Members banned from this thread: evince, moon, domer76, Nomad, Micawber, CharacterAssassin, Jade Dragon and guno


Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Why did you change your views on climate change?

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76,351
    Thanks
    32,173
    Thanked 21,383 Times in 16,607 Posts
    Groans
    23,059
    Groaned 3,653 Times in 3,473 Posts
    Blog Entries
    26

    Default Why did you change your views on climate change?

    .

    Saw this on Quora, extremely well argued, concise and to the point.

    I was an anti-corporation, anti-oil, politically left person who was also regularly depressed and thoroughly freaked out about climate change since first reading about it in 1998.

    So I jumped at the chance in 2015 to put my advertising creative skills to work on a voluntary project where I created a viral campaign concept to promote climate change and renewable energy. I spent almost a year developing the concept, using my spare time and money and doing vastly more reading on the subject than I had before, including many things about CO2.

    Here are some of the conclusions I personally came to, slowly at first, then eventually all at once in the following few years after the project, and some salient points I read along the way:

    There is an element of the movement that makes money out of scaring the public and politicians and who keep the scare going, despite none of their apocalyptic predictions coming true for the last 30 years. Whilst it is unlikely scientists are getting rich out of researching CO2–caused catastrophic climate change – many jobs, university departments, tenured professorships, mortgages and college funds on the money governments give to it continuing to flow.

    An atmospheric physicist or meteorologist who now comes out against the theory of human caused ‘climate emergency’ will have their livelihoods and reputations destroyed, rather than having their science objectively considered.
    Much of the public’s belief or disbelief of the theory is more about their political ideology and continuous microdosing of the message in the media than any significant research into the subject, and I would have included myself in this categorisation a few years ago.

    There is still evidence that CO2 causes catastrophic climate change, only correlations and extrapolations. Any graph or chart you see about temperature trends or sea level rise is often , still has no demonstrable link to CO2 and may be entirely due to natural cycles. The location of New York city used to be under roughly one mile of ice only after all.

    We still don't know enough about how all of the terrestrial and extraterrestrial factors from clouds, multi-decadal ocean current oscillations, cosmic rays, sun activity, water vapour, forests, urban heat island effect, Milankovitch Cycles, undersea geothermal activity, the strength of earth’s magnetic field and natural CO2 variability to name just a few, interact with each other in a myriad of ways to be able to make any claims about climate trends, and there is powerful enough to calculate it, even if we understood all of the interactions.

    Atmospheric physicists who have been in the field for decades, long before the theory of CO2–caused catastrophic climate change became widespread, used to study around 22 drivers of climate (a few of which are mentioned above), the least of which was CO2 as it was known to have a very weak influence.

    The UN's IPCC predictions are all based on computer models, which contain large errors or omit
    There are enough and who don't believe that CO2 can cause catastrophic climate change to be able to confidently question the hypothesis.

    “A profound fact is that only a very small change, so small that it cannot be measured accurately with the currently available observational devices, in the global cloud characteristics can completely offset the warming effect of the doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide…” .

    Of the 0.9 degrees C warming that has occurred since the turn of the last century, half could be attributed to human activity. Of that half, 0.225 degrees C could be caused by the urban heat island effect. The remaining 0.225 degrees C of warming is theoretically possible to have been caused by our additional CO2.

    The 0.6C of warming that occurred from took place when when the additional CO2 added to the atmosphere by human activity is estimated to have been just 18 parts per million (going from 280ppm pre-industrial to 298ppm) - acknowledged as being far too small to have had any impact in any way. Therefore what caused early 20th century warming had to have been caused by something else, and could still be causing warming, if any, today.

    Wind and solar are not capable of providing the energy and resources we require to live a modern life. They also create immense problems and inefficiencies for power grids with their constant peaks and troughs in output. Only because we keep traditional forms of power generation in ‘spinning reserve’ can we absorb or balance out the problems of intermittency with renewables, and only when used on a small scale. A battery or batteries big enough to store electricity to power northern hemisphere populations through winter even for just one full day, would be so huge, so expensive and so resource–intensive to manufacture, that they’re practically in the realm of fairytales.

    Coal and oil are single-handedly responsible for lifting humanity out of a brutal, hard manual labour, 18th century agrarian lifestyle where 85% of the population were required to farm, with little or no leisure time, no access to cheap affordable medical care and where most of us were dead by 40. They are both still responsible for maintaining our long, healthy, comfortable lives.

    No matter how ‘green’ you try and live, everything you touch, hold, wear, eat, drink, every activity, every holiday, every minute of leisure time, everything you ride in, sit on, every place you live in or work in, every medicine and medical procedure still has oil and coal at the heart of its lifecycle — by powering your activity directly, by providing the energy to be manufactured and delivered cheaply to your door from across the world or your country, and in the case of oil, is directly made from it.

    Whilst they do have environmental issues we should continue trying to resolve, rapidly removing oil and coal from our energy and raw materials mix as some advocate will result in an immediate and painful deindustrialisation and depopulation of the planet – which people often piously say is a good thing, until they realise it will likely include themselves, their children, friends, family and just about everyone they know and love.

    A subset of environmentalists who are also driving the ‘climate emergency’ narrative know that the above point is the case, but actually think there should be no more than around 1 billion people on the planet living a lifestyle similar in terms of technology to that of the Amish community. However, a sudden move away from coal and oil use will not result in a nice smooth transition to some idyllic pastoral existence, as some might imagine.

    Wind turbines, solar arrays and electric cars are far from 'green' to manufacture - with the mining and refining for renewables of the truly of rare earth elements, steel, concrete, copper cabling, fibreglass (and also land use and wildlife destruction) required to build enough of them, to even attempt to replace our current global energy production capacity, creating a very real and tangible environmental catastrophe in its own right.

    Naturally occurring water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere, is more powerful at trapping heat than CO2 and is often 25 times more prevalent than CO2 in certain times and places. CO2 has been since the early 1800’s as a result of the mining industry and factory worker safety laws. Measurements of CO2 levels taken around the countryside in the UK and Europe during this period regularly returned samples as high as 380ppm, even 540ppm, and in Greenland as high as 700ppm. This means that the commonly promoted pre industrial levels of 280ppm is just an arbitrarily low number chosen by climate change alarmists. But it also means that natural variation in CO2 levels may be much bigger that currently acknowledged, and by comparison, human contribution may be nothing more than marginal.

    CO2 has regularly been many multiple times higher in earth’s history and did not lead to an uninhabitable planet. For example, during the Devonian period between 400 and 360 million years ago when CO2 was around eight times higher at an estimated modern C3 and C4 vascular plants species first began to evolve and thrive. Far from being an extinction event, it appears life flourished during this time.

    Plants die when CO2 is at or below 150 parts per million, which is why outspoken environmentalist, scientist and former harsh critic of humanity James Lovelock went from seeing us as a kind of parasite on earth to its potential unwitting saviours by unlocking much needed CO2 for plants. Which in earth’s geological time frame is currently extremely low. CO2 only absorbs 15% of the infrared spectrum (heat) and quickly becomes saturated with infrared energy - radiating some of it back down to earth, but of course much of it also passing back into the cold vacuum of space.

    Each molecule of CO2 is surrounded by over 2400 molecules of non-heat trapping nitrogen, oxygen and argon, making it impossible to form a ‘blanket’ as we were once told - especially at high altitudes where wind speeds can reach 200 mph. The additional amount of CO2 we have added as a percentage of total atmospheric gases could be somewhere between 0.008 and 0.012 of a percent. The lesser amount when said as words is ‘eight thousandths of one percent’. Do we really think this will cause catastrophe on earth when CO2 has been many times greater naturally?

    My advice is to continue to recycle, buy less junk, give money to charities who try and prevent deforestation and remove plastic from the oceans, support initiatives to create more fishing–free zones around the world, support initiatives to educate and bring energy to developing nations, support public transport, support of nuclear energy, buy an electric car if you want, or don’t – but above all enjoy your life and stop worrying about human caused catastrophic climate change.

    We may just be scaring ourselves to death due to a lot of BS, a misunderstanding, an insidious conspiracy, political ideology, greed and egos, by humanity’s predisposition to a cataclysmic mindset, or all of the above.
    https://www.quora.com/Why-did-you-ch...PLQ-D7l1CwIdLs
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76,351
    Thanks
    32,173
    Thanked 21,383 Times in 16,607 Posts
    Groans
    23,059
    Groaned 3,653 Times in 3,473 Posts
    Blog Entries
    26

    Default

    .
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    60,011
    Thanks
    6,983
    Thanked 8,668 Times in 6,036 Posts
    Groans
    5,447
    Groaned 1,415 Times in 1,335 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    I never did

    Also not reading this dumb blogspam you’re a retard fyi
    "Do not think that I came to bring peace... I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34

  4. The Following User Groans At White American First For This Awful Post:

    Havana Moon (12-01-2019)

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    17,200
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 8,006 Times in 5,098 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,152 Times in 1,078 Posts

    Default

    Article is immediately off on the wrong foot when it try to makes the case that it is the proponents of climate change who are profiting, as if the Wilks, Koches and alike don't have a monetary interest in delaying action on addressing climate change. And from there it moves on to accuse those supporting action of politicalizing Science

    The rest is the usual selecting particulars to muddle the Science, to create the usual false paradigm, see the Wills and Koches above

    Got to better there "fogcatcher"

  6. The Following User Groans At archives For This Awful Post:

    Havana Moon (12-01-2019)

  7. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76,351
    Thanks
    32,173
    Thanked 21,383 Times in 16,607 Posts
    Groans
    23,059
    Groaned 3,653 Times in 3,473 Posts
    Blog Entries
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Article is immediately off on the wrong foot when it try to makes the case that it is the proponents of climate change who are profiting, as if the Wilks, Koches and alike don't have a monetary interest in delaying action on addressing climate change. And from there it moves on to accuse those supporting action of politicalizing Science

    The rest is the usual selecting particulars to muddle the Science, to create the usual false paradigm, see the Wills and Koches above

    Got to better there "fogcatcher"
    I tried catching fog, but mist!
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Havana Moon For This Post:

    Bull Durham (12-01-2019)

  9. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76,351
    Thanks
    32,173
    Thanked 21,383 Times in 16,607 Posts
    Groans
    23,059
    Groaned 3,653 Times in 3,473 Posts
    Blog Entries
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Never forget Christchurch View Post
    I never did

    Also not reading this dumb blogspam you’re a retard fyi
    Are you still taking Buggerall, Mark?
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  10. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76,351
    Thanks
    32,173
    Thanked 21,383 Times in 16,607 Posts
    Groans
    23,059
    Groaned 3,653 Times in 3,473 Posts
    Blog Entries
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Article is immediately off on the wrong foot when it try to makes the case that it is the proponents of climate change who are profiting, as if the Wilks, Koches and alike don't have a monetary interest in delaying action on addressing climate change. And from there it moves on to accuse those supporting action of politicalizing Science

    The rest is the usual selecting particulars to muddle the Science, to create the usual false paradigm, see the Wills and Koches above

    Got to better there "fogcatcher"
    Arsecheese, if you were really interested in that then you'd support every effect to get 4th gen. nuclear into production.
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  11. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Federal Way, WA
    Posts
    59,473
    Thanks
    16,272
    Thanked 15,564 Times in 11,650 Posts
    Groans
    623
    Groaned 1,043 Times in 989 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Article is immediately off on the wrong foot when it try to makes the case that it is the proponents of climate change who are profiting, as if the Wilks, Koches and alike don't have a monetary interest in delaying action on addressing climate change. And from there it moves on to accuse those supporting action of politicalizing Science

    The rest is the usual selecting particulars to muddle the Science, to create the usual false paradigm, see the Wills and Koches above

    Got to better there "fogcatcher"
    If you are a living, breathing, sentient being (especially living in America), you have a vested monetary interest in delaying action.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Bull Durham For This Post:

    Havana Moon (12-01-2019)

  13. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76,351
    Thanks
    32,173
    Thanked 21,383 Times in 16,607 Posts
    Groans
    23,059
    Groaned 3,653 Times in 3,473 Posts
    Blog Entries
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bull Durham View Post
    If you are a living, breathing, sentient being (especially living in America), you have a vested monetary interest in delaying action.
    Even more so in the UK which contributes around 2% to the total CO2 emissions. Even if it were remotely possible to reduce that to 1% overnight, and totally destroy the economy in the process, India alone would make up for that within months. These ignorant twats want to get rid of fracked gas, coal and nuclear expecting solar and wind to take over, total shit for brains!!
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  14. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    17,200
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 8,006 Times in 5,098 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,152 Times in 1,078 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bull Durham View Post
    If you are a living, breathing, sentient being (especially living in America), you have a vested monetary interest in delaying action.
    Oh, I got it, if we cut back on our contribution but China doesn't we are saps, so, we all ruin the world together, and now you know why millennials dismiss "boomers"

  15. The Following User Groans At archives For This Awful Post:

    Havana Moon (12-01-2019)

  16. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    10,945
    Thanks
    408
    Thanked 1,921 Times in 1,588 Posts
    Groans
    84
    Groaned 711 Times in 654 Posts

    Default

    "I was an anti-corporation, anti-oil, politically left person"

    Fake.

  17. The Following User Groans At StoneByStone For This Awful Post:

    Havana Moon (12-01-2019)

  18. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Federal Way, WA
    Posts
    59,473
    Thanks
    16,272
    Thanked 15,564 Times in 11,650 Posts
    Groans
    623
    Groaned 1,043 Times in 989 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Oh, I got it, if we cut back on our contribution but China doesn't we are saps, so, we all ruin the world together, and now you know why millennials dismiss "boomers"
    We're saps either way. The only difference is that China wouldn't be eating our lunch in one scenario.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Bull Durham For This Post:

    Havana Moon (12-01-2019)

  20. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76,351
    Thanks
    32,173
    Thanked 21,383 Times in 16,607 Posts
    Groans
    23,059
    Groaned 3,653 Times in 3,473 Posts
    Blog Entries
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Oh, I got it, if we cut back on our contribution but China doesn't we are saps, so, we all ruin the world together, and now you know why millennials dismiss "boomers"
    In my experience you rarely get anything Arsecheese!
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  21. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76,351
    Thanks
    32,173
    Thanked 21,383 Times in 16,607 Posts
    Groans
    23,059
    Groaned 3,653 Times in 3,473 Posts
    Blog Entries
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Arsecheese, if you were really interested in that then you'd support every effect to get 4th gen. nuclear into production.

    Next-Gen Nuclear Is Coming—If Society Wants It

    Scores of nuclear startups are aiming to solve the problems that plague nuclear power.

    https://www.wired.com/story/next-gen-nuclear/
    Last edited by Havana Moon; 12-02-2019 at 09:32 PM.
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  22. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    76,351
    Thanks
    32,173
    Thanked 21,383 Times in 16,607 Posts
    Groans
    23,059
    Groaned 3,653 Times in 3,473 Posts
    Blog Entries
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Article is immediately off on the wrong foot when it try to makes the case that it is the proponents of climate change who are profiting, as if the Wilks, Koches and alike don't have a monetary interest in delaying action on addressing climate change. And from there it moves on to accuse those supporting action of politicalizing Science

    The rest is the usual selecting particulars to muddle the Science, to create the usual false paradigm, see the Wills and Koches above

    Got to better there "fogcatcher"
    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Next-Gen Nuclear Is Coming—If Society Wants It

    Scores of nuclear startups are aiming to solve the problems that plague nuclear power.

    https://www.wired.com/story/next-gen-nuclear/
    I’m for building 100 nuclear reactors immediately. Then start planning the next 100 and the next 100. Get 60%+ of our power from nuclear, they get over 70% in France and have done for decades without any issues. But no one is serious, especially in the US, one side just wants to be right and the other side wants the other to be wrong. It’s a stupid cycle but our hands will be forced eventually. It may require the passing of 'aging hippies' and Millennials to grow up before that happens though.
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

Similar Threads

  1. Why did you change your views on climate change?
    By Havana Moon in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-25-2019, 08:49 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-14-2019, 03:10 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-22-2018, 12:37 PM
  4. How to convince Climate Sceptics That Climate Change is a Real Problem
    By Havana Moon in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-15-2018, 09:39 AM
  5. Half in US choose cremation as views on death change
    By signalmankenneth in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-10-2017, 01:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •