Global Warming Scam - "The Debate's Over Folks."

[Queequeg]

That's long on tale and short on facts. You can't just say there's a global conspiracy that duped the scientists in the field somehow. You have to show how. Specifically where the scientists are wrong and why.

Did you even read the article I linked to? Like I said even if the conspirators openly admitted to what they are up to, most people would still not believe it. Their admission is just the very opening to the rabbit hole. There are plenty of facts for all those who decide to follow them.

 

[jaa]

Did you even read the article I linked to? Like I said even if the conspirators openly admitted to what they are up to, most people would still not believe it. Their admission is just the very opening to the rabbit hole. There are plenty of facts for all those who decide to follow them.

I did. It was long on conjecture, short on facts, and obtained on most of it's "evidence" via quotes by James Delingpole.

Here is Phil Plait demonstrating why Delingpole's views on climate change are hogwash.

 

[Queequeg]

I did. It was long on conjecture, short on facts, and obtained on most of it's "evidence" via quotes by James Delingpole.

Here is Phil Plait demonstrating why Delingpole's views on climate change are hogwash.

Typical of the quality of argument from the alarmist side. There is just one quote from this Delingpole guy. Why don't you try and explain away the Club of Rome quote or the Maurice Strong quote.

 

[jaa]

Typical of the quality of argument from the alarmist side. There is just one quote from this Delingpole guy. Why don't you try and explain away the Club of Rome quote or the Maurice Strong quote.

Why don't you explain it? The Club of Rome quote lacks context. The Maurice Strong one lacks a source.

And even if they did say those things, it's huge leap to global conspiracy. How did they fool or get the scientists on board? I'm sure you can tell a just so story, but that's not evidence.

 

[Queequeg]

Why don't you explain it? The Club of Rome quote lacks context. The Maurice Strong one lacks a source.

And even if they did say those things, it's huge leap to global conspiracy. How did they fool or get the scientists on board? I'm sure you can tell a just so story, but that's not evidence.

Like I said even an admission of guilt by the conspirators, though the most powerful evidence of guilt in law, doesn't even warrant a simple google search to see what it is all about. At least the Ray Peat Great Global Warming Poll has it right with only 35% of the forum members agreeing with the IPCC "consensus."
The Great Global Warming Poll

 

[Tarmander]

CO2 is life giving and not the toxic poison or death knell to the Earth’s climate that our elite overlords want us to think it is. As previously mentioned plants start to die at 150 ppm CO2 and thrive at around 1000-1300 ppm. I, like Ray, think we need to increase the CO2 not decrease it.

Get your CO2 on and become a dinosaur!

+

=======

 

[Dr.Winston O'Boogie]

Dear god that guy is annoying. What was with that childish imitation at the start?

He's calling arguing from consensus a logical fallacy, but it's not. Unless you don't believe in having priors. If 90% of physicists believe one thing, and 10% another, then you'd be best served putting your money on the 90% without any additional information. Flipping a coin and betting 50/50 consistently would lead to financial ruin. Additional information are things like for some reason you know the 10% of physicists in the minority position are way smarter. This is difficult to do without inside knowledge, and it also does not happen frequently given how likely the "smart" position is to be adopted. Or maybe your just a very smart and studious individual and have taught yourself enough physics where you are smarter than many of the experts and do indeed know things they don't. Or perhaps you've uncovered an unlikely conspiracy. What does not count is if you were a decent physics student and current hobbyist, but didn't pursue it past undergrad and don't have more information than the experts. So you can see how rare a non-experts opinions to really weigh in here.

Lord Monckton (sounds like an elite to me) is not a scientist. By hearing him talk, he does not sound like a man who knows more than the experts. And to top it off, here's a list of things he's said scientists say about climate change that the scientists claim is untrue. Does this sound like a man you should believe?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

My point was a simple one...that the Cook et al and Doran & Zimmerman surveys were deliberately deceptive in their design, execution, presentation and use.

Complaining about how annoying you might find someone to be isn't really a valid point.

Simple question; after reviewing the evidence do you still believe in that 97% consensus?

 

[yerrag]

I'm just curious, and perhaps I missed the answer to this, but why has the carbon dioxide content on earth decreased from earlier times? If, after all the CO2 emissions have done their "damage" due to industrialization, why is the CO2 content in the atmosphere still so miniscule, and could stand to be increased further for our benefit?

What if industrialization and its accompanying emissions of CO2 had not occurred, when we had stayed agrarian, would the earth flora and fauna have become different from what we are familiar with now? Would it have supported the growth of human population in recent years?

What if all the billions of humans had efficient metabolism and produced more carbon dioxide as a result, would this have further encouraged the grown of humans?

 

[Westside PUFAs]

@jaa This quote by @charlie sounds like you:

"Also, don't come in here all high and mighty with an I am better then you or know better then you attitude, or what I like to call "elitism"- Charlie

If you guys want to make legitimate arguments against something 95+% of scientists in the field agree on, please stick to evidence of the strength that wouldn't be laughed out of here if the claim was made against sugar.

Snooty.

This forum is really kooky at times.

Don't treat "this forum" as a monolith. Treat people as individuals, something SJW's don't know how to do.

Many members have a conspiratorial bent.

Many? More like 2.

Namely that members on this forum have such a desire to take the contrarian position that they're willing to overlook huge flaws in what they present as evidence. And it's not that they aren't capable of seeing these flaws.

Elite fluff. Be specific. Who? What? When?

With all the Trump, flat earth, and climate change threads around here it looks like he was right.

Now you're diverting the conversation from Charlie's original thread to something else.

.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Our influence; building concrete cities devoid of green, all the plastic trash, medicines that flood our drinking water, fishing till species go almost extinct, reducing living space of animals, creating millions of monotonous square kilometres for agriculture that requiers insecticides, killing species for ivory or fur or whatever, ..

I used to worry about that until one day I realized that there is nothing I can do about it.

China and India are already ahead of their quotas for controlling emissions.

Both have significant problems with pollution and both are keen to control them.

Their quotas are meaningless if you don't believe that CO2 is a problem, and I doubt that is even true about their emissions.

Keen on controlling pollution?



And it's not just those two:

 

[jaa]

Like I said even an admission of guilt by the conspirators, though the most powerful evidence of guilt in law, doesn't even warrant a simple google search to see what it is all about. At least the Ray Peat Great Global Warming Poll has it right with only 35% of the forum members agreeing with the IPCC "consensus."
The Great Global Warming Poll

There is no admission of guilt there. There is postulation by one group in a book from the 1970s. And there is quote without a source from Maurice Strong. Both quotes lack context. Neither is an admission of guilt. It's just a couple of quotes without context that the author weaves into their own personal narrative and expects the reader to take their narrative as facts. And the author clearly gets his information from poor sources as is evident by him quoting Delingpole.

And nothing in there explains the hows. That is the part the conspiracy theorists conveniently skip over. How do you get all those scientists on board to perpetrate that fraud. Have all the top minds read the Club of Rome's book and been convinced? And why do these same scientists condemn authors who give models as more extreme results than the consensus?

Again, claiming a global conspiracy and convincing the top minds in a field to go along with it demands very strong evidence to overcome the prior probabilities. That article is not that. Obviously the Ray Peat poll is not that either. But you can post it for support since the evidence you're providing is not that.

 

[jaa]

My point was a simple one...that the Cook et al and Doran & Zimmerman surveys were deliberately deceptive in their design, execution, presentation and use.

Complaining about how annoying you might find someone to be isn't really a valid point.

Simple question; after reviewing the evidence do you still believe in that 97% consensus?

It's not an argument that he's annoying. I had a few notes taken after watching the video and he's clearly not the brightest bulb. He claims his model is good even though it was constructed after the fact and hasn't predicted anything because they definitely didn't try to fit the data. Yeah ok. That plus his misrepresentation of scientists and the ideas they portray demonstrate this man is an idiot and/or huckster. Yet you want to believe him on this 97% thing? Why?

Anyway I wouldn't say 97% exactly, but I would say a majority of climate scientists believe climate change is mainly driven by human intervention and that this increases with level of expertise. Let's say 90% +/- 10%. Here's some articles for your reading that debunk the who not really a consensus stuff.

The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust
Contrarian opinions on global warming match the 2–3% fringe minority of peer-reviewed papers

To sum:
1) Mockton is clearly an idiot. Evidencent by the way he speaks, his misunderstanding of basic concepts, and his lame jokes
2) Mockton is untrustworthy on the topic of climate science
3) The 97% consensus debunking has been debunked

 

[jaa]

@jaa This quote by @charlie sounds like you:

"Also, don't come in here all high and mighty with an I am better then you or know better then you attitude, or what I like to call "elitism"- Charlie
Snooty.

How is that snooty? Charlie posted an article that he would plainly see as bogus if it were anti-sugar. And people in this thread lapped it up. I may have been snooty with other comments, but that one was just asking people to use the same critical thinking they apply to people who oppose ray peat.

Don't treat "this forum" as a monolith. Treat people as individuals, something SJW's don't know how to do.

If people say reddit is sexist, I don't take it as that person thinks everyone on reddit is sexist, just that a lot of sexist ***t pops up on reddit. That's what I meant here. Also please don't treat SJWs as a monolith.

Many? More like 2.

Please. There's a flat earth thread. There's all the 9/11 stuff. There's the global warming angle. And the medical conspiracy angle. It's not just the same two people.

Elite fluff. Be specific. Who? What? When?

lol the very subject of this thread for starters.

Now you're diverting the conversation from Charlie's original thread to something else.

Nope. Happy to stay on point. No one has bothered to mention my original critique of Charlie's post though. I'm not the one trying to divert things here.

 

[Dr.Winston O'Boogie]

It's not an argument that he's annoying. I had a few notes taken after watching the video and he's clearly not the brightest bulb. He claims his model is good even though it was constructed after the fact and hasn't predicted anything because they definitely didn't try to fit the data. Yeah ok. That plus his misrepresentation of scientists and the ideas they portray demonstrate this man is an idiot and/or huckster. Yet you want to believe him on this 97% thing? Why?

Anyway I wouldn't say 97% exactly, but I would say a majority of climate scientists believe climate change is mainly driven by human intervention and that this increases with level of expertise. Let's say 90% +/- 10%. Here's some articles for your reading that debunk the who not really a consensus stuff.

The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust
Contrarian opinions on global warming match the 2–3% fringe minority of peer-reviewed papers

To sum:
1) Mockton is clearly an idiot. Evidencent by the way he speaks, his misunderstanding of basic concepts, and his lame jokes
2) Mockton is untrustworthy on the topic of climate science
3) The 97% consensus debunking has been debunked

That's just denial, if you need any further explanation on how the deception was pulled off then watch this video that explains it very well.

Once again you quote the attempted defence of Cook et al from the Survey designers own website. After the tricks he used to deceive the public and public leaders I wouldn't believe anything he says...at least not until it had been analysed and all weasel phrases removed.

Never mind what you think about Lord Monckton, tell me where he is mistaken over those 97% surveys.

And you either believe in the authenticity of those survey results or you don't...throwing in your own estimate carries no weight. Tell us the facts your estimate is based upon and the exact sentence you think that they agree with.

 

[x-ray peat]

I'm just curious, and perhaps I missed the answer to this, but why has the carbon dioxide content on earth decreased from earlier times? If, after all the CO2 emissions have done their "damage" due to industrialization, why is the CO2 content in the atmosphere still so miniscule, and could stand to be increased further for our benefit?

I think I heard on an online lecture that the primary variable that determines the net contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is the balance between volcanic activity which adds CO2 and tectonic uplift which removes CO2 by providing fresh calcium to bind the CO2. I would think the drop-off in CO2 over the last 100 million years was due to a reduction in the former and increase in the later. The Himalayas are about 50 million years old for example.

What if industrialization and its accompanying emissions of CO2 had not occurred, when we had stayed agrarian, would the earth flora and fauna have become different from what we are familiar with now? Would it have supported the growth of human population in recent years?

Some scientists have said that if it were not for the industrial revolution we would have had a much harder time feeding the world due to lower crop yields. I doubt we would have the same high population we have today. I think some plants would have gone extinct but it would have been too short a time frame for new less CO2 dependent plants to emerge.

What if all the billions of humans had efficient metabolism and produced more carbon dioxide as a result, would this have further encouraged the grown of humans?

I think that is part of Ray's secret plan to save the world.

 

[NathanK]

I think I heard on an online lecture that the primary variable that determines the net contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is the balance between volcanic activity which adds CO2 and tectonic uplift which removes CO2 by providing fresh calcium to bind the CO2. I would think the drop-off in CO2 over the last 100 million years was due to a reduction in the former and increase in the later. The Himalayas are about 50 million years old for example.

Here's where it's hiding. Right under a super volcano. https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevor...as-just-discovered-under-the-us/#3bff91a6420b

 

[x-ray peat]

Here's where it's hiding. Right under a super volcano. https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevor...as-just-discovered-under-the-us/#3bff91a6420b

Interesting. Just more evidence of how minor a role our activity has in relationship to the Earth's natural processes.

 

[Suikerbuik]

I used to worry about that until one day I realized that there is nothing I can do about it.

Being aware of something doesn't mean you're worrying about it.
And altough it is not easy. Locally, especially with social media, through associations and by 'effortless' choices, you can have some influence on things. Just note how Ray Peat has raised the awareness of thousands of people. I like being part of life and the experience associated with it, and if I can help (or not) nature thrive by (effortless) choices, why not?

 

[jaa]

That's just denial, if you need any further explanation on how the deception was pulled off then watch this video that explains it very well.

Once again you quote the attempted defence of Cook et al from the Survey designers own website. After the tricks he used to deceive the public and public leaders I wouldn't believe anything he says...at least not until it had been analysed and all weasel phrases removed.

Never mind what you think about Lord Monckton, tell me where he is mistaken over those 97% surveys.

And you either believe in the authenticity of those survey results or you don't...throwing in your own estimate carries no weight. Tell us the facts your estimate is based upon and the exact sentence you think that they agree with.

I'll tell you where he's wrong if you answer why you choose to believe a man who "cites" scientists and then has those scientists call him out for lying about their position.

 

[tara]

There are many industries that create pollution that should be dealt with, but those industries that produce more carbon dioxide (and I confess I don't have a clue what these industries are), should just be left alone.

I think there might be quite an overlap.
Coal burning produces lots of directly health-harmful toxic air pollution in addition to the green house gases.
Shipping likewise.
Clean renewable energy technologies have lots of other advantages, along with contributing less GHGs. Amongst other things, they can provide useful employment and less lung damage.
Large-scale mass monoculture agricultural processes produces nutrient-deficient crops as well as releasing lots of GHGs.
Global deforestation has lots of downsides apart from it's effects on climate change - eg destruction of habitat for numerous specious - mass wave of extinctions is underway as a result.
Good urban design that reduces the need for lengthy commutes, provides more energy efficient transport systems for those that do need them, and make active transport modes (walking, cycling etc) both safer and more pleasant (as some cities have done) have many human and health benefits in addition to reducing GHG emissions.

I'm just curious, and perhaps I missed the answer to this, but why has the carbon dioxide content on earth decreased from earlier times? If, after all the CO2 emissions have done their "damage" due to industrialization, why is the CO2 content in the atmosphere still so miniscule, and could stand to be increased further for our benefit?

What if industrialization and its accompanying emissions of CO2 had not occurred, when we had stayed agrarian, would the earth flora and fauna have become different from what we are familiar with now? Would it have supported the growth of human population in recent years?

What if all the billions of humans had efficient metabolism and produced more carbon dioxide as a result, would this have further encouraged the grown of humans?

My lay understanding is that gradually over a very long time, the plants took up a lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere, photosynthesised it into carbohydrates (ie grew into plants), and that carbon is now stored in solid forms such as in plant matter, soils, fossilised ex-organic matter such as oil, coal, etc. When fossil fuels are burned, carbohydrates eaten by animals, and soils degraded etc, some of that CO2 and other GHGs are gradually released back into the atmosphere. This has been happening at an accelerated rate in the last few decades, at the same time as deforestation and desertification etc have meant that less CO2 is being taken up by plants.

The limits on agriculture are not primarily due to CO2 deficiency - there are plenty of other obvious causes, including droughts, depleted soils, salination, land being taken over for other purposes, wars and other interference, etc.

Possibly humans would do well breathing a higher proportion of CO2, but one can affect blood/lung levels of CO2 quite a lot more by lifestyle habits. Just the difference between sleeping with the mouth shut or open can make a major difference, and there are many other factors one can have influence on that don't involve disrupting the the whole biosphere.