Does the Reality of Global Warming Burn Your Arse?

Global Warming denialism was created by Oil Companies. They thought that their profits would tank if governments started looking for alternative energy sources. And that's why they spent billions creating a misinformation campaign. They bought lawmakers and Presidents. Oil barons like the Koch brothers spent their own money to undermine Science. Oil companies even offered money to anybody with a science degree on anything (related to Climate or not) to write an article to undermine the scientific studies proving AGW. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange

But now we know that Oil Companies knew global warming was real even before the rest of us did. As they diversify and especially as they themselves start feeling the impact of Global Warming, they themselves have accepted the fact. Some, in the orwellian way so characteristic in our Post-Truth Era, have denied that they ever denied Global Warming.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position
https://www.shell.com/sustainability/environment/climate-change.html
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/climate-change.html

Nevertheless, so much money has been spent, that denialists can't just... let go. They don't even know why they are denying Global Warming. They just keep denying out of... habit. And because all the false information created by billions in investment for 15 years is out there and will never disappear. So, once in a while, somebody sees it, and thinks they are discovering something "new"... or even "significant". They are not. They are looking at propaganda.....

Denialism is pretty much dead. Except for a handful of die-hards. And I never got an answer to my question: Why? Why would Scientists all over the world "conspire" to "fabricate" such a complete Theory involving Climatologists, biologists, oceanographers, chemists, physicists, anthropologists, .... almost all Sciences? What was to be gained by "fabricating" something so elaborate? Even if fabricating such a thing were even possible (and it isn't)

 

Unlikely. The unfortunate truth is that most of these conversations are super thin, and unlikely to ever have real depth or detail within them. Expecting anything else is just wishful.

 

First, you'd have to demonstrate that it is being influenced to any significant degree by man.
Good luck

 

One of the many advantages of being old is not having to worry about what the idiots are doing to the only planet we have to live on.

 

If, by denialism, you are referring to the AGW faithful who deny the actual science observations these days, perhaps you're right here. To "answer" your question, perhaps you're using the wrong terms,.

The obvious answer is that very few folks (like the East Anglia staff) actually ever conspire. We have adequate and sufficient evidence of this, and clearly it is done. It also doesn't reflect the entire population of climate science professionals. On the question of "fabricating", it's a matter of record that "fabrication" is just another term that represents the "estimations" that temp models produce every day. Given that the observable data is so often times in conflict with those "estimates", many have characterized those estimates as "fabricated", myself included.

To be more specific though, there is an obvious financial motive for folks to produce research that supports the currently politically advantageous messaging about AGW, and it's just good business to be on the good side of those grant allocations. If, and many have, done the research that demonstrates the unlikeliness of receiving grant money should one not espouse an AGW positive bent, the likelihood of being successful is markedly lower than not. So, the very immediate response to that is the perception that those who engage in that behavior are otherwise compromising the actual science to continue to fund their little research junkets. And the idea that there are BILLOINS of fund available to them certainly makes a very compelling argument for why so many are involved in the behavior.

 

Who is denying that global warming exists ?? Why would anyone who did deny that ask what the climate sensitivity of CO2 is ?? The question is what to do about it and the answer is that humans are not politically capable of doing anything to significantly reduce CO2 emissions. The best strategy is to avoid energy policies that reduce economic growth and thus reduce the capability to adapt to any local situations resulting from global warming.

 

That the earth is warming up, with the factors being both natural climate change along with the burning of fossil fuels does not chaff or burn this old arse. But I am a reasonable man, so...

But you know what does chaff and burn this old arse? The upmost certainty exhibited by the arrogance of human nature, and scientists are much more infected and affected with such arrogance of certainty in regards to ALL of their claims on this issue.

What also chaffs this old arse is the hysteria of doomsday predictions, coming from a field of science that is extremely limited in knowledge as well as they hysterics seen from the left in regards to this biblical proportioned prophesy.

You know what else chaffs and burns this old arse? Not a single damned move to add co2 extracting flora, even as rain forests are continued to be deforested!! That really burns this old arse! And that the wildly hysterical completely ignore doing something about this.

And finally what burns this old arse is the scheme to take from the non elites and give to the elites, using carbon taxes, which is why it has been the tunnel vision means of addressing co2 and climate change, even when some experts have maintained that if you stop all co2 emissions today, the warming attributed exclusively to co2 will continue on and not abate.

But none of this chaffs your old arse, nor does it burn it. For it cannot with any mind that has a myopic tunnel vision, seasoned with nothing but partisanship, and also an arrogance that only the left is intellectually astute when it comes to this issue. And that is what I have observed coming from your team, ever since this issue of co2 and climate change arose, primarily from the IPCC, who then wanted to grant billions to some scientists to evidence what was their conclusion, even before the research was done, in depth. Never mind that the modeling could never predict accurately the hypothesis. If in physics, that field would not ever have fudged numbers and then used plausible deniability as a defense. They were just adjusting in order to make the data more accurate, or so they say. But it is like cheating in a chess game, when playing an idiot who cannot notice you changed moves that would lose you the game over the long run. My brother uses the "undo" function on his laptop when he makes errors, based upon his inferior skills at chess. I see this hardly any different than the fudging and dishonesty that has raised its ugly head in climate science.

So, plenty of reasons to have a burnt and chaffed arse when it comes to the warming of this planet. And it has nothing to do with denying that co2 can create some warming, or that fossil fuel burning is one factor involved. But one should deny the doomsday scenerio used by your crowd, and call it what it is, fear mongering, while being incapable of actually factually making such predictions. This is where the arrogance of human beings enters into the equation.

 

But scientists are not affected by human nature. They are inhuman robots! And yet, if you have listened to many scientists over the years one thing is very clear. They are perhaps the most arrogant of any group of people, outside of politicians. Of course you have some who exhibit humility and will admit of the great limitation involved in scientific knowledge. And how one discovery can completely change the science, and the history of science evidences this in spades.

I once posted an article here, written by scientists that revealed how academia works, and it is chock full of the downside of human nature, and how the politics within academia works. That it can actually infect and affect science is a given, and a certainty as gravity is. And so it is said that movement forward in science sometimes occurs at the pace of tombstones. While we want to believe science is immuned from human nature, self interests, and even grants, that isn't the case at all.

What surprises me the most is the absence of dissenting voices within science in regards to this issue, and the consensus has been used time and time again on this issue. And yet when the genius Einstein was trying to get his ideas entertained, by other scientists, the resistance was huge, and it lasted until he finally got the eclipse needed in order to evidence the validity of some of his ideas. Where is the resistance when it comes to this issue, that co2 is what alone is creating a warming? And that unless we tax carbon, there is a doomsay awaiting us? Now granted a few in science have questioned this paradigm, but MSM will seldom cover it, unless the person involved can be called names and his credibility attacked! And as long as this goes on, those people who do respect science should at least be given a pause.

Absolute certainty based upon a hypothesis, even a theory, is what is being fed to the public. But when it comes to climate change, a science still in its infancy, and the tremendous complexity involved in such a system, along with the limitation of knowledge, anyone who would even think of certainty is basically no different from you local village idiot.

 

Reference the Florida congressman introducing a carbon tax

 

Let me explain it to you. Read and learn.

Facts:

The global temperature has been going up and down for millenniums Some of that has been due to humans and some hasn't.

There is no doubt that humans have had an effect. Anyone who thinks otherwise is insane. There is also no doubt that the human effect is to add warming because there is almost no mechanism which would result in cooling.

Getting rid of fossil fuels is a good thing because it generally costs extra to obtain it and to make it suitable for human use. It would not bother me a bit to be on 100% renewable energy.. It is also never going to happen in our lifetime. In spite of all the benefits, the sun is not a 100% reliable source of fuel. There will be cloudy days and periods where the winds are too slow to supply all our needs.

Backup is required for renewable energy. This is the single biggest shortfall for renewable energy. That falls into one of two general categories. The first and easiest is to back it up with nonrenewable sources such as natural gas, coal and nuclear.. Keeping that source on standby is expensive. The second and much more difficult method is to find ways to store the energy or potential energy. We can store the energy in batteries or we can store the energy using such things as pumping water back to higher elevations. Both tend to be expensive in capitol costs and generally not practical for the amount needed. The other possibility is to provide an extremely large capability to overproduce electricity so that it covered when the capability is lowered.

My Opinion:

The effects of our global warming has been oversold by both sides.

I would prefer to switch to renewable sources in a more measured method rather than setting artificial goals. California is a good example. They claim all this progress, but from appearances, it is simply not working the way they want it to.

 

The undeniable reality of the crisis of anthropogenic climate change and the global determination to mitigate its disastrous consequences are not paralyzed by the inherent imprecision of the continually-refined scientific metrics that allow for margins of error in its timetable and the precise extent of its impact, recognizing that an unrealistic precision is impossible.

The arrogance of ideologically-driven denial and dishonest distortion of the inherent imprecision of scientific prediction that serve as excuses for surrender is regrettable.

Dogma is not subject to knowledge-based revision. Science demands it.

Trump and Assad do not relegate their nations to pariah status out of an over-inflated sense of personal humility.

You may feel alienated from "your crowd" but everyone is subject to the reality, regardless of whether their politics allows them to admit it.

 

All the evidence you will ever need you can find here: http://www.ipcc.ch/

It's settled science. The only thing I need to show is that there is a Scientific Consensus. Easy enough proven by the fac that no peer-reviewed studies have come out in... what... 10 or 15 years (I lost count) to contradict the Consensus position. Even if there were a few, the consensus would hold just because of the overwhelming number of studies that confirm it. But it just so happens that there aren't.

If you want to argue this, answer my question: the only way to justify denialism would be with a world-wide conspiracy of scientists. What reason would they have? In all of this, it's the only thing that still draws my curiosity regarding denialists.

 

Trump is dead wrong on this one. The climate change hoax was not created by China, but in the U.S. to unjustly enrich various interests in the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex at taxpayer expense.

If there aren't enough real problems that "require" more government growth and power, more taxes, regulation, gov-edu, gov contracts, gov grants, fake crony companies, etc. to fix... MAKE SOME UP!

 

it may be settled science that man has an influence and contributes to global warming. What is not settled is how much man contributes to the warming and how much can realistically be done about it.

 

I think talking down to people is also an issue, most of the people I know who don't accept AGW are very keen to do something about pollution. I think if you went at these people with a smoggy cities argument you might have more success.

As much as it doesn't seem like it in today's polarised world - most people honestly just want what's best. They get caught up on the particulars. Appeal to their sense of humanity and you'd be surprised how often you find common ground.

 

Why?
Global warming is an extremely complex process if you look beyond the microcosm of human contribution and consider the far larger role of nature. Of course, that makes it extremely difficult to have a solid conclusion and we like jumping on solid, obvious things; frequently disregarding those parts harder to merge into a firm answer. The "popularity" of a belief is hardly a logical thing. There are often a variety of explanations for something that, given the right perspective make sense- but not so solid if you look at the larger picture. It's also true that being opposed to the popular trend gets you ridiculed, and can be career damaging. If these things were not so, then we would not be continuing to discover that things widely accepted as fact 10-20 years ago prove to be wrong today- and by that example, our new concept of what is right today may be proven wrong in the future too.

Scientific theories are based on what we know. As Einstein once said- "We don't know 1% of anything". Thus our conclusions are what appears to be so from the limited amount of the overall knowledge we have about something, plied by the popularity and acceptance that comes with going along, and the pursuit of approval from others.

Many years back, an Australian doctor proved that ulcers were the result of a particular biologic, and could be successfully treated with the right antibiotic. This was easy to verify, however American medicine among others was still denying the evidence and the pathology 20 years later. After all, they had been right for so long- and it's difficult to admit that.

People do not usually think in a clean, logical straight line, and in fact we are wrong much more often that we are right. In the case of global warming- yes, we are a factor. However- proportionately we are probably a grain of sand on the beach, with no power over the major players in the earths environment.

 

Why is this not accompanied by peer-reviewd studies? Why do I even have to ask for them?

You're not answering my question: why would scientist have any interest in data being fabricated? They're scientists!

Which means two things: one is that they are likely to be more intelligent than average. And would notice if data had been altered by technicians. Two, they would only care if the data were inaccurate. A scientist takes whatever data is available, and uses it for research. If it's inaccurate, the research is more likely to fail. And their reputation and status would be in jeopardy.

First of all, you demonstrate a tremendous lacking in your understanding about how Science (in general) works. The scientific method has many safeguards against manipulation. errors, wishful thinking, etc...

Now, where did you get the idea that Scientists have "BILLIONS of funds available"? Why would they? It's settled science!. Years ago, a denialist (there used to be serious ones.) would bring up an important objection, or would point out an area that had not been researched enough. Something interesting enough to warrant a Scientific team be assembled and investigate. So they would research, and the results would turn out to be compatible with AGW. Serious objectins haven't appeared in a long time. But denialists were the ones fueling more research, for a while. And most climatologists "researched" themselves dry, as far as Climate Change is concerned. Fewer and fewer worked on that anymore because. it was settled science! If your "conspiracy" were factual, scientists would be producing contradicting evidence so they could keep researching over and over. But there isn't any anymore.

So, going back to the beginning: this is where you most clearly display your lack of knowledge about the ins and outs of Science. Agreeing with Global Warming is not being on the "right side of those grant allocations". In fact, it's actually the contrary. The only way you'll get a grant would be to find a hole in the theory. There aren't any. Why would somebody in their right mind fund research to confirm over and over what has already been confirmed over and over?

 

Top Trump Officials Clash Over Plan to Let Cars Pollute More

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/27/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

WASHINGTON — Senior administration officials are clashing over President Trump’s plan to roll back a major environmental rule and let cars emit more tailpipe pollution, according to 11 people familiar with the confrontation, in a dispute over whether the proposal can withstand legal challenge.

The rollback, one of the most consequential proposals of the Trump administration, not only would permit more planet-warming pollution from cars, it would also challenge the right of California and other states to set their own, more restrictive state-level pollution standards.
....................................................................................................................................................
Behold, the Drumpf economic miracle. Pollute more, borrow more, put the public's safety at risk more, allow consumers to be screwed more, focus on the now more.........the future is someone else's problem.

 

I agree. That's the proper question. We have been distracted for too long by denialists. I believe we are politically capable. Not in this administration, of course. But when we get a rational one we need to change the culture. And spend every effort we can afford promoting research in energy alternatives, and to transition with as little impact as possible. The political resistance to do this by denialists has caused that policies adopted have not been as efficient or effective as they could be.

 

Try a little proofism.

 

There are very very few people that deny that global warming. And there is nothing that is politically possible to significantly reduce global CO2 emissions. Adaptability is the only possible strategy.

 

And hear in Oklahoma it is in the mid eighties at a time of year when it normally mid nineties or warmer. This could also potentially set a record for the wettest july on record if it hasn't already.

 

No, you openly fabricated that.

That's why nobody trusts deniers, because they've been caught fabricating everything so many times. They have to fake it all. All the data flatly contradicts them, and honesty is not an option allowed to them, so open fraud is their only remaining option.

 

What burns Granny's butt...

... is a flame about 3 ft. high.

 

Does the Reality of Global Warming Burn Your Arse?

What burns my ass is waiting around for the planet to warm enough to support palm trees in my back yard. I wish it would hurry.