• 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!

Climate change denalism has been a willful lie from day one

Jetboogieman

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
35,170
Reaction score
44,121
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Pretty good video, Republicans and big oil companies created denialism to protect their industry and today it has a life of its own with right wing American believing it and spreading the propaganda all by themselves with the help of what have to be paid posters and we all know who they are.



Climate change denialism is a lie, it always has been.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Pretty good video, Republicans and big oil companies created denialism to protect their industry and today it has a life of its own with right wing American believing it and spreading the propaganda all by themselves with the help of what have to be paid posters and we all know who they are.



Climate change denialism is a lie, it always has been.
Click to expand...


*ahem*

Corrupt government scientists funded by the Big Green Lobby, showing off by driving their 2002 Honda Accords around are the real greedy liars.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Pretty good video, Republicans and big oil companies created denialism to protect their industry and today it has a life of its own with right wing American believing it and spreading the propaganda all by themselves with the help of what have to be paid posters and we all know who they are.



Climate change denialism is a lie, it always has been.
Click to expand...


Sobering video. We need to remember that there exists a massive anti-science campaign, and many people have swallowed the lies, hook, line, and sinker. :(
 
Jetboogieman said:
Pretty good video, Republicans and big oil companies created denialism to protect their industry and today it has a life of its own with right wing American believing it and spreading the propaganda all by themselves with the help of what have to be paid posters and we all know who they are.



Climate change denialism is a lie, it always has been.
Click to expand...
Do you understand on how many levels this guy is wrong on?
Exxon scientist did not discover the greenhouse effect in the 1970's, it had been being speculated
about for almost a century already, as a cause for the ice ages.
He then says that Exxon started raising their offshore drilling rigs higher, and shows a picture of
a simi submersible rig (they float).
Also there is still a debate as to the level of forcing that CO2 can produce,
the number of 3.71 Wm-2 is well accepted, but there is no empirical support for this number, it is simply an educated guess.
Over the last few decades the number has been stated as anywhere between 3.44 Wm-2 to 4.25 Wm-2,
but an accurate change in CO2 over a change in forcing has not been observed.
Beyond the CO2 forcing comes the much more speculative feedback amplification,
while the forcing has been detected, as of yet, no level of amplified feedback outside of the noise
level has been detected.
Few people are denying climate science, most are simply skeptical that climate science is being held to the same
standard of the other sciences.
 
I'd accept Climate Science:
If climate science wasn't pushed as an absolute in schools.
If the predictions from climate science seemed to be true.
If climate science didn't confuse accuracy and precision.
If climate scientists didn't rig the peer review process.
If climate scientists didn’t sabotage scientific careers.
If IPCC reports weren't re-written after final approval.
If climate scientists didn't try to sue the opposition.
If climate scientists didn't appear to fudge the data.
If climate scientists didn't resort to name-calling.
If climate scientists complied with FOI requests.
If climate scientists agreed to debate the issue.
If climate scientists didn’t exaggerate findings.
If climate scientists didn’t rig grant programs.


Canards BS & lies:
Methane is 86 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat.
Warm sea water is melting Antarctica from below.
Thermal expansion affects world-wide sea level.
Water vapor rains out after a few days.
People depend on glaciers for water.
Burning biomass is carbon neutral.
Methane from Cattle is a problem.
Sea level rise is accelerating.
Polar bears are going extinct.
CFCs caused the Ozone Hole.
The deep ocean is warming.
Average world temperature.
97% of scientists agree.
Coral reefs are dying.
Drought is increasing.
Antarctica is melting.
Greenland is melting.
Ocean acidification.
 
First of all, CO2 is no more a pollutant than Oxygen or Nitrogen, it makes up about .04% of the gasses in our atmosphere. To call for the removal of CO2 in our atmosphere is calling for the extinction of life on this planet, it's that simple.
 
Phys251 said:
Sobering video. We need to remember that there exists a massive anti-science campaign, and many people have swallowed the lies, hook, line, and sinker. :(
Click to expand...

You would be a prime example.

Ask yourself what level of science understanding do you have? Was physics your strong subject at school?

Are those nasty Skeptics generally decent at basic science?

What exactly is there to fear from a slightly warmer world where you are? Anything at all? So where is the bad place then?

Unless you have very strong answers to these questions you are in the wrong.
 
There are overwhelming evidence that the fossil fuel companies have known about climate change for many decades while at the same time funding disinformation.

“Data on how effective this strategy has been is hard to come by, but anecdotal evidence of its success abounds. In the early 1990s, polls showed that about 80 percent of Americans were aware of climate change and accepted that something must be done about it, an opinion that crossed party lines. By 2008, Gallup found a marked partisan divide on climate change. By 2010, the American public’s belief in climate change hit an all-time low of 48 percent, despite the fact that those 20 years saw increased research, improved climate models and several climate change predictions coming true.

By demanding “balance,” the industry transformed climate change into a partisan issue. We know that was a deliberate strategy because various internal documents from ExxonMobil, Shell, the American Petroleum Institute and a handful of now-defunct fossil fuel industry groups reveal not only the industry’s strategy to target media with this message and these experts, but also its own preemptive debunking of the very theories it went on to support.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/10/how-fossil-fuel-industry-got-media-think-climate-change-was-debatable/?utm_term=.cb49c85af184

There you also for example the the The Climate Deception Dossier that documents decades of misinformation.

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf
 
Fossil fuel companies massive disinformation campaigns is a big reason for that we are now running out of time dealing with the devasting effects of manmade global warming.

"The past decade has seen an astonishing run of record-breaking storms, forest fires, droughts, coral bleaching, heat waves, and floods around the world with just 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1.0 degrees Celsius) of global warming. [See: Hidden Costs of Climate Change Running Hundreds of Billions a Year] But much of this will get substantially worse with 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit of warming, and far worse at 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), according to the IPCC’s “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C”, released Sunday and examining more than 6,000 studies.

The IPCC also reported that 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit could be reached in as little as 11 years—and almost certainly within 20 years without major cuts in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Even if such cuts were to begin immediately it would only delay, not prevent, 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming."

There even federal agencies under Donald Trump are acknowledging the devasting effects of manmade global warming.

Fourth National Climate Assessment

While thankfully more and more people are making their voices heard and demanding action on climate change. For example that you will have climate events in over one hundred countries and over one hundred American towns and cities during friday.

Map - FridaysForFuture
 
The money quote from Ghost Busters:

image.png


The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H. L. Mencken

Global Warming/Climate Change fits that to a tee.
 
Tim the plumber said:
You would be a prime example.

Ask yourself what level of science understanding do you have? Was physics your strong subject at school?

Are those nasty Skeptics generally decent at basic science?

What exactly is there to fear from a slightly warmer world where you are? Anything at all? So where is the bad place then?

Unless you have very strong answers to these questions you are in the wrong.
Click to expand...
:lamo

0/10 projection attempt. So dull. So pathetically predictable.

Try again, this time with less denialism. Who exactly do you think you are to question climate science? We're still waiting for your expert research.
 
Phys251 said:
:lamo

0/10 projection attempt. So dull. So pathetically predictable.

Try again, this time with less denialism. Who exactly do you think you are to question climate science? We're still waiting for your expert research.
Click to expand...

You have no clue about any science what so ever.

You have demonstrated this time and again.

You will never be able to participate usefully in any climate discussion constructively until you choose to learn very basic stuff. To look at very basic stuff. To think for yourself.
 
Tim the plumber said:
You have no clue about any science what so ever.

You have demonstrated this time and again.

You will never be able to participate usefully in any climate discussion constructively until you choose to learn very basic stuff. To look at very basic stuff. To think for yourself.
Click to expand...

You have no clue about any science what so ever.

You have demonstrated this time and again.

You will never be able to participate usefully in any climate discussion constructively until you choose to learn very basic stuff. To look at very basic stuff. To think for yourself.
 
Phys251 said:
You have no clue about any science what so ever.

You have demonstrated this time and again.

You will never be able to participate usefully in any climate discussion constructively until you choose to learn very basic stuff. To look at very basic stuff. To think for yourself.
Click to expand...

Let's have a quiz;

I'll set a question and the rest of us can see if you can answer it. Then you have a go.

1: If 400Gt of melt water flows into the ocean and is warmed up by it's new situation to a temperature of 4c before it drops into the depths how much thermal energy did this take? ( score 2 points, 100 required to be considered decent at basic physics)
 
Tim the plumber said:
Let's have a quiz;

I'll set a question and the rest of us can see if you can answer it. Then you have a go.

1: If 400Gt of melt water flows into the ocean and is warmed up by it's new situation to a temperature of 4c before it drops into the depths how much thermal energy did this take? ( score 2 points, 100 required to be considered decent at basic physics)
Click to expand...

You think you get to ask the thermodynamics questions, as if you were the climate expert! That is adorable! I'm sure you factored in things such as evaporation, the max density of water is about 4C, water's heating capacity depends on temperature, etc. when asking that. ;)

Here's what really matters: Let's suppose for the moment that the scientific opinion on climate change were actually wrong. That the approximately 97% of scientific papers on climate that agree that primarily human activity is warming the Earth, are all wrong. That somehow the other 3% or so actually got it right. Let's also suppose that it does not matter that no major, reputable scientific organization has a public position against AGW, not even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists as of 2007.

You have any idea how difficult this would be to pull off? That there were some sort of massive conspiracy to cover up science? I can assure you, we would have found out about this long, long before the deniers ever got their feet wet. It'd be down there with the scientific hoaxes such as the thoroughly-debunked view that people's intelligence depends on their ethnicity.

But since you clearly believe that it's all a hoax, I challenge you to get out there and prove it. Don't just bang away at your keyboard: Actually do research like a scientist and publish like a scientist. Shouldn't be that hard, right?
 
Phys251 said:
You think you get to ask the thermodynamics questions, as if you were the climate expert! That is adorable! I'm sure you factored in things such as evaporation, the max density of water is about 4C, water's heating capacity depends on temperature, etc. when asking that. ;)

Here's what really matters: Let's suppose for the moment that the scientific opinion on climate change were actually wrong. That the approximately 97% of scientific papers on climate that agree that primarily human activity is warming the Earth, are all wrong. That somehow the other 3% or so actually got it right. Let's also suppose that it does not matter that no major, reputable scientific organization has a public position against AGW, not even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists as of 2007.

You have any idea how difficult this would be to pull off? That there were some sort of massive conspiracy to cover up science? I can assure you, we would have found out about this long, long before the deniers ever got their feet wet. It'd be down there with the scientific hoaxes such as the thoroughly-debunked view that people's intelligence depends on their ethnicity.

But since you clearly believe that it's all a hoax, I challenge you to get out there and prove it. Don't just bang away at your keyboard: Actually do research like a scientist and publish like a scientist. Shouldn't be that hard, right?
Click to expand...

Just try to answer the very basic physics question.

No ideas about anything complex like entropy are needed. No extra factors such as evaporation are needed. You have all the information you need. A reasonable close number will do.

I am not a climate expert. I just a plumber. We do this stuff in plumbing. It s not hard. It is needed if you are going to ever understand anything about climate science.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Just try to answer the very basic physics question.

No ideas about anything complex like entropy are needed. No extra factors such as evaporation are needed. You have all the information you need. A reasonable close number will do.
Click to expand...


"Come on, Charlie Brown. Kick the football. I won't yank it from under you this time." Oh, it's so tempting, so tempting... Fine, I'll trust you this once. With some simplifying assumptions and taking a heat capacity of about 4.2 J/(g*K), it'd take about 6.7e18 J to warm up all that water.

I am not a climate expert. I just a plumber. We do this stuff in plumbing. It s not hard. It is needed if you are going to ever understand anything about climate science.
Click to expand...

Finally a moment of truth from you. Now Post 18 really has some importance to it.
 
Phys251 said:
"Come on, Charlie Brown. Kick the football. I won't yank it from under you this time." Oh, it's so tempting, so tempting... Fine, I'll trust you this once. With some simplifying assumptions and taking a heat capacity of about 4.2 J/(g*K), it'd take about 6.7e18 J to warm up all that water.



Finally a moment of truth from you. Now Post 18 really has some importance to it.
Click to expand...

Well done you have shown that you have a basic understanding of heat energy. Although how you got to 6.7 from 4.2 x 4 is odd. 16.8 x 10^18J would be expected I think. Still it'll do.

Your question. Fire away.
 
Phys251 said:
You think you get to ask the thermodynamics questions, as if you were the climate expert! That is adorable! I'm sure you factored in things such as evaporation, the max density of water is about 4C, water's heating capacity depends on temperature, etc. when asking that. ;)

Here's what really matters: Let's suppose for the moment that the scientific opinion on climate change were actually wrong. That the approximately 97% of scientific papers on climate that agree that primarily human activity is warming the Earth, are all wrong. That somehow the other 3% or so actually got it right. Let's also suppose that it does not matter that no major, reputable scientific organization has a public position against AGW, not even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists as of 2007.

You have any idea how difficult this would be to pull off? That there were some sort of massive conspiracy to cover up science? I can assure you, we would have found out about this long, long before the deniers ever got their feet wet. It'd be down there with the scientific hoaxes such as the thoroughly-debunked view that people's intelligence depends on their ethnicity.

But since you clearly believe that it's all a hoax, I challenge you to get out there and prove it. Don't just bang away at your keyboard: Actually do research like a scientist and publish like a scientist. Shouldn't be that hard, right?
Click to expand...

Do you understand that the scientific opinion on climate change is that it has warmed in the last century,
and that Human activity has likely played a roll.
The consensus is not the full suite of catastrophic predictions or any quantifiable number.
This means that there is no conspiracy, no hoax, just a range of estimates and opinions, ranging from no big deal to catastrophic.
The observed data shows that they really should take the catastrophic end out of consideration, because it is based
of estimates that are likely not possible.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Well done you have shown that you have a basic understanding of heat energy. Although how you got to 6.7 from 4.2 x 4 is odd. 16.8 x 10^18J would be expected I think. Still it'll do.
Click to expand...


4e14 kg X 4 Kelvins X 4200 J/(kg*K) = 6.72e18 J. Note that you said "meltwater," which implies a starting temperature of 0C.

Your question. Fire away.
Click to expand...

See Post 15. Starting from the second paragraph.
 
Phys251 said:
4e14 kg X 4 Kelvins X 4200 J/(kg*K) = 6.72e18 J. Note that you said "meltwater," which implies a starting temperature of 0C.



See Post 15. Starting from the second paragraph.
Click to expand...

If there are 4Gt where is the 14e from?

4Gt x 4 degree change x 4.2 J/c/g

Here's what really matters: Let's suppose for the moment that the scientific opinion on climate change were actually wrong. That the approximately 97% of scientific papers on climate that agree that primarily human activity is warming the Earth, are all wrong. That somehow the other 3% or so actually got it right. Let's also suppose that it does not matter that no major, reputable scientific organization has a public position against AGW, not even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists as of 2007.

You have any idea how difficult this would be to pull off? That there were some sort of massive conspiracy to cover up science? I can assure you, we would have found out about this long, long before the deniers ever got their feet wet. It'd be down there with the scientific hoaxes such as the thoroughly-debunked view that people's intelligence depends on their ethnicity.

But since you clearly believe that it's all a hoax, I challenge you to get out there and prove it. Don't just bang away at your keyboard: Actually do research like a scientist and publish like a scientist. Shouldn't be that hard, right?
Click to expand...

So you can point out some sort of all that science that actually says that there is a real problem showing where and what that problem will be?

If so you win.

Remember it has to be a problem, not lots of hand waving at loads of spurious stuff, and a location.
 
longview said:
Do you understand that the scientific opinion on climate change is that it has warmed in the last century,
and that Human activity has likely played a roll.
Click to expand...

Interesting. In your personal opinion, what is the percent likelihood that human actions have played a statistically significant role in the warming of the Earth?

The consensus is not the full suite of catastrophic predictions or any quantifiable number.
This means that there is no conspiracy, no hoax, just a range of estimates and opinions, ranging from no big deal to catastrophic.
The observed data shows that they really should take the catastrophic end out of consideration, because it is based
of estimates that are likely not possible.
Click to expand...

Fascinating. You act as if the variability in long-term projections falsifies them all.

Might be worth considering what's going to happen to planet Earth under each of those scenarios given their likelihoods, don't you think?
 
Tim the plumber said:
If there are 4Gt where is the 14e from?

4Gt x 4 degree change x 4.2 J/c/g
Click to expand...

You said 400Gt, not 4 Gt, in Post 14. 400 Gt = 4e11 tonnes = 4e14 kg.

So you can point out some sort of all that science that actually says that there is a real problem showing where and what that problem will be?

If so you win.

Remember it has to be a problem, not lots of hand waving at loads of spurious stuff, and a location.
Click to expand...

Ah, there's Lucy and the American football again... The phrasing of your question suggests a demand to produce a deterministic prediction. "In Year X, this point on the globe will be Y degrees warmer on average than it is today." Surely you know that different models about future climates make different predictions, right? And that experts are up-front about the variation in these predictions, right?

There's another issue that doesn't get raised enough. The costs of inaction. Is that something humanity really needs to take a chance on?
 
Phys251 said:
Interesting. In your personal opinion, what is the percent likelihood that human actions have played a statistically significant role in the warming of the Earth?



Fascinating. You act as if the variability in long-term projections falsifies them all.

Might be worth considering what's going to happen to planet Earth under each of those scenarios given their likelihoods, don't you think?
Click to expand...
Statistical significance is not a very low bar, usually 5%, but Human activity has played several roles in the increase
of the average temperature. Personally I would place the percentage of the warming from Human activity at about 69%,
but we do not know enough to actually quantify the components.
Why 69%, well of the .88 C of observed warming, .28 C is occurred before 1950, and is acknowledged to be natural,
The balance 69% could possibly be from Human activity, so I will give the benefit of the doubt to human activity.

Consider added CO2, do we go with the calculated number or the observed one?
Do we calculate the energy imbalance at the troposphere, or the top of the atmosphere?
How much of the observed warming is from our successful efforts to clear aerosols from the atmosphere?

No I do not act like variability in long-term projections falsifies them all, but attempt to apply the observation of
the climates past responses to perturbations to the predictions.
Even if we assume that the 2XCO2 forcing number is 3.71 Wm-2 (which is not in evidence), then the amount of forcing warming,(perturbation)
would be 1.1 C, to get to an ECS of 3 C, would require the feedbacks to produce an amplification factor of 2.72. (1.1 X 2.72=2.992)
The question becomes, has such an amplification factor, been observed from earlier perturbations?
We have a test case, the pre 1950 .28 C natural warming, and we can use Hansen's latency factor of 37.5 years for 60% of ECS.
Only considering cycle 1, between 1950 and 1988, a 2.72 amplification factor would produce (2.8 X 2.72=.762 C).
Hum! That does not fit with the forcing estimate, which has the instantaneous forcing warming at (5.35 X ln(410/280))= (2.04 X .3)=.612C.
Since .762 + .612 =1.37 C, and that is higher than the observed .88 C total warming (Hadcrut4), then ether the forcing factor, or the amplification factor are too high.
It is actually worse than that, if we assume that the forcing number for CO2 is correct, then the amplification factor needs to be a minor attenuation factor.
.88 C - .612 C =.268 C, but that would be in response to a .28 C input.

lastly, scenarios are about the timing and not the effect.
 
Phys251 said:
Interesting. In your personal opinion, what is the percent likelihood that human actions have played a statistically significant role in the warming of the Earth?[1]



Fascinating. You act as if the variability in long-term projections falsifies them all.

[2]Might be worth considering what's going to happen to planet Earth under each of those scenarios given their likelihoods, don't you think?
Click to expand...

1, About 95%.

2, Yes. Let's look at them. Where in the world would you like to start?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom