Aussies Living Simply

"Climate Change/ Global Warming (under human influence) is a Hoax."

Home Forums SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES Global warming and climate change "Climate Change/ Global Warming (under human influence) is a Hoax."

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 51 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #526690
    owlbrudder
    Member

    gardenlen post=347094 wrote: those who promote CO2 CC are the ones who have to sell the product and so far they are failing

    Nope, no-one is buying or selling anything. AGW is either true or false and that does not depend upon how many people believe it.

    gardenlen post=347094 wrote: not talking about natural global climate change.

    Why not? Earth has definite natural climate cycles and variability, due to well understood forcings. Humans are applying a whole new forcing with the greenhouse gasses we are emitting. The resulting climate is the sum of natural and human-caused forcings.

    #526691
    owlbrudder
    Member

    PeterD post=347101 wrote: I think we do influence local microclimate systems but it’s harder to stretch that logic and conclusion to a macro world level.

    Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Fact: we are emitting it faster than natural sinks can take it up, so the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. What would we expect as a result? Global warming. What are we now measuring? Global warming. Not so much of a stretch, is it? Do you have another theory as to why the globe is warming?

    #526692
    Metu
    Member

    If you choose to believe in something for which there is no evidence, then that is your right, but please at least recognise that that is what you are doing.

    I did, you just misinterpreted the data… 😉

    I cannot prove various scientific evidence for Climate Change is a hoax

    I said it in plain English (above). Observing the science whilst projecting your viewpoint on my opinion, proves the point I was making: “it’s evident that humans can lead astray, be led astray, and in a state of denial any of this is going on, whilst ever chasing the facts.”

    In expressing my opinion, you imposed your view on my reasoning as “lack of admission” to the science. I did not state my view on the science (the data) but the humans. But this is what happens when data gets taken up by human interests. It gets imposed so people have to answer for it.

    but that requires thousands of competing researchers, over nearly 200 years, to be ‘in on’ the plot, without one ever having broken ranks.

    It’s only been a recent invention in political circles to make an official study of Climate Change. Whereby they take former data, and draw a line of relativity towards human activity. That’s only been a recent development, so it’s present interests I’m referring to.

    The best we can hope for is that the greater the number of people who assess the research, the greater probability there is of the outcomes being accurate.

    Or the greater the opportunity for division of opinions. It’s happening now in the field of medical science. One group adamantly defends their position against another, while the illness count and seriousness of diseases, keeps escalating.

    All I have asked for is links to credible scientific research showing AGW is not real.

    My comment was addressing the thread Andre created, I was not addressing you or your viewpoint personally. You have chosen to base your view on AGW. I have chosen to base my view on the fallible human nature. It does not disprove AGW, but it does demonstrate, with our human interests involved, misinterpretations can present. Where there is misinterpretation, there is room for error.

    Where are your links supporting your opinion?

    Human nature is common knowledge. Because I chose to address this aspect instead of the specific sciences involved, you assume a lot about my opinion which isn’t there. I neither agree nor disagree with the science. I have read both sides but I do not pick sides, as there is one aspect we miss every time: human error. It’s why people still die of illness, despite our best science and treatment available.

    If human biology is constantly stumping researchers in medicine (despite all they know) why should I expect the Climate Change scientists to have their finger on the pulse of the planet, accurately today? I read everything with an open mind, and reserve the right to take on more information without prejudice. I simply refuse to regale scientific research as a substitute for human interests. One precedes the other, and we should remember that order.

    #526693
    casalenta
    Member

    Testing, testing. I’ve been trying to post to this thread, but it doesn’t go through. If this does, I’ll try again.

    #526694
    casalenta
    Member

    Okay, trying again.

    I’ve resisted the temptation to weigh into this ‘debate’ because I find it so depressing. I used to be a scientist, and the terms being used here and everywhere else, such as ‘denier,’ ‘alarmist,’ ‘belief,’ and ‘hoax’ have no place in science.

    Science works through scientists making observations and then formulating hypotheses to explain the observations. After a long time of experimentation (if possible) or further observations, and these days computer modelling, the hypothesis may in the end be promoted to the exalted level of theory if it really does explain all the facts and if it can be used to make predictions that are then found to be accurate. In science theory should never become a ‘belief,’ the science is never ‘settled,’ and people who doubt a hypothesis are never called ‘deniers’ and those who support it are never called ‘alarmists’. A hypothesis cannot be a ‘hoax’ either. It’s a hypothesis.

    Which all points to this being not a scientific ‘debate’ but a political one. The AGW hypothesis has some data to support it, but not all the data supports it (such as climate changes in the past that mirror what’s happening now and which occurred long before there were humans, and global warming occurring on other planets). Because the hypothesis does not fit all the data it cannot be called a theory, let alone a fact. It may one day become a theory, but it isn’t yet, and since it doesn’t explain all the data is likely to remain a hypothesis.

    The other thing that depresses me about all this is the incredible over-simplification. In the first place, there are many greenhouse gases, not just one, but you wouldn’t think so to hear the ‘arguments’ in this ‘debate’. Secondly, there are many other causes of climate change besides greenhouse gases, such as changes in the Sun and the Earth’s orbit, ocean currents, volcanoes, to name just a few. It is such a complex system that nobody fully understands it, and can therefore not model it perfectly. But it seems to be human nature to want everything black and white and to want simplistic answers to everything.

    Instead of arguing constantly about who or what is to blame for the climate changing, wouldn’t it make more sense to just get on with the job of adapting to a changing climate? And since we also need to adapt to dwindling resources, we should also be looking at making our activities more sustainable, regardless of whether or not they’re contributing to climate change.

    That’s my two bob’s worth anyway.

    #526695
    Anonymous
    Guest

    thank you casalenta,

    i won’t repeat what has earlier been said by myself, in other threads they, the management have even gone so far as to take away my right of reply and gag me by deleting my posts.

    have a nice day

    len

    #526696
    Snags
    Member

    In fairness Len if you offered anything to the argument that wasn’t just based on gut feeling and incoherent ranting about the cost of living,it would help,you sound like Alan Jones no logic,irrational,emotional, plenty of wind and a political agenda.

    Fear of Global warming is a Communist plot,it is trying to destroy our Western way of life.

    If we ignore it,continue to undervalue finite resources and dont make people have to pay for the true value of their environmental vandalism, we can keep going BAU until its impossible to continue the lie….

    #526697
    owlbrudder
    Member

    Metu post=347142 wrote: It’s only been a recent invention in political circles to make an official study of Climate Change. Whereby they take former data, and draw a line of relativity towards human activity. That’s only been a recent development, so it’s present interests I’m referring to.

    Well, recent in geological time anyway. 🙂 The evidence has been mounting for nearly two centuries. Margaret Thatcher made an impassioned speech on the subject to the United Nations in the 80s. What do you call ‘recent’?

    Metu post=347142 wrote:

    The best we can hope for is that the greater the number of people who assess the research, the greater probability there is of the outcomes being accurate.

    Or the greater the opportunity for division of opinions. It’s happening now in the field of medical science. One group adamantly defends their position against another, while the illness count and seriousness of diseases, keeps escalating.

    Very true and that is a reflection on human nature. All I am saying is that one scientist can be wildly wrong, but agreement between thousands of scientists over 200 years improves the probability that the scientists are on the right track. It is a question of prudent evaluation of evidence. If an oncologist told me I had cancer, I would seek a second opinion. If three oncologists agreed with the initial diagnosis, I would be prudent to seek medical intervention ahead of seeking the opinions of my mates at the pub.

    Metu post=347142 wrote: You have chosen to base your view on AGW. I have chosen to base my view on the fallible human nature. It does not disprove AGW, but it does demonstrate, with our human interests involved, misinterpretations can present. Where there is misinterpretation, there is room for error.

    Certainly. Nothing is set in stone and I would be delighted to be shown that the whole AGW deal is either a hoax, or a mistaken misreading of the evidence. If anyone can show that AGW is not real, they should speak up now, before we spend too much time and effort on overcoming the threat of global warming. I will be the first to admit that I was misled, if that is where the evidence leads.

    Metu post=347142 wrote: I neither agree nor disagree with the science. I have read both sides but I do not pick sides, as there is one aspect we miss every time: human error. It’s why people still die of illness, despite our best science and treatment available.

    Human error will always be with us. All we can hope for is that the bulk of people researching global climate are doing a sound job and are not subject to some strange mass delusion.

    Metu post=347142 wrote: If human biology is constantly stumping researchers in medicine (despite all they know) why should I expect the Climate Change scientists to have their finger on the pulse of the planet, accurately today?

    That’s a fair question. Climate scientists are constantly searcing for evidence of what is happening to our climate. As new information becomes known, the scientists tell us what they think is happening. It is up to us to decide whether we believe them or not. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know we are pumping it into the atmosphere faster than nature can sequester it. We know the result is expected to be global warming. We are measuring global warming that agrees well with what we would expect from the raised level of atmospheric CO2. Every peak scientific body in the world agrees that AGW is real. It is up to us to decide whether we believe the evidence the scientists are putting before us, but we can’t alter the laws of atmospheric physics: the truth or otherwise of AGW does not depend on how many believe in it. Gravity is ‘only’ a theory, but many lines of evidence lead us to understand that gravity is real. Do we know everything about gravity? No. Do we know how it works? No. Do we accept it as real? Yes, because we can see the evidence of it. Equally, global warming is real because we can see the evidence of warming oceans and melting ice sheets. Do we know everything about climate change? No. Is it prudent to assume that the great majority of climate scientists are on the right track? You be the judge.

    Metu post=347142 wrote: I read everything with an open mind, and reserve the right to take on more information without prejudice.

    Certainly, it is important to keep an open mind, but it is equally important to make up that mind based on sound evidence. Sitting on the fence until every single fact is known and every single scientist agrees with every prediction is not prudent, in my view. My view is that by far the majority of experts agree that AGW is real and dangerous. If something comes up in the future to disprove AGW, I will be the first to change my mind and make public why I have changed. In the meantime, I am driven, by the evidence, to accept that AGW is real and we need to act soon to avoid the worst possible outcomes.

    #526698
    owlbrudder
    Member

    casalenta post=347144 wrote: the terms being used here and everywhere else, such as ‘denier,’ ‘alarmist,’ ‘belief,’ and ‘hoax’ have no place in science.

    What is the correct term to describe someone who denies the evidence, if ‘denier’ is not politically correct? How should we describe someone who makes frightening claims without evidence, if ‘alarmist’ is not PC? What is a better term than ‘belief’ for the state of mind of one who agrees with the evidence? What is the correct term to describe a conspiracy to misinform, if we cannot use ‘hoax’?

    casalenta post=347144 wrote: Which all points to this being not a scientific ‘debate’ but a political one. The AGW hypothesis has some data to support it, but not all the data supports it (such as climate changes in the past that mirror what’s happening now and which occurred long before there were humans, and global warming occurring on other planets). Because the hypothesis does not fit all the data it cannot be called a theory, let alone a fact. It may one day become a theory, but it isn’t yet, and since it doesn’t explain all the data is likely to remain a hypothesis.

    Past climate changes are well described by the theory of AGW. Which past climates do you think disprove AGW? Which past climate changes happened on the scale and with the speed that we are now seeing? We know the sun is at or near a solar minimum, so what can we infer from seeing climate change on other planets? Which data are not explained by AGW?

    casalenta post=347144 wrote: The other thing that depresses me about all this is the incredible over-simplification. In the first place, there are many greenhouse gases, not just one, but you wouldn’t think so to hear the ‘arguments’ in this ‘debate’. Secondly, there are many other causes of climate change besides greenhouse gases, such as changes in the Sun and the Earth’s orbit, ocean currents, volcanoes, to name just a few. It is such a complex system that nobody fully understands it, and can therefore not model it perfectly. But it seems to be human nature to want everything black and white and to want simplistic answers to everything.

    There cetainly are other greenhouse gasses, notably methane and water vapour, but the ‘control knob‘ is carbon dioxide, so that is usually where the focus lies.

    casalenta post=347144 wrote: Instead of arguing constantly about who or what is to blame for the climate changing, wouldn’t it make more sense to just get on with the job of adapting to a changing climate?

    The economics of climate change make it far cheaper to act now to avoid the worst of the change we are otherwise headed for. Loss of food producing land and acidification of the ocean are just a couple of the effects we should try to avoid if we can, because the only adaptation available to places like Bangladesh is population decline: people will adapt by dying.

    casalenta post=347144 wrote: And since we also need to adapt to dwindling resources, we should also be looking at making our activities more sustainable, regardless of whether or not they’re contributing to climate change.

    Imagine the impact of climate change on top of the other problems you point out. That’s what ‘alarmists’ are alarmed about.

    casalenta post=347144 wrote: That’s my two bob’s worth anyway.

    Thanks for being part of the discussion.

    #526699
    owlbrudder
    Member

    Snags post=347148 wrote: Fear of Global warming is a Communist plot,it is trying to destroy our Western way of life.

    Yes, I love that meme. Dirty rotten communists have developed a secret cabal who are running a vast scientific conspiracy of global proportions, designed to make us panic about global warming to such an extent that we meekly bow to the forces who want to bring in a single world government, which would naturally be run by the cabal of communists. That makes perfect sense. Not.

    Snags post=347148 wrote: If we ignore it,continue to undervalue finite resources and dont make people have to pay for the true value of their environmental vandalism, we can keep going BAU until its impossible to continue the lie….

    Quite right and don’t even mention overpopulation: the great god Free Market needs an ever-growing population to provide ever-growing profits, so don’t let’s do anything to control the number of people on the planet. Overpopulation is another lie by those dirty rotten communists. (Strangely, communist China is the only country I am aware of to have brought in a one-child policy to control their population, so they seem to be taking it seriously. Some plot, eh?)

    #526700
    Metu
    Member

    Thank you for the discussion owlbrudder, I would like to continue it but (and this is no reflection on you) I need to get out into the world I can influence directly. That is where I feel most useful, rather than exchanging dialogue on what should be done.

    Peace. 🙂

    #526701
    Andre
    Keymaster

    gardenlen post=347145 wrote: thank you casalenta,

    i won’t repeat what has earlier been said by myself, in other threads they, the management have even gone so far as to take away my right of reply and gag me by deleting my posts.

    have a nice day

    len

    OFF TOPIC (but pertinent to any and every thread)

    With relation to this quote (above) various posts from several members were deleted from the thread (below) because they were not on topic, and basically repeated the same post as previous posts. While members have the right to reply, ‘management’ has the right to remove unsuitable posts – it is our job, after all, in an attempt to ensure the site has a semblance of decorum and order.

    While I will apologise for the misinterpretation some might have of gagging them, I will not apologise for removing pointless posts.

    https://www.aussieslivingsimply.com.au/forum/global-warming-and-climate-change/304457-impacts-of-climate-change?start=60

    If in doubt, please review and digest this post:

    https://www.aussieslivingsimply.com.au/forum/general-chat-and-catching-up/345984-a-simple-explanation-not-that-it-should-be-needed

    Thanks for your time and patience. Now, back to the scheduled program …

    :whistle:

    #526702
    owlbrudder
    Member

    Metu post=347180 wrote: Thank you for the discussion owlbrudder, I would like to continue it but (and this is no reflection on you) I need to get out into the world I can influence directly. That is where I feel most useful, rather than exchanging dialogue on what should be done.

    Thanks for the conversation, Metu. Being out there doing something practical will be of more use, in the long run, than sitting here in cyberspace swapping opinions. More power to you.

    Cheers. 🙂

    #526703
    owlbrudder
    Member

    Andre post=347189 wrote: https://www.aussieslivingsimply.com.au/forum/general-chat-and-catching-up/345984-a-simple-explanation-not-that-it-should-be-needed

    Thanks Andre. Your second link does not work for me: it comes up with the message “You do not have permissions to access this page.” :huh:

    #526704
    Lady Bee
    Keymaster

    owlbrudder post=347258 wrote:

    https://www.aussieslivingsimply.com.au/forum/general-chat-and-catching-up/345984-a-simple-explanation-not-that-it-should-be-needed

    Thanks Andre. Your second link does not work for me: it comes up with the message “You do not have permissions to access this page.” :huh:

    Make sure you’re logged in when trying to access that link. If you aren’t you’ll get that message.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 51 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.