Everything Climate Change

[Miekenstien]

Off topic....what would be another great reason to push climate change due to CO2 emissions? What about slowing down the emerging markets such as China, India, Russia? What better way for the west to maintain world economic dominance than significantly cutting emissions/production or substituting cheaper forms of energy with more expensive. But that is me breaking out my tinfoil hat and talking out my bottom.

china is aggressively pursuing clean energy options. lots and lots of new research companies are opened here every year because it is government subsidized and profit isn't an issue. i don't agree with where you talked about socialism as the problem in the west. i don't think anywhere on earth is more socialist than china and i doubt anyone is trying to make this as viable an option as they are.

the problem with getting the free market to start the process is that it is so far behind in terms of cost/production that simply staying oil/coal is cheaper and easier. you won't see the big energy companies aggressively investing in this because the monetary rewards aren't there. if clean energy company stock prices were gauged like pharmacy research companies then maybe something could get done.

also

i don't agree with this.
"The government controlled media has absolutely brainwashed people on this topic"

western media isn't controlled by the government. it is controlled by owners or corporations that spout their own political views.

[mcHAPPY]

i don't agree with this.
"The government controlled media has absolutely brainwashed people on this topic"

western media isn't controlled by the government. it is controlled by owners or corporations that spout their own political views.

I disagree. Western media basically takes government press releases and reports them, word for word, with little fact checks.

Then you have things such as the Julian Assange 'interview' on 60Minutes in 2011:



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-1...-media-america

[Superjudge]

I believe what is made clear is the extreme bias of the website that so many continue to cite and reference as gospel.

Evans came to his conclusions based on math. It is currently being peer reviewed.

I feel much more confident in Evans findings that Cook making 1.6% magically become 97.1%.


Off topic....what would be another great reason to push climate change due to CO2 emissions? What about slowing down the emerging markets such as China, India, Russia? What better way for the west to maintain world economic dominance than significantly cutting emissions/production or substituting cheaper forms of energy with more expensive. But that is me breaking out my tinfoil hat and talking out my bottom.

The government controlled media has absolutely brainwashed people on this topic....and many others.

Ya but except they dont slow them down, not even a little.

[Apollo]

Updated the title to cover the topic being discussed here.

[mcHAPPY]

You don't hear much in Western Media that refutes climate change. Some ideas on that:

Refusal to Publish Research that Shows Anti Man-Made Climate Change

Whenever someone discovers something that contradicts established academia, their findings are suppressed. This is true in economics, earth sciences, and even archaeology.

......

The point is rather simple. The majority of the establishment in academics ALWAYS rejects anything that contradicts their theories. Change must always come from the outside in, and never from the inside out.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/37998

[mcHAPPY]

Every night, France's chief weatherman has told the nation how much wind, sun or rain they can expect the following day.
Now Philippe Verdier, a household name for his nightly forecasts on France 2, has been taken off air after a more controversial announcement - criticising the world's top climate change experts.

Mr Verdier claims in the book Climat Investigation (Climate Investigation) that leading climatologists and political leaders have “taken the world hostage” with misleading data.

In a promotional video, Mr Verdier said: “Every night I address five million French people to talk to you about the wind, the clouds and the sun. And yet there is something important, very important that I haven’t been able to tell you, because it’s neither the time nor the place to do so.”

He added: “We are hostage to a planetary scandal over climate change – a war machine whose aim is to keep us in fear.”

His outspoken views led France 2 to take him off the air starting this Monday. "I received a letter telling me not to come. I'm in shock," he told RTL radio. "This is a direct extension of what I say in my book, namely that any contrary views must be eliminated."

The book has been released at a particularly sensitive moment as Paris is due to host a crucial UN climate change conference in December.

According to Mr Verdier, top climate scientists, who often rely on state funding, have been “manipulated and politicised”.
He specifically challenges the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, saying they “blatantly erased” data that went against their overall conclusions, and casts doubt on the accuracy of their climate models.

The IPCC has said that temperatures could rise by up to 4.8°C if no action is taken to reduce carbon emissions.

Mr Verdier writes: “We are undoubtedly on a plateau in terms of warming and the cyclical variability of the climate doesn’t not allow us to envisage if the natural rhythm will tomorrow lead us towards a fall, a stagnation or a rise (in temperature).”

The 330-page book also controversially contains a chapter on the “positive results” of climate change in France, one of the countries predicted to be the least affected by rising temperatures. “It’s politically incorrect and taboo to vaunt the merits of climate change because there are some,” he writes, citing warmer weather attracting tourists, lower death rates and electricity bills in mild winters, and better wine and champagne vintages.

Asked whether he had permission from his employer to release the book, he said: “I don’t think management liked it, let’s be honest.”

"I put myself via this investigation on the path of COP 21, which is a bulldozer, and we can see the results."

The book was criticised by French newspaper Le Monde as full of “errors”. “The models used to predict the average rise in temperatures on the surface of the globe have proved to be rather reliable, with the gap between observations and predictions quite small,” it countered.

Mr Verdier told France 5: “Making these revelations in the book, which I absolutely have the right to do, can pose problems for my employer given that the government (which funds France 2) is organising COP [the climate change conference]. In fact as soon as you a slightly different discourse on this subject, you are branded a climate sceptic.”

He said he decided to write the book in June 2014 when Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, summoned the country’s main weather presenters and urged them to mention “climate chaos” in their forecasts.

“I was horrified by this discourse,” Mr Verdier told Les Inrockuptibles magazine. Eight days later, Mr Fabius appeared on the front cover of a magazine posing as a weatherman above the headline: “500 days to save the planet.”

Mr Verdier said: “If a minister decides he is Mr Weatherman, then Mr Weatherman can also express himself on the subject in a lucid manner.

“What’s shameful is this pressure placed on us to say that if we don’t hurry, it’ll be the apocalypse,” he added, saying that “climate diplomacy” means leaders are seeking to force changes to suit their own political timetables.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...te-change.html

I'm not sure if anyone can honestly say this issue is more scientific than political.

[Nilanka]

Matt, just curious. What are thoughts on vaccination?

[Miekenstien]

Matt, just curious. What are thoughts on vaccination?

Haha. Funny but misguided, in my opinion. I am all over the place in my viewpoints. I would expect anyone having an intelligent conversation to not just choose a left or right side and never waiver in their support. I would hope people are smart enough to research and form their own opinion on every topic that they argue.

[Nilanka]

Haha. Funny but misguided, in my opinion. I am all over the place in my viewpoints. I would expect anyone having an intelligent conversation to not just choose a left or right side and never waiver in their support. I would hope people are smart enough to research and form their own opinion on every topic that they argue.

For me, it's either you trust the scientific method, or you don't. And that applies to global warming, vaccinations, GMOs, alternative medicines, 9/11, the moon landing, etc.

Show me established, peer-reviewed, credible information on any topic, and I'll believe you.

[Apollo]

Nilanka, the problem is that sometimes its not very cut and dry. We can all look at history and find many, many examples of scientific method not working as it is defined. Let's not pretend that it's all as simple as evidence being presented and theories changing or forming and generating acceptance because the science is clear. 'Scientific method' is infected with philosophies, biases and conflict of interests; it's not a pure, infallible entity.

That's not to say I'm a proponent of always going against grain, but it is to say that I do like to view all the 'players' on the field and then form my opinion of what is truth after I consider all the information available and not just this low hanging fruits. Also, I think its in our DNA to protect our belief systems and its common to go on the defense when this is challenged.

A good example of science's dirty side this is Tesla vs. Edison, AC vs DC. There were stakeholders on each side battling it out and it wasn't nearly as civilized as one would hope in the battle to sway public opinion to determine what is 'truth'.

[Nilanka]

You're right, science doesn't deal with certainties. Just degrees of confidence with probabilities of error. And specifically regarding climate change, the research overwhelmingly shows that humans are impacting the environment with a high degree of confidence.

Is it possible that the science is wrong? Yes, it's possible, but highly unlikely given the cross-functional, international scope of the data available.

And for me, the issue isn't about being right, or declared a winner. It's the danger of dismissing the overwhelming evidence, and the direct impact such actions would have on my kids, and my kids' kids. Because if the climate projections come to fruition, we're all losers.

[Apollo]

My post was directed at your general blanketing statement. In it, for example, you mentioned GMO. In North America the general scientific consensus is that GMO is safe. The reality is that most of the testing is questionable because those GMO companies have a hand in it in some way and there is currently a European movement against the use of GMO. The reason GMO isn't going away here without a fight is because there are mega corporations with a large stake in it throwing hundreds of millions at the battle. It's comes down to swaying public confidence at the end of the day and to do that you need to be bankrolled with lots of cash. They've fought a good fight in America and we always go along with for the ride here in Canada.

Don't mean to sidetrack but you brought up GMO in your message about unwavering support to the current scientific system.

[Nilanka]

My post was directed at your general blanketing statement. In it, for example, you mentioned GMO. In North America the general scientific consensus is that GMO is safe. The reality is that most of the testing is questionable because those GMO companies have a hand in it in some way and there is currently a European movement against the use of GMO. The reason GMO isn't going away here without a fight is because there are mega corporations with a large stake in it throwing hundreds of millions at the battle. It's comes down to swaying public confidence at the end of the day and to do that you need to be bankrolled with lots of cash. They've fought a good fight in America and we always go along with for the ride here in Canada.

Don't mean to sidetrack but you brought up GMO in your message about unwavering support to the current scientific system.

To me, the GMO debate is settled too. An overwhelming majority of studies show that GMOs pose no threat to humans or animals.

All research in all fields is financially backed by somebody. I don't think that's reason to throw away the results.

[Bendit]

To me, the GMO debate is settled too. An overwhelming majority of studies show that GMOs pose no threat to humans or animals.

All research in all fields is financially backed by somebody. I don't think that's reason to throw away the results.

This link speaks to the inroads the pro GMO forces are making in what is essentially a battle for the "minds" of those who have doubts. I think the battle will be over when it is conclusively shown that a period of consumption without ill effect (I dont know...a generation or so more), prevention of spoilage, and possibly enhanced taste (the holy grail and probably achievable) and lower cost will be too much to reject.

http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-tech...bout-to-change

[mcHAPPY]

You're right, science doesn't deal with certainties. Just degrees of confidence with probabilities of error. And specifically regarding climate change, the research overwhelmingly shows that humans are impacting the environment with a high degree of confidence.

Is it possible that the science is wrong? Yes, it's possible, but highly unlikely given the cross-functional, international scope of the data available.

And for me, the issue isn't about being right, or declared a winner. It's the danger of dismissing the overwhelming evidence, and the direct impact such actions would have on my kids, and my kids' kids. Because if the climate projections come to fruition, we're all losers.

The climate alarmists projections have been dead wrong every step of the way.

The research shows that man contributes CO2 emissions. What the research does not conclusively show is the effect of mans CO2 emission contributions.

Don't forget, that 97.1% as represented is actually 1.6%.