Climategate - Why are Liberals so stupid - Page 4 - 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.
#15195876
Steve_American wrote:We just disagree. In the video Dr. Britt, says that the 1M years play of the Ice Age as a whole is a result of unusually high mountains being thrust up as India collides with Asia. This exposes eroded rock to the air, where it reacts with the air to remove CO2 from the air.
. . . We are adding CO2 to the air. If we add just the right amount we should be able to stay in an interstadial for a long time.

So, the Ice Age is a result of the Earth's orbital cycles which normally don't cause ice formation because the effect is too small to cool the world enough, being combined with the falling CO2 level caused by the weathering of the rocks in those high mountains, which then causes the temps to fall.

Also, the orbital cycles are not enough to cause the formation of ice sheets 2 miles thick. To get that we need the CO2 levels to drop as a result, which cools the Earth. IIRC, the CO2 levels follow the temps down. This why I said the the onset on an ice advance is caused or triggered by the cycles, but that CO2 is also involved because the CO2 level does track down parallel to the temps on the graphs.

Ah good so you actually have some understanding of the science, that goes beyond regurgitating a few moronic slogans. If we had met off the forum, we might well have been able to have an interesting and stimulating discussion about climate. The theory you just described I have been aware of for quite some time. I accept it as plausible, perhaps even probable. But this is not 100% certain. I do follow the science, or to be more precise accept the established work of scientific specialists. I accept what the experts say about the mass of the electron. I accept that they've nailed it. I accept that they've nailed it to a ridiculous degree of precision.

But nothing in climate science is like the mass of the election. Nothing has remotely the degree of certainty and precision of particle physics, or even macro physics or astronomy. Climate Science and Climate Public policy is not in the same ball park its not even the same sport, to quote Joules from Pulp Fiction in the foot massage debate. Lets say that the theory you outlined above is ninety percent probable, we can't just forget about the 10 percent chance that's its incorrect and move on, because errors accumulate. By the time you get to specific policy proposals you've got a whole superstructure of theories, assumptions, calculations and approximations. Uncertainties and imprecision accumulate.
#15195880
Rich wrote:


Lets say that the theory you outlined above is ninety percent probable...




"Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a “gold standard” level of certainty, adding pressure for cuts in greenhouse gases to limit rising temperatures, scientists said on Monday.

They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-temperatures/evidence-for-man-made-global-warming-hits-gold-standard-scientists-idUSKCN1QE1ZU

You need better lies.
#15196024
late wrote:"Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a “gold standard” level of certainty, adding pressure for cuts in greenhouse gases to limit rising temperatures, scientists said on Monday.

They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-temperatures/evidence-for-man-made-global-warming-hits-gold-standard-scientists-idUSKCN1QE1ZU

You need better lies.

You're the liar. I made a statement about the probability of one thing and then you responded with a claim about the probability of something completely different. This is typical of the rude boorish tactics you liberals use all the time. Your whole approach is fascistic. Its this attitude that was exposed in Philip Jones's emails, where he says why should you have the data if you're going to use it to argue against me. The sheer arrogance and sense of entitlement of these people just beggars belief. The behaviour of Liberals in these disputes more resembles the prosecutors at the Moscow show trials, than reasonable debating in a democracy.

Its funny because although Liberals claim to love science they actually hate it. What the Liberals want is something akin to Medieval Theology where the Church elite meet in a series of councils to decide questions once and for all. Science is profoundly annoying to the fascistic mind set, because in science questions are never really closed. In Science even questions that seem to have been closed can be reopened. Science is about individual freedom, the freedom to investigate what ever one wants in the way one wants. And crucially its about the right to be wrong.
#15196034
Rich wrote:
You're the liar.




I have seen few that project as much as you do. You project more than a 12 theater mall cineplex..

Anyway, this discussion is really only about a few things. Is there warming, how bad is it and most importantly... what should we do.

You constantly attack the science, and you pretend we don't need to respond to the danger.

Science, for the most part, happens in journals. Big Oil used to hire accomplished scientists, and even tried putting their BS into scientific journals. It went as well as you might expect it would. Although my favorite moment in the history of propaganda was when the Koch brothers hired the Climate Skeptic to do a thorough review of climate science. The Climate Skeptic was an accomplished physicist, not a BS artist like you.

When he was done, his findings were identical to that of the climate scientists.

The checks from Big Oil stopped. Well, they stopped for him. They're still spending millions...
#15196408
late wrote:Anyway, this discussion is really only about a few things. Is there warming, how bad is it and most importantly... what should we do.

You constantly attack the science, and you pretend we don't need to respond to the danger.

Actually I constantly attack the presentation of the science, or the presentation of the non science. You do seem to have an actual interest in science, but most Liberals are almost totally ignorant of science and seemingly have no interest in becoming less ignorant. I remember laughing when I watched "the Martian" and Matt Damon says "I'm going to science the shit out of this". Its like what, you liberals don't have even the most basic understanding of what science is. Do you actually know the difference between a science and an engineering faculty.

Yet liberals demand that we accept the scientific consensus as defined by them. How would you know what the consensus was on matters you're so totally ignorant. Actually I broadly agree with your question sequence, but I'd put it like this.

1 Is there significant warming?
2 if 1 are green house emissions the main cause of this warming?
3 if 2 do the negatives of this warming significantly outweigh the positives?
4 if 3 are things so serious that we can no longer allow China to carry on belching out green house gasses like there's no tomorrow?
5 if 4 are things so serious that we have to consider nuclear war with China, are things so serious that the countervailing effects of a nuclear winter might be a necessary evil?

Now chastise me for being an over cautious, but I really want to be absolutely sure about 1,2 and 3 before moving on to 4 and 5.
#15196417
Rich wrote:


Now chastise me for being an over cautious, but I really want to be absolutely sure about 1,2 and 3 before moving on to 4 and 5.



You 're not cautious. Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation

BTW, in addition to the usual, I studied the history and philosophy of science.

I've been following climate research since the late 80s.
#15196419
Potemkin wrote:Anthropogenic climate change won't drive us into extinction, @B0ycey. As I keep telling people, it's a self-correcting problem - as the climate worsens, our industrial civilisation will eventually collapse, which will end the source of the carbon dioxide, which will eventually return the climate back to 'normal' (i.e., a typical Ice Age interstadial). We'll be living in mud huts and wiping our asses with leaves, but we'll survive.


Now who is banking on the benevolence of nature? Tipping points in the climate system definitely have the potential to wipe out humanity.
#15196421
late wrote:You're not cautious, you're paid to lie.

Why thank-you that's a great compliment, but sadly not true. Lets face it there's no shortage of people wanting to rant on the internet, so its very complimentary of you to think that I do it well enough, that people would support me to do it professionally. But just in case anyone out there with funds is reading this and considers me worthy of sponsorship, I am open to be being paid. I'm not going to directly say things I don't believe, but I can keep my mouth shut on issues when I want. I didn't complain about Guantanamo for example when W Bush was looking to invade Iraq.


BTW, in addition to the usual, I studied the history and philosophy of science.

Ah well then you will hopefully understand why I take being accused of being a flat Earther by a liberal on this forum so seriously. When I said that I believed the Earth was an oblate spheroid, he said "So you are a flat Earther then". Because liberals have form on this. The international liberal lie machine spread the lie that the Medieval Church taught that the Earth was flat. Very successfully in fact, this lie (or truth as Joe we prefer truths to facts Biden would put it) was taught to me at school.

I've been following climate research since the late 80s.

Yes hence it didn't take me long to spot that you actually knew something. Of course I never doubted that Phil Jones knew something or even that he hadn't made a very notable contribution to the advancement of climate science. Just that he was arrogant, condescending, and couldn't be trusted with such a position of power and authority. And its an absolute disgrace that the BBC and so much of the Liberal media is still acting as shrills for him. The great irony is that the "missing" tree ring growth that Jones sought to hide, could actually support the case for deleterious effects of more global warming. Because I presume climate alarmists are not arguing that continuing to increase global temperature is going to continue to increase tree ring growth.

I've actually met Piers Corbyn. He seems like a nice, genuine bloke. Now while I wouldn't necessarily trust him as an expert on things scientific at least, unlike most liberals he's managed to spot the elephant in the room. Increased tree ring growth implies higher temperature, does seem to imply that higher temperatures means a greener world not a lesser one.
#15196422
Rich wrote:1 Is there significant warming?


Yes.

2 if 1 are green house emissions the main cause of this warming?


Yes.

3 if 2 do the negatives of this warming significantly outweigh the positives?


Yes.

4 if 3 are things so serious that we can no longer allow China to carry on belching out green house gasses like there's no tomorrow?
5 if 4 are things so serious that we have to consider nuclear war with China, are things so serious that the countervailing effects of a nuclear winter might be a necessary evil?

Now chastise me for being an over cautious, but I really want to be absolutely sure about 1,2 and 3 before moving on to 4 and 5.


4 and 5 do not logically follow from 3.
#15196428
Rich wrote:
Why thank-you that's a great compliment, but sadly not true.



Actually, it's a hideous insult, and I hope for your sake it is true.

The Nobel this year went to 3 guys working climate. There are thousands of other scientists working climate, and like I keep having to tell you, it's been a done deal for over 20 years.

Frankly, propaganda this bad deserves a long talk from a judge...
#15196432
Saeko wrote:Now who is banking on the benevolence of nature?

It's not benevolence. It's stability that has to characterize complex systems.
Tipping points in the climate system definitely have the potential to wipe out humanity.

No, that's just nonsense with no basis in fact. The only tipping point we know about is the ice-albedo feedback that has given us the Pleistocene Ice Age cycle, and our ancestors survived it just fine with only paleolithic technology.
#15196434
Truth To Power wrote:No, that's just nonsense with no basis in fact.


And which fact are you basing you assumption on? The fact 99.9% species have gone extinct. The fact humans aren't immortal. The fact Neanderthals went extinct. The fact we need water, food and shelter to survive. The fact these things will be scares under hotter conditions. The fact Venus is hotter than Mercury due to its climate. The fact the hottest years on record all occurred this century. So which one. Which facts are you basing your assumption on?

Your facts aren't worth shit TtP. Your facts on economics are sketchy to say the least, but you facts on Climate Change are even worse. The truth is humans aren't immune to the environment if finds itself in. Perhaps our intelligence and education might give us an advantage over other species, but we have limits. And although it might seem unconceivable to you, humans have been domesticated to social cohesion for a few centuries now and if we didn't have our society safeguards due to wars and famine and we actually had to hunt and gather, most would just die due to starvation due to lack of skills. I think it is indeed benevolence to hope nature will be kind to us when we have made it so hostile, but a word that is better than that to explain that we will survive Climate Change no matter what is naivety and historically inaccurate.
#15196436
Truth To Power wrote:It's not benevolence. It's stability that has to characterize complex systems.


There is no form of stability that characterizes complex systems. In fact, it is typical of complex systems to suddenly stop doing anything interesting with no warning ahead of time whatsoever.

No, that's just nonsense with no basis in fact. The only tipping point we know about is the ice-albedo feedback that has given us the Pleistocene Ice Age cycle, and our ancestors survived it just fine with only paleolithic technology.


As @Boycey has pointed out, 99% of species that have ever lived on Earth are extinct. Extinction is the norm, even for hominids. Tipping points that could actually threaten human survival also include ecological ones. A fast changing climate can decimate the ecosystems that we depend on for food. And if our industrial civilization collapses, then I think we have next to a zero chance of survival, because there is absolutely no way that modern people can adjust to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Being a hunter-gatherer requires conditioning and training from birth. People vastly underestimate the difficulty and the dangers of living that way. Boycey warns of starvation, but disease is the real killer in pre-industrial conditions.
#15196450
Saeko wrote:There is no form of stability that characterizes complex systems.

Of course there is: the stability that is more stable than instability.
In fact, it is typical of complex systems to suddenly stop doing anything interesting with no warning ahead of time whatsoever.

Irrelevant. Look at the solar system: four major planets, four small rocky planets, dozens of minor planets and major satellites, millions of smaller bodies: it is a massively complex system, yet it naturally reached stability. Any complex natural system will tend to spend most of its time in stable configurations because that's what stability is.
As @Boycey has pointed out, 99% of species that have ever lived on Earth are extinct.

We have changed the rules, and will likely change them again very soon.
Extinction is the norm, even for hominids.

Hominids get replaced by more advanced hominids. That may happen to us. But it won't be because we used fossil fuels.
Tipping points that could actually threaten human survival also include ecological ones.

Nope. We are the first species that understands ecological systems well enough to consciously engineer them.
A fast changing climate can decimate the ecosystems that we depend on for food.

No, because we create the ecosystems we depend on for food.
And if our industrial civilization collapses, then I think we have next to a zero chance of survival, because there is absolutely no way that modern people can adjust to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

They won't need to. Agriculture is not that complicated, and lots of people know how to farm. There is no way to put that genie back in the bottle.
Being a hunter-gatherer requires conditioning and training from birth. People vastly underestimate the difficulty and the dangers of living that way. Boycey warns of starvation, but disease is the real killer in pre-industrial conditions.

Even if 99% of us died in some astronomically triggered climate warming catastrophe, that still leaves two orders of magnitude more than the paleolithic population. Our ancestors survived ice ages with paleolithic technology! There is simply zero (0) probability that any warming that could possibly be caused by fossil fuel use could extinguish the human species -- but hysteria over fossil fuel use is distracting fools from the threats that really could extinguish the human species, starting with bioweapons research.
#15196452
B0ycey wrote:And which fact are you basing you assumption on?

The demonstrated stability of climate on century time scales, and the demonstrated human ability to survive extreme climate conditions even with paleolithic technology.
The fact 99.9% species have gone extinct. The fact humans aren't immortal.

There are aspects of our most advanced technology that do threaten our survival, but fossil fuel use is not one of them.
The fact Neanderthals went extinct.

Neanderthals probably went extinct because we out-competed or exterminated them.
The fact we need water, food and shelter to survive. The fact these things will be scares under hotter conditions.

No, they will be more plentiful, which is why warm periods were called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically incorrect.
The fact Venus is hotter than Mercury due to its climate.

The surface of Venus is hot because of its atmosphere's pressure, not because it is CO2.
The fact the hottest years on record all occurred this century.

Because the record started at the end of the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years, and has been retroactively falsified to agree with the CO2-controls-climate meme.
So which one. Which facts are you basing your assumption on?

All of them. See above.
Your facts on economics are sketchy to say the least,

I guess that must be why you can't refute any of them.
but you facts on Climate Change are even worse.

Or them.
The truth is humans aren't immune to the environment if finds itself in. Perhaps our intelligence and education might give us an advantage over other species, but we have limits. And although it might seem unconceivable to you, humans have been domesticated to social cohesion for a few centuries now and if we didn't have our society safeguards due to wars and famine and we actually had to hunt and gather, most would just die due to starvation due to lack of skills.

There is no reason to abandon agriculture.
I think it is indeed benevolence to hope nature will be kind to us when we have made it so hostile, but a word that is better than that to explain that we will survive Climate Change no matter what is naivety and historically inaccurate.

Perhaps the worst thing about anti-CO2 hysteria is that it diverts people's attention from real problems that could have real solutions. Maybe that is even its purpose.
#15196470
I do hate it when you fragment posts to such an extent that you lose the meaning of them and babble intensely @Truth To Power. Which is why I cannot be arsed to correct your mistakes on economics. Because I know you single line irrelevance back to me and I have to repeat myself again.

But my presented facts were not for you to question, given they are undisputed facts nor were they the argument for Climate Change. They were presented explaining that humans are at the mercy of the climate and should the ecosystem collapse, it would be naive to believe we will just survive. And given Neanderthals, a human species who went extinct, no doubt part due to climate, but without doubt a changing to their environment, is all the evidence we need to know Homosapien could follow their fate.

It is also telling that you don't know that Venus has an atmosphere of 97% CO2, that Carbon Dioxide has a property that retains heat, that Venus was more like Earth once before it had a runway greenhouse and the density of CO2 along with its retention heat property is the cause and reason for Venus's atmosphere pressure.

Also Humans won't abandon agriculture, but merely agriculture will abandon them due to drought which we are already seeing more of now and that famine will cause mass migration and conflict.
#15196480
Truth To Power wrote:


Because the record started at the end of the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years, and has been retroactively falsified to agree with the CO2-controls-climate meme.




Crooks routinely accuse others of what they themselves are doing..

Over the last 30 years, the record of climate for the last few hundred thousand years has been the subject of intense research.
#15196502
B0ycey wrote:I do hate it when you fragment posts to such an extent that you lose the meaning of them and babble intensely @Truth To Power.

IMO it makes the discussion much easier to follow. It's also better to refute every individual false claim as it is made.
Which is why I cannot be arsed to correct your mistakes on economics. Because I know you single line irrelevance back to me and I have to repeat myself again.

Or more accurately, because you know you cannot refute a single sentence I wrote.
They were presented explaining that humans are at the mercy of the climate

But that is just indisputably false, as our success in living in all climates even with just neolithic technology just flat-out proves. With modern technology, people are living at the South Pole as well as in the hottest climates on earth.
and should the ecosystem collapse, it would be naive to believe we will just survive.

It's not naive. It's entirely reasonable given the power of technology to shape our environment and solve our problems.
And given Neanderthals, a human species who went extinct, no doubt part due to climate,

No; they went extinct in the middle of an Ice Age, of which they had survived earlier ones with even less technology.
but without doubt a changing to their environment,

Meaning the arrival of anatomically modern humans, the new badasses on the block?
is all the evidence we need to know Homosapien could follow their fate.

There is no doubt we could follow their fate. But there is also no possibility whatever that it will happen because we use fossil fuels.
It is also telling that you don't know that Venus has an atmosphere of 97% CO2,

No, that is just another false and unsupported claim on your part. I was aware of that fact more than 50 years ago, probably before you were born, because I remember seeing the news reports of the first probes sent to Venus, and later studied the atmospheres of Venus and the other planets at an internationally respected university.
that Carbon Dioxide has a property that retains heat,

I guess that must be why Mars, which has more CO2 than the earth, is warmer than the earth.

Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: Mars is about 75C colder than the earth.
that Venus was more like Earth once before it had a runway greenhouse

That is speculation.
and the density of CO2 along with its retention heat property is the cause and reason for Venus's atmosphere pressure.

Nonsense. CO2's GHG effect has absolutely nothing to do with the surface pressure and very little to do with the surface temperature on Venus, which is caused by the pressure (Google "lapse rate" and start reading), and would be similar no matter what naturally abundant gases the atmosphere consisted of.
Also Humans won't abandon agriculture, but merely agriculture will abandon them due to drought

That is physically impossible. Higher temperatures accelerate the hydrological cycle, increasing precipitation. That is why periods of high global temperature were called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically inconvenient.
which we are already seeing more of now

No we aren't, we are seeing less. There are just more people living in drought-prone areas now because technology enables them to do so.
and that famine will cause mass migration and conflict.

Famine can have many causes, but increased CO2 in the atmosphere will never be one of them.
#15196503
late wrote:Crooks routinely accuse others of what they themselves are doing.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
Over the last 30 years, the record of climate for the last few hundred thousand years has been the subject of intense research.

Which has confirmed that temperature affects CO2 more than CO2 affects temperature.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8

Women were property Men were property too. htt[…]

I have the same attitude to Beijing as I did with […]

As I always say, no good deed goes unpunished. […]

Belt and Road... Euro Style

Projection. You know that's fake news but you kee[…]