Manmade Climate Change: The pollution of science by politics and the road to world government

a reply to: Ghost147

In my opinion the problem is that almost all emphasis is put on the reduction in carbon emissions, and not so much on other environmental policies such as pollution and biodiversity degradation. I think that if we restrict CO2 emissions too much, you are only going to starve the economies from energy. It is vital for especially developing nations to have the opportunity to use cheaper and reliable energy sources such as coal etc in order to advance. Transport and electricity are one of the main drivers for economic growth and prosperity. If you are going restrict that and/or make it too expensive, you take away this opportunity for poorer countries to ever compete in the world economy. And there is no way that we can make a quick and smooth transition towards renewable energy in the near future. It is still too expensive for that, and on top of that we don't have all the technology yet to make it happen. In other words, we should absolutely invest in these renewable energy sources, but we must not fall into the trap of thinking that we can "green" the world in an instant.

a reply to: snchrnct

Unfortunately, a lot of people are just going to star and flag this and move on. Yes, you have 100 links but how many of these links are actually meaningful? I've only clicked on a handful and I've already noticed some problems:

However, almost no one seems to know or care that this “green prophet” is making billions out of carbon trade and has become the world’s first ‘carbon billionaire’.

The source? worldnewsdailyreport.com. That's a fake news site. They also have this wonderful story about a Chinese miner who survived buried underground for 17 years.

Also, how many of us know that according to NASA the ice on Antarctica is actually not melting, but growing and is setting new record highs in sea ice extent?

From the growing link:

“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

So here you're cherry picking the parts that suit your needs. Right after that you link to an article that says 2015 broke a 3 year trend in Antarctic maximum sea ice extent and essentially saying, "Look NASA says it's all bs!" except I found it rather interesting that you would pick the article where the trend that supports your argument is actually reversed?

Why wouldn't you pick something from one of the three years prior? So I pulled up the article from last year from NASA Goddard where they're discussing the record breaking maximum antarctic sea level extent and I can see why you didn't — because then you'd have to address this:

Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.

The new Antarctic sea ice record reflects the diversity and complexity of Earth’s environments, said NASA researchers. Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, has referred to changes in sea ice coverage as a microcosm of global climate change. Just as the temperatures in some regions of the planet are colder than average, even in our warming world, Antarctic sea ice has been increasing and bucking the overall trend of ice loss.

You've also got a lot of irrelevant links from the wattsupwiththat (denial central) and heartland.org (the same people who tried to convince the world that, "cigarettes don't cause cancer!") and some crap on YouTube. I don't have time to go through all this but just from poking around a bit, this is a lot less impressive than I'm sure most people will take it to be at first blush.

I'm sure you'll get a lot of flags and stars for your seven day old account (whoever you are) but all I see is a person adding a lot more misinformation to the topic. Enjoy all your "I agree" and "well written OP!" comments from people who should know better but won't take the time to actually follow the links.

a reply to: theantediluvian

'm sure you'll get a lot of flags and stars for your seven day old account

I appreciate your post giving the counter argument and if it was actually 7 days old, you may have room for suspicion of an agenda being pushed.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I'm sure you'll get a lot of flags and stars for your seven day old account (whoever you are)

It is a year and 7 days, and wtf does it matter?

Sounding a little bitter.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: theantediluvian

'm sure you'll get a lot of flags and stars for your seven day old account

I appreciate your post giving the counter argument and if it was actually 7 days old, you may have room for suspicion of an agenda being pushed.

OUCH.

What can I say, I was a little dizzy from all the smoke and mirrors.

a reply to: snchrnct

So your solution is "Lets wait and see what happens?" You say there's too much at stake to adopt draconian environmental policies on a gamble, but it can be argued that too much is at stake to do nothing.

"Skepticism" does not equate with "real science." Real scientists are skeptics, thats true, but scientists also follow the evidence. even if the "97%" number is incorrect, the vast majority of scientific studies have found evidence that the current climate change is man made. The minority of scientists that are skeptics of man-made climate can put forth their claims, but the conclusions are drawn from the consensus.

It just seems that this whole climate change skepticism has been dwindling down over the years.

Originally it was called "Global warming" due to the warming trend that alerted scientists to the concept, but that was decried by people saying "It was -20 this morning in arizona! how do you explain that "Climate scientists?"

So then it was changed to "Climate Change," and for a long time it was denied that the climate was changing at all (where the word "deniers" started)

Now the fact that the climate is changing dramatically can't be ignored, but now the argument is "Well, we didn't do it. So we don't have to do anything about it."

I'm all about collecting data and doing more research into it, because research is never a bad thing UNLESS it's done with a specific outcome desired. Waiting for "proof" is foolish, because science doesn't deal in black and white like that. You can draw conclusions, but nothing is "proven" until it's actually observed. So that means there will be no "Proof" for man-made climate change until the seas have risen 20 feet, california is a barren desert, and most arctic and antarctic species are extict.

I

a reply to: stosh64

It is a year and 7 days, and wtf does it matter?

Sounding a little bitter.

I'll be sure to put 60 links in my next comment so you can be wowed by the appearance of depth and overlook its inaccuracies.

a reply to: snchrnct

From FreedomWorks:

In 1970, the first Earth Day was celebrated — okay, “celebrated” doesn’t capture the funereal tone of the event. The events (organized in part by then hippie and now convicted murderer Ira Einhorn) predicted death, destruction and disease unless we did exactly as progressives commanded.

Behold the coming apocalypse as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970:

1. "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." — Harvard biologist George Wald

2. "We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation." — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner

3. "Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." — New York Times editorial

4. "Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich

5. "Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." — Paul Ehrlich

6. "It is already too late to avoid mass starvation," — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day

7. "Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter

8. "In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." — Life magazine

9. "At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

10. "Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." — Paul Ehrlich

11. "By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn't any.'" — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

12. "[One] theory assumes that the earth's cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born." — Newsweek magazine

13. "The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt

Quotes from "Earth Day, Then and Now," by Ronald Bailey, Reason.com.

May 1, 2000.

originally posted by: snchrnct
a reply to: Ghost147
In my opinion the problem is that almost all emphasis is put on the reduction in carbon emissions, and not so much on other environmental policies such as pollution and biodiversity degradation.

I don't see 'almost all' the emphasis directed towards carbon emissions, but certainly a fair amount, yes.

originally posted by: snchrnct
a reply to: Ghost147
I think that if we restrict CO2 emissions too much, you are only going to starve the economies from energy.

That's only on the assumption that we cannot provide energy in other ways. 50% of Germany is run on green energy, and they aren't having any issues; that's with current technology, too. Imagine what we can achieve if we all focus as much as is viable on sustainable energy.

Technology grows exponentially in efficiency and reduces exponentially in cost.

originally posted by: snchrnct
a reply to: Ghost147
It is vital for especially developing nations to have the opportunity to use cheaper and reliable energy sources such as coal etc in order to advance.

Yes, absolutely. However, this again is under current views on things. With free, green energy, the cost is dramatically reduced, and provides less pollution, and requires less need to move equipment because green energy tends to be collected from a single source (you don't need to move your solar cells from place to place once the sun dries up like you do with oil.

originally posted by: snchrnct
a reply to: Ghost147
Transport and electricity are one of the main drivers for economic growth and prosperity. If you are going restrict that and/or make it too expensive, you take away this opportunity for poorer countries to ever compete in the world economy.

Once again, this is only a matter of current values and doesn't look into the fact that technologies efficiency grows exponentially and increases in cost exponentially.

So this argument of yours is a non-issue.

originally posted by: snchrnct
a reply to: Ghost147
And there is no way that we can make a quick and smooth transition towards renewable energy in the near future. It is still too expensive for that, and on top of that we don't have all the technology yet to make it happen.

We can't because there is so much backlash from those who oppose the concept of Climate Change. Accepting it only increases the production speed and output because then there is drive to advance.

originally posted by: snchrnct
a reply to: Ghost147
In other words, we should absolutely invest in these renewable energy sources, but we must not fall into the trap of thinking that we can "green" the world in an instant.

No one is saying that we can, but there are certainly plenty of areas with the funds to do so that are stuck using fossil fuels, why? because of big business and a lack of support.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Let's see, I have a question: Who is rewarded if everybody buys insurance, both individuals and business and the insurance companies and even the re/insurance companies (and the owners)?

You understand that the latter couple of sellers and purchasers on my short list expect to make money on the product that they are selling and that it greatly behooves them to run around screaming that the sky is falling, i.e., more money falls into their pockets.

Not biased? You need a rethink.

a reply to: snchrnct

It has always been my opinion that man made climate change believers need more believers in order for their "plans" to work.

If it was simply about cost and the threat was actually real. . . .then governments would enact plans to solve the problem.

But the "problem" isn't real. They need to manipulate their followers, manipulate data in order to garner such support that they can then bring their "final solution" to the table and have all their acolytes agree to it.

great thread, i couldnt agree more, lets also not forget that dinosaurs had 5 times more co2 then we do today www.livescience.com... yet we got bill nye on fox saying that 0.004% or something crazy small like that will cause the world to become hotter and ruin our lifes.

a reply to: snchrnct

Applause for you Sir.

I was recently in a filling station and I heard the guy behind the till say to his young assistant
"Rain isn't like it was in the old days"
Assistant "What do you mean?"
"Well, it wasn't like this, this is weird rain"

I couldn't help myself and said "I've got 20 years on you and I want to know what you mean by rain not being like it was in the old days, and what do you mean by - weird rain"

He looked rather startled and just smiled at me. I wasn't going to let him get away and I asked him again to explain what is different now from "the old days". He retorted "Well we didn't get so much of it back then"

I said ok, now please explain what you mean by "Weird rain"
"Whats it got to do with you" was the reply. So I said that the young lady he was preaching to is a friend of mine and I'm a little concerned about what you're filling her head with, now please explain why you think this rain is weird!

He just stood and stared at me! So I said, I'll make it a little easier for you, tell us what normal rain is like?
He still just stood there staring with a stupid smile on his face.

I said to the young lady, people aren't like they were in the old days, nowadays they are just plain weird, and I left.

a reply to: Ghost147

"When sustainable, green, free energy arrives, the fossil fuel industry eventually dies. So the argument that "the government and companies" benefit off of this movement towards sustainable energy is moot considering who would suffer from it"

In what century is this going to happen? perhaps this new energy will be fueled by unicorn excrement.

Just another delusional commentator with no critical thinking or desire to understand the real science behind the fallacious statements they make.

The OP is right on target, we shouldn't destroy our economies and standard of living based on a contrived bogeyman.

Oh and BTW, sustainable green energy will never replace our current energy resources. It will happen perhaps with a leap frog technology like fusion energy but that is 50 years off. In the mean time enjoy your comfortable home with conventionally generated electricity and your commute in gasoline fueled cars. Despite that you fervently wish otherwise it is our reality. A nonsensical belief in AGW won't change that.

originally posted by: bladerunner44
a reply to: Ghost147
In what century is this going to happen? perhaps this new energy will be fueled by unicorn excrement.

Solar energy is not new energy
Wind energy is not new energy

What are you talking about?

It's the other way round. The goal of governments is to support businesses because without the latter they won't get additional revenues. The goal of businesses is continuous economic growth and more profits, and that means more use of fossil fuels, etc. The goal of households is to increase income and returns on investment, and that means supporting governments that support businesses that want continuous growth. The goal of military forces is to continue operations and expand, and that means ensuring that the economy (on which it is dependent for more funding) continues to grow while wars are created to justify military spending.

Because alarms concerning global warming work against these goals, then they are not taken seriously. That's why in each conference countries agree only on lukewarm, small decreases, and on emission increases, etc. That's why the "solutions" given involve technofixes, i.e., anything that allows for "business as usual."

The irony is that this is what leads to a "world government," i.e., control of the global economy by the rich, with governments working for them (hence, the bulk of wealth, which consists of money, controlled by a few, and governments providing deregulation and even bailouts if something goes wrong with financial speculation), and more production and consumption needed to back up all of that credit. Meanwhile, citizens live in consumer spending economies where their "freedoms" are dependent on what businesses pay them or returns on investment from banks that "serve" them, which they can spend on a myriad of goods and services, and part of a growing global market.

a reply to: VoidHawk

Good for you. If we are going restore any sense of sanity to this false argument we need to confront it with critical thinking and hard questions.

a reply to: Ghost147
Must be new, you're purporting it to be free. I am not aware of any free energy are you?. You're right solar is not new, what is new is quasi-religious belief that it offers a real alternative to our current energy requirements.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I don't know why you have to bring up that I have a seven day account. Apart from the fact that it is not true, it is irrelevant to the discussion in my opinion. And no, I do not have an agenda, just a sincere interest in the science and the debate of climate change and the way we ware dealing with it.

Thank you though for raising your arguments and pointing out some of the inconsistencies that I apparently have in my story. I wasn't aware of the "fake news website". Nonetheless Al Gore has invested a lot in the carbon trade, so that should point out some of the conflicts of interest.

And regarding the arguments that you made about the melting of the Arctic: I was simply pointing out that Antarctica is gaining ice mass and not losing it. It is not related to the question whether the Arctic ice sheet is gaining or losing ice.

And irrelevant links from wattsupwiththat? I don't agree with that. I think it is a very helpful and valuable source for a lot of information on climate change. Also the comment section often have very interesting and deep discussions.

And you disregard a source like the heartland.org because of an incident that happened in the past? Then we in theory could do the same with many other sources that have had their credibility questioned in recent years, e.g. NASA, NOAA, IPCC just to name a few.

And some crap of YouTube? I don't know what you are referring to.. care to elaborate?

Finally, it is not about the stars and the flags. I am, just like most of us probably, trying to make sense of it all. And I have started writing things down for myself and decided to share it here. I think it is very important that we keep discussing climate change with room for different angles, not just the "official story". The reasons why I think are pretty clear from my OP.