Author Topic: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.  (Read 31487 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39026
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
The politics of "climate change" are going to far, just like woke did, and just like covid did. And it's going to end just as badly.
 
The following users thanked this post: amyk, nctnico, bookaboo, Dr. Frank, Siwastaja, Karel, RAPo

Online tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 29813
  • Country: nz
  • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. Siglent Distributor NZ.
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
The politics of "climate change" are going to far, just like woke did, and just like covid did. And it's going to end just as badly.
Hoping not here where intelligent ppl are.

Good presentation of the facts will win the day...or should do.

Having spent all my life closely affiliated with what nature can deliver I not only dare to challenge Gobull warming I flatly refute the BS.
Avid Rabid Hobbyist.
Some stuff seen @ Siglent HQ cannot be shared.
 

Offline NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9323
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
I agree that a lot of efforts of fight global warming are overcomplicated and of poor value compared to some easier efforts that seem to be largely ignored. For example, the "carbon capture" schemes that are basically scams. Except for one that isn't - planting trees.
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 
The following users thanked this post: tom66, Siwastaja

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39026
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Good presentation of the facts will win the day...or should do.

There are more guesses than "facts". And the facts that you do have to do not always point to the best way to deal with any problem.
 
The following users thanked this post: RAPo

Online Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9338
  • Country: fi
scientists as a group will have to come to some sort of consensus on what is the 'truth of the day'.

No, I strongly disagree. This is not the job of scientists as a group to do. To decide what to do is politics, and politics can be based on science, but it's still not science.

For science, it's completely OK to say "we don't have truth of the day about this". This is also the job of science. Coming up with some kind of compromise middle ground or consensus is pseudo science.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2023, 05:15:07 am by Siwastaja »
 

Online tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7336
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
If this was a grand conspiracy involving science, how does capitalism get involved?  Surely it would like to minimise costs and maximise profit, by finding the truth that is being covered up(!), by paying those scientists who go against the grain to produce a detailed thesis on why climate change is not happening?  Yet no such "truth" emerges despite the enormous financial benefits.
Are you this naïve? They are getting involved in it, because they can sell the same fuel with higher margin. Everything green is more expensive. The food which is made to barely resemble meat costs more than the actual meat. You know, stuff that the chicken eats costs more than the chicken.
Nobody is denying that it's not happening. We are denying the models, because they are flawed. All the IPCC past models have been too hot, and reality was always colder than what they predicted. There were a big scandal about satellite measurements inaccuracies that nobody of the normies heard about. Or you know, they didn't think about you know, the clouds :palm:. And even worse, social media and news is terrible at actually understanding what the models mean. They turn it into headlines to scare you, and by the looks of it, they succeeded.

Except as I showed in #27, the IPCC has historically underpredicted warming.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39026
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
scientists as a group will have to come to some sort of consensus on what is the 'truth of the day'.
No, I strongly disagree. This is not the job of scientists as a group to do. To decide what to do is politics, and politics can be based on science, but it's still not science.
For science, it's completely OK to say "we don't have truth of the day about this". This is also the job of science. Coming up with some kind of compromise middle ground or consensus is pseudo science.

And we saw how the unwillingness to do that during and now after covid, not only caused them to fail epicly, but it destoryed almost all of the communities respect in science (and politics, if there was any respect there to begin with).
I see this same thing happening again with climate science and climate politics.
And I'm an environmentilist who's married to an environmental scientist.
This is all going to come-a-gutsa-badly, but it'll be a slow train wreck over the next few decades as they attempt to push people to breaking point.
 
The following users thanked this post: bookaboo, Siwastaja, Karel

Online tszaboo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8218
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX product design
If this was a grand conspiracy involving science, how does capitalism get involved?  Surely it would like to minimise costs and maximise profit, by finding the truth that is being covered up(!), by paying those scientists who go against the grain to produce a detailed thesis on why climate change is not happening?  Yet no such "truth" emerges despite the enormous financial benefits.
Are you this naïve? They are getting involved in it, because they can sell the same fuel with higher margin. Everything green is more expensive. The food which is made to barely resemble meat costs more than the actual meat. You know, stuff that the chicken eats costs more than the chicken.
Nobody is denying that it's not happening. We are denying the models, because they are flawed. All the IPCC past models have been too hot, and reality was always colder than what they predicted. There were a big scandal about satellite measurements inaccuracies that nobody of the normies heard about. Or you know, they didn't think about you know, the clouds :palm:. And even worse, social media and news is terrible at actually understanding what the models mean. They turn it into headlines to scare you, and by the looks of it, they succeeded.

Except as I showed in #27, the IPCC has historically underpredicted warming.
Here is a graph cumulating 102 different models they run. There is one model that is relatively OK.


I agree that a lot of efforts of fight global warming are overcomplicated and of poor value compared to some easier efforts that seem to be largely ignored. For example, the "carbon capture" schemes that are basically scams. Except for one that isn't - planting trees.
Yeah, fascinating that the solutions that don't provide any profit are the least talked about, isn't it.

Good presentation of the facts will win the day...or should do.

There are more guesses than "facts". And the facts that you do have to do not always point to the best way to deal with any problem.
I really don't know how facts could succeed, when we scared young people to the point that they have depression and existential fear due to this. It's all just emotions at this point.
 

Online tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7336
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
If this was a grand conspiracy involving science, how does capitalism get involved?  Surely it would like to minimise costs and maximise profit, by finding the truth that is being covered up(!), by paying those scientists who go against the grain to produce a detailed thesis on why climate change is not happening?  Yet no such "truth" emerges despite the enormous financial benefits.
Are you this naïve? They are getting involved in it, because they can sell the same fuel with higher margin. Everything green is more expensive. The food which is made to barely resemble meat costs more than the actual meat. You know, stuff that the chicken eats costs more than the chicken.
Nobody is denying that it's not happening. We are denying the models, because they are flawed. All the IPCC past models have been too hot, and reality was always colder than what they predicted. There were a big scandal about satellite measurements inaccuracies that nobody of the normies heard about. Or you know, they didn't think about you know, the clouds :palm:. And even worse, social media and news is terrible at actually understanding what the models mean. They turn it into headlines to scare you, and by the looks of it, they succeeded.

Except as I showed in #27, the IPCC has historically underpredicted warming.
Here is a graph cumulating 102 different models they run. There is one model that is relatively OK. [..]

That's a model of warming in the troposphere, which is not the same thing.  Global warming is about the warming of the atmosphere (troposphere included) causing warming of the planet as a whole (what the IPCC is concerned about because of crop failures, sea level rise and weather are strongly influenced by both surface temperature and tropospheric temperature.)  And the IPCC models have underpredicted this:  it is warming faster than anticipated.

This looks interesting:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/study-why-troposphere-warming-differs-between-models-and-satellite-data/
 

Offline hans

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1698
  • Country: nl
scientists as a group will have to come to some sort of consensus on what is the 'truth of the day'.

No, I strongly disagree. This is not the job of scientists as a group to do. To decide what to do is politics, and politics can be based on science, but it's still not science.

For science, it's completely OK to say "we don't have truth of the day about this". This is also the job of science. Coming up with some kind of compromise middle ground or consensus is pseudo science.

Couldn't be further from the truth though. It may not be the duty of a single scientist to single out everyone's other fault in their paper introduction to make their article more stand out (its professional suicide), but there are certainly survey papers and collective studies which has the main goal of going into the overall landscape of a scientific area.

E.g. medical studies aren't also concluded from a single trial. Each trial will have it weaknesses and limitations, such as population selection or scale, and there is always more research warranted. At some point someone will write up a review paper of say 10 studies, highlight the flaws and weaknesses, the contradicting and communal findings, and ultimate summarize what consensus facts and inconclusive findings can be established, and thereby what future work is needed. There are plenty of studies and even dedicated professorships and study groups that work on translating science into policy.

Take renewable energy. One of the best things we could do is to transition from a supply-regulated to a demand-regulated market. But how many people want to think about when energy is surplus so they can run their washing machine and dish washer? Its a solution we desperately need, but very little incentive for people to do so. Energy is our second currency, and politicians like to stick to old fashioned morals by subsidizing the crap out of anything that's non-sustainable.

Politicians should stay as far away from science as they can. If you see any politician that is citing science articles; run. They have contradicting stakes to scientists. Politicians are not indifferent, because if they would be, they would not join a party and be classified as left/right or conservative/progressive, and they would not broadcast hot takes to win voters.
Bureaucrats, jurists and other policy workers (like think tanks) should use the latest scientific findings to make realistic proposals (to the aforementioned politicians) that can help the society forward. And these are also the people that put off these politicians on the dumb ideas about how the world would work.
 

Offline Wallace Gasiewicz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1381
  • Country: us
Unfortunately there is no good science behind the many articles about global warming.It is very hard to even attempt to verify the basic data that they use. Temperature Readings are subject to all sorts of variables such as the infringement of concrete and asphalt on the measuring station and the maintenance of the measuring station.Then there are computer programs that smooth the data??? You would have to look at each line of code in the computer "models" to evaluate their veracity, just to start.
Then there is the Hypothesis that CO2 causes some sort of greenhouse effect. To make this into a scientific theory you would have to prove by experiment showing that raising the CO2 on an experimental planet would increase temps. You would have to do this while maintaining space weather and especially the sun's output to very close specifications. Not done and I do not think can be done.Inferences about past CO2 levels and climate are just inferences and must be viewed with other climate variables such as sun output. This is also very complicated. I do not believe the ancient Mesopotanians maintained good solar weather records.
So there is no way to create a scientific experiment to prove the hypothesis. Unless someone has a earth sized planet which we can experiment with while maintaining a control planet.So we are left with a bunch of numbers or statistics from history and Ice measurements. Then Analysis.
This is NOT the Scientific Method. And statistical analysis is more complicated than most people think and frequently the wrong statistical model is used for analysis.  I have repeatedly witnessed this.
So now we have millionaires making more money preaching to us about global warmng while burning jet fuel llike crazy going from lecture to lecture.
Do any of the supposed scientists even know how much CO2 is absorbed by crops vs an old unattended field vs a climax forest??? I doubt it.
Compound this with the recent debacle about the COVID Pandemic. Does anyone believe the "Scientists" and Government Officials anymore???
Back in the 1950s nuclear energy was the hope for clean energy. Then it was poison. Now it looks like our best option again. I do believe that is is a really good option. I will not go into the vagarities of energy consumption using windmills and solar panels and their "Carbon Footprint" and pollution related to their use and manufacture and disposal vs direct use of the carbon fuel.  I do believe that these sources can have value in maintaining the grid, although it is probably more limited than most people think.Having said all of this, I do believe we should conserve our present energy thru efficient machines and houses and especially better transmission lines and an efficient grid.Did not mention Hydro. OK it is very good source of energy.
But I love it when Hydro powered countries like Norway lecture us about oil consumption while making Billions from their oil and gas fields.

OK, enough ranting, I have to go back and look thru the news forums and needlessly  use energy motivating electrons to do my bidding.

 
The following users thanked this post: Roehrenonkel

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39026
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
I really don't know how facts could succeed, when we scared young people to the point that they have depression and existential fear due to this. It's all just emotions at this point.

Yep, that's why I said it's gone too far, and they are only pushing harder and harder with the fear. It's now officially "Global Boiling" according to the UN chief  :palm:
I for one am done with it all this fear being pushed. We had a lifetimes worth of that crap during covid. And we had enough of the fear of being "cancelled" during the woke wars.
The more they push the fear the more people are going to push back, and that includes people who believe in it and want to help fix things.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2023, 12:05:19 pm by EEVblog »
 
The following users thanked this post: hans, Miti, amyk, bookaboo, Siwastaja, Karel, SiliconWizard, Wallace Gasiewicz, RAPo

Offline snarkysparkyTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 419
  • Country: us
Two things.


1  Narcissistic people frequently need to take opposition opinions.  You can't be the smartest guy in the room by agreeing with the consensus.

2  The issue triggers peoples unconscious death anxiety.  I think it's evident by the reaction intensity in these replies.

Neither impacts the obvious truth that the climate is changing rapidly and this just so happens to coincide with high levels of trapped CO2 being dug up and thrust into the atmosphere.

I have been hearing about the collapse of global warming theory for 15 years.  Each and every year the consensus of the people grows that we are damaging our environment.

Carry on with the denial if it makes you feel better.
 
The following users thanked this post: tom66, ve7xen, thm_w, samofab, eugene, BrokenYugo

Online Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9338
  • Country: fi
A few things:

1 The most narcissistic person I have known, with all the usual traits of manipulation and finally crime, was a heavy preacher of climate change / climate crisis and cited heavily the IPCC reports. Once you think about it, it's obvious why: narcissists love being in control of the lives of others, and guilt is powerful tool for that. Also they love being admired, and "being right" is essential. You can't publicly do stuff which makes you an outcast in society if you want to have supply of intelligent and capable people to manipulate.

2 I don't see much denial about global warming in this thread. You clearly did not read the replies, did not understand them, or did not want to understand them.

3 Basically calling others narcissists is extremely rude. No one else resorted to name calling, we have adhered to subject and discussed it honestly, even if our opinions differ. Why do you behave like this?

4 You can continue behaving like a child, "boohoo you are all stupid and wrong", but you are the one who suffers the most. Why are you so mentally dishonest with yourself?
« Last Edit: August 02, 2023, 12:37:16 pm by Siwastaja »
 
The following users thanked this post: hans, Karel

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20363
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
A few points:

The temperature of the atmosphere isn't changing much. Stratospheric temperatures are cooling, whist the troposphere is warming, which is exactly what we should expect to happen. Of course it's the tropospheric temperature which is important to us humans, although the stratosphere does affect weather patterns so mustn't be overlooked.

If the temperature of the troposphere rises, average global precipitation will also rise. It's true changes in atmospheric circulation might make some areas more prone to drought, but on the whole agriculture should benefit from more rainfall. The downside is flooding will aso be more of a problem,

Historically human population correlates positively with higher temperatures, which boost agricultural productivity and reduce the number of cold-related deaths, which is higher than those due to excessive heat.

Extreme heat, will always be balanced to some extent by extreme cold, so if one region is hot, another will be cool. There's been a lot of hype about the recent heatwave in southern Europe, yet much of Northern Europe and part of Asia, has had cooler than average temperatures this summer.  It's caused by blocking events. A high in the North Atlantic, near Greenland, pushed the jet stream further south, than usual, diverting low pressure over the UK, pushing the subtropical ridge further south and east, resulting in extreme heat there.

The pandemic was a classic example of group think. Many public health authorities, along with other institutions became overly focussed on preventing the spread of the virus, whilst ignoring the negative consequences of their polices on wider society. Many of their policies were not evidence-based: mask mandates, vaccinating those with prior immunity, school closures etc.  This caused a backlash by those who were sceptical of the authorities, driving many of them to become more extreme in their views. This has made more sceptical of the mainstream media and much of academia. I now take what organisations such as the WHO and IPCC with a pinch of salt.

Most of those who have responded to this thread, questioning climate change, appear to be fairly reasonable. None of them come across as science deniers. My persional view is that CO2 is affecting the climate, but most policies aimed at dealing with it, will cause more harm, than good, as has been the case with the pandemic.
 

Offline snarkysparkyTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 419
  • Country: us
Ok,  I get it.

Most here believe that CO2 is causing problems by disturbing our climate but it just isn't worth doing much about since the end outcome of burning all the fossil fuel in the ground will just be some "weather".

I hope your right,  cause that is exactly what we are going to do.



 
The following users thanked this post: tom66, ve7xen, thm_w, HuronKing

Online tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 29813
  • Country: nz
  • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. Siglent Distributor NZ.
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
Blame Al Gore, he started this illusion.
Avid Rabid Hobbyist.
Some stuff seen @ Siglent HQ cannot be shared.
 

Offline vad

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 518
  • Country: us
Ok,  I get it.

Most here believe that CO2 is causing problems by disturbing our climate but it just isn't worth doing much about since the end outcome of burning all the fossil fuel in the ground will just be some "weather".

I hope your right,  cause that is exactly what we are going to do.
The climate has always been changing. That is a well-known fact.

I do not see how deforestation for the sake of production of biofuels helps in reducing CO2 emissions.

I do not see how burning hydrocarbons to mine, refine and transport elements for EV battery production helps in reducing CO2 emissions.
 

Online tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7336
  • Country: gb
  • Electronics Hobbyist & FPGA/Embedded Systems EE
The climate has always been changing. That is a well-known fact.

Nobody is arguing otherwise, but climate skeptics love their strawmen with this statement.  The question is not whether the climate is warming or cooling, but whether it is warming or cooling too much, and it appears that it is, and that humans are the direct cause of the vast majority of that warming.

I do not see how deforestation for the sake of production of biofuels helps in reducing CO2 emissions.

Well, it probably doesn't - at least if you consider land-use changes as part of effective CO2 emissions.  However, if instead of deforestation you take, for instance, low grade waste crop and animal "leavings" and process those into biofuels, then it can be carbon neutral.  Not carbon negative, but by not emitting any net CO2 it is better than the alternative.

Biofuels are a very tricky area to get right.  Algae biofuels are the holy grail, but attempts at commercialisation so far have been unsuccessful.

I do not see how burning hydrocarbons to mine, refine and transport elements for EV battery production helps in reducing CO2 emissions.

Surely you can see the simple relation of fixed cost + ongoing cost,  it is not just a fixed cost.  Call it K1+nK2,  and K3+nK4 is cost of fossil car, both sum of manufacturing and running emissions over 'n' years,  if K1+nK2 is less than K3+nK4 then extra CO2 emissions to produce EV batteries can  be a net winner.

In Europe the figure 'n' is about 2-3 years for EV batteries.  In China it is closer to 3-4 years due to higher levels of coal on Chinese powergrid.  Still, a car lasts ~15 years, so generally a winner.
 

Online Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9338
  • Country: fi
Most here believe that CO2 is causing problems by disturbing our climate but it just isn't worth doing much about

Is that really your honest conclusion, given that it was not only me who stressed that it's most important to choose effective measures against CO2 rise, while fearmongering actually hinders such rational decision-making? Or are you throwing a temper tantrum with your failed attempt to collect like-minded people for your cancel mob against mr. Clauser? I really hope the latter is not the case.

You can also choose to ignore oversimplifiers like vad instead of treating all of us as "man-made climate change deniers". They are entitled to their opinion and quite frankly it's not more wrong than yours, just in the opposite direction. The actual truth is much more convoluted and representation of the truth subject to change when times change, which is also why I would be careful to label people as narcissists or bad people just because you seem to disagree now, on some matters; especially if you were honest with your opening sentence, "I don't understand". Don't dig a hole too deep for yourself because it might be that others have some viable points after all and you have to live with the rest of us, on this same planet. Listen what others have to say instead of condemning.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2023, 03:24:14 pm by Siwastaja »
 
The following users thanked this post: RAPo

Online Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9338
  • Country: fi
vad's points about biofuels and EV battery production are fair. Biofuels require careful balance, so that we use waste to make that biofuel in the first place; even better would be to minimize that waste. Whenever biofuels are too heavily subsidized, there is risk of replacing food production with biofuels so increasing food price for the poor in order to offer better self-consciousness for fuel-heavy SUV-owning class. Also risk of deforestation due to biofuels must be taken seriously to make sure it does not happen; biofuels in the end do not offer that great of land use efficiency, and the efficiency during use is crap, too.

Then EVs. I'm definitely quite pro-EV and have been developing EV technology myself, but I don't like the trend of increasing vehicle size and weight as "allowed" by the advances in technology. This was already visible before the hybrid/EV era with 1500kg 3-liter SUVs replacing 1000kg 1.6-liter sedans as "standard family car", in that very same class who tweet about their flight shame.

With apples-to-apples comparison, replacing small gasoline cars with small EVs, that are used until the battery is dead, is obviously a significant improvement in total energy use, even when you properly account for the fixed cost of making one. If combined with city planning which reduces the need for cars (remember, that always doesn't make sense, and it's a colossally bad idea to force this, e.g. in the countryside / small towns), the improvement can  be significant. But this isn't truly happening. If people are replacing apples with oranges, then we need to do apples-to-oranges comparison. What we see are heavy and large luxury EVs in Tesla Model S/X size, and large diesel hybrid SUVs in same size class. So don't be surprised to see critique against EVs and hybrids. Probably, given ever-increasing wind/PV production and increasing possibilities of controlling when to charge your EV, even those large luxury cars are still an improvement because the ICE baseline is so colossally bad it's easy to improve upon. But it could be so much better.

You should allow people like vad to talk about the problems even if they don't represent them exactly correctly. There still is a point in this.
 
The following users thanked this post: tom66

Offline eutectique

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 457
  • Country: be
Insurance and financial companies are taking significant actions against climate change.

What actions against climate change exactly? Increasing cost of insurance or mortgage? Would these actions help to lower the yearly average temperature globally or in England only?


For instance, some banks will not issue mortgages on properties at risk of future flood risk, because they don't like the idea of an asset they can't collect against in 20-30 years time.

Would you care to point to an exact paragraph, please? I could only find the following:

Quote
Barclays : Hammerstein reiterated that the bank did not have a policy of restricting availability of mortgages to those in flood risk areas, adding “we lend irrespective of the flood risk band”. He said that a restriction would arise if a borrower was unwilling or unable to obtain insurance.

HSBC : “Our expectation is that we would continue to lend on these properties beyond 2035, subject to the properties being insurable. We believe that the extension of Flood Re beyond 2035 is therefore critical,” he explained.

Lloyds : Other factors that would impact offering long-term mortgages would be ongoing flood defence maintenance, initiatives such as Flood Re and enforcement of flood resilience measures.

Natwest : Rose said that Natwest would only lend where the property is insurable and has flood cover. She continued that the firm had declined fewer than five applications from around 120,000 based on the advice from a value.
 

Offline snarkysparkyTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 419
  • Country: us
Most here believe that CO2 is causing problems by disturbing our climate but it just isn't worth doing much about

Is that really your honest conclusion, given that it was not only me who stressed that it's most important to choose effective measures against CO2 rise, while fearmongering actually hinders such rational decision-making? Or are you throwing a temper tantrum with your failed attempt to collect like-minded people for your cancel mob against mr. Clauser? I really hope the latter is not the case.

You can also choose to ignore oversimplifiers like vad instead of treating all of us as "man-made climate change deniers". They are entitled to their opinion and quite frankly it's not more wrong than yours, just in the opposite direction. The actual truth is much more convoluted and representation of the truth subject to change when times change, which is also why I would be careful to label people as narcissists or bad people just because you seem to disagree now, on some matters; especially if you were honest with your opening sentence, "I don't understand". Don't dig a hole too deep for yourself because it might be that others have some viable points after all and you have to live with the rest of us, on this same planet. Listen what others have to say instead of condemning.


Not burning fossil fuel is an effective measure against CO2 rise.  You on  board ?
How do you get a democratic society to voluntarily accept extra costs and hardship without explaining  ( fearmongering )  the risks.   We don't seem to mind a little fearmongering when war is afoot.

To believe ( without any proof )  that climate change will be not be a disasterous ending is itself a kinda denial.  If you had sound theoretical proof that we can deal with digging up 30 million years of stored carbon and stuffing it into our atmosphere in a geological microsecond with only tolerable changes then where is it?

Lets review the issue with Mr Clauser.  He is cozying up to a petroleum industry supported group that spreads climate BS.   It isn't a place for honorable people.

I haven't identified ANYONE on this board in any posting.  How are you imagining who I am targeting?

I still don't understand how anyone with serious credentials who doesn't need to sell out suddenly decides to align himself with dishonest political organizations.

Surely there is a large body of credible research done by those who are qualified that makes the counter case against significant damage to climate.
Clauser has his own research claiming that cloud cover will largely negate CO2 heat trapping by reflecting energy into space.   You hear that VENUS!  your not as hot as ya think!



 

Offline Wallace Gasiewicz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1381
  • Country: us
Quote from: snarkysparky on Today at 04:15:19 pm>Quote from: Siwastaja on Today at 03:17:41 pm>Quote from: snarkysparky on Today at 02:12:31 pm
Most here believe that CO2 is causing problems by disturbing our climate but it just isn't worth doing much about

I guess I am not in the category "Most" , I suppose I could feel badly that I am a victim of this micro aggression. But I am used to not being in the category of "Most"

In response to the statements about mortgage companies and flood plains. Here in US the government has insurance for these properties. The only other company that I know of that covers flood plain properties here in US is Lloyd's.
Loyd's s much less expensive than the government insurance. This situation has been in place for a lot longer than the current "climate change" issue, nothing new at least to me and my personal experience with these insurances.

 

Offline Miti

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1405
  • Country: ca
I really don't know how facts could succeed, when we scared young people to the point that they have depression and existential fear due to this. It's all just emotions at this point.

Yep, that's why I said it's gone too far, and they are only pushing harder and harder with the fear. It's now officially "Global Boiling" according to the UN chief  :palm:
I for one am done with it all this fear being pushed. We had a lifetimes worth of that crap during covid. And we had enough of the fear of being "cancelled" during the woke wars.
The more they push the fear the more people are going to push back, and that includes people who believe in it and want to help fix things.

Respect Sir!
Fear does not stop death, it stops life.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf