Global Climate Disruption.

[CBR]

...but it simply can't be denied that believers have almost unlimited recources when compared to sceptics, it's not a fair fight at all.

Hm, yeah maybe the skeptics need more funding, because so far they seem to getting it wrong.

[CBR]

The author of (the?) The Register article (Lewis Page) did ring a bell somewhere and a quick look at his other articles showed a disturbing lack of credibility. Then it dawned on me that he had indeed been debunked on the YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3vI...F0994AFB057BB8

The usual stuff of not reading the actual science behind it all, and jumping to the standard "skeptical" conclusions, yada yada. The only thing one can read behind the lines is his bias and ignorance, and nothing to do with lack of funding for those poor skeptics who can't get the truth out.

[Fragony]

Hm, yeah maybe the skeptics need more funding, because so far they seem to getting it wrong.

But they exist. Science is not settled. How could the individual sceptic compete with an almost recourceless IPCC? Excommunication from the green church means professional death

[CBR]

But they exist.

So does flat earthers, astrologers, homeopathist, numerologists, geocentrists and creationists etc etc. Heck there is even a guy who made an alternative theory to Einstein's relativity.

Science is not settled.

Wait, didn't I provide a link about the settled science bit, oh yeah another unread/misunderstood link I presume. Tell me this, when will you consider any type of science settled?

How could the individual sceptic compete with an almost recourceless IPCC? Excommunication from the green church means professional death.

Almost resourceless? That is actually quite funny because they don't have many resources, although I'm sure you actually meant limitless resources or something. From 1988 to 2007 their total expenses was less than 100 million dollars and the current annual budget is AFAIK still less than 10 million.

It is a lot easier to have IPCC as some evil bogeyman, instead of dealing with the fact that there are thousands of scientists who either author or review all this stuff.

That means there is only one logical conclusion: This global warming hoax is the biggest conspiracy since the faked Moon landings!

[Fragony]

So does flat earthers, astrologers, homeopathist, numerologists, geocentrists and creationists etc etc. Heck there is even a guy who made an alternative theory to Einstein's relativity.


Wait, didn't I provide a link about the settled science bit, oh yeah another unread/misunderstood link I presume. Tell me this, when will you consider any type of science settled?


Almost resourceless? That is actually quite funny because they don't have many resources, although I'm sure you actually meant limitless resources or something. From 1988 to 2007 their total expenses was less than 100 million dollars and the current annual budget is AFAIK still less than 10 million.

It is a lot easier to have IPCC as some evil bogeyman, instead of dealing with the fact that there are thousands of scientists who either author or review all this stuff.

That means there is only one logical conclusion: This global warming hoax is the biggest conspiracy since the faked Moon landings!

It IS a hoax. There is no global warming it doesn't exist it is as simple as that. There was also no acid rain it never existed, and the hole in the ozon layer just lost interest. Who is 'they' the way, the anti truth folks are making billions of pecunia's with the emmision rights scam, it's a pyramide-game that is making some people filthy rich. At our expense.

[Beskar]

There was also no acid rain it never existed.

?

Oh deary me...

[a completely inoffensive name]

I love it when people treat problems that we fixed as issues that never arose.

Polio? Never existed. Big hoax by pharmaceuticals to rake in the money with their sugar water..

[Fragony]

?

Oh deary me...

Yes, there was no acid rain. That was also a hoax. Impossible ain't it

[Greyblades]

I think we should have a rule where Frags cant state any platitude without at least 3 sources backing him up.

[InsaneApache]

?

Oh deary me...

Indeed.

[CBR]

Polio? Never existed. Big hoax by pharmaceuticals to rake in the money with their sugar water..

Now that you mention Polio http://whyfiles.org/2012/denial-of-s...nce-of-denial/

An earlier example of denialism occurred in the 1950s, after Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, a breakthrough that halted a dreaded, paralyzing disease.Many chiropractors, Carroll found, opposed vaccines since they negated the central premise of chiropractic — that all disease results from misalignment of the vertebrae. “It shocked me. They actively opposed, disputed the efficacy of the polio vaccine. The opposed the March of Dimes, and federal and state efforts to get everybody vaccinated.”

FIVE HALLMARKS OF DENIALISM

The opposition continued — even after the polio epidemic tapered off as a result of the mass vaccination that started in 1955, says Carroll. And he identifies the tactics used then as a “playbook” of science denial that is echoed in more recent struggles over evolution, vaccines and global warming:

1. Doubt the science:

• • “CDC statistics make clear that polio was disappearing anyway.”
  
• • “There is no real evidence that evolution is occurring; evolution is not science at all.”

2. Question the motivation:

• • “The vaccine manufacturers are just interested in profits.”
  
• • “Climate scientists are only interested in more grant money.”

3. Exaggerate normal scientific disputes:

• • Cite gadflies as authorities even though they are a tiny minority.
  
• • Insist on “balanced coverage” even when almost all of the experts are on one side of the issue.

4. Exaggerate the potential harm:

• • “We cannot control global warming without destroying our economy.”
  
• • “Darwin’s talk about the struggle for existence lead to the Nazi Holocaust and World War II.”

5. Appeal to personal freedom:

• • “Students should be able to opt out of classes on evolution.”
  
• • “We support each individual’s right to freedom of choice” on vaccines (American Chiropractic Association, 1998).

[Montmorency]

Thirty-one percent of Americans thought humans and other living things “have existed in the present form since the beginning of time.”

What the evolutionists don't tell you is that these people have come to accept the more plausible Lovecraftian Synthesis theory.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Now that you mention Polio http://whyfiles.org/2012/denial-of-s...nce-of-denial/

This is absolutely wonderful. I friggen love you CBR.

[Fragony]

I think we should have a rule where Frags cant state any platitude without at least 3 sources backing him up.

In acid rain case,
- there are no mass starvations
- there is no world war 3
- we didn't act right now

[CBR]

In acid rain case,
- there are no mass starvations
- there is no world war 3
- we didn't act right now

That is a list of claims. Now you need to find some sources to show that these claims are real and not just made up by you.

[Fragony]

That is a list of claims. Now you need to find some sources to show that these claims are real and not just made up by you.

Ha. I was still at school when acid rain was imprinted, it was acid rain that was going to kill us all, if we do not act right now. Dead lakes in Sweden. All harvests useless. Mass migration. Mass starvations. Sounds familar doesn't it. I also was still at school when the hole in the ozon layer was going to give us all skin cancer, if we do not act right now.

[Papewaio]

Frag the Ozone hole above Antartica did shrink once Ozone depleting CFCs were removed. Much like lead levels in the atmosphere plummeted as we went to unleaded fuels.

Both CFCs and leaded fuel have something else in common apart from being atmospheric pollutants. Ten interwebs to the first correct answer.

[Fragony]

Frag the Ozone hole above Antartica did shrink once Ozone depleting CFCs were removed. Much like lead levels in the atmosphere plummeted as we went to unleaded fuels.

Both CFCs and leaded fuel have something else in common apart from being atmospheric pollutants. Ten interwebs to the first correct answer.

It's still there. There is also one above Russia. But the green movement lost interest and moved on to another host

[Papewaio]

Yes there is, but it has reduced above Antartica with the reduction in CFCs.

[Catiline]

Frag the Ozone hole above Antartica did shrink once Ozone depleting CFCs were removed. Much like lead levels in the atmosphere plummeted as we went to unleaded fuels.

Both CFCs and leaded fuel have something else in common apart from being atmospheric pollutants. Ten interwebs to the first correct answer.

Thomas Midgley

[Fragony]

Yes there is, but it has reduced above Antartica with the reduction in CFCs.

Ya sure, just like it growed in Russia it's 4 times as big covering just about the whole of Russia. But holes in the ozon layer aren't profiable anymore. Neither is acid rain. Not scary enough anymore, used up.

[Beskar]

Ha. I was still at school when acid rain was imprinted, it was acid rain that was going to kill us all, if we do not act right now. Dead lakes in Sweden. All harvests useless. Mass migration. Mass starvations. Sounds familar doesn't it. I also was still at school when the hole in the ozon layer was going to give us all skin cancer, if we do not act right now.

But didn't we "act right now" to starve off the process? Thus we acted and "won", but since we did that, you are now calling it a hoax.

- Move from leaded to unleaded petrol.
- catalytic converters standard on all cars.
- Sulphur Emissions Reduction Protocol
- Flue-gas desulfurization
- Low-Sulphur Coal used in power-stations

There are even measures taken place all over to provide solutions to the issue. Whilst it hasn't gone away completely yet, it isn't a critical concern.

[InsaneApache]

We did indeed act in regard to CFCs and acid rain. It didn't involve taxing us back into the dark ages though, did it?

[Beskar]

We did indeed act in regard to CFCs and acid rain. It didn't involve taxing us back into the dark ages though, did it?

The biggest increase has been because of the bail-outs given to the banks and sectors of the economy. Internal leaning from the Bank of England to businesses has been 13 times the size of the Greek debt. The government has spent absolutely nothing in comparison in terms of the environment.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I was just thinking about this for some reason. I think that it is clear that the current climate is changing (although when in history was it not?). I think that I am also inclined to believe, based on the evidence that I've read, that we may have something to do with this most recent bout of changes. Now, I have not read any experts opinion that suggests we can fix the problem at this point in time. This leaves us with 3 options that are practical:

1. Adapt. Find better and more sustainable ways of cooling ourselves, growing more resilient crops and irrigation measures, preserving drinking water and pushing de-desalinization methods.
2. Alter our methods of powering our civilization. More for cost saving, pollution reduction, national security, and grid stabilization reasons than limiting carbon emissions; we need to develop more sustainable and varied ways of powering our lives. The increased global temperatures will put greater strain on our current networks. Correcting our current usage issues will have the added benefit of reducing carbon emissions which will satisfy the people who are obsessed with that stuff just to get them off of our backs.
3. Colonize other planets. Push the development of the moon and mars and eventually actualize Wall-E/Cowboy Bebop type stuff. For some reason preservation of the species is something that we care about, so we should be trying to do that long after the sun burns out or we collide with another galaxy.

Any thoughts?

[CBR]

I apologize for the generally Euro-centric figures:

I already gave a link to a report that showed the considerable reductions of NOx and SO2 in Europe (post from August last year in this thread) but I'll post the graph from that PDF here along with newer numbers:



Then the new stuff and remember that these are now for 27 countries and not 15. Nonetheless the trend is clear.






For CFC:



Yes, I guess all those fancy graphs shows "We didn't act now" But it does show considerable reductions and therefore one should also expect some type of effect. For acid rain the effect is quick but for CFC it takes a while as the lifetime for the gases seems to be anywhere between 45 to 100 years.

It is therefore no surprise that there is a still an ozone hole. If the media in general does not write a lot about it, is hardly a big surprise either. It is no longer big news nor can we do much about it but wait.

[drone]

Any thoughts?

You forgot #4: Wait until the next large high-sulfur volcanic event.

[Greyblades]

I wonder if a cotroled release of volcanic gas into a series of wind turbines could be used to power a city?

[InsaneApache]

Now that's creative thinking.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Actually something similarly is already being done in Iceland, just not with wind turbines (steam turbines). Trouble is, if you don't have an proper, active and preferably punctual geiser handy you're pretty much out of luck. Volcanoes either tend not to be very cooperative for 24x7 power or alternatively a bit too giving (destroying your equipment in a blaze of volcanic power aka eruption).