[andyt]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I'm still waiting for the deniers to explain exactly why they think hundreds of thousands of highly respected people, businesses and institutions from around the world are collaborating in this supposedly elaborate global conspiracy that will destroy civilization, including their own lives and professional reputations. What is the motive?

I've asked them to explain it many times they never have an answer.

It's the elites that want to control us and take our money.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Interesting. Judith Curry says "Not being caused by humans predominately" So is she saying there is some warming caused by humans. Lorne Gunter asks if humans are changing the climate "significantly." So is he saying ome warming is caused by humans. Can't help but notice all the deniers hedging their bets now.

On the other side of the argument is the IPCC who in 2014 said:

$1:

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely [95% confidence] to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

The IPCC says that human activity has absolutely been proven to have caused at least 51% of the warming since 1950.

Which is hedging their bets since numerous climate alarmists (some of whom you've pointed out as alarmists) have claimed that ALL warming is human caused.

In any case, the arguments are irrelevant for numerous reasons:

1. Any country that takes concrete steps to reduce their own carbon output will become economically and politically irrelevant as they bankrupt themselves with carbon austerity policies.

2. The discussion over AGW is so poisoned by political bias that it is now impossible to ferret out what is science and what is politics.

3. China, Russia, India, Brazil, and etc. don't give a fuck.

4. Canada is still selling oil and coal abroad which is carbon-pollution by proxy. If your country really believes in AGW then stop selling oil and coal.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I'm still waiting for the deniers to explain exactly why they think hundreds of thousands of highly respected people, businesses and institutions from around the world are collaborating in this supposedly elaborate global conspiracy that will destroy civilization, including their own lives and professional reputations. What is the motive?

Al Gore became a billionaire by leveraging AGW laws and subsidies to his personal benefit. Quite bluntly, it would appear that he drafted these laws to create a benefit for himself.

Governments benefit by using cap-and-trade schemes and increased 'carbon offset' taxes to increase their revenues.

Universities promote AGW because it brings in government grant money.

The bottom line is there's a positive bottom line in promoting AGW.

But look for that gravy train to end in 2017 as the Western world pivots to stare down the threat of Islam and the industrial markets become more protectionist.

[BeaverFever]

andyt andyt:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I'm still waiting for the deniers to explain exactly why they think hundreds of thousands of highly respected people, businesses and institutions from around the world are collaborating in this supposedly elaborate global conspiracy that will destroy civilization, including their own lives and professional reputations. What is the motive?

I've asked them to explain it many times they never have an answer.

It's the elites that want to control us and take our money.

But money will be worthless after the apocalypse and rampant cannibalism that the climate change fraud will bring about.

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Al Gore became a billionaire by leveraging AGW laws and subsidies to his personal benefit. Quite bluntly, it would appear that he drafted these laws to create a benefit for himself.

He invested in what he believes in. Wouldn't it be more suspicious if he didn't invest in green sectors? Oil and coal advocates invest in oil an coal. Why is it ok for them? At the same time, the right is attacking environmentaltis who allegedly aren't investing enough in green tech. Remember the attacks on Jill Stein because she had mutual funds that held some oil portolios?

$1:

Governments benefit by using cap-and-trade schemes and increased 'carbon offset' taxes to increase their revenues.

Universities promote AGW because it brings in government grant money.

The bottom line is there's a positive bottom line in promoting AGW.

The above doesn't explain anything.

Let's set aside the sheer ridiculousness of the idea that there could be such a massive world-wide conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of people on anything.

And I'm talking about the people involved in this supposed worldwide conspiracy. All the rank-and-file employees, all their managers and supervisors, all the various boards of directors, governors, and trustees, all the politicians and esteemed scientists. All the private benefactors who donate to universities and non-profits, all the private businesses that have gotten on board and their directors, investors etc. Think about all of the people and organizations who would have to be "in on the conspiracy" and again what tangible benefits would flow to them specifically for committing this fraud?

None. And remember, you're claiming that the climate change "fraudsters" really know that their policies will make everyday goods and services unaffordable and trigger a massive depression and economic apocalypse, which means there will be no income for government to tax and these same fraudsters and their friends and family will be unable to afford basic items, lose their jobs, homes, etc. So you say these hundreds of thousands of people around the world are conspiring to knowingly and deliberately send themselves and the rest of the world into personal financial and professional ruin because....why?

For example, you think every little government lab researcher has an agenda to "increase government revenues" to the extent that they would sacrifice their professional career and reputation by falsifying research for no clear direct benefit? For what? The remote possibility that some of that extra government revenue could potentially trickle down to their program some day and they could finally get that second lab assistant they've always dreamed of? And all the lab researcher's bosses and the private endowment that also funds the research are also on board? And they all know that not long after living high on the hog with that second lab assistant, the economy will collapse and they will all be destitute, but they still think it will be totally worth it?

Does not make sense.



Besides, if a government wants to raise taxes, or a University wanted to raise funding, especially in Europe, there are a million ways to do so with real causes and tools.

[BRAH]

Scientists not alarmed by growing crack in Antarctic ice shelf… yet

$1:

WASHINGTON – Scientists are watching, but not alarmed by, a growing crack at the edge of a key floating ice shelf in Antarctica.

New images show the long-watched rift in the Larsen C ice shelf grew 11 miles (18 kilometres) in the last few weeks. The crack is now about 60 miles long (97 kilometres) and about 300 feet wide (100 metres).

http://globalnews.ca/news/3166489/scientists-not-alarmed-by-growing-crack-in-antarctic-ice-shelf-yet/
_______________________________

Meanwhile this is happening.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Besides, if a government wants to raise taxes, or a University wanted to raise funding, especially in Europe, there are a million ways to do so with real causes and tools.

Funny how you don't even believe that AGW is a 'real cause'.

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

But money will be worthless after the apocalypse and rampant cannibalism that the climate change fraud will bring about.

Where did you get that from? The only people we've ever heard predicting cannibal apocalypses and such have been from your side of the argument. The ones pushing warmism to scare the public. You know...like this guy.



Also, do you never read anything that won't tell you what you want to hear? Because you don't appear to have a clue concerning the obvious truth that should be in front of you.

Washington Times: An inconvenient truth: ‘Climate change industry’ now a $1.5 trillion global business

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Besides, if a government wants to raise taxes, or a University wanted to raise funding, especially in Europe, there are a million ways to do so with real causes and tools.

Funny how you don't even believe that AGW is a 'real cause'.

I'm arguing from your perspective that that climate change is fake.

As in: 'If climate change is really just a fake issue meant to raise money, there are any number of real issues they could use, rather than inventing one.

But I think you know that and you're just being a deplorable since you had nothing else to say.

[BartSimpson]

I've never said that climate change is fake. Quite to the contrary I've consistently maintained that it is a constant.

[N_Fiddledog]

[Lemmy]

4

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I'll tell you again what I've been telling you since about 2007.

The central question climate skeptics are concerned about is one of Climate sensitivity. Myself, I learned this listening to climate scientists like Richard Lindzen way back when. One more time, it goes like this...

If there are no feedbacks CO2 will add about 1 degree of warming per doubling. But all that is, is nice weather. To be something we need worry about you need positive feedbacks. If you know of physical evidence human influence or anything else is creating these positive feedbacks produce it. I've been asking to see such evidence for almost ten years. I'm still waiting to see it.

Would you like to see 2007 links again to show you this has been the issue since at least then?

The stance of skeptics of the alarmist doctrine has been consistent. (A Hell of a lot more consistent than the chicken little alarmism stance. That one changes with the weather from global cooling to global warming, or from global warming to climate change or from climate change to climate disruption.)

Yes climate deniers have said that 2007. And hey've also said that "climate always changes." And they've also said there's an ice age coming. And they've also said that global warming is just a crock of shit. And they've also said that climate change is a hoax. They hold all these opinions simultaneously and just roll out whichever one suits them at the time.

Guaranteed in couple of days you'll be back to "global warming is all bullshit" memes.

Same with Judith Curry. Sure, now she says global warming isn't "predominately" caused by humnas. Before she said there was no such thing as "back radiation" and that tehre was no property of the CO2 molecule that could cause heating. Moon bat stuff.

[N_Fiddledog]

Lemmy Lemmy:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I've never said that climate change is fake. Quite to the contrary I've consistently maintained that it is a constant.

But being consistently wrong isn't something to brag on. What you've "said" is complete speculation. You're arriving at a conclusion absent expertise, research, methodology or anything resembling scientific method behind it.

Show us yours hero.

Because yeah, I've seen Bart post tons of support for his opinion. I've seen you back up your imagineering with the sum total of nothing, zippo, nada, zilch.

A puffed up impression of the opinion you support and that's about it.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

On the other side of the argument is the IPCC who in 2014 said:

$1:

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely [95% confidence] to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

The IPCC says that human activity has absolutely been proven to have caused at least 51% of the warming since 1950.

They did not say absolutely proven. They said "extremely likely."