• 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

I get what you are saying, but you say it as a near absolute, since you push the idea after evidence is shown it is likely different.

D-K effect if full force...
 
Tim the plumber said:
Humans evolved in Africa. We do well in hot temperatures.

I don't know about 120,000 years ago but the Holocene Optimal some 3,000 to 5,000 yeas ago was at least 1c warmer than today with strong evidence that it may have been 3c or more warmer.
Click to expand...

Humans flourished in the equatorial areas because during the ice age, it was a moderate temperature.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I get what you are saying, but you say it as a near absolute, since you push the idea after evidence is shown it is likely different.

D-K effect if full force...
Click to expand...

You haven't actually given any evidence :roll:

How fast do tree lines respond to temperature changes? I don't know, and nor do you. Certainly with a lag of a least decades - trees take time to grow to maturity.
 
Surface Detail said:
You haven't actually given any evidence :roll:

How fast do tree lines respond to temperature changes? I don't know, and nor do you. Certainly with a lag of a least decades - trees take time to grow to maturity.
Click to expand...
You showed no evidence at all. I showed viable facts.

Yes they do, but how mature of trees are we talking about? How tall and what type?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Humans flourished in the equatorial areas because during the ice age, it was a moderate temperature.
Click to expand...

And continued to flourish in the Holocene Optimal when it was a bit warmer than now. Like 2c warmer, probably.

Us humans continue to flourish in the hot areas of the world although we need to get better at managing the lad there. I think there is a massive movement doing that though see;

YouTube

Worth watching to brighten your day a lot.
 
Last edited:
Surface Detail said:
You haven't actually given any evidence :roll:

How fast do tree lines respond to temperature changes? I don't know, and nor do you. Certainly with a lag of a least decades - trees take time to grow to maturity.
Click to expand...

Which takes the fast spikes of warm times out of the record. The record, from that proxy, is of minimum temperatures over decades. Or at least minimum growing seasons.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
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
Click to expand...

There has never been a significant level of funding for climate skeptics by corporations. This is in the face of $billions of government money for scientists who toe the man made global warming line.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Which takes the fast spikes of warm times out of the record. The record, from that proxy, is of minimum temperatures over decades. Or at least minimum growing seasons.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. Which means that the recent fast spike resulting from human CO2 emissions is also taken out of the record! Hence it is impossible to claim that temperatures in the past were higher than they currently are in 2019 purely from treeline data. So you cannot use this paper as evidence for temperatures being 2C higher in the HTM than they are now.

So, what evidence do you have that the temperature in the HTM was 2C higher than now?
 
Surface Detail said:
Yes, exactly. Which means that the recent fast spike resulting from human CO2 emissions is also taken out of the record! Hence it is impossible to claim that temperatures in the past were higher than they currently are in 2019 purely from treeline data. So you cannot use this paper as evidence for temperatures being 2C higher in the HTM than they are now.

So, what evidence do you have that the temperature in the HTM was 2C higher than now?
Click to expand...

So they must have been higher, by about 2c, 400m further up the mountain side, than the 1980 temperature, there being loads of time for trees to grow since then.
 
LowDown said:
There has never been a significant level of funding for climate skeptics by corporations. This is in the face of $billions of government money for scientists who toe the man made global warming line.
Click to expand...

Where'd you get this information? Do you have a link? How about this...

Nir Shaviv - SourceWatch

If Exxon-Mobile and the Koch brothers Heartland Institute invest $114 Million into a couple conferences, and they use Nir Shaviv as their keynote speaker, you can bet your life that he made enough in 2 speeches to retire.
 
Tim the plumber said:
So they must have been higher, by about 2c, 400m further up the mountain side, than the 1980 temperature, there being loads of time for trees to grow since then.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a desparate attempt to inflate the historical temperatures of the period.
 
Media_Truth said:
Sounds like a desparate attempt to inflate the historical temperatures of the period.
Click to expand...

Eh??????

How does that work?

We know, for this location, that the past has had extended periods of warmer climate, +2c or so, for periods long enough to allow trees to grow.

We do not know if there were any short periods of warmth. Those would not show in this proxy.

Which historical (we are talking prehistory here....) temperature records are you talking about.
 
LowDown said:
There has never been a significant level of funding for climate skeptics by corporations.
Click to expand...

Sure.

This is in the face of $billions of government money for scientists who toe the man made global warming line.
Click to expand...

If it's all BS, that would mean the governments are willfully funding themselves a massive problem. It would be far easier for everybody and cheaper for almost everybody if the denial line put out by Heartland was correct.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Sure.



If it's all BS, that would mean the governments are willfully funding themselves a massive problem. It would be far easier for everybody and cheaper for almost everybody if the denial line put out by Heartland was correct.
Click to expand...

If you wanted to justify an increase in taxation, general gain in power for you as a politician why would you want this to go away?
 
Tim the plumber said:

If you wanted to justify an increase in taxation, general gain in power for you as a politician why would you want this to go away?
Click to expand...

Oh, the "commie plot" angle. It's easier to just ramp up what's there and tax it, it seems to me.

There are a lot of facets to government, and most of them wouldn't gain anything. Plus, on a personal level most would lose.

Why does the U.S. DoD believe this stuff?

I don't buy the commie conspiracies - I learned to laugh at that stuff as a child in the 1960's.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Oh, the "commie plot" angle. It's easier to just ramp up what's there and tax it, it seems to me.

There are a lot of facets to government, and most of them wouldn't gain anything. Plus, on a personal level most would lose.

Why does the U.S. DoD believe this stuff?

I don't buy the commie conspiracies - I learned to laugh at that stuff as a child in the 1960's.
Click to expand...

Actually, with the release of files after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we now know many of those conspiracies were real.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Oh, the "commie plot" angle. It's easier to just ramp up what's there and tax it, it seems to me.

There are a lot of facets to government, and most of them wouldn't gain anything. Plus, on a personal level most would lose.

Why does the U.S. DoD believe this stuff?

I don't buy the commie conspiracies - I learned to laugh at that stuff as a child in the 1960's.
Click to expand...

For reasons of making more money for large land owners the US uses 40%+ of grain for biofuel. This is obviously a massive thing that the agri-lobby likes. They want this extra government to happen.

The companies which have wind farms do so only because the government throws money at them. More power for the politicians. More back handers in the mix.
 
Jack Hays said:
Actually, with the release of files after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we now know many of those conspiracies were real.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the commie plots. My grandmother had Blue Jeans and Rock Music on the list.

But if you have any non-industry evidence, post it.

The Oilies and the Greenies are both accusing each other of conspiring to make money. What's more capitalistic than that?
 
Tim the plumber said:

For reasons of making more money for large land owners the US uses 40%+ of grain for biofuel. This is obviously a massive thing that the agri-lobby likes. They want this extra government to happen.

The companies which have wind farms do so only because the government throws money at them. More power for the politicians. More back handers in the mix.
Click to expand...

Likewise the oil companies. What's your point? You know any industry that doesn't lobby for itself?
Big Oil Spends Millions Lobbying For Its Subsidies | CleanTechnica
The Green Lobby is a “Special Interest,” Too | The Fiscal Times

Ban it all - I have no issue with that. I said before that I'm not a biofuel fan.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I'm talking about the commie plots. My grandmother had Blue Jeans and Rock Music on the list.

But if you have any non-industry evidence, post it.

The Oilies and the Greenies are both accusing each other of conspiring to make money. What's more capitalistic than that?
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the "commie plots" too, the ones that turned out to be real.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm talking about the "commie plots" too, the ones that turned out to be real.
Click to expand...

Have a list? We can compare it to Bircher agitprop from the era and see what the hit rate was.

Jeans and rock are rather harmless, but they wanted them banned.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Likewise the oil companies. What's your point? You know any industry that doesn't lobby for itself?
Big Oil Spends Millions Lobbying For Its Subsidies | CleanTechnica
The Green Lobby is a “Special Interest,” Too | The Fiscal Times

Ban it all - I have no issue with that. I said before that I'm not a biofuel fan.
Click to expand...

So you think that the idea that the state likes the CAGW hype is mad but agree that there are a lot of vested interests who are very effective who profit from it.

Can you see that is mad?
 
Tim the plumber said:
So you think that the idea that the state likes the CAGW hype is mad but agree that there are a lot of vested interests who are very effective who profit from it.

Can you see that is mad?
Click to expand...

No. I can see the potential for profit on both sides of this, but the current state is that the amount of vesting is far greater on the oily side.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Got a bigger number?

33T is a lot of change. I'd be protecting it too, most likely.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Have a list? We can compare it to Bircher agitprop from the era and see what the hit rate was.

Jeans and rock are rather harmless, but they wanted them banned.
Click to expand...

We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History by John Lewis Gaddis, Oxford University Press.
Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America​ by John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr and Alexander Vassiliev, Yale University Press.
 
The OP of this thread is an excellent example of the problem.

Why I don’t ‘believe’ in ‘science’

Posted on March 26, 2019 by curryja | 32 comments
by Judith Curry
” ‘I believe in science’ is an homage given to science by people who generally don’t understand much about it. Science is used here not to describe specific methods or theories, but to provide a badge of tribal identity. Which serves, ironically, to demonstrate a lack of interest in the guiding principles of actual science.” – Robert Tracinski
Continue reading →

Robert Tracinski has published a superb essay entitled Why I don’t ‘believe’ in ‘science’. Excerpts:
begin quote:
For some years now, one of the left’s favorite tropes has been the phrase “I believe in science.” Elizabeth Warren stated it recently in a pretty typical form: “I believe in science. And anyone who doesn’t has no business making decisions about our environment.” This was in response to news that scientists who are skeptical of global warming might be allowed to have a voice in shaping public policy.
t captures a lot of what annoys the rest of us about the “I believe in science” crowd. It reduces a serious intellectual issue—a whole worldview and method of thought—to a signifier of social group identity.
Some people may use “I believe in science” as vague shorthand for confidence in the ability of the scientific method to achieve valid results, or maybe for the view that the universe is governed by natural laws which are discoverable through observation and reasoning.
But the way most people use it today—especially in a political context—is pretty much the opposite. They use it as a way of declaring belief in a proposition which is outside their knowledge and which they do not understand. . . .


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom