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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Cheers,
I am not cheerful, I am worried.
Mike
Regards, Mark Trickett