It's worse than you think - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15067925
Donna wrote:I don't know what is so significant about the Holocene Climatic Optimum for denialists. We know what caused it.


Well if you understood the first thing about the catastrophic anthropogenic climate change hypothesis you'd know that it doesn't matter what caused it. The alarmist claim is not that Co2 alone can dangerously heat the planet, it's that the small amount of warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions will trigger a series of positive feedbacks and it's the feedbacks that are dangerous. It doesn't matter what the source of the heat is that triggers the feedbacks, heat is heat.

So the significance of the holocene warm period is that it shows that the warming we're experiencing today isn't unprecedented, the planet was warmer during the holocene and no cataclysmic runaway feedback effect occurred.


We know it wasn't global.


We don't know that it wasn't global. There's evidence that it was global and the claim that it wasn't comes from extremely dubious reconstructions based on sparse, unreliable proxy data and questionable statistical analysis.


Is it their argument that we're having another one? :lol:


your smug incompetence is ridiculous.
#15067931
Rancid wrote:Question, who is claiming there is a consensus, and why are they drowning out voices of disagreement?


All we hear about is the 97% consensus, it's coming from scientists, regulatory agencies, mainstream media, politicians and political bodies, etc


I always tell people that as a skeptic I wish there was a 97% consensus because nothing would be better evidence of climate science being an irredeemably corrupt and dysfunctional field. Think about it, if there was a 97% consensus on the effects of a slight increase of a trace gas within a system as massively complex as the climate, a system which isn't even fully understood, then there would be no question that the fix was in.
#15067932
Rancid wrote:Yes, based on some other posts, I figured this. You took a while to respond to my post. :)

Question, who is claiming there is a consensus, and why are they drowning out voices of disagreement?


I have found that discussing this Sivad only results in him using it as an a opportunity to hurl profanity at environmentalists, leftists, progressives, young ladies, cli:ate scientists, and me.

But if you could get him to try and support his claims, that would be cool.
#15067934
Sivad wrote:All we hear about is the 97% consensus, it's coming from scientists, regulatory agencies, mainstream media, politicians and political bodies, etc


You didn't exactly answer my question. Why is this 97% group of people so loud/strong? What is their motivation to drown out the skeptics? Or, are you saying that they themselves do not understand the flaws in their data?

Is there an underlying motive, or do they just not know better?

BTW, I'm glad you are skeptical, but I need a little more.
#15067938
Rancid wrote:Is there an underlying motive, or do they just not know better?


They all know better, or at least they should know better. There's not just one motive, there are numerous motives. There's funding and reputations and careers, there's various political agendas, there's noble cause corruption, financial incentives, there is no monolithic grand conspiracy, it's just a lot of interests converging on this one issue because it's a very convenient problem for a lot of different groups.
#15067941
[Off-topic one-liner to attack a forum member deleted - Prosthetic Conscience]
#15067942
Sivad wrote:
They all know better, or at least they should know better. There's not just one motive, there are numerous motives. There's funding and reputations and careers, there's various political agendas, there's noble cause corruption, financial incentives, there is no monolithic grand conspiracy, it's just a lot of interests converging on this one issue because it's a very convenient problem for a lot of different groups.


Fair enough. Let's for the moment assume you are right here. Given the way human politics works. You think you can move the needle on this?

Further, again, let's say you are right, you don't think there could be a positive benefits to "fighting" climate change? What if some of those underlying motives aren't necessarily bad for humanity?
#15067945
Rancid wrote:Fair enough. Let's for the moment assume you are right here. Given the way human politics works. You think you can move the needle on this?

Further, again, let's say you are right, you don't think there could be a positive benefits to "fighting" climate change? What if some of those underlying motives aren't necessarily bad for humanity?

Sort of like Ozymandias in watchmen except without the mass murder? Humanity united around a common threat/enemy for a greater good/lesser evil?
#15067947
Wellsy wrote:Sort of like Ozymandias in watchmen except without the mass murder? Humanity united around a common threat/enemy for a greater good/lesser evil?


I'm not familiar with watchmen, I just know it's a show people are talking about.

That said, yes something like that. Let's say people are using climate change as an excuse to push a specific agenda. However, what if the specific agenda, is actually good for humanity? Is it wrong?
#15067950
Rancid wrote:Fair enough. Let's for the moment assume you are right here. Given the way human politics works. You think you can move the needle on this?


Not on my own, but there are as many powerful interests that oppose it as there are that support it. And skeptics don't need to win, all we have to do is run out the clock and the whole thing will collapse under the weight of its own failed predictions.

Further, again, let's say you are right, you don't think there could be a positive benefits to "fighting" climate change? What if some of those underlying motives aren't necessarily bad for humanity?


none that would outweigh the dangers of the bullshit and babbittry. these fuckers can't be allowed to get away with the shit they've pulled on this one, it's just been too ludicrous. You let them get away with this one and they'll do it again and again and again and we'll all be living in a giant scientistic simulacrum of a technocratic control grid. Fuck that.
#15067952
Sivad wrote:powerful interests


Who?


Sivad wrote:none that would outweigh the dangers of the bullshit and babbittry. these fuckers can't be allowed to get away with the shit they've pulled on this one, it's just been too ludicrous. You let them get away with this one and they'll do it again and again and again and we'll all be living in a giant scientistic simulacrum of a technocratic control grid. Fuck that.


Got it.
#15067954
Rancid wrote:Who?


PoD can list them off for you, what he won't mention is how the climate hoax is the perfect "crisis" to advance his own political agenda. The alarmists will dismiss any scientist even remotely connected to the fossil fuel industry through six degrees of Kevin Bacon but the word of scientists who are directly plugged into the climate industrial complex are taken as gospel. :knife:

The big environmental groups(Big Green aka GangGreen) have just as much to gain from climate alarmism as the fossil fuel industry has to lose. Climate alarmism gives GangGreen money and influence and massive publicity. These fuckers have never met an environmental crisis that they didn't immediately start to hype. Environmental crisis is their bread and butter. The bigwigs in these NGOs don't make a fuckload of money but they do get a comfortable living and they get to travel the world going to conferences and they get insider access to power and all manner of fringe benefits. They're not giving all that up so they'll do whatever they have to to keep it going.
#15067958
Sivad wrote:
PoD can list them off for you, what he won't mention is how the climate hoax is the perfect "crisis" to advance his own political agenda. The alarmists will dismiss any scientist even remotely connected to the fossil fuel industry through six degrees of Kevin Bacon but the word of scientists who are directly plugged into the climate industrial complex are taken as gospel. :knife:

The big environmental groups(Big Green aka GangGreen) have just as much to gain from climate alarmism as the fossil fuel industry has to lose. Climate alarmism gives GangGreen money and influence and massive publicity. These fuckers have never met an environmental crisis that they didn't immediately start to hype. Environmental crisis is their bread and butter. The bigwigs in these NGOs don't make a fuckload of money but they do get a comfortable living and they get to travel the world going to conferences and they get insider access to power and all manner of fringe benefits. They're not giving all that up so they'll do whatever they have to to keep it going.


Ok, so what do you have to gain or lose in all of this?
#15067964
Rancid wrote:Ok, so what do you have to gain or lose in all of this?


The average person has a tremendous stake in how all this shakes out. If the alarmists have their way your cost of living is going way up and your standard of living is going way down. The alarmists are already talking about using taxes and regulations to force people out of the country and into cities because densely populated cities are more "sustainable". They're talking about using taxes and regulation to drastically reduce air travel, meat consumption, heat and air conditioning, etc.

And aside from all that they're working to replace democratic popular sovereignty with technocratic fiat. This hoax is a huge threat to us, our children, and our children's children. It starts out small but if we let it go it will turn into a total authoritarian nightmare of forced austerity and artificial scarcity.
#15067969
Sivad wrote:
The average person has a tremendous stake in how all this shakes out. If the alarmists have their way your cost of living is going way up and your standard of living is going way down. The alarmists are already talking about using taxes and regulations to force people out of the country and into cities because densely populated cities are more "sustainable". They're talking about using taxes and regulation to drastically reduce air travel, meat consumption, heat and air conditioning, etc.

And aside from all that they're working to replace democratic popular sovereignty with technocratic fiat. This hoax is a huge threat to us, our children, and our children's children. It starts out small but if we let it go it will turn into a total authoritarian nightmare of forced austerity and artificial scarcity.


I would argue that even without the alarmists getting their way, that is going to happen. It's already happening. Cost of living going up, inequality going up, people moving to cities. These are trends that are already happening, with or without action on the climate.
#15067973
Sivad wrote:So the significance of the holocene warm period is that it shows that the warming we're experiencing today isn't unprecedented, the planet was warmer during the holocene and no cataclysmic runaway feedback effect occurred.


During the HCO it was warmer in the Northern hemisphere during the summer. The Southern hemisphere was colder than average. There was no runaway feedback effect because it was caused by Milankovitch cycles (which had caused the semi-minor axis to shorten, which in turn increased the magnitude of seasonal changes). This means that the warming effect of HCO had a ceiling so to speak. On the other hand we can't seem to figure out how to bring down CO2 levels, therefore catastrophic feedback remains an open possibility.


We don't know that it wasn't global. There's evidence that it was global and the claim that it wasn't comes from extremely dubious reconstructions based on sparse, unreliable proxy data and questionable statistical analysis.


We know for certain that the warming effect was not global.

She has been smug, dismissive, insulting, and condescending almost from our first interaction.


It's nothing personal. I'm a Leftbooker, we're all like this :D

PoD can list them off for you, what he won't mention is how the climate hoax is the perfect "crisis" to advance his own political agenda. The alarmists will dismiss any scientist even remotely connected to the fossil fuel industry through six degrees of Kevin Bacon but the word of scientists who are directly plugged into the climate industrial complex are taken as gospel.


The fossil fuel industry has a global market cap of 5 trillion dollars. How much does the "climate industrial complex" have?
#15068035
Donna wrote:The fossil fuel industry has a global market cap of 5 trillion dollars. How much does the "climate industrial complex" have?

That is all spent on dragging a real product from the bowels of the earth, refining it and distributing it every last corner of the human civilisation all over the world, efficiently and without delay. Then there are taxes and marketing costs. So out of that cap is like 1% profit.

The climate industrial complex does not have a product so they do not really have any costs, whatever they get is 100% profit.
#15068040
SolarCross wrote:
The climate industrial complex does not have a product so they do not really have any costs, whatever they get is 100% profit.



Every part of that is wrong.
Last edited by late on 18 Feb 2020 13:32, edited 1 time in total.
By late
#15068044
You guys do realise the longer you do your stupid pet tricks, the harder you are going to get slammed when the inevitable happens?

You're making Forest Gump look like a genius.
#15068059
Sivad wrote:..the whole thing will collapse under the weight of its own failed predictions.


Can you provide evidence that most of the predictions made by climate scientists have failed to come true?

I am referring only to those predictions that predict things that should have occurred by now. I am not discussing predictions that are still in the future.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Sanders should be remembered as a wimp and a jerk[…]

I heard the Dems were crying because we now have […]

So how deadly is it?

Just copy/paste numbers that you don't understand[…]

Nice links. A bit out of date to support your arg[…]