Of climate skeptics funding
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. 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. 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. 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. Unfortunately, they have less wealthy supporters who are severely misled and fail to have open minds. 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. The issue on earth is the increasing concentration. Things were stable, but we have "kicked" an otherwise stable system rather hard. 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. Regards, Mark Trickett
On 26/01/2013 9:55 PM, Mark Trickett wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-billionair...
That's quite propaganderous, (okay I made a word up, so sue me), to say the least. There is no reason why both sides of the argument can't have reasonable funding; both sides have their own agendas. There's plenty of money support the pro agenda, why not have a fair amount for the opposite side of the debate? Nothing in the above link gives me reason to believe that the sources I choose to trust are compromised. CHeers A.
On Sat, 2013-01-26 at 23:43 +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 26/01/2013 9:55 PM, Mark Trickett wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-billionair...
That's quite propaganderous, (okay I made a word up, so sue me), to say the least.
The issue is freedom of speech, and attribution. The Koch brothers are free to publicise their beliefs, provided they stand behind them, but hiding their influence is in no ones interest. It will hurt them as well, eventually.
There is no reason why both sides of the argument can't have reasonable funding; both sides have their own agendas. There's plenty of money support the pro agenda, why not have a fair amount for the opposite side of the debate?
There. Is. No. Debate. The opposition is nonsense. Denial is only from a lack of knowledge and understanding. You have been provided with the basics, and you keep refusing to consider. Again, you do not have an open mind. The other matter is that taking action on reducing the carbon intensity of human activities is actually the way to do better. Not doing so is suicidal, including economically. It does benefit a few extremely wealthy in the short term, but by closing off opportunities to everyone else.
Nothing in the above link gives me reason to believe that the sources I choose to trust are compromised.
I have just been reading the latest Scientific American. I have been a subscriber since the early '70's, they do not publish such material without solid evidence. There is a fascinating article about the Gulf Stream, the effects of reduced arctic ice by more fresh water being less dense, and the wind patterns. They discuss a growing understanding of why western Europe tends to be less chill than the eastern seaboard of America in winter. At one point, there is a comment about the measure of incoming solar radiation, and the balance against what is radiated back out to space. If there is an imbalance, the temperature will change to restore the balance. The basis is very simple, with the detail backing matters up solidly. Quibbling with the laws of physics, the laws of thermodynamics, chemistry and the like is a measure of being a waste of the air you breathe. Your behaviour reminds me of what happens to a frog in a pan of cold water put on the stove, it will die without hopping out, it fails to register the slow change. Drop it in warm water, and it can recognise the danger and will try to escape. The changes are relatively slow, and less apparent with seasonal changes, but they are real. I have provided evidence, despite your denial. It is just that you appear to not recognise the material. Consider the planet as a whole, and the energy fluxes. If they are unequal, there will be a temperature change to restore the balance. If the outgoings increase, it gets colder, if the outgoings decrease, it gets warmer. Various molecules in the atmosphere have effects. CO2 and methane have a nett insulating effect. Water also has an effect, and it differs with the form it takes, and what altitude. Vapour is not visible, but the small droplets in clouds become visible. Fine ice crystals in clouds have other effects. The various effects are understood and modelled. Then they take the measurements of what happened in the past and try to predict what happened. The models that most closely predict the way things happened are then used to try to forecast what might happen. The models appear to have been too conservative. With something the size of the earth, a small imbalance over several decades can have a profound effect. What any one of us does is minuscule, but what we all do as a species is very significant. Homo sapiens are now using more per year than the planet can produce in several regards. That is measured, and beyond argument. That is with the vast majority still undeveloped, and aspiring to your lifestyle.
CHeers
You might be cheerful with the way we are heading, but I do not wish to leave such an impoverished world to the subsequent generations. We have what we have from the past. We hold it in trust for the future. There are no pockets in a shroud. Regards, Mark Trickett
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!"
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?
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 ;-) .
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?
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.
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.
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. I still suspect that both sides are tossers and both exaggerate to suit their personal beliefs. Cheers, Mike
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013, Mike Mitchell <m.mitch@exemail.com.au> wrote:
On 26/01/2013 9:55 PM, Mark Trickett wrote:
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.
It's not an issue of hating tobacco, in fact I don't even know whether Mark has any great objection to tobacco. But the tactics that the tobacco industry used to try and avoid responsibility for their actions are well known, the actions of the science denialists in regard to climate are much the same.
The same could be said of anyone. Example, "Most Linux users are socialists, and Socialism is a failed concept, so Linux is bad."
Actually some degree of government social support has been proven to be essential to a modern society. This has been shown to work so well that countries such as France have the Socialist Party as one of their major parties.
I've offered no proof, as Russell is fond of saying, "show me the money/reference!"
Please offer some "proof".
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?
No, it's ignorant people who believe in conspiracy theories.
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.
Smart people don't wait for an "end of life event". They plan for the things that seem reasonably likely. If I smoked a packet of cigarettes a day for the next 20 years I might not die of it. But the smart thing to do is to not take the chance.
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.
Actually the process of scientific research has a high level of scrutiny. The raw data is published and analysed by other scientists. Anyone who is shown to have falsified data loses their career immediately. Anyone who can show a better analysis of past data that proves something new or different is a hero. The idea that tens of thousands of scientists, lots of support staff, and major universities are all involved in a conspiracy is ridiculous. Any time when there are two groups of people who disagree and there's a possibility that one group is paid to take a position you should assume that the smaller group is being paid. Paying people without getting caught is not an easy task.
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.
There is a mature debate between scientists. Climate denialists aren't involved.
I still suspect that both sides are tossers and both exaggerate to suit their personal beliefs.
Scientists risk their careers if they exaggerate. PR people and geologists who comment on climate science risk nothing. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
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
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Mark Trickett <marktrickett@gmail.com>wrote:
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.
Mark,
I put it to you that you are only worried about your extremest POV being ignored.! Your "chicken little" BS creates an extreme opposite and does not engender any form of understanding or real debate on the topic. I put it to you that you are as facile and corrupt as the ones you have chosen to quote as being opposition. I am a person who has been convinced that we have to do something to make things better. Do you (and those that concur) ever stop to consider that your pseudo "anger" and short lived indignant nonsense only serves the opposite? BW
Hi On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Mike Mitchell <m.mitch@exemail.com.au>wrote:
The statement 'pseudo "anger"' is the excellent and same thing I equate to some seeing climate change as a replacement for religion.
Joe Hildebrand on ABC's Q&A mid last year poised a question that perfectly describes what I think you are getting at.. To paraphrase, it went something like this: When the Rudd/Howard election was in progress, climate change and what to do about it were firmly on the agenda. Both Labour and Libs promoted policies at that point that were very similar....an emissions trading scheme. Both policies were very close in terms of expected outcome and costs. Polls indicated that over 70% of the electorate overall were onside with both sides policies. No matter what happened in that election, our country was committed to a change, committed to reform and doing what was was right...reducing greenhouse gas. The science on Greenhouse Effects has been taught in schools since the 70s...the majority generally understands the issue and that something has to be done. Move forward to the Gillard coo and broken tax promise. All of a sudden, the electorate support for such a measure plummeted. So much so that the Libs have stupidly chosen to exploit it and oppose it. Hildebrands question to the audience was why? ....and deathly silence followed. The answer that comes to mind for most of the electorate is that they detested the deception and religious argument for the tax. A group with a 16% primary vote (now less than 11% and falling) made this tax a key part of the requirement for Labour to take power. Cynics rejoiced, each side of the argument took up their extreme positions and the majority was left in a political vacuum. The problem with such extreme opposites is that the real debate gets lost. I am convinced that we have to do something to reverse the CO2 levels in our atmosphere, but the current argumentsand fringie behaviour for such a change is ignoring the majority centrist physche: The extremists for climate change action blurt memes that only serve to divide instead of educate. There are 2 very important points to make in that regard: - In the majority of cases, anyone who raises a question on the subject that challenges the current thinking is a Denialist. A lay persons question is generally a call to be convinced. The evidence is clear, most of the centrist majority in the country have an understanding of the greenhouse effect and want to be convinced by valid and un-emotive argument, being labelled as a denialist for questioning the science ,( a word that has been burned into our language to ignore the existence of the Holocaust )is offensive and immediately shuts out the audience. What's more important to recognise is that the loony pseudo science think tank louts just love this.... Then, the extreme left shouts back wealthy bastards, the right yells get a job.... Blah,blah f*****n blah... Zero gain on the real issue. :-( - Laying immediate blame on natural disaster at the feet of Climate change is akin to the Tactics of a Religious Cult. One of my most enduring horrors in life was to witness the effect of a tidal wave in Aitape ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Papua_New_Guinea_earthquake) The immediate human reaction to natural disaster is to find cause and lay blame. After the shock, a raging anger is hard to suppress. This is what we are....human. To put forward an immediate "answer" or "reason" for a natural disaster after such events manipulates and takes advantage of vulnerable people, to do such is reprehensible and evil beyond measure...these are the tactics of Scientology and other cults. The fringe dwelling Fake Modern Armchair Greenie bleats Climate Change being the cause for all natural disaster. The Tea Party Dickheads rejoice at being able to point out this evil. Yet again, the real debate gets lost...zero gain :-( So my answer to everyone that choses to hide behind pseudo intellect and and mumbo jumbo quotes is to get a real life and start helping the situation before it is too late. The reality is that there is a balance in human affairs. Numbats like Alan Jones exist because there are equally Numbatty people like Christine Milne. Ying/Yang Centrists like myself are truly getting sick of the BS....full stop! BW
Doing something, I believe to be prudent. If only to make our nation self-sufficient in fuel, reducing import costs and reduce pollution.
I just hope it can be indisputably proved or disproved before there is irrevocable damage.
Cheers,
Mike
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
On 29 January 2013 19:10, Brent Wallis <brent.wallis@gmail.com> wrote:
Move forward to the Gillard coo and broken tax promise. All of a sudden, the electorate support for such a measure plummeted. So much so that the Libs have stupidly chosen to exploit it and oppose it.
You mean coup, correct? Or is there a play on words that I'm missing? I don't think the change in public sentiment was all of a sudden after the election in 2010. There was a turning point at the failure of the Copenhagen talks at the end of 2009. Before the Labor coup there was a challenge in the Coaltion where the two key issues seemed, at least from the exterior view, to be the leadership of Malcolm Turnbull and support for an emissions trading scheme. The vote was against an ETS, and Turnbull, by the narrowest of margins. The Rudd government (very) quietly pushed back the introduction of an emissions trading scheme to 2013 in early 2010, which after the rhetoric of the previous 3 years was disconcerting to most of the electorate, to say the least. Neither party wanted to commit to an ETS for the next government during the 2010 Federal campaign, and it would have remained on the backburner if the Greens did not hold the balance of power in a parliament with no clear majority. So the opinion of the electorate on an ETS was more of a gradual slide, that began with the outspoken deniers in the Coalition before Copenhagen, that led eventually to a change of opposition leader and policy, the loss of political will from the government not long after Copenhagen and then continued with a very effective negative campaign from the opposition since the fallout from the 2010 election. The other factors I would point to are an obvious bias in certain sections of the media, which includes The Australian and Alan Jones; electoral fatigue on the issue in general; and definitely, the backlash from the broken promise from Julia Gillard that has been exploited so effectively by the Coalition.
Hi all, I found an article in the Monthly by Robert Manne quiet interesting. https://www.themonthly.com.au/how-vested-interests-defeated-climate-science-... (I don't know whether it was quoted here but I believe not. I did not read all mails here but most - I only have one day per day;-). I do not think the "vested interests" can be easily dismissed. Multi million dollar campaigns influence people's opinions. E.g. the Germans have a highly influencial manufacturing sector (and not much coal anymore). For them developing and building wind turbines or solar cells .. is good business. In Germany there is a consense to push for alternative energies, and it is not just about climate change. Our policies related to power generation influences the standing of our manufacturing industry as well. Regards Peter
On 27/01/2013 11:02 PM, Mark Trickett wrote:
I am not cheerful, I am worried.
Let's see how worried you are in 20 years time, perhaps 10 years. I believe that for food production, we are actually CO2 poor. There have been times in our history where CO2 have been far greater. Producing food, which everyone needs, benefits greatly from increased CO2. http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/foodsecurity/GlobalFoodProductio... Needless to say, I am far more worried about world starvation through food shortage than rising sea levels. Cheers A.
On 28/01/13 12:51 AM, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 27/01/2013 11:02 PM, Mark Trickett wrote:
I am not cheerful, I am worried. Let's see how worried you are in 20 years time, perhaps 10 years.
I believe that for food production, we are actually CO2 poor. There have been times in our history where CO2 have been far greater. Producing food, which everyone needs, benefits greatly from increased CO2.
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/foodsecurity/GlobalFoodProductio... I'm not so sure there either. There was an interesting story on Catalyst about CSIRO research into the effects of increased CO2 on plants, and one thing they did see what that because there is an abundance of food for plants (CO2 and sunlight), plants are able to put more energy into _protecting_ themselves from being eaten, whether that be manufacturing poisons, physical structures to prevent them being eaten or whatever.
So, the net result of increased CO2 on food production? We don't know, there are still unknown variables. -- 73 de Tony VK3JED http://vkradio.com
On a list of essentially intelligent technically aware people, we seem to have hit a few raw nerves.
On 28/01/13 12:51 AM, ____ [1] wrote: On 27/01/2013 11:02 PM, ____ [1] wrote:
I am not cheerful, I am worried. Let's see how worried you are in 20 years time, perhaps 10 years.
At 23:25 27-01-2013, ____ [1] wrote: I put it to you that you are only worried about your extremest POV being ignored.! Your "chicken little" BS creates an extreme opposite and does not engender any form of understanding or real debate on the topic.
At 01:37 27-01-2013, ____ [1] wrote: ... but you are an attack dog, so we can expect nothing other than that from you.
Kind Regards [ ! ]
Ad hominem arguments do not advance a line of debate, merely serve to raise the temperature. Maybe due to the instigator's really not having a defensible position. - What's going on? One of the treasures of our civilisation, the scientific method [2], is being used to seek answers. A significant number of alert enquiring people are using this sharp tool. They have developed, after much open scrutiny and vigorous informed debate, models of climate for the small spec of matter we call Earth. These models are the result of the ongoing debate. A debate readily found in peer-reviewed journals, where each point is challenged and found to be sound. Any and all errors are actively sought out, because _that_is_ the nub of the scientific method. - What are we left with? A significant upset to the equilibrium of this small planet's climate, caused by the activities of the species homo sapiens. (How sapient remains to be seen.) The increase in energy within our biosphere, captured from the Sun, is leading to an increase in extreme weather events around the planet. There is NO proof that climate change is NOT happening. Actuaries for insurance companies are hard at work, coming up with new policy premiums, and exclusions. [Some risks are effectively uninsurable. An example in place for decades is nuclear fission. Flood (not deluge from "the heavens") is rapidly becoming another.] - What are we going to do about the situation? And when? This is the area of general public discussion. So, while argumentum ad hominem is always poor form, I consider it _very_ poor form, directed towards the OP, one of our number, whose family home was very much threatened by one of the fires here in Victoria, and depending upon the weather, may _still_ be so threatened. The same was true seven years ago, in 2005, and two years before that, in 2003. The family home has now been directly threatened by fires in three of the last eleven summers. An occurrence now likely [3] into the future, thanks to climate change. Andrea [1] Names removed, quoted simply for example. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method [3] I shall not enter into discussion of statistical proofs for this particular assertion, since I have more immediate pressing activities. Apologies for that.
Andrea wrote: [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method "*The scientific method* (or simply *scientific method*) is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena , acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." As an attendee of various 'lecture forums'; Existentialist Society, Atheist Society, Sea-of-Faith, Unitarian Philosophy Group...etc. I notice much veneration for the word 'science; but little attempt at a rigorous operational definition. A critical look at common usage definitions, found in popular dictionaries,would suggest the writers of those definitions had little idea and / or made no attempt to consult scientists of a more philosophical bent. What I intend by 'a definition of a word' is: ' a concise (as short as possible); precise (as unambiguous as possible); exhaustive (including all intended usages and excluding all others); reductive (using no words more complex than that being defined); description of that category, which is the referent of the word.' Rather than dissect the mediocre effort from Wikipedia above; I will simply state what I intend by the word 'science'. *science:*[tentatively] : "An epistemological program, whose aim is verifiable knowledge; interpreted as knowledge consisting of 'objectively falsifiable hypothesis's'. Where by 'objectively falsifiable hypothesis' is intended: a theory consisting of one or more 'objectively falsifiable-statements'. Where by an 'objectively falsifiable-statement' is intended: a statement which asserts explicitly or implicitly , one or more 'objectively observable facts' where by 'observable fact' is intended: (a) A 'logical relationship' between defined categories, or (b) The 'enumeration of a defined category' , or (c) The 'measurement of a defined quality, of a member of a defined category, in defined units ' , or (d) The 'mathematical relationships between such defined quantities', or (e) other unanimously agreed upon, unambiguous and operationally defined descriptions of phenomena. /Commenting on the above definition/ 1/ Normally the number of explicitly or implicitly 'objectively observable facts 'asserted,' will be much larger, than will ever be observed, but in the degenerate case, where all the asserted facts have been observed; the hypothesis reverts to the status of a list of observed facts 2/ All 'falsifiable statements' are not be necessarily objective; and of those that are, not all are scientifically relevant; 3/ The logical consequence of the above definition would be: -scientific language itself, will be qualitatively different from other non-scientific specialist jargons, because of the constraints of falsifiability on the definitions of it's words. -scientific knowledge will contain no value judgements ie. statements about what should or should not be; since such statements are not falsifiable. - scientific knowledge in any subject area, will consist of an: accumulating body of 'observed facts' and a number of hypotheses of variable transience, competing with each other, for consistency with the accumulating body of facts; A logical implication of this, is that each succeeding theory, will contain the replaced theory as a special case. -scientific knowledge may or may not be quantitative; but it is necessarily falsifiable. eg "All bats are placental mammals" is a valid hypothesis 4/ The consequences of 3/ constitute a theory falsifiable against the observed history of science; that is the definition is itself 'objectively falsifiable' 5/ A further falsifiable contention would be , that this usage would be preferred by the demographic of ' theoretical physicists' 6/ Finally, whilst Carl Popper should be given full credit for invention of the term 'falsifiability'; it's use here differs significantly from what he envisaged; thus it must stand or fall on it's own merits. regards Rohan McLeod
Quoting Andrea (why@bigpond.net.au):
Ad hominem arguments do not advance a line of debate, merely serve to raise the temperature. Maybe due to the instigator's really not having a defensible position. [...] So, while argumentum ad hominem is always poor form, I consider it _very_ poor form, directed towards the OP, one of our number, whose family home was very much threatened by one of the fires here in Victoria, and depending upon the weather, may _still_ be so threatened.
Just a brief note about the actual meaning of the term argumentum ad hominem and what specifically is objectionable about it. Argumentum ad hominem is a subcategory of non-sequitur argument where you say X's assertions should be disbelieved on account of X's personal characteristics _if those weren't relevant_ to X's arguments. If X said you should believe what he said because he is a member of the Liberal Party of Australia, and you rebut him with evidence that he's a leading member of the Communist Party of Australia, that is not an ad hominem argument, because you directly addressed X's reasoning, even if most people dislike Communists. On the other hand, if X's reasoning had nothing to do with party affiliation, and you objected to his line of reasoning on grounds of his being a Communist, that _is_ argumentum ad hominem. Argumentum ad hominem is objectionable because it attempts to distract listeners from the real discussion, not because it's poor form and attacks people personally. (I have great sympathy for people currently facing fire danger. Stay safe out there!) And thank you for your comments, Andrea. -- Rick Moen "So, this SEO copywriter walks into a bar, grill, rick@linuxmafia.com pub, public house, Irish bar, bartender, drinks, McQ! (4x80) beer, wine, liquor." -- Michael Karlsson
On 28/01/2013 9:00 AM, Tony Langdon wrote:
I'm not so sure there either. There was an interesting story on Catalyst about CSIRO research into the effects of increased CO2 on plants, and one thing they did see what that because there is an abundance of food for plants (CO2 and sunlight), plants are able to put more energy into _protecting_ themselves from being eaten, whether that be manufacturing poisons, physical structures to prevent them being eaten or whatever. So, the net result of increased CO2 on food production? We don't know, there are still unknown variables.
I remember that too but I thought the amount of CO2 increase was substantially higher than the current increase we were seeing in the atmosphere. Does anyone remember the amount? If it was additionally increased to represent some other effect (perhaps time)? The Wiki article on the topic looks quite good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere Well, to me but I wouldn't know any better. Cheers, Mike
On 28/01/13 3:23 PM, Mike Mitchell wrote:
I remember that too but I thought the amount of CO2 increase was substantially higher than the current increase we were seeing in the atmosphere. Does anyone remember the amount? If it was additionally increased to represent some other effect (perhaps time)?
The Wiki article on the topic looks quite good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere Well, to me but I wouldn't know any better. I think they did test to higher proportions (the figure of 450 ppm comes to mind, though I couldn't confirm it without seeing the program again - which is entirely feasible later this century).
One little aside is that as a kid I recall reading that CO2 was around 330 ppm (in books published in the 70s), and nowadays, figures of 380-390 are quoted, so there has been a more than 10% rise in my lifetime. -- 73 de Tony VK3JED http://vkradio.com
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?
participants (11)
-
Andrea -
Andrew McGlashan -
Brent Wallis -
Mark Trickett -
Mike Mitchell -
Peter Ross -
Rick Moen -
Rohan McLeod -
Russell Coker -
thelionroars -
Tony Langdon