Why global warming can't be a conspiracy... and why denial can
-
fat_boy wrote:
Explain to those people now sacrificed to unemployment how they are helpoing save the earths future
This has very little to do with Global Warming. It is all to do with two facts (1) it is cheaper to produce the same quantity of steel and ship it half way around the world from India than it is to make that same quantity in England, and (2) The world is not consuming as much steel today (or perhaps even tomorrow) as it was a few years ago.
fat_boy wrote:
spending millions unnecessarially on pointless rresearch
Research always costs money. Research sometimes can find new and interesting ways to explain the who/why/etc and find new ways to accomplish certain tasks. So research is never pointless.
fat_boy wrote:
billions of carbon credits, and damaging our ecconomies.
A political not scientific issue. Talk to the political elite if you want answers to them two points.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
This has very little to do with Global Warming.
Thats bull. It has EVERYTING ot do with buying carbon credits off india to continue produciton in the UK, and then TATA the INDIAN owner, closing the steel plant in the UK.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Research always costs money
But it could at least be BENEFICIAL to us! How about research into alternative fuel?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
A political not scientific issue.
As is AGW.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
This has very little to do with Global Warming.
Thats bull. It has EVERYTING ot do with buying carbon credits off india to continue produciton in the UK, and then TATA the INDIAN owner, closing the steel plant in the UK.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Research always costs money
But it could at least be BENEFICIAL to us! How about research into alternative fuel?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
A political not scientific issue.
As is AGW.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Not wishing to encourage you on this zealotry for Global Waming Conspiracy, but...even NASA say that there is a load of bollocks being spouted[^]
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
The underlying problem here is not that there is or isn't solid evidence of climate change. The first problem is in the way that the evidence is being presented to the general public who are then expected to swallow it without a murmur. Anyone that demures or questions the 'evidence' is derided and insulted becuase they plainly either haven't read or don't understand the science. The second and bigger problem is in attempting to explain climate change as something that is all mankinds fault and, therefore, only we can do anything about it. At first sight this argument has merit. After all, look at all of the pollution we appear to throw into the atmosphere. Surely that must be causing it all? Or the way that we denude rain forests and extract minerals leaving huge scars on the face of the earth. Even if it were all our fault it may be that there is nothing we can do to reverse it. Worse, if it is nothing to do with us and we attempt to reverse it that may make things far worse in the long run. Personally I am in no doubt that the climate undergoes constant change. Perhaps we are adding to that. Perhaps not. However, until the IPCC and AGW adherents get their house in order and present some coherent evidence that is simple to understand and irrefutable then we will remain essentially deadlocked and nothing will change and no real decisions can be made. It shouldn't be about belief: it should be about the facts and yet, plainly, it is not.
Tychotics "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
-
The underlying problem here is not that there is or isn't solid evidence of climate change. The first problem is in the way that the evidence is being presented to the general public who are then expected to swallow it without a murmur. Anyone that demures or questions the 'evidence' is derided and insulted becuase they plainly either haven't read or don't understand the science. The second and bigger problem is in attempting to explain climate change as something that is all mankinds fault and, therefore, only we can do anything about it. At first sight this argument has merit. After all, look at all of the pollution we appear to throw into the atmosphere. Surely that must be causing it all? Or the way that we denude rain forests and extract minerals leaving huge scars on the face of the earth. Even if it were all our fault it may be that there is nothing we can do to reverse it. Worse, if it is nothing to do with us and we attempt to reverse it that may make things far worse in the long run. Personally I am in no doubt that the climate undergoes constant change. Perhaps we are adding to that. Perhaps not. However, until the IPCC and AGW adherents get their house in order and present some coherent evidence that is simple to understand and irrefutable then we will remain essentially deadlocked and nothing will change and no real decisions can be made. It shouldn't be about belief: it should be about the facts and yet, plainly, it is not.
Tychotics "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
digital man wrote:
simple to understand and irrefutable
This would be the issue, if you simplify it you wind up leaving out bits that deniers will latch onto, if you explain it fully the average person isn't going to under stand. I mean really, if you have a way of knowing exactly what will happen if major ocean currents get disrupted, what it would require for that to happen and an easy way of explaining it other than "We're all fucked"(My personal explanation), please enlighten me. But when it comes to the climate there are enough variables to make people's head spin without even bothering to go into detail about them.
-
Nice link. I'm not so sure it matters whether or not AWG is real or not because people won't always do what's in their best interests. A good portion of societies, in general, don't take well to change. Look at previous generations and technology for a perfect example. People like CSS and fat_boy tend not to want to take responsibility for the effects they have on the world around them. As Christian said below AWG has turned into a religion of sorts. I've heard, via Nova Science, that the Permian-Triassic extinction was the greatest extinction in Earth's history and that some scientists believe or are in search of evidence that volcanic eruptions over hundreds of years spewed so much CO2 into the air that it acidified the oceans and created methane gas via bacterial growth due to low oxygen levels in the water. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic\_extinction\_event">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic\_extinction\_event</a>\[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic\_extinction\_event" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>]This is happening now I wonder if its starting again. The difference being it won't take hundreds of years to occur. But while people use AWG for short sidedness the subject matter that should be discussed won't be. So for those of you who use it as a religion go ahead and run it down based on nothing more than a component to the religion of your beliefs since after all you won't be around to deal with it and you don't really care anyway. After all you could never be wrong and being wrong would be blasphemous.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
the majority of research is done by officials in high positions
No, it's done by scientists.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
proven to engage in fraudulent manipulation of data
This is also not true. The main 'fraud' that you claim, was the realisation that recent tree ring data did not reflect known temperatures, so the real temperature data was used. The real question becomes, why do we trust older tree ring data, and I think that's a valid question that needs answering.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The entire climate change fiasco is driven by nothing more than lies and fear-mongering anti-human propaganda funded by the corrupt governments around the world.
Your biggest issue is that you continue to look for overarching conspiracies in every situation. In the first instance, AGW was based on solid scientific observation. Because the claims being made now are claims that involve the possible death of our species, they have become more emotional, more impassioned, etc, and also groups like Greenpeace get involved and use these beliefs to generate more revenue. All of this is ancillary to the science at the core, although it then affects the nature of the research that happens from there. Whatever is wrong with AGW research today, is a result of atrophy and different interest groups pursuing their agendas, but it's not the result of any conspiracy.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Don't you know that the big oil companies are the main beneficiaries of any type of carbon taxing scheme? Why do you think that they spend massive amounts of money on seemingly pointless advertising promoting government intervention?
Well, that's pure capitalism at work. People see an opportunity and they look to exploit it. Good or bad, it has nothing to do with the science or the validity of research done.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
The real question becomes, why do we trust older tree ring data, and I think that's a valid question that needs answering.
Because older still tree ring data can be confirmed from known temperature readings prior to the 60s. The ring data was found to be accurate for a very long period of time. Then suddenly the numbers stopped synching due to some environmental factor (the best hypothesis is pollution, but they don't have enough data to make it a theory) and since they knew it was off, they could factor that in. Good science involves throwing out known bad data. :)
-
digital man wrote:
simple to understand and irrefutable
This would be the issue, if you simplify it you wind up leaving out bits that deniers will latch onto, if you explain it fully the average person isn't going to under stand. I mean really, if you have a way of knowing exactly what will happen if major ocean currents get disrupted, what it would require for that to happen and an easy way of explaining it other than "We're all fucked"(My personal explanation), please enlighten me. But when it comes to the climate there are enough variables to make people's head spin without even bothering to go into detail about them.
Distind wrote:
This would be the issue, if you simplify it you wind up leaving out bits that deniers will latch onto, if you explain it fully the average person isn't going to under stand.
and therein lies the rub...
Distind wrote:
I mean really, if you have a way of knowing exactly what will happen if major ocean currents get disrupted, what it would require for that to happen and an easy way of explaining it other than "We're all f***ed"(My personal explanation), please enlighten me.
Wish I could: I'd a) make a fortune b) know just when I should stick my head between my knees and kiss my ass goodbye... To get the tax paying public on board the IPCC et all will have to do a far better job than they have been doing and that's if they can actually come up with the evidence that anything can be done about it. In reality it doesn't matter what the cause is even if it is attributable to humanity or nature or both.
Tychotics "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I've never heard of a single profitable industry being shut down in the name of AGW
Well you have now: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html[^] Why would Tata buy british steel (Chorous) and then close it down? Wheres the profut? Its in the carbon credits.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Why would Tata buy british steel (Chorous) and then close it down? Wheres the profut?
Tata bought Corus early in 2007 when there was a demand for steel. Corus (Redcar) had a 10 year contract to supply 4 customers with 78% of its output, with 7 years left to run. When the global market collapsed, the 4 customers simultaneously cancelled their contracts. Wham - excess capacity of 78% overnight. Attempts were made to find alternative customers for their output, failing that, a buyer for the plant. The glut in steel meant there were no buyers for the plant or its product. Regardless of Carbon Credits, there were sound commercial reasons for buying Corus, and there was a sound commercial reason to close the Redcar plant.
fat_boy wrote:
Its in the carbon credits.
I don't think Tata bought Corus with the aim of closing Redcar, and enjoying the benefits of carbon trading. But it would be a strange company, indeed, that did not play the idiotic schemes concocted by the EU and the UN to their advantage. If the Brazilians had been successful in acquiring Corus, and, inevitably, had closed down Redcar, who in the IPCC would you have scapegoated?
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The real question becomes, why do we trust older tree ring data, and I think that's a valid question that needs answering.
Because older still tree ring data can be confirmed from known temperature readings prior to the 60s. The ring data was found to be accurate for a very long period of time. Then suddenly the numbers stopped synching due to some environmental factor (the best hypothesis is pollution, but they don't have enough data to make it a theory) and since they knew it was off, they could factor that in. Good science involves throwing out known bad data. :)
Fair enough. I was asking a question, not making an accusation, thanks for the answer. So, tree ring data is another thing that shows that human activity is causing harm to natural patterns ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I've never heard of a single profitable industry being shut down in the name of AGW
Well you have now: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html[^] Why would Tata buy british steel (Chorous) and then close it down? Wheres the profut? Its in the carbon credits.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
It sounds like two things happened: 1 - the plant ceased to be profitable in operation 2 - the idiocy of carbon credits made it profitable to shut it down None of that really has anything to do with AGW.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Not wishing to encourage you on this zealotry for Global Waming Conspiracy, but...even NASA say that there is a load of bollocks being spouted[^]
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
On the other hand, while NASA is (correctly) stating that some of the claims and predictions being made could well be wrong ( which is what scientists do, are they saying they are DELIBERATELY wrong ? ), the CSIRO is publishing it's data on temperature change, etc, in Australia because they are concerned that while they have been observing climate change for a long time before the debate started, it worries them that a lot of people are still debating if there is any change happening at all, when the people who have access to the data, have known without doubt that it is changing for some time. There's a gap between the people who have access to the data, and the people who want to argue the religion. I have a friend who is a CSIRO scientist, as it happens.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
The underlying problem here is not that there is or isn't solid evidence of climate change. The first problem is in the way that the evidence is being presented to the general public who are then expected to swallow it without a murmur. Anyone that demures or questions the 'evidence' is derided and insulted becuase they plainly either haven't read or don't understand the science. The second and bigger problem is in attempting to explain climate change as something that is all mankinds fault and, therefore, only we can do anything about it. At first sight this argument has merit. After all, look at all of the pollution we appear to throw into the atmosphere. Surely that must be causing it all? Or the way that we denude rain forests and extract minerals leaving huge scars on the face of the earth. Even if it were all our fault it may be that there is nothing we can do to reverse it. Worse, if it is nothing to do with us and we attempt to reverse it that may make things far worse in the long run. Personally I am in no doubt that the climate undergoes constant change. Perhaps we are adding to that. Perhaps not. However, until the IPCC and AGW adherents get their house in order and present some coherent evidence that is simple to understand and irrefutable then we will remain essentially deadlocked and nothing will change and no real decisions can be made. It shouldn't be about belief: it should be about the facts and yet, plainly, it is not.
Tychotics "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
digital man wrote:
However, until the IPCC and AGW adherents get their house in order and present some coherent evidence that is simple to understand and irrefutable
Sometimes, taking a system as complex as weather, and making it 'simple to understand', means making simplifications and generalisations.
digital man wrote:
It shouldn't be about belief: it should be about the facts and yet, plainly, it is not.
At least in part because there's vested interests on both sides, so when one side presents a simplified generalisation, the other side looks for specifics that contradict it, so they can fight it out.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
It sounds like two things happened: 1 - the plant ceased to be profitable in operation 2 - the idiocy of carbon credits made it profitable to shut it down None of that really has anything to do with AGW.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
None of that really has anything to do with AGW.
Other than the fact that AGW is the raison d'etre of the Carbon Credits scheme, introduced to drive down the emissions of CO2, a GHG. If, say, Tata shuts down a modern, low emission, 'Redcar' plant in Europe, it receives carbon credits from the EU for the CO2 it will no longer emit. If Tata then builds a 'Redcar' plant in India, it gets carbon credits from the UN because the emissions from the plant are within the UN's emissions target. So Tata would continue to emit the same amount of CO2, but in India not Europe, and would also be paid by the EU and UN for their contribution to the reduction of CO2.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
Fair enough. I was asking a question, not making an accusation, thanks for the answer. So, tree ring data is another thing that shows that human activity is causing harm to natural patterns ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Could be, but given we haven't destroyed a planetary ecosystem before there's no way to be entirely sure. The biggest thing that the deniers have is that we can't be entirely sure what will happen. The facts fairly plainly say 'Something bad', but quantifying that isn't terribly easy when bad for one region cancels out another when everything is accounted for in a single number. It's a problem with the mindset that only considers what it believes to be entirely true. The likely result can be completely ignored because it isn't completely proven.
-
Could be, but given we haven't destroyed a planetary ecosystem before there's no way to be entirely sure. The biggest thing that the deniers have is that we can't be entirely sure what will happen. The facts fairly plainly say 'Something bad', but quantifying that isn't terribly easy when bad for one region cancels out another when everything is accounted for in a single number. It's a problem with the mindset that only considers what it believes to be entirely true. The likely result can be completely ignored because it isn't completely proven.
Well, the real issue is that on one side, you have people who want business as usual, on the other, you have people who would like to see a return to subsistence farming, which they've somehow romanticised. A friend said to me 'I've decided to believe in global warming, even if it's not true, why not stop pumping poison in the air'. Well, the answer is, no-one is randomly pumping poison, and pollution is the cost we pay for some of the benefits of our society. A greater awareness of cleaner options, and a discussion of how best to benefit humanity, that is, if we're going to do something about AGW, what can we do that has the best cost/benefit ratio, seems to me to be the sane approach. Another question might be, how much would it cost to do XXX about AGW, and, is AGW even the place that we can best benefit humanity ? I mean, if we can't change it, perhaps there's other ways to spend the same money that will help us more in the long run.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
None of that really has anything to do with AGW.
Other than the fact that AGW is the raison d'etre of the Carbon Credits scheme, introduced to drive down the emissions of CO2, a GHG. If, say, Tata shuts down a modern, low emission, 'Redcar' plant in Europe, it receives carbon credits from the EU for the CO2 it will no longer emit. If Tata then builds a 'Redcar' plant in India, it gets carbon credits from the UN because the emissions from the plant are within the UN's emissions target. So Tata would continue to emit the same amount of CO2, but in India not Europe, and would also be paid by the EU and UN for their contribution to the reduction of CO2.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Other than the fact that AGW is the raison d'etre of the Carbon Credits scheme,
Yes, but it's one step removed. If AGW is happening or not ( and it is, at least on some level ), if it's a threat to us or not, those questions are not answered by Carbon Credits, Carbon Credits are a political step designed to deal with AGW. Yes, there's a chain there, but if we did not have Carbon Credits, we would still have AGW.
Bob Emmett wrote:
So Tata would continue to emit the same amount of CO2, but in India not Europe, and would also be paid by the EU and UN for their contribution to the reduction of CO2.
Which is an indication of the insanity of carbon credits. But, that doesn't say much about AGW, it just tells you that people are dumb.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Well, the real issue is that on one side, you have people who want business as usual, on the other, you have people who would like to see a return to subsistence farming, which they've somehow romanticised. A friend said to me 'I've decided to believe in global warming, even if it's not true, why not stop pumping poison in the air'. Well, the answer is, no-one is randomly pumping poison, and pollution is the cost we pay for some of the benefits of our society. A greater awareness of cleaner options, and a discussion of how best to benefit humanity, that is, if we're going to do something about AGW, what can we do that has the best cost/benefit ratio, seems to me to be the sane approach. Another question might be, how much would it cost to do XXX about AGW, and, is AGW even the place that we can best benefit humanity ? I mean, if we can't change it, perhaps there's other ways to spend the same money that will help us more in the long run.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Another question might be, how much would it cost to do XXX about AGW, and, is AGW even the place that we can best benefit humanity ? I mean, if we can't change it, perhaps there's other ways to spend the same money that will help us more in the long run.
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you need a laugh, check out my Vodafone World of Difference application | If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
fat_boy wrote:
Why would Tata buy british steel (Chorous) and then close it down? Wheres the profut?
Tata bought Corus early in 2007 when there was a demand for steel. Corus (Redcar) had a 10 year contract to supply 4 customers with 78% of its output, with 7 years left to run. When the global market collapsed, the 4 customers simultaneously cancelled their contracts. Wham - excess capacity of 78% overnight. Attempts were made to find alternative customers for their output, failing that, a buyer for the plant. The glut in steel meant there were no buyers for the plant or its product. Regardless of Carbon Credits, there were sound commercial reasons for buying Corus, and there was a sound commercial reason to close the Redcar plant.
fat_boy wrote:
Its in the carbon credits.
I don't think Tata bought Corus with the aim of closing Redcar, and enjoying the benefits of carbon trading. But it would be a strange company, indeed, that did not play the idiotic schemes concocted by the EU and the UN to their advantage. If the Brazilians had been successful in acquiring Corus, and, inevitably, had closed down Redcar, who in the IPCC would you have scapegoated?
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Yeah, sure, lets run our industries on a short term view. We need dontneed steel this week, lets close the plant, when we do, we can just buy it form abroad! Seriously, the way countries are run today is pathetic. China, one of the few countries capable of mature thought, has been buying and stockpiling vast amounts of resources while they are cheap. OF ocurse in a few years when the market is back to normal they wil then be even more competetive. Good old UK just farts around from one knee jerk crisis response to another. Its pathetic. Look at Gordo selling off the govt shares in the banks! Why! Wait til they have gone up in value. Might even MAKE somn emoney for the UK tax payer!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
It sounds like two things happened: 1 - the plant ceased to be profitable in operation 2 - the idiocy of carbon credits made it profitable to shut it down None of that really has anything to do with AGW.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
the idiocy of carbon credits made it profitable to shut it down
Christian Graus wrote:
None of that really has anything to do with AGW
Eh? You just stated ONE of the reasons is entirely to do with AGW!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
On the other hand, while NASA is (correctly) stating that some of the claims and predictions being made could well be wrong ( which is what scientists do, are they saying they are DELIBERATELY wrong ? ), the CSIRO is publishing it's data on temperature change, etc, in Australia because they are concerned that while they have been observing climate change for a long time before the debate started, it worries them that a lot of people are still debating if there is any change happening at all, when the people who have access to the data, have known without doubt that it is changing for some time. There's a gap between the people who have access to the data, and the people who want to argue the religion. I have a friend who is a CSIRO scientist, as it happens.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.