Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

Cut air pollution to fight climate change - UN

¿que?

"Global dimming is important from a climate standpoint because less sunlight reaching the Earth creates a cooling effect. What causes global dimming? Air pollution, in the form of tiny particles produced when we burn fossil fuels."

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-40...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/1...



Yet another UN don't-know-arris-from-elbow situation.

UN says global dimming is good no bad no good no bad no wait - this phenomenon is political advocacy group UN dimming, if that's possible at this stage.

[Kawasicki]

zygalski said:

PRTVR said:

zygalski said:

Oh come off it. You really are absolutely full of the brown stuff.
Big oil don't do their own research?
They knew about it before it became a widespread public issue:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-k...

I never mentioned Big oil, is that your fallback answer ?
Can you direct me to grants available from big oil for scientific research to refute climate change, all companies are influenced by public opinion, oil companies are no different.

Still no opinion on sacking scientists who don't conform to the preachings.

The point is that big oil started their own self-funded research back in the mid 1970's and then began to adopt a tactic of misdirection and obfuscation before finally coming clean on the effects of AGW 20+ years later.
Big oil found they could no longer deny what their own research had been telling them for decades. They were brought kicking & screaming into the present, much like BAT eventually was with respect to smoking being a cause of cancer.

Now we just have to wait for the climate to do something unusual, then all the ducks are in a nice, neat, little line.

[PRTVR]

zygalski said:

PRTVR said:

zygalski said:

Oh come off it. You really are absolutely full of the brown stuff.
Big oil don't do their own research?
They knew about it before it became a widespread public issue:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-k...

I never mentioned Big oil, is that your fallback answer ?
Can you direct me to grants available from big oil for scientific research to refute climate change, all companies are influenced by public opinion, oil companies are no different.

Still no opinion on sacking scientists who don't conform to the preachings.

The point is that big oil started their own self-funded research back in the mid 1970's and then began to adopt a tactic of misdirection and obfuscation before finally coming clean on the effects of AGW 20+ years later.
Big oil found they could no longer deny what their own research had been telling them for decades. They were brought kicking & screaming into the present, much like BAT eventually was with respect to smoking being a cause of cancer.

This story may suit your narrative, but think about it for just one moment, it says that for a very small outlay an oil company managed to prove man made climate change in the 70s ,no big computers, they had worked out all the intricacies of the climate, managed to fully model clouds along with all variables, sounds plausible?

[turbobloke]

Sound plausible in the 70s they thought that the planet was about to freeze up. Brrrr.

Otherwise, dream on...decades later IPCC scientists acknowledge in their emails that they are nowhere near balancing the planet's energy budget and have no idea where energy is going = not a clue within agw.

[zygalski]

PRTVR said:

zygalski said:

PRTVR said:

zygalski said:

Oh come off it. You really are absolutely full of the brown stuff.
Big oil don't do their own research?
They knew about it before it became a widespread public issue:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-k...

I never mentioned Big oil, is that your fallback answer ?
Can you direct me to grants available from big oil for scientific research to refute climate change, all companies are influenced by public opinion, oil companies are no different.

Still no opinion on sacking scientists who don't conform to the preachings.

The point is that big oil started their own self-funded research back in the mid 1970's and then began to adopt a tactic of misdirection and obfuscation before finally coming clean on the effects of AGW 20+ years later.
Big oil found they could no longer deny what their own research had been telling them for decades. They were brought kicking & screaming into the present, much like BAT eventually was with respect to smoking being a cause of cancer.

This story may suit your narrative, but think about it for just one moment, it says that for a very small outlay an oil company managed to prove man made climate change in the 70s ,no big computers, they had worked out all the intricacies of the climate, managed to fully model clouds along with all variables, sounds plausible?

They haven't changed their stance since though, have they?
Of course, some time during the 90's big oil simply decided to jump in to bed with the lefties as part of the global AGW conspiracy

[robinessex]

zygalski said:

PRTVR said:

zygalski said:

Oh come off it. You really are absolutely full of the brown stuff.
Big oil don't do their own research?
They knew about it before it became a widespread public issue:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-k...

I never mentioned Big oil, is that your fallback answer ?
Can you direct me to grants available from big oil for scientific research to refute climate change, all companies are influenced by public opinion, oil companies are no different.

Still no opinion on sacking scientists who don't conform to the preachings.

The point is that big oil started their own self-funded research back in the mid 1970's and then began to adopt a tactic of misdirection and obfuscation before finally coming clean on the effects of AGW 20+ years later.
Big oil found they could no longer deny what their own research had been telling them for decades. They were brought kicking & screaming into the present, much like BAT eventually was with respect to smoking being a cause of cancer.

Only a complete moron would equate smoking, ( a nasty carcinogenic material) to a gas that is essential to life on the planet.

[zygalski]

robinessex said:

zygalski said:

PRTVR said:

zygalski said:

Oh come off it. You really are absolutely full of the brown stuff.
Big oil don't do their own research?
They knew about it before it became a widespread public issue:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-k...

I never mentioned Big oil, is that your fallback answer ?
Can you direct me to grants available from big oil for scientific research to refute climate change, all companies are influenced by public opinion, oil companies are no different.

Still no opinion on sacking scientists who don't conform to the preachings.

The point is that big oil started their own self-funded research back in the mid 1970's and then began to adopt a tactic of misdirection and obfuscation before finally coming clean on the effects of AGW 20+ years later.
Big oil found they could no longer deny what their own research had been telling them for decades. They were brought kicking & screaming into the present, much like BAT eventually was with respect to smoking being a cause of cancer.

Only a complete moron would equate smoking, ( a nasty carcinogenic material) to a gas that is essential to life on the planet.

Excessive atmospheric Co2 is not essential to life. It's detrimental to it.

[jet_noise]

zygalski said:

Excessive atmospheric Co2 is not essential to life. It's detrimental to it.

What is the right level?

[JustALooseScrew]

jet_noise said:

zygalski said:

Excessive atmospheric Co2 is not essential to life. It's detrimental to it.

What is the right level?

Good luck trying to get an answer to that question.

Most answers seem to be of a very specific level often quoted as being 'not as much as this or that'.

Won't someone think of the chlorophyll?

[turbobloke]

jet_noise said:

zygalski said:

Excessive atmospheric Co2 is not essential to life. It's detrimental to it.

What is the right level?

Good question. The above statement is soundbitey word salad and we all know word bacon is better for the planet

Also, what's excess?

The planet has seen more than 10x the current atmospheric level, entirely naturally, and life thrived.

Humans work well with no ill effects on nuclear submarines in an atmosphere at or above 20x current atmospheric level.

The gas given to patients in emergency life support situations has 125x the current atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

Oooh the danger it's time to panic

[mikal83]

[robinessex]

zygalski said:

robinessex said:

zygalski said:

PRTVR said:

zygalski said:

Oh come off it. You really are absolutely full of the brown stuff.
Big oil don't do their own research?
They knew about it before it became a widespread public issue:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-k...

I never mentioned Big oil, is that your fallback answer ?
Can you direct me to grants available from big oil for scientific research to refute climate change, all companies are influenced by public opinion, oil companies are no different.

Still no opinion on sacking scientists who don't conform to the preachings.

The point is that big oil started their own self-funded research back in the mid 1970's and then began to adopt a tactic of misdirection and obfuscation before finally coming clean on the effects of AGW 20+ years later.
Big oil found they could no longer deny what their own research had been telling them for decades. They were brought kicking & screaming into the present, much like BAT eventually was with respect to smoking being a cause of cancer.

Only a complete moron would equate smoking, ( a nasty carcinogenic material) to a gas that is essential to life on the planet.

Excessive atmospheric Co2 is not essential to life. It's detrimental to it.

You've just demonstrated your utter ignorance of the subject. I presume you can show evidence to support your statement then? Looking forward to seeing it.

[booboise blueboys]

mikal83 said:

"Look at me, I think I'm superior sat behind a keyboard doing nothing to solve the problem."

Slow hand clap for Mikal.

[turbobloke]

mikal83 said:

A bit too intellectual if anything.

[Kawasicki]

Both insufficient and excessive CO2 levels are less than optimal for life on Earth.

Optimal CO2 is ideal for life on Earth.

We should definitely aim for optimal CO2.

What is the optimal level?

[Baby Shark doo doo doo doo]

robinessex said:

More tenuous links to CC

Climate change: Rugby World Cup highlights injustice

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-497...

"Ahead of the Rugby World Cup in Japan, a report from Christian Aid highlights what they term the "climate injustice" endured by Pacific island participants.
Fiji, Samoa and Tonga face an uncertain future in a warmer world, with rising seas and increased storms.
But rich rugby nations like Japan and Australia are blocking aggressive climate action, the study says.
Christian Aid says this mirrors the exploitation of the Pacific islands for their best rugby players......continues"

Not really exploiting the Pacific Islands for players. The chance to emigrate to the likes of Australia and NZ is what gives a lot of Islanders the strength to push hard to improve their sporting ability. Although I can see how they’re viewed as farms for Japan/NZ/Oz if you have little experience of people who’ve managed to move away

[booboise blueboys]

robinessex said:

And the endless drip of CC stories still extrudes from the Beeb.

How to Save the World: Is individual action pointless in the face of climate change?

Let's not beat around the bush: the simple answer has to be yes; individual action is pointless.
Think about it: what difference does one person forgoing a lamb chop for a lentil bake, deciding to catch the bus rather than take their car, or deciding not to jet off for that autumn getaway away in the Balearics make if the other 7,699,999,999 of us humans here on Earth don't do anything?
It is a dispiriting conclusion and begs an obvious question, and one that I am sure has already occurred to you: why bother?
That's exactly what I asked the 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg when I met her last month. Rather than fly to her climate change meetings in New York, Miss Thunberg had opted to be whisked across the Atlantic on racing yacht......continues

I wonder if Justin Rowlattl will now pop off, and seek the views of the many who can show CC to be rubbish?

Why do you hate clean air?

[Murph7355]

booboise blueboys said:

"Look at me, I think I'm superior sat behind a keyboard doing nothing to solve the problem."

Slow hand clap for Mikal.

Give me the serenity to accept things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to determine what sits where...

What we are disagreeing on, I think, is the wisdom part

And the answer on CO2 is 42.

[turbobloke]

booboise blueboys said:

mikal83 said:

"Look at me, I think I'm superior sat behind a keyboard doing nothing to solve the problem."

What problem?

"The doomsday interpretation of climate change is a political doctrine. It is not a scientific finding, as Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg shows in (social media statements) and University of Alabama in Huntsville atmospheric scientist Prof John Christy explains in a new paper titled 'Falsifying Climate Alarm'.”

Have a read of the pdf Christy paper written by climatologist Prof Christy not the publisher, then for me at any rate it's time to get back to this thread.

Politics and emotion have no effective challenge for empirical data, reason and sound science. Doesn't stop the emotive hyperbolic hullabaloo, and in any case the hysterical ones don't want it to stop; but that's life when emotion trumps reason. Walking down the street for duff hype isn't smart really. It's either being gullible (lazy type included) or culpable.

[booboise blueboys]

turbobloke said:

What problem?

Air pollution.