• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Merchands of doubt losing the battle in the UK

S

Surface Detail

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 20, 2016
Messages
3,244
Reaction score
1,232
Location
English Midlands
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Survey of British adults on behalf of ECIU on climate change.

The majority of British adults (64%) recognise that climate change is happening, and that it is primarily due to human activity. This view has steadily become more prevalent since 2014 (57%) and 2015 (59%).
Click to expand...

Here in the UK, at least, people are starting to see through the lies and propaganda spread by those who are happy to risk rendering large parts of the Earth uninhabitable in order to maintain their profits. My guess is that, paradoxically, President Trump's election in the US is probably helping to change minds here. Given his very blatant lying in other areas (e.g. his inauguration attendance), his claim that AGW is a hoax tends more to convince people that AGW is actually true.
 
Surface Detail said:
Here in the UK, at least, people are starting to see through the lies and propaganda spread by those who are happy to risk rendering large parts of the Earth uninhabitable in order to maintain their profits. My guess is that, paradoxically, President Trump's election in the US is probably helping to change minds here. Given his very blatant lying in other areas (e.g. his inauguration attendance), his claim that AGW is a hoax tends more to convince people that AGW is actually true.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t your explanation actually mean the results less significant? You’re suggesting that it any change isn’t people being convinced by scientific evidence or well-made arguments but just the coincidence that some people in the public domain who oppose the idea happen to be less popular for totally unrelated reasons.

I’d also suggest that the wide variations in responses to this kind of question and the fact that the only valid answer to many of them could be said to be “That depends on what you mean” (which is why people like me tend to get excluded from results :( ) renders them pretty much meaningless. They’re only really being ask to back up pre-determined propaganda anyway (propaganda we agree with is still propaganda).
 
HonestJoe said:
Doesn’t your explanation actually mean the results less significant? You’re suggesting that it any change isn’t people being convinced by scientific evidence or well-made arguments but just the coincidence that some people in the public domain who oppose the idea happen to be less popular for totally unrelated reasons.

I’d also suggest that the wide variations in responses to this kind of question and the fact that the only valid answer to many of them could be said to be “That depends on what you mean” (which is why people like me tend to get excluded from results :( ) renders them pretty much meaningless. They’re only really being ask to back up pre-determined propaganda anyway (propaganda we agree with is still propaganda).
Click to expand...

I certainly don't agree with your second point. Propaganda is, by definition, biased or misleading information. Given that the reality of AGW is underpinned by very strong scientific evidence, it doesn't make sense to refer to statements of the reality of AGW as propaganda. The proper word would be "information". I refer explicitly to the statements made by those who claim, without evidence, the AGW isn't real as propaganda because such statements are indeed misleading.
 
Surface Detail said:
Survey of British adults on behalf of ECIU on climate change.



Here in the UK, at least, people are starting to see through the lies and propaganda spread by those who are happy to risk rendering large parts of the Earth uninhabitable in order to maintain their profits. My guess is that, paradoxically, President Trump's election in the US is probably helping to change minds here. Given his very blatant lying in other areas (e.g. his inauguration attendance), his claim that AGW is a hoax tends more to convince people that AGW is actually true.
Click to expand...
I am a bit curious, as to which large parts of the earth will be rendered uninhabitable, by our continuing to do business as usual?
Also why would the area be uninhabitable?
 
longview said:
I am a bit curious, as to which large parts of the earth will be rendered uninhabitable, by our continuing to do business as usual?
Also why would the area be uninhabitable?
Click to expand...

So you didn't even bother looking at the Hansen paper that I cited on the other thread before shouting it down? And you wonder why people call you deniers rather than skeptics? The main reason he gives is that the wet bulb temperature across large areas will simply be too high for humans to tolerate. Read for paper for more details.

Here it is again:

Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide
 
Surface Detail said:
I certainly don't agree with your second point. Propaganda is, by definition, biased or misleading information. Given that the reality of AGW is underpinned by very strong scientific evidence, it doesn't make sense to refer to statements of the reality of AGW as propaganda. The proper word would be "information". I refer explicitly to the statements made by those who claim, without evidence, the AGW isn't real as propaganda because such statements are indeed misleading.
Click to expand...
There were two issues I had with this survey that I feel leads to it being used as propaganda. It was very brief, very simplistic and funded by an organisation with a clear agenda (however positive that agenda may be).

The first is the attempt to create an impression that something is somehow more likely to be true if a slightly larger proportion of people surveyed say it is true (especially based on the likely reasons for that shift in results as suggested by the OP). I think those reasons would actually make the change a bad thing but rather than address that problem, the idea seems to be just to use the flawed results.

My second issue is with questions like “Is climate change mostly caused by human activity?” which is where my “That depends what you mean” answer comes in. Over-simplified questions designed to push for answers in a predetermined direction (and that could have easily been in the other direction for a survey funded by someone else). It doesn’t really mean anything and, more importantly, it doesn’t go anywhere to actually achieving anything in either public understanding of environmental issues or addressing any of the many problems in the field (of which human impact on climate change in just one).
 
Surface Detail said:
So you didn't even bother looking at the Hansen paper that I cited on the other thread before shouting it down? And you wonder why people call you deniers rather than skeptics? The main reason he gives is that the wet bulb temperature across large areas will simply be too high for humans to tolerate. Read for paper for more details.

Here it is again:

Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide
Click to expand...
Actually I am familiar with the various predictions from the IPCC, but was wondering about the uninhabitable statement.
and yes the criteria is in the article, it just is not realistic!
Burning all fossil fuels would produce a different, practically uninhabitable, planet. Let us first consider a 12 W m−2 greenhouse forcing, which we simulated with 8×CO2
Click to expand...
Well 8×CO2 from the pre industrial level of 270 ppm would be 2160 ppm, 4 doubling s of CO2.
It has taken Humanity 150 years of using every hydrocarbon fuel we could find to increase the CO2 level by 133 ppm,
It is unclear if we have enough easy access hydrocarbon fuel to complete the first doubling, to increase the level another 157 ppm,
must less another 1700 ppm.
Unrealistic hyperbole is an interesting language device, but has more value in propaganda than science!
 
longview said:
Actually I am familiar with the various predictions from the IPCC, but was wondering about the uninhabitable statement.
and yes the criteria is in the article, it just is not realistic!

Well 8×CO2 from the pre industrial level of 270 ppm would be 2160 ppm, 4 doubling s of CO2.
It has taken Humanity 150 years of using every hydrocarbon fuel we could find to increase the CO2 level by 133 ppm,
It is unclear if we have enough easy access hydrocarbon fuel to complete the first doubling, to increase the level another 157 ppm,
must less another 1700 ppm.
Unrealistic hyperbole is an interesting language device, but has more value in propaganda than science!
Click to expand...

You need to read a bit further:

If non-CO2 GHGs such as N2O and CH4 increase with global warming at the same rate as in the palaeoclimate record and atmospheric chemistry simulations, these other gases provide approximately 25% of the greenhouse forcing. The remaining 9 W m−2 forcing requires approximately 4.8×CO2, corresponding to fossil fuel emissions as much as approximately 10,000 Gt C for a conservative assumption of a CO2 airborne fraction averaging one-third over the 1000 years following a peak emission.
Click to expand...

In other words, the warming is simulated as 8x CO2, but this includes contributions due to other GHGs. The actual CO2 requirement is 4.8x, which is, apparently, feasible. Remember, we're getting better and better at extracting fossil fuels from the ground. Look at the development of shale oil, for example. So no, not hyperbole. Science.
 
Surface Detail said:
You need to read a bit further:



In other words, the warming is simulated as 8x CO2, but this includes contributions due to other GHGs. The actual CO2 requirement is Feb 22 08:37:10 ::ffff:12.39.169.2 local7:info Feb 22 2017 07:19:44: %ASA-6-302014: Teardown TCP connection 403823 for outside:73.206.176.204/22 to inside:192.168.230.2/50001 duration 0:06:51 bytes 10513 TCP FINs
, which is, apparently, feasible. Remember, we're getting better and better at extracting fossil fuels from the ground. Look at the development of shale oil, for example. So no, not hyperbole. Science.
Click to expand...
Remember that enhanced extraction techniques are expensive and shorten the life of the oil reservoir,
Still Humanity raising the CO2 level to 1296 ppm (4.8X) is a piece of hyperbole, as the market will cap oil at about $90 a barrel,
and much of the remaining oil is not economically viable at that level.
 
longview said:
Remember that enhanced extraction techniques are expensive and shorten the life of the oil reservoir,
Still Humanity raising the CO2 level to 1296 ppm (4.8X) is a piece of hyperbole, as the market will cap oil at about $90 a barrel,
and much of the remaining oil is not economically viable at that level.
Click to expand...

You think so? The market for oil is remarkably inelastic. WTI oil hit $139 in June 2008 and cost more than $90 barrel for most of the period Jan 2011 to September 2014 without much impact on demand.

Edit: Also, don't forget that enormous reserves of coal still exist.
 
Surface Detail said:
You think so? The market for oil is remarkably inelastic. WTI oil hit $139 in June 2008 and cost more than $90 barrel for most of the period Jan 2011 to September 2014 without much impact on demand.
Click to expand...
Technology does not stand still!
The idea of creating a finished fuel product from only, water, atmospheric CO2 and energy, is relatively new.
The individual pieces of the technology are old, but putting it all together is just going into production in the last few years.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...be-filling-up-with-synthetic-diesel-says-audi
Efficiency is said to be up to 70%, but we have not heard from the big players like Exxon and Shell, who hire
and fund the best and brightest petrochemical scientist in the world. (they also do not publish much of their research.)
From what I have read of the early research on this the process is not dissimilar to a modern cracking refinery.
(Audi bought an old refinery to start their research.)
You must keep in mind that oil companies do not sell oil for the most part, they sell finished fuel products,
whatever feedstock the refinery uses to make the finished fuel product with the most profit, wins!
The good news is that all those alternate energy solutions like solar and wind, that produced low density poor duty cycle power,
can now turn all the unused surplus into carbon neutral fuels, that can be used in existing vehicles, and with the existing distribution infrastructure.
 
Surface Detail said:
I certainly don't agree with your second point. Propaganda is, by definition, biased or misleading information. Given that the reality of AGW is underpinned by very strong scientific evidence, it doesn't make sense to refer to statements of the reality of AGW as propaganda. The proper word would be "information". I refer explicitly to the statements made by those who claim, without evidence, the AGW isn't real as propaganda because such statements are indeed misleading.
Click to expand...

Propaganda doesn't have to be biased although it perhaps is often misleading. All news is biased as it emphasizes one aspect over other aspects. And all propaganda has some basis in fact-if it doesn't, very few would believe it. Take the propaganda on the Iraq War. Most people believe that the US went to war because of WMD which is partly true but also certifiably wrong. The Congressional Resolution for the war listed the 23 reasons for the war. But when you repeat WMD all the time people believe it.

And proponents of legislation to combat AGW ignore science and don't seem to understand that if you attempt to ridicule the opposition you will get more resistance. That is basic social science. And when you align AGW concerns with a political party you further tick off people. Opponents sense that Democrats want to use AGW to expand government and increase corruption by benefiting political contributors. That is science. It would be helpful if the people most concerned about AGW sought win-win solutions and worked with opponents and treated them with respect. There has been talk of more free market centered solutions that Romney and other Republicans favor but that gets lost in the noise. Economists recognize the problem with the commons-no one care about that which is own by the public. The free market solution is pigovian taxes that are revenue neutral. But doesn't allow for generating political contributions and fraud.
 
Eric7216 said:
Propaganda doesn't have to be biased although it perhaps is often misleading. All news is biased as it emphasizes one aspect over other aspects. And all propaganda has some basis in fact-if it doesn't, very few would believe it. Take the propaganda on the Iraq War. Most people believe that the US went to war because of WMD which is partly true but also certifiably wrong. The Congressional Resolution for the war listed the 23 reasons for the war. But when you repeat WMD all the time people believe it.

And proponents of legislation to combat AGW ignore science and don't seem to understand that if you attempt to ridicule the opposition you will get more resistance. That is basic social science. And when you align AGW concerns with a political party you further tick off people. Opponents sense that Democrats want to use AGW to expand government and increase corruption by benefiting political contributors. That is science. It would be helpful if the people most concerned about AGW sought win-win solutions and worked with opponents and treated them with respect. There has been talk of more free market centered solutions that Romney and other Republicans favor but that gets lost in the noise. Economists recognize the problem with the commons-no one care about that which is own by the public. The free market solution is pigovian taxes that are revenue neutral. But doesn't allow for generating political contributions and fraud.
Click to expand...

I would be very happy indeed with the use of pigovian taxes to combat climate change by putting a price on negative externalities as, I'm sure, would many others concerned at climate change. Such taxes are generally the favoured solution of economists, and I have always argued in their favour. The prime opposition to their use comes not from the left or from environmentalists, but from the far right of the political spectrum. If Romney and other Republicans were to campaign on such a ticket (and if I lived in the US :) ) they would certainly get my vote.
 
Surface Detail said:
Survey of British adults on behalf of ECIU on climate change.



Here in the UK, at least, people are starting to see through the lies and propaganda spread by those who are happy to risk rendering large parts of the Earth uninhabitable in order to maintain their profits. My guess is that, paradoxically, President Trump's election in the US is probably helping to change minds here. Given his very blatant lying in other areas (e.g. his inauguration attendance), his claim that AGW is a hoax tends more to convince people that AGW is actually true.
Click to expand...

Government indoctrination in the UK has been high though.

Looked at globally climate change is pretty near the bottom of peoples concerns ..... and you've already been shown this

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...e-change-ranks-bottom-of-concerns-in-un-poll/

You might care but most don't
 
flogger said:
Government indoctrination in the UK has been high though.

Looked at globally climate change is pretty near the bottom of peoples concerns ..... and you've already been shown this

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...e-change-ranks-bottom-of-concerns-in-un-poll/

You might care but most don't
Click to expand...

Government indoctrination? Do you really think there is some worldwide mass conspiracy to invent AGW?

Do you think the moon landings happened? That 9/11 was an inside job? Both of these would be far easier to pull off than the sort of global scientific plot that an AGW hoax would require.
 
Surface Detail said:
Government indoctrination? Do you really think there is some worldwide mass conspiracy to invent AGW?

Do you think the moon landings happened? That 9/11 was an inside job? Both of these would be far easier to pull off than the sort of global scientific plot that an AGW hoax would require.
Click to expand...

So you missed the governments hysterical Act On CO2 campaign that used this sort of disinformation to scare the kiddies?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDthR9RH0gw

And if the kiddies refuse to be scared you then blow them up !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR73mcZW7B4

No indoctrination to see here right ?
 
flogger said:
So you missed the governments hysterical Act On CO2 campaign that used this sort of disinformation to scare the kiddies?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDthR9RH0gw

And if the kiddies refuse to be scared you then blow them up !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR73mcZW7B4

No indoctrination to see here right ?
Click to expand...

The first film is factually correct, while the second film has nothing to do with the UK or any other government. Looks like the misinformation is coming from you. The real evildoers are the people like you who are prepared to ruin our children's futures purely for their own profit. Just don't tell them what you're doing!
 
Last edited:
flogger said:
If they were factually accurate they would not have been so hurriedly withdrawn.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/09/uk-television-ad-for-action-on-co2-is-beyond-bad-taste/

£6 million of our taxpayers money squandered just to scare our kids about something they have no influence on
Click to expand...

The first example you gave was factually accurate. The ASA said so. We know that you deniers would rather that children be kept ignorant of the real state of affairs, but frankly I think the government has a duty to educate all of us on the realities of life, not to pander to special interests who'd rather keep us in the dark.

And, as I said, your second example was nothing to do with the UK or any other government.
 
Surface Detail said:
The first example you gave was factually accurate. The ASA said so. We know that you deniers would rather that children be kept ignorant of the real state of affairs, but frankly I think the government has a duty to educate all of us on the realities of life, not to pander to special interests who'd rather keep us in the dark.
Click to expand...

The whole campaign got quickly dumped due to the complaints about its distortions and exaggerations which says enough.

You've already been shown just how inconsequential this issue is with people in a UN poll of millions globally. And it has been becoming ever more so over the last decade as the predicted disasters have failed to materialise
 
Last edited:
flogger said:
The whole campaign got quickly dumped due to the complaints about its distortions and exaggerations which says enough.

You've already been shown just how inconsequential this issue is with people in a UN poll of millions globally. And it has been becoming ever more so over the last decade as the predicted disasters have failed to materialise
Click to expand...

No, it got dumped because of pressure from vested interests who'd rather we were kept in the dark.

Which disasters were predicted by scientists for the last decade? I know you deniers struggle with the concept of timescales, but you need to understand that climate change happens slowly. It is our children and grandchildren who will reap the consequences of our negligence, rather than us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom