On Sun, 2013-01-27 at 00:45 +1100, Mike Mitchell 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. 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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
Those who have been putting out the truths of climate change have put
the data and models through the scrutiny. That is the scientific
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.
I am not cheerful, I am worried.