On 27/01/2013 11:02 PM, Mark Trickett wrote:
On Sun, 2013-01-27 at 00:45 +1100, Mike Mitchell wrote:
On 26/01/2013 9:55 PM, Mark Trickett wrote:
Hello All,
Just found, via G+, a link to an article about the finances of the climate change denial organisations. One major source is Koch Industries, who are heavily involved in the fossil fuel industry. They are funneling it through a "charitable" fund, getting tax deductability, and anonymity. The approaches are very similar to what the Tobacco industry tried, denial of real effects, and puppet "independent" voices. The "I hate tobacco and I hate 'insert name here' so the 'insert name here' must be evil" association is just ridiculous. The same could be said of anyone. Example, "Most Linux users are socialists, and Socialism is a failed concept, so Linux is bad." I've offered no proof, as Russell is fond of saying, "show me the money/reference!" http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-billionair...
Still seeing "quibbles" that the science is in dispute, but that is only from paid mouthpieces, and others out of their fields of expertise. Again "show me the money/reference!" And the money tries to hide. That was the essence of the article. The reference to Tobacco is their "Plausible Deniability" and fundamental lying.
I do not have the knowledge and skills to do the original work, but what I learnt from my Engineering degree does provide the necessary grounding to comprehend the reality of climate change. You can speed and if the police do not catch you, they do not charge you. The laws of physics are far more watchful, you cannot break them. Or Gods laws? You can evade man's law, at times, but a ten tonne weight will squash you regardless without some support. The origins are still being considered. Nor do I support making god in the image of man, as some religious people unwittingly do.
Your God, the environment. I see people like you as zealots of another religion. I think all religion is delusion, including political and environmental regions. I do not expect you to see the chinks in your "logic" anymore than Osama Bin Laden would or that baptist prick that burns Qur'an's.
The wealthy fail to realise that the human rules can be bent, at least temporarily, but that the real world of physics and the laws of thermodynamics are not to be fooled. "show me the money/reference!" (Remember, you can't trust a bloody Socialist Mark ;-) . The wealthy are self interested to a point of self harm. I have nothing against recompense for actual effort, but billions for pushing paper money around with a computer. That is plain gambling, and detrimental to the whole society. Ripping off the community that way and living in walled enclaves with security guards is going to perpetuate the problems and levels of crime.
Straight up, I don't think you understand money or people. If you REALLY think that one type of human is different to another your entire foundation for thinking is corrupt. We are all pretty much the same, suck it up and stop the bigoted bullshit.
Unfortunately, they have less wealthy supporters who are severely misled and fail to have open minds. So, now it's the poor that's problem? Like your welded shut mind. The real poor have legitimate aspirations, but the developed world setting an unsustainable standard does not help. Nor does putting people down in the developed countries. The trickle down effect is a delusion.
My mind is open enough to question my decisions, it is you who seem to think I am an anti-climate-change zealot. I am not, nor am I a pro-climate-change zealot, like yourself. The responses you have supplied offer no citations of true indicators, what have you got? Show me the money!
The planet will continue to exist, and to circle the sun, but what life will continue is debatable. For those here who disbelieve, consider the example of Venus, that is the effect of an atmosphere that traps more heat. It verifies the effects of CO2. Yeah, okay, that's just bullshit! Venus doesn't have a magnetosphere, so it was screwed long before the Venusian Industrial Revolution stuffed it up. That's just comparing apples and pineapples. You have totally misunderstood, and I suspect intentionally. The CO2 levels are very high, that keeps in the outgoing thermal radiation, which means that the whole heats up to a point where it does balance the outgoing radiation against the incoming. There are different frequency spectrums for each direction. Look up "black body radiation" some time. Even Black Holes end up with an effective temperature.
What's happened on Venus will not happen here. What happened on Venus, happened because Venus does not have a magnetosphere. Adding Venus into any discussion on climate change is perverting the truth. It is irrelevant.
The issue on earth is the increasing concentration. Things were stable, but we have "kicked" an otherwise stable system rather hard. That's the billion dollar question. Can the climate scientists give us a real, tangible key point indicator? It used to be sea level rise, but we're still waiting. The 13mm from a previous post doesn't make an end-of-life-event. You are asking for proof that will be evident when we are well over our heads in the poo, and way beyond any recovery. If we change the economic activities on the basis of global warming and climate change in a sane and sensible fashion, it will not set our economies back, although there are other real limits that will.
We were told that we would see a demonstrable increase in sea level by now. That has not happened. What else do they have?
There is evidence of the change, if you really want even more incontrovertible, then it will be more than past time to be able to correct things.
There are other gases and soot that we are pumping into the atmosphere that have even bigger effects than CO2, some that will stay there longer, some that will wash out quickly. The US Geological Service has done a valid assessment of the effect of volcanoes, and they are not small, but compared to the effects of billions of people, they are small beer.
For those here who would dispute this, if you really have an open mind, then read the material that puts the case. if you will not consider, then stop claiming to have an open mind. When climate change supporters put themselves and the theory through the same level of scrutiny they put the "disbelievers" through, they may gain some respect themselves. In the meantime it sounds more like a way to prove ones self value. It is also true that Climate Infidels are just as zealot and should be scoffed at in equal measure. Until there is some mature debate and understanding, both sides just sound like different types of religious fundamentalists. Those who have been putting out the truths of climate change have put the data and models through the scrutiny. That is the scientific process.
I run some of these climate models for Oxford Uni and the results varied, to say the least. Some turned the planet into ice cubes, some turned it into the Planet Dune, a few even has ice forming a metre or so above the surface with air or water below that. These extraneous models were dropped of course, but it was suspicious that they were run until they produced the desired results. On the whole, it appeared to me that they could produce any result that they wanted. (These were the Fortran programs developed in 1970's and updated a little to suit today's hardware. They have been in use, I believe, the whole time. I didn't input any parameters, just ran the models so my impressions of the veracity is just an impression).
I still suspect that both sides are tossers and both exaggerate to suit their personal beliefs. On the whole, the climate change people may make mistakes now and then, but the so called skeptics are making a lot of very big mistakes and doing an awful lot of exxageration.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I will not take one side or the other until I see something more indicative. I am, however, quite prepared to look at both sides, hence running climate models and laughing at people who think their god promised them a world without end, so it could be true. Then reading CSIRO, Hobart and Canberra papers that seem to put a dampener on climate change.
Cheers, I am not cheerful, I am worried.
Mike Regards,
Mark Trickett
Still cheered, Mike PS. I have some faith in humanity, if climate change turns out to be seriously destructive we humans will work out a way to improve it. If not, perhaps, when added to over population, it's time for another evolutionary step in the species. What an amazing future it could be. Should we fear change?