The missing link of climate change skepticism https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/t11065 Runboard| The missing link of climate change skepticism en-us Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:16:02 +0000 Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:16:02 +0000 https://www.runboard.com/ rssfeeds_managingeditor@runboard.com (Runboard.com RSS feeds managing editor) rssfeeds_webmaster@runboard.com (Runboard.com RSS feeds webmaster) akBBS 60 Re: The missing link of climate change skepticismhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47450,from=rss#post47450https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47450,from=rss#post47450quote:often with the help of government assistance I don't categorize seagull management as assistance. Sometimes the government does not hinder...much. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Spikosauropod)Wed, 15 Jan 2020 09:43:43 +0000 Re: The missing link of climate change skepticismhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47441,from=rss#post47441https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47441,from=rss#post47441>I don't take AGW seriously because it is like all the other disasters that have been predicted by the left.< But those other disasters were not resolved by pretending they didn’t exist; instead they were accepted as a real problem and measures were taken to tackle them, often with the help of government assistance . For example, people’s health was once threatened by the smoggy atmosphere caused by homes burning coal for heat but then the government introduced the Clean Air Act and that incentivised actions to find more environmentally-friendly ways of heating homes. I could look at the satellite temperature data and it would be as convincing as the data disproving the link between smoking and cancer that was put out by scientists on the payroll of the tobacco industry. Given that there is an obvious reason why many businesses would want to downplay the environmental damage they are causing (just as the tobacco industry was keen not to have their product linked to people dying from cancer) we have an explanation for why some say global warming is not happening even though most climate scientists say it is. So to be just as convincing that all those climate scientists and politicians are wrong (not to mention all those people saying they are living through unprecedented environmental change) and climate change is NOT happening, you need an equally if not more compelling reason for the spreading of such false Green propaganda. James Jaeger has posted a ten minute preview of his new documentary film and by the look of it, this film will try and provide exactly the explanation I am asking for. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Extropia DaSilva)Wed, 15 Jan 2020 02:28:55 +0000 Re: The missing link of climate change skepticismhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47434,from=rss#post47434https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47434,from=rss#post47434I read it. As I was reading, I thought Wow, this is really compelling! Who wrote this? Then, I looked for the author. When I discovered that it was RedQ, I experienced a whole slew of mixed emotions. Now that I have researched some of the things you say, I am more impressed with your writing prowess, but my overall thoughts on the topic remain essentially the same. I don't take AGW seriously because it is like all the other disasters that have been predicted by the left. They remind me too much of Lucy getting Charlie Brown to kick the football. Fool me once, shame on you. Keep trying to fool me again and again and again...and again....nondisclosed_email@example.com (Spikosauropod)Tue, 14 Jan 2020 23:05:04 +0000 Re: The missing link of climate change skepticismhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47429,from=rss#post47429https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47429,from=rss#post47429OMG! Somebody actually read it. Thanks Doc.nondisclosed_email@example.com (RedQ)Tue, 14 Jan 2020 21:53:02 +0000 Re: The missing link of climate change skepticismhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47420,from=rss#post47420https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47420,from=rss#post47420Good paper, Red. Well organized and well written. Very well sourced, without going off on legit tangents. Sticking to the most easily verifiable stuff and hitting the crucial issues of past CO2 and heat records and that old, amazing now "controversial" medieval Warm Period. Great to see that from one of us. I'm used to resorting to one of my stand-by "Sensible Global Warming" websites. nondisclosed_email@example.com (greendocnowciv)Tue, 14 Jan 2020 21:03:33 +0000 Re: The missing link of climate change skepticismhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47409,from=rss#post47409https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47409,from=rss#post47409Extropia in the OP exhibits the "problem". EX is absolutely convinced of something that is absolutely wrong. Ex, please look at the satellite temperature data. The Earth station data is bogus and has been since the satellites went up. Catastrophic Global Warming nondisclosed_email@example.com (RedQ)Tue, 14 Jan 2020 18:59:23 +0000 Re: The missing link of climate change skepticismhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47406,from=rss#post47406https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47406,from=rss#post47406Yes - if the Alarmist "Earth will die in a decade or so of a fever" folks were more rational about this, instead of so quasi-religiously acting and talking so much, they'd be hot on Nukes. I mean - we've got stage three ones, and the ChiComs are supposed to have been building Stage Four one already. So yeah, since the Nukes are good now - there's our answer. Plan: Build 'em all over, feed city and State power grids, and electrify more and more stuff that's being run on gas, oil and coal. Keep on keepin' on like that. Problem solved! You're welcome! nondisclosed_email@example.com (greendocnowciv)Tue, 14 Jan 2020 18:54:01 +0000 Re: The missing link of climate change skepticismhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47347,from=rss#post47347https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47347,from=rss#post47347quote:spud100 wrote: Yes, what should be an engineering issue rolls down to communist lawyers controlling the rest of us. Meanwhile serfs like myself continue looking at energy as the answer. Replace the dirty with the clean. Exactly. I am a big proponent of solar energy. I don't think windmills are practical. Of course, the big change will come with fusion. In the meantime, replacing capitalism with communism and free speech with correct speech are simply irrelevant. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Spikosauropod)Mon, 13 Jan 2020 18:49:03 +0000 Re: The missing link of climate change skepticismhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47344,from=rss#post47344https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47344,from=rss#post47344Yes, what should be an engineering issue rolls down to communist lawyers controlling the rest of us. Meanwhile serfs like myself continue looking at energy as the answer. Replace the dirty with the clean.nondisclosed_email@example.com (spud100)Mon, 13 Jan 2020 18:29:13 +0000 Re: The missing link of climate change skepticismhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47335,from=rss#post47335https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47335,from=rss#post47335Yes, because just having Leftists in control can make all the difference where climate is concerned. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Spikosauropod)Mon, 13 Jan 2020 16:28:23 +0000 Re: The missing link of climate change skepticismhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47332,from=rss#post47332https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47332,from=rss#post47332Pushing CO2 and especially soot in the atmosphere can only speed up climate changes. If going to solar and wind, is not enough for the Greens, because replacement of energy sources watt for watt is obvious, then they wish for something else. Control. nondisclosed_email@example.com (spud100)Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:27:35 +0000 Re: The missing link of climate change skepticismhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47320,from=rss#post47320https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47320,from=rss#post47320OK, thanks. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Extropia DaSilva)Mon, 13 Jan 2020 01:29:26 +0000 Re: The missing link of climate change skepticismhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47294,from=rss#post47294https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47294,from=rss#post47294quote:Who benefits from falsely claiming that fossil fuels are an existential threat? I am skeptical about anthropologenic climate change because I view it as a way of promoting collectivism. The basis of my skepticism is crystalized in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti explaining her "Green New Deal": quote:“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said to Inslee’s climate director, Sam Ricketts, according to a Washington Post reporter who attended the meeting for a profile published Wednesday. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” he added. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/aocs-chief-of-staff-admits-the-green-new-deal-is-not-about-climate-change/  AOC is a communist and her "Green New Deal" uses anthropogenic climate change as a wedge to install communism. I don't see that this leaves much room for misunderstanding.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Spikosauropod)Sun, 12 Jan 2020 12:09:51 +0000 The missing link of climate change skepticismhttps://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47277,from=rss#post47277https://bescapevelocity.runboard.com/p47277,from=rss#post47277Every now and then you get whole groups of people believing something that just isn’t true. Even though the evidence clearly refutes their belief, they cling to it nonetheless. Such a situation is happening with anthropogenic climate change. It seems to me that in order to really accept that people’s beliefs are wrong but stubbornly clung onto nonetheless, there needs to be a plausible explanation for why they insist on clinging to that belief, even when the evidence is so weighted against it. For example, we know that believers in a geocentric system had mystical and religious reasons for supposing their model was true and that the alternative theory (that planets orbit the sun) was false, even though the evidence supports precisely the opposite conclusion. If we turn to the issue of anthropogenic climate change we can ask two alternative questions. 1: Why do people insist that man-made climate change is not happening, when the evidence says it is? 2: Why do people say that man-made climate change IS happening, when the evidence says it is not? Now, when it comes to question one we have an obvious answer as to why this denial exists. Anthropogenic climate change is said to be caused by our burning fossil fuels. The fossil fuel industry is one of the most powerful multinational businesses on the earth. Therefore, it’s not all that surprising that skepticism should arise if this source of immense power and wealth should become identified with something really bad. After all we’ve seen this before. When medical science began finding links between smoking and life-threatening conditions like lung cancer, the tobacco industry tried to deny there were any such links, for obvious profit-seeking reasons (they didn’t want potential customers scared off from becoming smokers). Of course, it is not the case that every climate change denier is a propagandist working for the fossil fuel industry. Some are. But others are really just useful idiots parroting the propaganda. BTW I’m not saying this is definitely what’s going on. But it is a plausible explanation for why deniers would believe they are right when they really are not. OK now lets consider the alternative question, which was “why do people say that man-made climate change is happening, when it actually is not?’. Well, the simple explanation is that people believe this because it’s what the media tell them to believe. Fair enough, but why is this propaganda (if that is what it is) being generated to begin with? Let’s be clear: This is a very strange belief. Fossil fuels could be said to be the lifeblood of modern civilisation, not only because it powers our homes, businesses and vehicles (at least the vast majority of our energy is derived from fossil fuels) but also because the way we manufacture most of our fertiliser depends on fossil fuels, too. In fact, fossil fuels are used in a vast amount of products. There’s an excellent essay online called ‘Eating Fossil Fuels’ which shows just how dependent we are on this resource. It’s fair to say that the fossil fuel industry has probably done more to raise standards of living and fight poverty than any other industry in history. This is the reason why, throughout most of history, people viewed fossil fuels as a great blessing (digging it out of the ground was dirty, dangerous work for sure; but there was no doubting the enormous benefits to be gained in doing so). So why, then, would anyone wish to spread false beliefs that fossil fuels, the very lifeblood of our prosperity, pose an existential threat? And let’s be clear that this is no lunatic fringe belief we are talking about. It is the consensus belief among climate scientists, most politicians, most of the media and most of the public that man-made climate change is real and that it is the use of fossil fuels that is causing it. Now, just because a theory has supported a huge following does not necessarily make it true. After all, the Big Bang is by far the most popular cosmological theory even though it’s track record of successful predictions is poor, its proponents tends to be surprised by new findings rather than able to comfortably accommodate them into existing models, and it requires it ever-more ‘epicycles’ to explain away conflicting data. Again, we can find a reason for why the Big Bang remains so popular: Its advocates believe mathematical precision is more important than experimental and observational verification and the Big Bang is ultimately a theological theory not a scientific one (it was, after all, first suggested by a priest). As for why the public believe the Big Bang is correct, well, popular science is dominated by Big Bangers who suppress public knowledge in viable alternative theories like plasma cosmology, so of course those kept ignorant of the alternatives think the Big Bang is the only explanation going. But if, like the Big Bang theory, belief in anthropogenic climate change is an erroneous belief, there has to be a reason for propagating it. So what is this reason? If it is NOT true that the climate is being destabilised by man-made global warming, why make such a claim? Who benefits from falsely claiming that fossil fuels are an existential threat? nondisclosed_email@example.com (Extropia DaSilva)Sun, 12 Jan 2020 05:37:37 +0000