption by the economic paradigm being created by bankers creating money out of nothing, yes.

Again with the blather and NWO razzle-dazzle, all to make just two really simple points. You're not really even daring to debate science. Your claims boil down to just:

1. Calling somebody a "denier" may be derogatory and counterproductive (and I might agree, depending on the context).
2. Global warming isn't important, because more horrible things like NWO engineered war or economic collapse will do us in first, so why worry about it?

What would you do if 2 is wrong, though?

I don't think it's a very strong claim, at least as you present it, since it's predicated on your elaborately concocted NWO/Masonic/Zionist/Darwinist/Banker worldview. You can certainly do a lot of rhetorical fancy dancing, post cute videos, and make puns, but you have never yet directly addressed why your grand, overarching meta-theory is even remotely credible.

 

[Mick West]

Or logical deduction? What is more likely to melt the Antarctic ice... a butterfly fluttering it's wings in the Amazon, parents driving their kids to school thousands of miles away or a vast active range of volcanoes directly under the ice spewing out millions of tons of magma and gasses?

Or an increase in radiative forcing due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses?

What you need to do is figure out how many watts are being delivered by each suggested cause.

 

[Oxymoron]

See I am starting to develop this ancient civilisation theory based on past CO2 levels.

Now it appears that the previous civilisations high time production of cars/consumer goods etc peaked around 325,000 years ago. They then went into a massive global recession, stopped production and an ice age quickly followed. It appears, but may not be so, that two further hi tech civilisations arose from the ashes but these petred out resulting in the massive poverty around the time of Jesus... however, over the last 2000 years we have managed to claw our way up as can be seen by the rise in co2 emissions up to date.

 

[Mick West]

Looks a bit like a new topic there.

 

[Belfrey]

See I am starting to develop this ancient civilisation theory based on past CO2 levels.

View attachment 3756

Now it appears that the previous civilisations high time production of cars/consumer goods etc peaked around 325,000 years ago. They then went into a massive global recession, stopped production and an ice age quickly followed. It appears, but may not be so, that two further hi tech civilisations arose from the ashes but these petred out resulting in the massive poverty around the time of Jesus... however, over the last 2000 years we have managed to claw our way up as can be seen by the rise in co2 emissions up to date.

Trolling? I have a hard time believing that you think this is a valid comparison to climate science.

 

[Belfrey]

Scientists find "big variations in the temperature in the mantle across parts of Antarctica."
"Scientists have used radar and other imaging technology to uncover some astounding finds under the East Antarctic Ice Sheet," says this article on Live Science. "A vast mountain range that rivals the Alps, and Lake Vostok, one of Earth's largest lakes."

So what accounts for these "big variations"?

Variations in the mantle temperature across an area is not the same thing as changes in sea surface temperature over time. Do they say that there's any indication that volcanic activity is changing in the area, in a way that could explain trends at the surface?

 

[Boston]

So Boston, if this is such an exact science as you suggest, how about breaking it down into what are the main methods that mankind is releasing CO2. How many cars do we need to get rid of worldwide? How many people need to not use central heating or air con? How many 'old ladies' need to die of hypothermia? How many people need to stop using internet search engines? How much time must I spend separating garbage into different materials and posting it in the correct bins to be recycled (or is it transported by lorry halfway around the world to go into a landfill in the Philippines)?

Or is it really about how many developing nations need to be held back by imposing carbon tax restrictions and trading Carbon Credits on the exchanges?

Which is better for the environment, poor people in huts breathing in toxic fumes from burning plastic bottles and bags on fires to keep warm or providing a cheap alternate fuel source? How does it work?

Please explain.

Mynym although I do find your posts quite entertaining that last is about as proof positive of the basic denial I'm taking about as there could ever be. Your even denying that you denied anything. Which novel as it is, just isn't within my field of knowledge to even begin to address.

Oxy, Let me try and address these points you've brought up as they are quite typical of folks who've no formal education in this particular field of study

The transportation sector represents about half of the CO output of mankind, energy production pretty much takes up the lions share of the other half. Theres a great resource site called "realclimate" run by a great guy "Gavin Schmidt" who was one of the authors of several of the IPCC reports. He explains quite handily where all this excess CO2 is coming from.

see
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

That should cover sentence one through five

as for your question about recycling the hard reality is most recycling is just a feel good that actually does nothing but preserve the resource, your right about that redistribution issue. The energy it takes to bring those waste products back to the point of manufacture are significant and in the case of most recyclables outweighs the benefit of the recycling process.

No its got absolutely nothing to do with any political agenda, its pure science, which in this case is abundantly clear. We have altered the chemistry of the atmosphere and that alteration can only result in a warming climate. Period. Its basic physics

Neither, but I believe it will boil down to that before its all over. People are in such complete disbelief of whats going on that there is virtually zero chance effective change will be made until long after its to late. I don't believe in giving up mind you, but I figure I got a front row seat to the greatest biological disaster in the history of the planet. I'm still young, I've got the 20 to 30 years it will take for the show to really begin. But I'm not under any illusions any effective action will be taken before its way past to late.

In any case I notice again your not presenting a scientific argument, but instead a social and political one. The science is extremely clear, how to deal with it effectively, well, we're not, specifically for the reasons you present.

 

[Boston]

See I am starting to develop this ancient civilisation theory based on past CO2 levels.

View attachment 3756

Now it appears that the previous civilisations high time production of cars/consumer goods etc peaked around 325,000 years ago. They then went into a massive global recession, stopped production and an ice age quickly followed. It appears, but may not be so, that two further hi tech civilisations arose from the ashes but these petred out resulting in the massive poverty around the time of Jesus... however, over the last 2000 years we have managed to claw our way up as can be seen by the rise in co2 emissions up to date.

Your missing the poiint completely

Its rate of change that matters

Not that change doesn't occur naturally

If you'd shown that graph in its proper resolution to accurately show the recent rise in CO2 you'd see a microscopically thin line striking straight up from the recent years. Wildly in excess of anything else on that graph

 

[Oxymoron]

Mynym although I do find your posts quite entertaining that last is about as proof positive of the basic denial I'm taking about as there could ever be. Your even denying that you denied anything. Which novel as it is, just isn't within my field of knowledge to even begin to address.

Oxy, Let me try and address these points you've brought up as they are quite typical of folks who've no formal education in this particular field of study

The transportation sector represents about half of the CO output of mankind, energy production pretty much takes up the lions share of the other half. Theres a great resource site called "realclimate" run by a great guy "Gavin Schmidt" who was one of the authors of several of the IPCC reports. He explains quite handily where all this excess CO2 is coming from.

see
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

That should cover sentence one through five

as for your question about recycling the hard reality is most recycling is just a feel good that actually does nothing but preserve the resource, your right about that redistribution issue. The energy it takes to bring those waste products back to the point of manufacture are significant and in the case of most recyclables outweighs the benefit of the recycling process.

No its got absolutely nothing to do with any political agenda, its pure science, which in this case is abundantly clear. We have altered the chemistry of the atmosphere and that alteration can only result in a warming climate. Period. Its basic physics

Neither, but I believe it will boil down to that before its all over. People are in such complete disbelief of whats going on that there is virtually zero chance effective change will be made until long after its to late. I don't believe in giving up mind you, but I figure I got a front row seat to the greatest biological disaster in the history of the planet. I'm still young, I've got the 20 to 30 years it will take for the show to really begin. But I'm not under any illusions any effective action will be taken before its way past to late.

In any case I notice again your not presenting a scientific argument, but instead a social and political one. The science is extremely clear, how to deal with it effectively, well, we're not, specifically for the reasons you present.

Ok, let's narrow it down a bit and set the politics aside for the minute.

Your link states;

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2

What makes you think this is a relevant /significant time frame to base anything on?

http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Global warming started long before the "Industrial Revolution" and the invention of the internal combustion engine. Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age-- a time when much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice.

Earth's climate and the biosphere have been in constant flux, dominated by ice ages and glaciers for the past several million years. We are currently enjoying a temporary reprieve from the deep freeze.

Approximately every 100,000 years Earth's climate warms up temporarily. These warm periods, called interglacial periods, appear to last approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years before regressing back to a cold ice age climate. At year 18,000 and counting our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age is much nearer its end than its beginning.

But even if you are correct... it is a pointless exercise simply to identify it, without taking action. Taking action such as introducing Carbon Taxes, does what exactly?

 

[Oxymoron]

Trolling? I have a hard time believing that you think this is a valid comparison to climate science.

Just a little satire but with the underlying point that climate is cyclical due to natural processes throughout history.

 

[Sausalito]

Your link states;

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2

What makes you think this is a relevant /significant time frame to base anything on?

You're joking, right? In a very short span of time (from the Industrial Revolution to present), we've measured climate changes alongside human activities that effect those changes. No honest scientist worth his/her toenails actually disputes the data's bottom line - that human activities are driving climate change, with carbon emissions the primary factor. Forgive my bibulous ineloquence [hic], but damn man, are you serious?

 

[Oxymoron]

Variations in the mantle temperature across an area is not the same thing as changes in sea surface temperature over time. Do they say that there's any indication that volcanic activity is changing in the area, in a way that could explain trends at the surface?

They have only recently discovered them so what activity levels they were in the past is conjecture at the moment.

It seems logical that sea temperatures in the area will be affected by the mantle temperature in the locality. If you are averaging out the sea temp that could also be for a number of reasons.

It is interesting that:
http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

It wasn't until Pangea began breaking up in the Jurassic Period that climates became moist once again. Carbon dioxide existed then at average concentrations of about 1200 ppm, but has since declined. Today, at 380 ppm our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished, although environmentalists, certain political groups, and the news media would have us believe otherwise.

 

[Oxymoron]

You're joking, right? In a very short span of time (from the Industrial Revolution to present), we've measured climate changes alongside human activities that effect those changes. No honest scientist worth his/her toenails actually disputes the data's bottom line - that human activities are driving climate change, with carbon emissions the primary factor. Forgive my bibulous ineloquence [hic], but damn man, are you serious?

Very. And so are many scientists as well. Geologically it is an infinitesimaly small time frame.

Throughout most of the worlds history CO2 levels have been far higher even as high as 7000 ppm.

BTW, any ideas how to bring the levels down if you feel it necessary to do so?

 

[Belfrey]

Just a little satire but with the underlying point that climate is cyclical due to natural processes throughout history.

Yes, and as your graph shows, the recent increase in CO2 goes well above the range seen in the glacial/interglacial cycles of the Quaternary. We were actually on the high end of the cycle when the anthropogenic increase started.

Climate researchers don't work from the assumption that climate is naturally static. Indeed, a great deal of climate research involves studying how and why it changed in the past, to learn how and why it could change due to different factors (including anthropogenic inputs) in the future.

 

[Belfrey]

They have only recently discovered them so what activity levels they were in the past is conjecture at the moment.

It seems logical that sea temperatures in the area will be affected by the mantle temperature in the locality. If you are averaging out the sea temp that could also be for a number of reasons.

So, you have lept to the conclusion that the volcanic activity must be changing the ocean temperature, even though you agree that there are no data to support that conclusion.

It is interesting that:
http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

It wasn't until Pangea began breaking up in the Jurassic Period that climates became moist once again. Carbon dioxide existed then at average concentrations of about 1200 ppm, but has since declined. Today, at 380 ppm our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished, although environmentalists, certain political groups, and the news media would have us believe otherwise.

It is interesting, isn't it. And the flora and fauna of the earth were quite different at the time, right? Most of human civilization has developed in a relatively stable interglacial period over the past 10,000 years or so. Don't you think that it would be just a bit disruptive to our society, agriculture, ecology, and economy to rapidly change the climate to something more like Jurassic conditions?

 

[Oxymoron]

Yes, and as your graph shows, the recent increase in CO2 goes well above the range seen in the glacial/interglacial cycles of the Quaternary. We were actually on the high end of the cycle when the anthropogenic increase started.

Climate researchers don't work from the assumption that climate is naturally static. Indeed, a great deal of climate research involves studying how and why it changed in the past, to learn how and why it could change due to different factors (including anthropogenic inputs) in the future.

But go back further and you can see this is an extremely low level of co2.

http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).[/ex]

 

[Pete Tar]

I'm pretty sure 400ppm is a record high in 3 million years. Please corroborate your claim of it being higher through most of the world's history, especially when it was 17000ppm.

By 'most of the world's history' do you mean before the planet supported life as we know it? Because that's really twisting the argument to ridiculous lengths.

 

[Belfrey]

But go back further and you can see this is an extremely low level of co2.

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

That's true. But it's also not really relevant to how much rapidly changing CO2 and temp to well outside of the Quaternary cycles will affect all of the species - including our own - which are adapted to the current conditions.

 

[Oxymoron]

I'm pretty sure 400ppm is a record high in 3 million years. Please corroborate your claim of it being higher through most of the world's history, especially when it was 17000ppm.

By 'most of the world's history' do you mean before the planet supported life as we know it? Because that's really twisting the argument to ridiculous lengths.

Yep I meant 7000 ppm... typo. Posted a link already.

'Life as we know it Jim'... What you mean in the last decade?

 

[Oxymoron]

That's true. But it's also not really relevant to how much it will affect all of the species - including our own - which are adapted to the current conditions.

None of really know do we. I suppose it is a bit like a Turneresque picture being the idyll of England that we aspire to. But times change as they always do.

But no one seems to want to offer remedies, if they are needed. I really want to know the benefit of carbon tax, apart from making a select few even more obscenely wealthy.

 

[Pete Tar]

But you are talking about a time before mankind, and life on the planet as we know it, had established itself, and you want to claim that is normal and something we should be able to cope with quite easily?
That's ludicrous.

 

[Pete Tar]

None of really know do we. I suppose it is a bit like a Turneresque picture being the idyll of England that we aspire to. But times change as they always do.

But no one seems to want to offer remedies, if they are needed. I really want to know the benefit of carbon tax, apart from making a select few even more obscenely wealthy.

How about something real simple, cities turn off their insane usage of unnecessary electric lights at night, using solar charged lights strategically where they are of use and letting mankind see the natural night sky.

 

[Oxymoron]

But you are talking about a time before mankind, and life on the planet as we know it, had established itself, and you want to claim that is normal and something we should be able to cope with quite easily?
That's ludicrous.

Man has been around over a million years... What I am saying is, we cannot prove we are responsible for any change in climate as it happens anyway and always has. Civilisations have had to move and adapt as we will have to if necessary. Deserts and rainforests come and go... it is nature.

But what suggestions do you have for 'geoengineering', if we can?

 

[Pete Tar]

And 400ppm is a record high in 3 million of those years.
We can prove it and have.

 

[Oxymoron]

How about something real simple, cities turn off their insane usage of unnecessary electric lights at night, using solar charged lights strategically where they are of use and letting mankind see the natural night sky.

I agree but many wouldn't. They would cite accidents and security and crime etc but I agree. But how much difference do you think that will make. How many extra seconds do you think it will give us?

 

[Belfrey]

None of really know do we. I suppose it is a bit like a Turneresque picture being the idyll of England that we aspire to. But times change as they always do.

Think about how our civilization is affected by even relatively tiny tremors. A destructive storm. A terrorist attack. A real estate bubble. Now compare these things to massive, global changes of the sort that are predicted in a climate change scenario. Do you really think it will be idyllic? Change is naturally inevitable in the long run, but does it make sense for us to force a rapid, major change that wouldn't happen otherwise?

But no one seems to want to offer remedies, if they are needed. I really want to know the benefit of carbon tax, apart from making a select few even more obscenely wealthy.

There are plenty of people offering various strategies in response to the threat of AGW. But thanks to the specious arguments of the "skeptics", which are naturally more attractive to a general population which is reluctant to make changes, they're not likely to get much attention or acceptance.

 

[Oxymoron]

And 400ppm is a record high in 3 million of those years.
We can prove it and have.

But 'life', mammals, have been around for very many millions of years. We could easily adapt and survive if needed... our ancestors survived ice ages.

 

[Oxymoron]

Think about how our civilization is affected by even relatively tiny tremors. A destructive storm. A terrorist attack. A real estate bubble. Now compare these things to massive, global changes of the sort that are predicted in a climate change scenario. Do you really think it will be idyllic? Change is naturally inevitable in the long run, but does it make sense for us to force a rapid, major change that wouldn't happen otherwise?


There are plenty of people offering various strategies in response to the threat of AGW. But thanks to the specious arguments of the "skeptics", which are naturally more attractive to a general population which is reluctant to make changes, they're not likely to get much attention or acceptance.

Like what? I am all ears.

 

[Pete Tar]

eco cities