• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, 11 years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Politics of Global Warming

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Lets begin with the cloud seeding statement. Cloud formation in science is a very difficult subject & computer models are constantly being re-designed to try and understand the complex factors that come in to formation of clouds. Clouds of course govern the amount of energy coming into the earths system, energy is reflected back out into space when clouds are formed, not just the other way around, where heat energy is reflected back down to earth. I am sure you understand that like many climate systems, cloud formation is based on chaos. When this comes into play it means the only way to accurately predict cloud formation is to know all the exact values for every single variable that comes into affect at one point in time. This is totally impossible given our science today, we are way off this and our weather predictions are proof of this. A long term weather prediction is considered to be 5-7 days, each day comes with a drastic reduction in the likelihood of said predictions coming true. The point I am driving at here should be clear. How can you have a settled science when the science is based on a chaotic system, the most complex ever known to man?

Just as an interesting aside I would consider looking at Piers Corbyn website www.weatheraction.com Piers uses the sun as the primary driver of the weather, Sun spots in particular along with a host of other major factors. It is important to note that he took major bets against the UK Met Office over the years through an official betting agency to provide more accurate weather predictions than the Met Office. The Met Office being the UKs official weather service. He won these bets and made a little money and he is still providing his service, more accurately each week. His own opinion is CO2 is not a major driver, not even a real minor one.
 
The next part of your reply Tyger was "Start reading and you will find out why the CO2 level over the last 50 years of significantly of note".
This is a very generalised sentence & perhaps you can suggest what I should read that would convince me of this? 400ppm is the current CO2 level, in the past it has been 20 times this amount. For instance if we take geological time periods, then we know that there have been glaciers at the equator when CO2 in the atmosphere was far higher than today. This may have been during a period of low solar activity of course, but the prevailing science today apparently tells us that CO2 is a major climate driver. Well in answer to that all I can say is that I am sceptical because it clearly was not a climate driver in the past. At this juncture I will bring in your question as to CO2 not tracking over geological periods. CO2 Over History.png

So the above graph displays temperature records against CO2 levels over a very long period. Over geological history CO2 does NOT track so when people are telling me that since the industrial revolution humans have brought the earth out of balance I look at this graph & ask myself, what balance?
 
Tyger

The way I see it, human contribution of CO2 will have a negligible affect if any in the long term.

"And you base this on what? Scientists say it is and will continue to do so." As before some scientists say this but tying in another of your points, science is about observation, not modelling. Yet all the predictions being made (I have lists of hundreds of failed predictions & hundreds more that have been made which are just crazy) are based on computer models that fail to line up with the observations. or instance lets take the pause I mentioned. There are two datasets that now agree that there has been no statistically significant global warming over the past 18-25 years respectively. I will agree on 18 years for the sake of argument. The two data sets are RSS and UAH, both using satellite records & both show no warming despite record CO2 in the atmosphere.

The satellites were put up into orbit to provide more accurate measurements but the global warming proponents have gone back to using surface temperatures. Why? The surface record does show warming but at a decreased rate but who chooses the weather stations to utilise & who keeps the raw temperature data? With satellites the raw data is available to anyone but not the manual stations where the temperatures can be homogenised. So forgetting the heat island effect for a moment, what about the signature for global warming, the troposphere?

According to AGW theory the troposphere should be warming which would be a distinct marker for the heating atmosphere. So is it there? No. No heat bloom and there has never been one. So say the activist scientists, lets go back to using our surface data and lets put that missing heat bloom in the deep oceans, where it must have hidden.

So why does CO2 in my opinion have no real affect? Well simply put, we don’t emit nearly enough to have an impact compared to natural sources. Take our atmosphere make up. Only 3% of the atmosphere is made up of greenhouse gases. Of that 3% only 3% is CO2. The other 96% water vapour, the 1% other trace gases. Of that 3% of 3%, only 3-4% is of human origin. That is a tiny amount, tiny.

And for those out there that say that humans knock the earth system out of balance with that 3% of 3% of 3-4% of gas, then you first assume the Earth has ever had a balance. It never has, and the climate has never been fixed or steady. It always changes and always will. CO2 in the past does not track with temperature and even the ice cores at Vostok proved that the temperature always lead CO2 increases and never the other way around.
 
"This is definitely a point of view. Not sure I've seen any of this. You'd have to be more precise in what you are referencing."

Yes it is a point of view that I have arrived at over a long period of careful study. I used to be on the side of the alarmists until I put my money where my mouth was and started to review the opposition press and not just my careful safe websites where I had all the news and information carefully filtered for me. I become angry once I had realised that I was being used as a useful idiot.

I was told NOT to look into the other sides arguments because they were unscientific and wrong. I realise now that anyone advising people to not educate yourself on both sides of any argument are not there to help you they are there to use you.

I will provide only one example here because I don’t today have the time to dig through my archive. The Cook et al paper I quoted from earlier on, where the 97% consensus was "proven". That paper was tweeted by John Holdren and then Barack Obama to millions of people. A President spreading misinformation and bad science to influence people was unforgivable. And look how many times that statistic has been quoted by the media since?

Leonardo Di Caprio quoted this statistic at the UN just recently. Unforgivable.
 
This is not about science, and its not really about global warming either.

The idea that people need to wake up: and either do something about global warming, or deny human impact on it, is the result of deliberate* polarisation.

Humanity will survive, that is what we do, but at what cost, and what kind of world future generations inhabit is our responsibility.
This is true weather you judge it by "scientific" or more "woo woo" terms.

Here is a description of an industrial area of England in 1849

"In this Black Country, including West Bromwich, Dudley, Darlaston, Bilston and several minor villages, a perpetual twilight reigns during the day, and during the night fires on all sides light up the dark landscape with a fiery glow. The pleasant green of pastures is almost unknown, the streams, in which no fishes swim, are black and unwholesome; the natural dead flat is often broken by high hills of cinders and spoil from the mines; the few trees are stunted and blasted; no birds are to be seen, except a few smoky sparrows; and for miles on miles a black waste spreads around, where furnaces continually smoke, steam engines thud and hiss, and long chains clank, while blind gin horses walk their doleful round."

I can tell you I don't want to go back to those days, but sadly there are places in poor countries that are like that now. We have fooled people into thinking that because the factory is not on your "doorstep" it does not affect you. The trouble is that we (the people of the world) live in a tank, and whilst some of our number have the ability to jump out and find a new aquarium the overwhelming majority have to stick it out on good old planet Earth.

There is a saying that goes don't shit on your own doorstep, but it should be don't shit on OUR doorstep!

The problem is that everybody thinks that everything belongs to them (myself included). We use a logic of convenience to justify our actions. Choosing to believe what suits us. for example the idea that because something is "natural" it is not dangerous..........

Weather we like it or not, everybody has a horse in this race.

*as in lets cause confusion and argue every minor point before doing anything proactive.
 
Regarding the climate emails, let me clarify your point. "Have you read the conclusions of the investigations of the emails?" I see you have answered your own question here but I thought the question was for me to answer?

The answer is Yes and Yes. I have read the emails and I have also read the conclusions of the investigations. Have you read the emails or have you read ONLY the investigations? You have done half the work and let someone else conclude for you? Read the emails first. Even George Monbiot after reading the emails was sickened and suggested the authors of the emails resign their posts this was before the investigations.

Now regarding the comments which relate to the Global Warming Policy Foundation. This is where your problem lies Tyger. You call this group "a most dubious organisation". Does this mean that you would never read one of their documents? If this is correct and you have not read any of their documents, what qualifies you to claim their are of a dubious nature? Can you see my conundrum here? I have read the reports of the investigations into Penn State & University of East Anglia, I very much disagree with the conclusions as they show a level naivety & circular reasoning which I find mind boggling. The GWPF document I have attached here simply summarises the conclusions I reached myself.

As a person who is clearly passionate about the subject (whether we agree or not) you should be less interested in the person making the accusations and more interested as to whether those accusations are correct. You cannot cut yourself off from a whole section of the debate because you don't like the people or the organisation.

When you read the document you will see that it is written by doctors of science, climate experts, science experts. And given your reminders to me and others that this is a political forum and not a science one, perhaps you should have read this as a pre-requisite given your accusation of the GWPF being a political entity.
 

Attachments

I have checked in here for a brief look and I see the copious responses.

I do need to state that this thread is about the politics not the science - but in the way I answered your posts, @mike_thoth, I may have crossed my own line in the sand. Trying to argue the science here is mis-placed, though it's a wobbly line for sure.

@Han , you make excellent points imo. For an analogy, what matters the name of your God as long as you treat your neighbor with respect, not so? No matter one's science, we could say, what matters is how we treat the earth for ourselves and future generations.
 
Han said:
This is not about science, and its not really about global warming either.

The idea that people need to wake up: and either do something about global warming, or deny human impact on it, is the result of deliberate* polarisation.

Humanity will survive, that is what we do, but at what cost, and what kind of world future generations inhabit is our responsibility.
This is true weather you judge it by "scientific" or more "woo woo" terms.

Here is a description of an industrial area of England in 1849

"In this Black Country, including West Bromwich, Dudley, Darlaston, Bilston and several minor villages, a perpetual twilight reigns during the day, and during the night fires on all sides light up the dark landscape with a fiery glow. The pleasant green of pastures is almost unknown, the streams, in which no fishes swim, are black and unwholesome; the natural dead flat is often broken by high hills of cinders and spoil from the mines; the few trees are stunted and blasted; no birds are to be seen, except a few smoky sparrows; and for miles on miles a black waste spreads around, where furnaces continually smoke, steam engines thud and hiss, and long chains clank, while blind gin horses walk their doleful round."

I can tell you I don't want to go back to those days, but sadly there are places in poor countries that are like that now. We have fooled people into thinking that because the factory is not on your "doorstep" it does not affect you. The trouble is that we (the people of the world) live in a tank, and whilst some of our number have the ability to jump out and find a new aquarium the overwhelming majority have to stick it out on good old planet Earth.

There is a saying that goes don't shit on your own doorstep, but it should be don't shit on OUR doorstep!

The problem is that everybody thinks that everything belongs to them (myself included). We use a logic of convenience to justify our actions. Choosing to believe what suits us. for example the idea that because something is "natural" it is not dangerous..........


Weather we like it or not, everybody has a horse in this race.


*as in lets cause confusion and argue every minor point before doing anything proactive.
Click to expand...

Great post. Sums it up.
 
I agree it is a great post with important points from Han but it has little to do with anthropogenic CO2 and its impact on climate.
Pollution is a separate problem.
 
Politics and well meaning people like tyger have caused the " catastrophic global warming" which actually isn't happening thus the name change to climate change. It is a huge scam designed to control the population and transfer wealth. period. That is the "Politics of Global Warming"
 
MSNBC: "Pope Francis to champion combating climate change: This is a fascinating story. “Since his first homily in 2013, Pope Francis has preached about the need to protect the earth and all of creation as part of a broad message on the environment. It has caused little controversy so far,” the Timeswrites. But now, as Francis prepares to deliver what is likely to be a highly influential encyclical this summer on environmental degradation and the effects of human-caused climate change on the poor, he is alarming some conservatives in the United States who are loath to see the Catholic Church reposition itself as a mighty voice in a cause they do not believe in.” And don’t forget that Pope Francis will be addressing Congress later this year. “‘I think Boehner was out of his mind to invite the pope to speak to Congress,’ said the Rev. Thomas Reese, an analyst at the National Catholic Reporter. ‘Can you imagine what the Republicans will do when he says, ‘You’ve got to do something about global warming’?” "

FORGIVE THEM, FATHER: As Pope Francis prepares to deliver a powerful message on climate change, deniers are beginning to realize they haven’t got a prayer.
LINK: Could Pope Francis actually depoliticize climate change by mixing it with religion?
 
Up until this recent Pope climate visit I thought he was making a difference. He still is, he is anti austerity, anti IMF, anti world banks, anti corruption.

With his climate approach he is seeking to help the worlds poor, I respect that, but his thinking has been co opted. The energy & economic policies of the ultra greens would be the ruin of the worlds poorest.

Economically the poor would once again be smashed as the price of keeping thier homes warm will be unaffordable. The price of food driven up by the use of bio fuels. Governments would have far less money for economic development as any building / infrastructure projects are shelved. The IMF would no longer grant loan applications for these projects as they are completely behind this doom agenda because they are set to massively invest in the renuewables industry.

Any accords signed would strong arm whole sovereign nations into a financial, political & technocratic global networks where agenda 21 measures would be enforced without the consent of the people.

The world would be ruled by Eco facist elites who would run things based on an antiquated Malthusian belief in humanity being a cancer.

The Pope does not understand the basic principles & neither do those pushing this alarm.

Whatever Tyger believes this will not happen because of people out there that stay vigilant & keep reminding the public that the claims made by these activist scientists have NEVER COME TO PASS because it's all based on a computer model that cannot ever be correct.

It's actually insane. One question, can anyone tell me here what the climate sensitivity actually is for CO2? The equation used for instance has 4 or 5 variables, each one believe it or not human beings are not able to measure!!! What is the climate sensitivity anyone?
 
I also think that MSNBC article is really over egging the pudding. The "global warming deniers" are not on the run, or concerned. Public polls over the last 10 years are crystal clear. The public simply don't buy the claims anymore, they can see the world for themselves.

But honestly my previous post is more important.
A. What is climate sensitivity to CO2
B. What evidence would convince you that the AGW hypothesis is wrong.

Mike
 
mike_thoth said:
Actually Tyger, let's put our discussion in the following way. What would change your mind regarding the AGW hypothesis?
Click to expand...

mike_thoth said:
I also think that MSNBC article is really over egging the pudding. The "global warming deniers" are not on the run, or concerned. Public polls over the last 10 years are crystal clear. The public simply don't buy the claims anymore, they can see the world for themselves.

But honestly my previous post is more important.
A. What is climate sensitivity to CO2
B. What evidence would convince you that the AGW hypothesis is wrong.

Mike
Click to expand...

Except for your posts being indicative of the general over-all 'gesture' around climate change for some people - and that's political, so it has a relevance to this thread - the rest of your posting content is in the wrong location. If you want a debate, choose one of the debate threads. This ain't one of them. See thread title.
 
Australia PM's adviser: climate change is UN hoax to create new world order: Maurice Newman, chairman of Tony Abbott’s business advisory council, says UN is using debunked climate change science to impose authoritarian rule
LINK: Australia PM's adviser: climate change is UN hoax to create new world order | Australia news | The Guardian

TEXT: "The Australian prime minister’schief business adviser has accused the United Nations of using debunked climate change science to lead a new world order – provocative claims made to coincide with a visit from the top UN climate negotiator. Christiana Figueres, who heads the UN framework convention on climate change, touring Australia this week, urged the country to move away from heavily polluting coal production. Under Tony Abbott’s leadership, Australia has been reluctant to engage in global climate change politics, unsuccessfully attempting to keep the issue off the agenda of the G20 leaders’ summit in Brisbane last year.​
​
"Maurice Newman, the chairman of Abbott’s business advisory council and a climate change sceptic with a history of making provocative statements, said the UN was using false models showing sustained temperature increases to end democracy and impose authoritarian rule. “The real agenda is concentrated political authority,” Newman wrote in an opinion piece published in the Australian newspaper. “Global warming is the hook. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN.. “It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.”​
​
"Figueres used an address in Melbourne to urge Australia to move away from coal, the country’s second-largest export, as the world grapples with global warming. “Economic diversification will be a challenge that Australia faces,” she said. Abbott has described coal as “good for humanity” and the “foundation of prosperity” for the foreseeable future.​
​
"Figueres also urged Australia to play a leading role at the climate summit in Paris in December, a call unlikely to be heeded given Abbott’s track record. At the Brisbane G20 meeting, he warned that the Paris summit would fail if world leaders decided to put cutting carbon emissions ahead of economic growth. At home, Abbott, who in 2009 said the science behind climate change was “crap”, repealed a tax on carbon pricing and abolished the independent Climate Commission advisory body.​
​
"Asked on the Canberra leg of her trip if the politics around renewable energy was as toxic elsewhere in the world, Figueres said: “No. At the global level what we see is increased participation of renewables, increased investment in renewables, increased excitement about renewables.” Abbott’s office and the UN did not immediately respond to requests for comment.​
 
Back
Top