Science & Technology News

[bcboomer]

Originally Posted by Sheriffdep

How do the Roy Spencer's of the AGW debate benefit from publishing or pronouncing their findings and studies? Most on the "denier" side lose their jobs, are publicly ridiculed, or at the very minimum ignored and discredited. Above all their work must absolutely be perfect or the slightest issue will be brought to light regardless of its actual importance in the matter.
NOW.

Oil companies finance the deniers.

https://www.beforetheflood.com/explo...imate-deniers/

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by bcboomer

Oil companies finance the deniers.

https://www.beforetheflood.com/explo...imate-deniers/

Where can I apply for a Patreon account, happy to accept some funds for the good case. [emoji12], (money or diesel, whatever suits you best)

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Sheriffdep

I think i might enter the fray abstractly. The below is open for debate, I am actually asking what peoples thoughts are to the questions below. I will assume to start that each side will defend what is written below for their particular beliefs. I will also assume one side will denigrate the other and the other side will attempt to prove why their side is right. But hopefully some of the higher posters will reply to this.

How do the Roy Spencer's of the AGW debate benefit from publishing or pronouncing their findings and studies? Most on the "denier" side lose their jobs, are publicly ridiculed, or at the very minimum ignored and discredited. Above all their work must absolutely be perfect or the slightest issue will be brought to light regardless of its actual importance in the matter.

VS

AGW Proponents: How do they benefit from being pro-AGW? Highly regarded in the scientific community, able to have the "moral highroad", able to get governmental funding for YEARS, and have the power to discredit anyone they don't agree with. Plus have the ability to consistently correct their work or gloss over errors with impunity. ie...change their minds but at the same time warn of the future catastrophic changes ahead that must have action NOW.

You see, this AGW thing is like a religion. And just like there are the die hard religions that refuse to accept or even acknowledge other religions so it is with many climate change advocates. This makes anyone that even slightly questions the preachings of the high priests of AGW alarmism a heretic. And just like religions you have those that are true believers and those that are just in it for the money. They even have their idols. Al Gore, Greta Thunberg, Michael Mann and the oracle himself, James Hansen to name a few. Most, no doubt, doing much better for themselves out of it then if they'd stayed in the shadows of obscurity.


Even within this CF off topic backwater, the dead give away is the constant proclamation that nothing good comes from climate change. Suggest that even with all this additional CO2 we've spewed into the atmosphere, this still leaves the concentration at geologically historical low levels? Heretic! Suggest that the planet is greening? Heretic! Suggest that the increase in temperatures and CO2 and the use of fossil fuels has helped prevent global food shortages due to increased farm yields? Heretic! Suggest that 20x more people die of cold weather than hot weather? Well, you get the picture....


Of course some will begrudgingly concede a little to the above in kind, but will then use the good ol' "But, but, but it's the rate of change" argument. These people obvious live in regions that do not experience seasons.

So to answer your question, we have the true believers and those in it for the buck on one side, and perhaps also on the other side and in the middle are those that genuinely try sticking with the facts and the physics and paint an accurate picture without the need to seek fame or fortune. Unfortunately for some of these guys, the pitchforks come out and they become infamous and probably worse off career wise then if they'd just toed the line. And remember we're not talking extreme deniers here, just well qualified people taking an unbiased and nonobjective approach to climate change research.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You see, this AGW thing is like a religion. And just like there are the die hard religions that refuse to accept or even acknowledge other religions so it is with many climate change advocates. This makes anyone that even slightly questions the preachings of the high priests of AGW alarmism a heretic. And just like religions you have those that are true believers and those that are just in it for the money. They even have their idols. Al Gore, Greta Thunberg, Michael Mann and the oracle himself, James Hansen to name a few. Most, no doubt, doing much better for themselves out of it then if they'd stayed in the shadows of obscurity.


Even within this CF off topic backwater, the dead give away is the constant proclamation that nothing good comes from climate change. Suggest that even with all this additional CO2 we've spewed into the atmosphere, this still leaves the concentration at geologically historical low levels? Heretic! Suggest that the planet is greening? Heretic! Suggest that the increase in temperatures and CO2 and the use of fossil fuels has helped prevent global food shortages due to increased farm yields? Heretic! Suggest that 20x more people die of cold weather than hot weather? Well, you get the picture....


Of course some will begrudgingly concede a little to the above in kind, but will then use the good ol' "But, but, but it's the rate of change" argument. These people obvious live in regions that do not experience seasons.

So to answer your question, we have the true believers and those in it for the buck on one side, and perhaps also on the other side and in the middle are those that genuinely try sticking with the facts and the physics and paint an accurate picture without the need to seek fame or fortune. Unfortunately for some of these guys, the pitchforks come out and they become infamous and probably worse off career wise then if they'd just toed the line. And remember we're not talking extreme deniers here, just well qualified people taking an unbiased and nonobjective approach to climate change research.

Here is a couple of visuals that may help with your explanation.

[Sheriffdep]

Hey just wanted to say I haven't posted much over the years mainly due to being deployed most of the time and could not log in, but could read. Also, coming from powerboating, there is not alot I can contribute for sailing at this time but i can learn and extrapolate what information I need.

Just though that might help when you see me engaging such as this and see that i have only a few posts. I am not trying to troll either side because both sides most likely will not change their minds. What I am trying to do is change the basis for the arguments and where i see gains or understandings could be made; either way. Again, this is supposed to be a constructive debate or discussion, although i know my questions are biased i am trying not to be. I really do want to know how or what the other side thinks.

Yes, the below questions really only have one answer. Why an individual is or isn't following what they profess to be a fact. Change must happen immediately or we all die.

I will answer for the denier crowd: We will change as technology and financing allows for it with a slow approach without destroying the worldwide economy and upheaving family savings. As in all things we will change according to the climate and adjust from there without massively intervening which also could have disastrous effects.

Can someone on the AGW proponent side please tell me why scientifically and politically, the vast majority of proponents are NOT changing their lives and following their guidance to help correct the AGW issues. ie...setting an example.

AGW proponents should not be driving anything with a FF engine, not eating anything dairy nor meat, and not throwing any food away. Should not ever fly in an airplane and walk everywhere they need to go except for longer distances. If they need to go further then they must have an electric vehicle preferably ride sharing.

This is NOT supposed to dive into facts such as well the electric vehicles are being charged by a coal plant or FF in many places or i cannot afford to do this in my life. This is for AGW individuals to say why or why they are not doing the above. This is also exactly what the IPCC panel of 3k scientists came up with as part of the individual solutions.

IMHO your wrong if you believe in AGW and you don't follow their guidelines. Living on a boat is great, but you better not have gas on it for any reasons. Your dinghy better not have an engine other than your oars. All electric only, but that still poses the disastrous issues of disposing of batteries and solar panels. Plus the industrial CO2 emissions to create them. PS. your sails better not be made from petroleum products either. So the situation basically comes down to either you do everything no matter what to help fix the problem or you don't. If you don't, then you are just as much a part of the problem as everyone else.

This is where the real debate is. Not the Al Gores of the world but real people. Money, how much is there to make changes, and can we afford to make them. That is on the governmental level. Individually, no we cannot afford to make these changes with the current technology and pricing that it involves. In time maybe.

[Sheriffdep]

Originally Posted by bcboomer

Oil companies finance the deniers.

https://www.beforetheflood.com/explo...imate-deniers/

While that funding has been argued over time, and i am not disputing it at this time we can also say "the governments and controlling world bodies finance the AGW supporters" I shouldn't have to cite something for that.

Does that make it wrong information? Remember arguments can be made for both sides as to why they are influenced.

So how as a general public decide who is right or who is wrong WITHOUT being on a political side.

From a denier point of view - has ANY skeptic ever scientifically been wrong with their work and had to issue a retraction? I am sure there has been some; however, on the AGW side they are constantly changing projections, information, and they are NEVER wrong. "its science, so it changes and we update our projections". Then immediately add the statements of " this needs new funding so we can further the study of "x" which will take years by the way.

Just observations from my point of view which i am asking for opinions of clarification.

[SeanPatrick]

I wonder who is going to "win" the internet climate debate. The suspense is killing me.

[Searles]

Yes the climate changes ,we just don’t know ,how when or why ,all our records are to short to even begin to understand the big picture ,but denial ,and questing ,are human nature ,.⛵️⚓️

[Sheriffdep]

Originally Posted by Searles

Yes the climate changes ,we just don’t know ,how when or why ,all our records are to short to even begin to understand the big picture ,but denial ,and questing ,are human nature ,.⛵️⚓️

Many people on here will sympathize with your statement. However, many others will vehemently disagree with you.

My point is to discuss the side of "its settled" so now what do we do or not do to solve it. The AGW proponents have to show the why and how and prove it will work. That in and of itself is fraught with problems. Those issues alone should prove that its almost impossible to solve. Sooner they realize that, the sooner we don't have to hear the end of the world starts in 12 years. (NOT from AOC; but from the UN itself).

Currently P. Biden agreed to 100 billion a year for 10 years through the G7 to go to 3rd world countries to help them implement renewables. How much of that is USA money; i would suspect a majority amount. ie...Wealth redistribution which is their game anyway. https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...es/biggrin.gif

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

... Even within this CF off topic backwater, the dead give away is the constant proclamation that nothing good comes from climate change. Suggest that even with all this additional CO2 we've spewed into the atmosphere, this still leaves the concentration at geologically historical low levels? Heretic! ...
... Of course some will begrudgingly concede a little to the above in kind, but will then use the good ol' "But, but, but it's the rate of change" argument...

But not in the past 800 Million years [when mankind evolved].
The foundations for the ecosystems supporting ‘modern’ animal life on Earth today, occurred during the Cambrian Period (541-485 million years ago).
In fact, the last time the atmospheric CO amounts were this high, was more than 3 million years ago, when temperature was 2°–3°C (3.6°–5.4°F) higher than during the pre-industrial era, and sea level was 15–25 meters (50–80 feet) higher than today.
The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, over the past 60 years, is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age, 11,000-17,000 years ago.

A 4.5 Billion-Year History of CO2 in our Atmosphere
➥ https://earth.org/data_visualization...istory-of-co2/

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
➥ https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...carbon-dioxide

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

But not in the past 800 Million years [when mankind evolved].
The foundations for the ecosystems supporting ‘modern’ animal life on Earth today, occurred during the Cambrian Period (541-485 million years ago).
In fact, the last time the atmospheric CO amounts were this high, was more than 3 million years ago, when temperature was 2°–3°C (3.6°–5.4°F) higher than during the pre-industrial era, and sea level was 15–25 meters (50–80 feet) higher than today.
The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, over the past 60 years, is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age, 11,000-17,000 years ago.

A 4.5 Billion-Year History of CO2 in our Atmosphere
➥ https://earth.org/data_visualization...istory-of-co2/

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
➥ https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...carbon-dioxide

You might want to double check that.

[Reefmagnet]

Here's exhibit 'A' from this link

A 4.5 Billion-Year History of CO2 in our Atmosphere
➥ https://earth.org/data_visualization...istory-of-co2/




Smoke and mirrors

1. Logarithmic X and Y axes. Makes the time spent at critically low atmospheric levels appear visually dominant while making the (unlabelled) maximum CO2 concentration of about 4000 ppm (at a guess) obscured.
   
2. Don't go past 400 mya. Hmm, is that to conceal the 7000 ppm that existed when life started to really get going?
   
3. Throw in some crazy computer projections to make it appear that we're on the rollercoaster of doom.

If Roy Spencer participated in this level of hoodwinking the pitchforks would be well surpassed by burning stakes.

Sells more papers and gets better funding, I guess.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Sheriffdep

What I am trying to do is change the basis for the arguments and where i see gains or understandings could be made; either way. Again, this is supposed to be a constructive debate or discussion, although i know my questions are biased i am trying not to be. I really do want to know how or what the other side thinks.

...Can someone on the AGW proponent side please tell me why scientifically and politically, the vast majority of proponents are NOT changing their lives and following their guidance to help correct the AGW issues. ie...setting an example.

...IMHO your wrong if you believe in AGW and you don't follow their guidelines. Living on a boat is great, but you better not have gas on it for any reasons. Your dinghy better not have an engine other than your oars. All electric only, but that still poses the disastrous issues of disposing of batteries and solar panels. Plus the industrial CO2 emissions to create them. PS. your sails better not be made from petroleum products either. So the situation basically comes down to either you do everything no matter what to help fix the problem or you don't. If you don't, then you are just as much a part of the problem as everyone else.

You seem to have accepted all the beliefs of the anti-AGW camp and are just throwing out Denier 101 arguments... it's hard to be constructive or to change the tune with those. So... seems like trolling

Many people have made personal choices and even sacrifices that reduce their impact on the planet. And they support leaders with the same goals. But your framing says that only the denier gets to decide what's enough to not be labeled hypocritical - a test that even Jesus or Gandhi would fail.

AGW and other pollution problems arose out of policy choices (or failure to make them), and only changes on a policy level will move us to a sustainable and less wasteful future.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Smoke and mirrors

Even a grade 8 student would pick up the information that CO2 levels have been below 400 ppm for well over a million years and have only recently jumped up, in lockstep with our increasing fossil fuel use. Your handwaving - sorry - wand-waving about what happened hundreds of millions of years ago notwithstanding.

Point being, we kind of like the climate we have, and we suspect that we won't as much like the one that might have existed some tens or hundreds of million years ago.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Sheriffdep

....My point is to discuss the side of "its settled" so now what do we do or not do to solve it. The AGW proponents have to show the why and how and prove it will work. That in and of itself is fraught with problems.

Since we live in a democracy, and since the problem and the solutions involve all of us, there has to be buy-in from a significant majority for the solutions to work. It is for the purpose of increasing this buy-in that I think these types of off-topic discussions on CF are important.

An analogy can be made to COVID vaccinations. If only a few people become vaccinated that won't be enough to stop the pandemic. Depending on the the type of COVID variant, 60%, 70%, or 80% need to be vaccinated to reach herd immunity.

Likewise, politicians need the backing of a large portion of their constituents to make the hard decisions needed to make such a major change.

Originally Posted by Sheriffdep

Those issues alone should prove that its almost impossible to solve. Sooner they realize that, the sooner we don't have to hear the end of the world starts in 12 years. (NOT from AOC; but from the UN itself). ....

Difficult, not impossible.