# Global Warming: The actual charts



## Nerdtendo (Jul 16, 2019)

Here's the temperature change over the last 1000 years
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




Now look at the last 20 years or so. That's a pretty sharp increase isn't it. Look at the left side now. We are currently sitting at .6 degrees outside the "norm". That's only a fraction,  not a whole lot. Of course, this is much sharper than the rest of the graph and if we keep this rate up, we have an issue right? Well look at this.





That's the last 800,000 years. It has fluctuated back and forth between -9 and +4 degrees. Those are whole numbers and there are some super sharp peaks and valleys all the way across.

Anyway, that's why I'm not super worried. I'm sure people will gladly point out why I'm not reading this right but hey, more power to you.


----------



## osaka35 (Jul 16, 2019)

Okay. take a look at the second image. It ends at year zero. Look at your first image. it starts at year zero. Combine the two and you have the complete image, which contradicts what you think it's saying.

Here's the original source that's been cherry picked a bit:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

the important bit is the cycle isn't magical. It happens for tangible reasons, reasons which can vary from cycle to cycle depending on the context and environment. Reasons which are not mysteries to us. We understand these reasons and know why it happens. We also know the same thing which caused the cycle before is not what's happening now. We dun messed up the cycle. We aren't on a cycle anymore. And we know exactly why.


----------



## Nerdtendo (Jul 16, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> Okay. take a look at the second image. It ends at year zero. Look at your first image. it starts at year zero. Combine the two and you have the complete image, which contradicts what you think it's saying.
> 
> Here's the original source that's been cherry picked a bit:
> https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
> ...


Not quite. The graphs are on two different scales. Taking the first on the end of the second would keep it at roughly the same place. Remember, we are currently 6 *tenths* of a degree above average.


----------



## DBlaze (Jul 16, 2019)

What even are the sources for temperatures of the past 2000+ years, let alone the past 800000 years?


----------



## Nerdtendo (Jul 16, 2019)

DBlaze said:


> What even are the sources for temperatures of the past 2000+ years, let alone the past 800000 years?


"For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature."

Thermometers have worked for the last couple centuries.


----------



## osaka35 (Jul 16, 2019)

Nerdtendo said:


> Not quite. The graphs are on two different scales. Taking the first on the end of the second would keep it at roughly the same place. Remember, we are currently 6 *tenths* of a degree above average.


then let's find a graph that combines both  this one just goes to 2000, but the temps have continued their course since then, and 20 years later is shows no sign of slowing down. Which if your assertion were true, we would start seeing signs of it slowing down. We see the opposite. I'm not sure about that percentage, but it is double what it was, and increasing. The increasing bit is the important part.

And we're talking averages. We're not talking about weather. some folks see numbers like that and think, oh it's going to be 94 this year instead of 93, what's the big deal. But what we're talking about are global averages. And small increases add up. With the ice-caps, the ocean, and everything else, it's more of a cumulative thing. It's difficult to phrase it in such a way that's easily understandable as most folks think in terms of weather. But with climate you have to understand things more in a big-picture sort of way.



DBlaze said:


> What even are the sources for temperatures of the past 2000+ years, let alone the past 800000 years?


There are lots of different fields which overlap their findings and verify each other completely indepedently, though each one tends to be best for certain time periods. tree rings, ice cores, etc. If you're unsure of how safe it is to trust those sciences, they're fascinating to look into. It's pretty brilliant how they verify all that stuff to make super sure they're not making any leaps of faith when it comes to this stuff.


----------



## Nerdtendo (Jul 16, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> then let's find a graph that combines both  this one just goes to 2000, but the temps have continued their course since then, and 20 years later is shows no sign of slowing down. Which if your assertion were true, we would start seeing signs of it slowing down. We see the opposite. I'm not sure about that percentage, but it is double what it was, and increasing. The increasing bit is the important part.
> 
> And we're talking averages. We're not talking about weather. some folks see numbers like that and think, oh it's going to be 94 this year instead of 93, what's the big deal. But what we're talking about are global averages. And small increases add up. With the ice-caps, the ocean, and everything else, it's more of a cumulative thing. It's difficult to phrase it in such a way that's easily understandable as most folks think in terms of weather. But with climate you have to understand things more in a big-picture sort of way.
> 
> ...




 
I have added year 0-2019 on this graph in blue (roughly) using Microsoft paint. See the rise in temperature at roughly -360,000 to -350,000. It took around 10,000 years to start cooling down on a grand scale again. 20 years does not concern me.

I am well aware we're talking averages. I haven't even talked about the people freaking out because their region was 5 degrees hotter. This is all on a global scale


----------



## Xzi (Jul 16, 2019)

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that if the ocean temperature increases by just 2° Celsius, everything in the ocean dies.  Additionally, increasing carbon dioxide levels in the ocean could cause such a mass extinction regardless of temperature changes.  Increased carbon levels in the soil have already begun to reduce the amount of nutrients in rice and other foods.


----------



## Nerdtendo (Jul 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that if the ocean temperature increases by just 2° Celsius, everything in the ocean dies.  Additionally, increasing carbon dioxide levels in the ocean could cause such a mass extinction regardless of temperature changes.  Increased carbon levels in the soil have already begun to reduce the amount of nutrients in rice and other foods.


Well i can't find anything about the 2 degrees thing but feel free to post it if you find it. Even then, talking about the ocean is region specific. The carbon stuff could very well be true. I don't know enough about it to make a statement. That's why I made a specifically warming blog instead of climate change.


----------



## osaka35 (Jul 16, 2019)

Nerdtendo said:


> View attachment 173220
> I have added year 0-2019 on this graph in blue (roughly) using Microsoft paint. See the rise in temperature at roughly -360,000 to -350,000. It took around 10,000 years to start cooling down on a grand scale again. 20 years does not concern me.
> 
> I am well aware we're talking averages. I haven't even talked about the people freaking out because their region was 5 degrees hotter. This is all on a global scale


... that's most definitely not where temps are in 2019. You should definitely check into some official sources and update your information. I feel like I'm just going to be repeating myself a lot in this conversation...

Okay, again. We know why these increases happened in the past. We know why they're happening now. We know what reversed them in the past. We know why that won't happen this time. The rate of increase given the time scale is the worrying part. And we are mainly concerned with surviving as a species and preserving our ecosystem. That's the frame of reference for the conversation, not a fun conversation about how boiling hot and absolutely frozen we've been in the past.


----------



## notimp (Jul 16, 2019)

Nerdtendo said:


> That's only a fraction, not a whole lot.


No one is saying that the earth is going to be inhabitable for developed nations, anytime soon. There are several issues, though aside from that.

First - you look at a trend, and try to predict if its holding/increasing, or not - everything that scientists tell us is, that its holding and increasing. The thing with having a 2°C increase from the former 'pre industrial times' average temperature is, that it means a whole bunch of things - if you get above those levels.

Before getting into those, the 2°C is an increase of average tempertature, which means that the extreme spikes can be much higher. For the capital of my country up to 6°C higher temperatures on certain days in summer are predicted by 2050.

The most problematic thing thats going to happen according to models, are chain reactions, when certain frozen regions start to thaw, or certain icefields melt down. Those are called "tipping points" which have to do with ocean temperature, and a hopefully calculable amount of additional climate relevant gasses getting released, if a certain threshhold is reached. So this basically means, that the spike up should remain pretty steep and that it would be very hard, to stop or reverse the trend at that point. The best thing that humans have come up with for pushing that point a little into the future (if the paris climate goals arent kept in line with (currently 5 (smaller) countries in the world are on track with it, go 5 countries...  )), is planting trees, and then not harvesting them for energy (burning them again).

So - we mostly try to prevent that (rise more than 2°C) as humanity.

Even 2°C means, that afair around 60% of all inverterbrate life on earth basically dies out - please look up the actual value.. 

Now - what happens in addition to that, is the following. 2°C is an average, meaning - that in certain regions, higher average temperatures, become a real problem. You are basically talking lost yields from harvests, increased drinkable water issues, increased political pressures, and more people that are expected to flee the regions where they are from.

More political instability means increased resource prices, means - more competition preassure, means everything might get more expensive, and maybe increased chances of conflicts.

So if you want to look at that on the most baseline level - looking at charts - take your temperature graphs, but also look at predicted deplacement of populations.

Here is a short primer: https://www.un.org/en/development/d...ocuments/250416_COLUMBIA_UNI_Susana_Adamo.pdf

Look at this for more context, but afair - no migration models.
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org...egrees/?utm_source=web&utm_campaign=Redirect#

Here a rough summery on the forecast migration pressures.
https://www.iom.int/migration-and-climate-change-0


There is also an issue if - f.e. a larger part of your countries economy is tourism related, and f.e. that tourism might be winter tourism, and the snow isnt sticking around. All kinds of effects like that.

Short summery is - its always less costly to try to stabilize the temperature increase earlier - but it is costly already, so nobody wants to do it. And in addition to that, the people who arent doing it - are at an economic advantage short term, which means - its more probable to work if "everyone has to do it" according to international agreements.

The problem is global, the effects will vary from region to region. The solutions arent pretty. And the prettiest ones revolve around - having yet another recession, basically.

That said peak oil is predicted to happen at around 2030, so something has to happen in terms of switching energy sources, and moving towards probably more energy efficient economies anyhow.

But - the timetables matter - in regards to the likely outcome. 

US is an island continent. So migration pressure is moderate in comparison to some other countries. Direct effects in the US are higher than in Europe though.

That said, most impactful direct effects of climate change (meaning excluding migration pressures) in our lifetimes and the lifetimes of our children - in the developed world - would be to probably move a few cities because of sea level rise and extreme weather effects. Costly, but can be done. (The thing is, that most of the human population is actually situated around coastlines, or big water streams, so...), the issue in those two generations - is much more 'what happens to the people that cant buy themselves out of this, as societies'.

But also - everyone (apart from Alaska economically, but not environmentally  ) would be better off, if increases were kept low.

The problem is, that this is a world scale problem, with a very high cost long term, and a configuration - that the last mover suffers least, short term. And with different risks in different regions.

With this, nobody just looks at one chart and says "well I guess we are fine then..".


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Jul 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Increased carbon levels in the soil have already




It's also fucking up trees, which is going to be a really uncool double-whammy when those trees get processed into firewood.

"The study also is providing insights into *the role forests may play in global climate change*."

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-06/uow-rsh061202.php
(it's from 2002)


----------



## Nerdtendo (Jul 16, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> ... that's most definitely not where temps are in 2019. You should definitely check into some official sources and update your information. I feel like I'm just going to be repeating myself a lot in this conversation...
> 
> Okay, again. We know why these increases happened in the past. We know why they're happening now. We know what reversed them in the past. We know why that won't happen this time. The rate of increase given the time scale is the worrying part. And we are mainly concerned with surviving as a species and preserving our ecosystem. That's the frame of reference for the conversation, not a fun conversation about how boiling hot and absolutely frozen we've been in the past.


I really don't know what to tell you. Go Google the charts yourself. We are hovering at roughly .6 degrees higher than the norm.


notimp said:


> No one is saying that the earth is going to be inhabitable for developed nations, anytime soon. There are several issues, though aside from that.
> 
> First - you look at a trend, and try to predict if its holding/increasing, or not - everything that scientists tell us is, that its holding and increasing. The thing with having a 2°C increase from the former 'pre industrial times' average temperature is, that it means a whole bunch of things - if you get above those levels.
> 
> ...


With all this 2° talk I'm getting confused. The charts shows several peaks way above 2° and life is still here. How come this time 2° is gonna mess everyone up? 

My full issue is insufficient data. People are looking at the charts where we actually could measure temperatures and extrapolating trends in what it will look like in the future. I honestly don't think we have enough data to reliably do that. Maybe in another 50 or so years but as it stands, there are too many variables that we can't predict


----------



## Nightwish (Jul 16, 2019)

Ok, fine, there was still life after previous heating, and there will still be life after the human created peak, sure. But were there 8 billion interdependent sapient entities with civilizations levels that require a lot of resources 200000 years ago, to make the comparison adequate? What happened when their crops failed due to lack of water or dying bees or thousands of other insects that make farming possible? What happened to those with no access to water anymore? How did they deal with increasing health costs?
Because those would be nice to know, since no one has any clue about how to deal with it. Even if the graph were correct, it has no bearing on whether, at the very least, modern society can continue to exist, and that's after being willing to accept the death toll of a lot of people who are already dealing with the effects.
But yes, life will proliferate after a while, especially after humanity loses the capability to pollute everything in it's wake.


----------



## leon315 (Jul 16, 2019)

gUYS, renewable energy is THE FUTERE, yo murican go vote The Orange man who thinks global warming is a Hoax and he will bring Steel, Coal back!


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Jul 16, 2019)

Nerdtendo said:


> How come this time 2° is gonna mess everyone up?



My dude, how much energy does it take to heat a pot (small cooking pot holding 16 oz) of water on a stove? How about a bathtub? You can't be so kindergarten that you can't see where I'm going with this.

What you might be omitting or may not know:
some (and most) aquatic life are very susceptible to changes in temperature. I killed a few fish by not acclimating their water while changing the tank. I didn't boil them; the water *felt* the same, but it was probably no less than five degrees and it was enough to kill them.

If I have to go in-depth to correlate the size of the oceans/seas to rising temperatures, how fish work, and why sea life is very important, I'm going to let you simmer in stupid stew.


---------


leon315 said:


> he will bring Steel, Coal back!



Nah, that shit's going to the moon for Space Farce Force.


------


Nightwish said:


> How did they deal with increasing health costs?







Welcome to Earth.


----------



## lolboy (Jul 16, 2019)

"...last 1000 years".  Real data or just assumptions?

btw; I have no opinion when it comes to  global warming.  I do believe that we need to take care of our planet.


----------



## ChaosEternal (Jul 16, 2019)

We're all fucked anyway so there's no reason to be scared.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jul 16, 2019)

Nerdtendo said:


> Here's the temperature change over the last 1000 years
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Seriously? Obviously, you are ignorant just like Trump. Ok, suit yourself. Wait until you are worried one day. Keep your eyes on the sign of this Earth. This chart is not accurate anyway.


----------



## notimp (Jul 16, 2019)

Nerdtendo said:


> With all this 2° talk I'm getting confused. The charts shows several peaks way above 2° and life is still here. How come this time 2° is gonna mess everyone up?


Food production, flooding and extreme weather phenomenons, certain diseases. Increased pressures on resources (drinkable water, as probably one of the more important ones).

I'm not sure if you've realized it yet - but this:
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth

We are pretty much producing at high capacity already (mostly thanks to oil) - so any substantial impact on production conditions will cause issues.

Also - sea level rising is an issue, that will cause some parts of even US metropoles to be 'relocated'. (You do this, by first not granting any new building licenses, and then... so ideally gradually.) Sometimes its enough to produce (not so) natural barriers, but then it depends on where sea level ends up at. Relocating major cities, is very, very costly.

But mostly economic issues, more conflict potential, stuff like that.

You can read the second link in the previous posting I provided, it has data visualisations for three scenarios. And they put in many more angles. I only listed the "important" ones. 

edit: Also - are you sure, that your second graph is "mean world temperature" during those years? Could be max world temperature extremes, no? src?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 16, 2019)

@Nerdtendo
We know from that chart of temperatures over the last 800,000 years that temperatures are correlated with the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide levels are about twice as high now than the highest points they ever were over the last 800,000 years, and the speed at which carbon dioxide levels are increasing is faster than it has ever been in the entire history of the Earth.

Climate change is a very real issue, and I suggest you educate yourself.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 16, 2019)

If you really think 'manmade global warming' is destroying the planet, and/or our ability to live on it, then do your part to fight it. Turn off and unplug your computer. Turn off your television. Stop charging your cellphone and go back to copper landline. Turn off your lights. Sell your car and travel only on foot or bicycle (train/bus/ship allowed for long distance. no flying though.). Grow as many vegetables on your land as possible, and stop eating meat altogether. Stop buying industrially manufactured goods. 

If you're not doing those things, then it's clear that the manmade global warming crisis is not as important to you as your dependence on the things causing it. Which makes it impossible for you to lead by example, because it looks like hypocrisy to the rest of us who aren't sure about it.


----------



## Essometer (Jul 16, 2019)

Nerdtendo said:


> I really don't know what to tell you. Go Google the charts yourself. We are hovering at roughly .6 degrees higher than the norm.
> 
> With all this 2° talk I'm getting confused. The charts shows several peaks way above 2° and life is still here. How come this time 2° is gonna mess everyone up?
> 
> My full issue is insufficient data. People are looking at the charts where we actually could measure temperatures and extrapolating trends in what it will look like in the future. I honestly don't think we have enough data to reliably do that. Maybe in another 50 or so years but as it stands, there are too many variables that we can't predict


You are correct, life is still here. The problem lies in what the earth looked like in these peek periodes. We are talking about drastically different eco-systems. We are currently in a very
comfortable state climawise. Apart from some extreme regions like desserts and the North/South-pole, almost very corner of the earth is habitable. While there are some weather extrems like hurricans or 
drought, it is managable that people can life their life. The crops we grow are adapted to the current clima and are breed them to be this way for in some cases 4000 years. 

Clima change that all this things we take for granted are going to change. We will se more extreme weather phenomenonse to the point that some regions are no longer be habitable, which in
case will lead to mass migration. Lesser crop yield will effect prices in a way that people can no longer afford their food, which also will lead to migration. 
Heat period will increase, which will lead to a scarcity of water. All this will effect us as a global society. It will cost a lot of money, time and lives if we keep going on
like we don't care and sadly, this is the case right now. 

tl;dr: Life, uh, finds a way, but our current way of life is not sustainable.


----------



## Ratatattat (Jul 16, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> If you really think 'manmade global warming' is destroying the planet, and/or our ability to live on it, then do your part to fight it. Turn off and unplug your computer. Turn off your television. Stop charging your cellphone and go back to copper landline. Turn off your lights. Sell your car and travel only on foot or bicycle (train/bus/ship allowed for long distance. no flying though.). Grow as many vegetables on your land as possible, and stop eating meat altogether. Stop buying industrially manufactured goods.
> 
> If you're not doing those things, then it's clear that the manmade global warming crisis is not as important to you as your dependence on the things causing it. Which makes it impossible for you to lead by example, because it looks like hypocrisy to the rest of us who aren't sure about it.



Its really very simple. What if your wrong? We have no other place in the universe. Kind of a big gamble to take.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 16, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> If you really think 'manmade global warming' is destroying the planet, and/or our ability to live on it, then do your part to fight it. Turn off and unplug your computer. Turn off your television. Stop charging your cellphone and go back to copper landline. Turn off your lights. Sell your car and travel only on foot or bicycle (train/bus/ship allowed for long distance. no flying though.). Grow as many vegetables on your land as possible, and stop eating meat altogether. Stop buying industrially manufactured goods.
> 
> If you're not doing those things, then it's clear that the manmade global warming crisis is not as important to you as your dependence on the things causing it. Which makes it impossible for you to lead by example, because it looks like hypocrisy to the rest of us who aren't sure about it.


The issue isn't that people aren't "doing their part." It's a systemic problem.


----------



## notimp (Jul 16, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> If you really think 'manmade global warming' is destroying the planet, and/or our ability to live on it, then do your part to fight it. Turn off and unplug your computer. Turn off your television. Stop charging your cellphone and go back to copper landline. Turn off your lights. Sell your car and travel only on foot or bicycle (train/bus/ship allowed for long distance. no flying though.). Grow as many vegetables on your land as possible, and stop eating meat altogether. Stop buying industrially manufactured goods.
> 
> If you're not doing those things, then it's clear that the manmade global warming crisis is not as important to you as your dependence on the things causing it. Which makes it impossible for you to lead by example, because it looks like hypocrisy to the rest of us who aren't sure about it.


Imho absolutely correct.

A few days ago, a funny statistic came out, that showed that online porn streaming uses more energy, than my entire country. 

Germany currently blames Brazil, that gaining more industrial plantation areals, by burning down forests causes I think six times the CO2 footprint yearly that germany produces. (Industrial country, so high output.)


So here is how you deal with it in concept - regardless. You make it an international issue and have everyone pitch in to do their part.

You make "I'm so low CO2 footprint" a religion. Apparently. We'll see how well that works. Kind of doesnt work on me, sadly. (In principal. In practice I'm probably low carbon footprint already - but I refuse to feel good about it.  (You cant buy anything from being good at following a trend, that tells you not to take part in capitalism, or not to own anything in society...  )

And I basically think, that most digital economies are a scam, that mostly work because the majorities wants easy, and best. So you sell them something..  So I don't think of them as working alternatives, for people to spend money on to 'be happy'.)


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 16, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The issue isn't that people aren't "doing their part." It's a systemic problem.




mm-hmm.




notimp said:


> Imho absolutely correct.
> 
> 
> 
> So here is how you deal with it in concept - regardless. You make it an international issue and have everyone pitch in to do their part.



You first.




Ratatattat said:


> Its really very simple. What if your wrong? We have no other place in the universe. Kind of a big gamble to take.




I'm just saying if you believe this stuff, then act like it. Stop contributing to it. Your dedication and sacrifice will be an example to inspire us. When you go on the internet on a video gaming board to complain about global warming though, hard to take you serious.


----------



## bodefuceta (Jul 16, 2019)

Good thread. Best way to fight lies is to spread the truth. Also it's important to note who is behind all the alarmist predictions and the fact they've been mostly wrong and seem to have an agenda. Though it's obviously hard to demonstrate their newer predictions are wrong, the older ones are all over the place, like this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181009175726/https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0


----------



## Lacius (Jul 16, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> Good thread. Best way to fight lies is to spread the truth. Also it's important to note who is behind all the alarmist predictions and the fact they've been mostly wrong and seem to have an agenda. Though it's obviously hard to demonstrate their newer predictions are wrong, the older ones are all over the place, like this:
> https://web.archive.org/web/20181009175726/https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0


Virtually all of the climate change predictions have come true or are starting to come true, including the one you linked to.


----------



## osaka35 (Jul 16, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> Good thread. Best way to fight lies is to spread the truth. Also it's important to note who is behind all the alarmist predictions and the fact they've been mostly wrong and seem to have an agenda. Though it's obviously hard to demonstrate their newer predictions are wrong, the older ones are all over the place, like this:
> https://web.archive.org/web/20181009175726/https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0


It's only helpful if people understand the truth. The article you linked warned about being unable to change things if we don't get a handle on things by the year 2000, it may be too late by then. It then talks about the results of not being able to get it under control. they are *not* saying those things will happen by the year 2000. They are saying it'll be near impossible to turn around the problem which will eventually cause those things like sea rise. Go ahead, re-read it. it's not saying what you think it's saying. And looking at the graphs, it will continually get harder and harder to turn this thing around.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 16, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm just saying if you believe this stuff, then act like it. Stop contributing to it. Your dedication and sacrifice will be an example to inspire us. When you go on the internet on a video gaming board to complain about global warming though, hard to take you serious.


The issue is systemic. Please don't be disingenuous and act like my being on GBATemp substantively affects the crisis one way or another, for example.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 16, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The issue is systemic. Please don't be disingenuous and act like my being on GBATemp substantively affects the crisis one way or another, for example.




You being on GBAtemp means you are using a computer, or cellphone, correct? Which means you are contributing to the industries that mine the metals, you are contributing to the industries that manufacture the hardware, you are contributing to the industries that produce the electricity. The cumulative effect of all of us who take part in computer technology entertainment, i.e. social media, internet, video games ... is massive. @notimp made reference to a recent article that got some attention along those lines, re: streaming porn. So you want to tell everyone else how I guess global government needs to put the bootheel on their lifestyle for the good of the planet, but you're not taking the obvious and easy step of reducing your contribution to the problem. That's personal, selfish convenience. That's hypocrisy.

Just sayin'.


----------



## notimp (Jul 16, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> Good thread. Best way to fight lies is to spread the truth. Also it's important to note who is behind all the alarmist predictions and the fact they've been mostly wrong and seem to have an agenda.


No. Yes but no.  Issue is real. Alarmism helps in the prediction models to kind of mold consumer/middle class' behavior not to demand reasonable growth rates  So the alarmism helps.

But then - yes those people might be a little overzealous in communicating their reality. But then - its really a pressing issue, that countries dont necessarily _want_ to invest heavily into (because outcomes are along the lines of 'less worse' ).

Different interests and different investor groups you have everywhere (and on both ends..  ) its interesting to note, that the main investors in "green sustainable" are faith based investors, state funds, pension funds, ...

Blackrock and Vanguard (the new unregulated big boys, read up on them..  ) havent divested to invest in green/climate neutral/energy transition yet.

So from the investors point of view its also long term vs short term oriented. Kind of.. 

@Hanafuda: Porn streaming probably reduces birth ratets, so no.  *jk* (but only half jokingly..  )


----------



## Ratatattat (Jul 16, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> You being on GBAtemp means you are using a computer, or cellphone, correct? Which means you are contributing to the industries that mine the metals, you are contributing to the industries that manufacture the hardware, you are contributing to the industries that produce the electricity. The cumulative effect of all of us who take part in computer technology entertainment, i.e. social media, internet, video games ... is massive. @notimp made reference to a recent article that got some attention along those lines, re: streaming porn. So you want to tell everyone else how I guess global government needs to put the bootheel on their lifestyle for the good of the planet, but you're not taking the obvious and easy step of reducing your contribution to the problem. That's personal, selfish convenience. That's hypocrisy.
> 
> Just sayin'.



What a exaggeration of reality.


----------



## bodefuceta (Jul 16, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Virtually all of the climate change predictions have come true or are starting to come true, including the one you linked to.


You're beyond help. We're nowhere near anything that "could" happen as stated in that article and saying whatever may have happened by then and 2000 would cause it is completely absurd. Though that really wasn't the best example article since it just speculates. Remember Al gore and the ice caps? I do.

I'm not saying there isn't serious study in climate change. Neither that it shouldn't be studied. But whatever is being told to the public, specially from popular figures like Al gore and today's youtubers or whatever, is very clearly suspect and under an agenda.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 16, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> You being on GBAtemp means you are using a computer, or cellphone, correct? Which means you are contributing to the industries that mine the metals, you are contributing to the industries that manufacture the hardware, you are contributing to the industries that produce the electricity. The cumulative effect of all of us who take part in computer technology entertainment, i.e. social media, internet, video games ... is massive. @notimp made reference to a recent article that got some attention along those lines, re: streaming porn. So you want to tell everyone else how I guess global government needs to put the bootheel on their lifestyle for the good of the planet, but you're not taking the obvious and easy step of reducing your contribution to the problem. That's personal, selfish convenience. That's hypocrisy.
> 
> Just sayin'.


The fact that the problem would be just as bad if I refused to use modern technology demonstrates the problem is systemic. It's not hypocritical to fight against climate change while also using a laptop. The impact is negligible, and it doesn't address the actual problems and solutions.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 16, 2019)

Ratatattat said:


> What a exaggeration of reality.




You mean like global warming?

Sorry, you're here using unnecessary electricity, so you're either not really serious about it, or you just expect _everyone else_ to do something about it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> The fact that the problem would be just as bad if I refused to use modern technology demonstrates the problem is systemic. It's not hypocritical to fight against climate change while also using a laptop. The impact is negligible, and it doesn't address the actual problems and solutions.




So you're saying if all the climate change believers worldwide stopped using the internet, personal use of PC's, personal use of cellphones, automobiles, televisions, electric lights, heaters, air conditioning .... that it would make no difference??

If one person's actions make no difference is your argument, then leave people alone about their 'carbon footprint.' That's all about guilt-tripping at the individual level, but you don't want to hear about your own unnecessary power consumption.





notimp said:


> @Hanafuda: Porn streaming probably reduces birth ratets, so no.  *jk* (but only half jokingly..  )



Fair point. : )


----------



## ghjfdtg (Jul 16, 2019)

Life had enough time to prepare in the past when these spikes happened but now we make temps and CO² rise so fast that many animals, insects and plants may not be able to compensate. At the same time we destroy forests which are the only effective way to get rid of CO². Anyone who believes this is not our fault is a moron.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 16, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> We're nowhere near anything that "could" happen as stated in that article


The article cites flooding in Bangladesh as a likely result of climate change. A news article published today cites one hundred people dead and tens of thousands displaced due to flooding. You're objectively wrong here.



bodefuceta said:


> saying whatever may have happened by then and 2000 would cause it is completely absurd. Though that really wasn't the best example article since it just speculates.


The article described how carbon dioxide emissions needed to be reduced by 2000 before passing a figurative "point of no return." The predicted consequences were sea level rise, flooding, the consequences of those two things, etc. The climate change predictions have virtually all been correct.



bodefuceta said:


> Remember Al gore and the ice caps? I do.


The polar ice caps are definitely melting. What are you talking about?



Hanafuda said:


> Sorry, you're here using unnecessary electricity, so you're either not really serious about it, or you just expect _everyone else_ to do something about it.


Advocating for systemic solutions to systemic problems is not even close to "expecting everyone else" to do something about it.

You're also suggesting that internet usage in a modern society is "unnecessary electricity," and that's just false.



Hanafuda said:


> So you're saying if all the climate change believers worldwide stopped using the internet, personal use of PC's, personal use of cellphones .... that it would make no difference??


Using the internet, etc. isn't the problem. The problem is where we get our energy, and that's a systemic problem.

Also, suggesting that a group of people (a system, if you will) stop using the internet, etc. is proposing a systemic solution to a systemic problem (albeit a bad solution, since it doesn't address the systemic problems). It's also unreasonable.

@Hanafuda, you can argue for or against climate change as a human-caused issue (it is one), and you can argue for or against ways to curb climate change, but saying a human in a modern society who acknowledges climate change as a problem but also uses electricity is being hypocritical is utter nonsense. Me not using electricity is untenable, it would accomplish practically nothing, and it doesn't address the systemic causes of climate change. There are reasonable things people can and should do to reduce one's carbon footprint, but that's a very small part of the solution, and you're being ridiculous when you say "don't use electricity if you care so much." That would be like saying I should kill myself to reduce carbon emissions. Similarly, it's untenable, it would accomplish practically nothing, and it doesn't address the systemic causes of climate change. Your nonargument argument only serves as a distraction and a way to remove yourself from the conversation. Nothing is accomplished by it.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 16, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Also, suggesting that a group of people (a system, if you will) stop using the internet, etc. is proposing a systemic solution to a systemic problem (albeit a bad solution, since it doesn't address the systemic problems). *It's also unreasonable.*



I agree. It's unreasonable. I didn't just mean stop using the internet though - all unnecessary energy use. Automobiles, electric heating, air conditioning, all recreational computer use, etc. Whether it is suggested to apply to only a select group (all climate change believers) or all of human society, I agree. It's unreasonable. And it will never happen, no matter how much hand wringing is done over it. Because Leonardo DiCaprio flies from Cannes to Manhattan by private jet to receive an environmentalist award, then flies right back to France the next morning. Nobody championing the cause acts like they really believe it. So like I said in the first place, looks like a whole lot of hypocrisy. You want to convince people? Walk the walk.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 16, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I agree. It's unreasonable.


Then your argument dies here. Instead, let's focus on real solutions to the systemic problem that is human-caused climate change.



Hanafuda said:


> I didn't just mean stop using the internet though - all unnecessary energy use. Automobiles, electric heating, air conditioning, all recreational computer use, etc.



These aren't solutions to the issue of climate change.
They don't address the systemic causes of climate change.
These things aren't unnecessary in a modern world.



Hanafuda said:


> Whether it is suggested to apply to only a select group (all climate change believers) or all of human society, I agree. It's unreasonable.


Then your argument is pointless.



Hanafuda said:


> Because Leonardo DiCaprio flies from Cannes to Manhattan by private jet to receive an environmentalist award, then flies right back to France the next morning.


I'm not Leonardo DiCaprio, and most climate change advocates don't own private jets. Not flying in a private jet also doesn't address the systemic causes of climate change.



Hanafuda said:


> Nobody championing the cause acts like they really believe it. So like I said in the first place, looks like a whole lot of hypocrisy. You want to convince people? Walk the walk.


I really believe it, and any argument about my computer usage is going to be just as bad as an argument against every second I don't commit suicide in the name of carbon emissions.


----------



## Ratatattat (Jul 16, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I agree. It's unreasonable. I didn't just mean stop using the internet though - all unnecessary energy use. Automobiles, electric heating, air conditioning, all recreational computer use, etc. Whether it is suggested to apply to only a select group (all climate change believers) or all of human society, I agree. It's unreasonable. And it will never happen, no matter how much hand wringing is done over it. Because Leonardo DiCaprio flies from Cannes to Manhattan by private jet to receive an environmentalist award, then flies right back to France the next morning. Nobody championing the cause acts like they really believe it. So like I said in the first place, looks like a whole lot of hypocrisy. You want to convince people? Walk the walk.



Again you argument is unreasonable just like your stance on Global Warming. I guess I could be just as unreasonable and suggest that you place your nose in an automobile tailpipe and enjoy the atmosphere.


----------



## ChaosEternal (Jul 16, 2019)

No system exists in a vacuum. It only exists because we perpetuate it. If everyone collectively decided to live as Hanafuda suggested, then things would begin to change. That's almost certainly not the easiest solution given our natural aversion to hardship, but I see no reason it wouldn't work if it were somehow logically carried out.


----------



## Ratatattat (Jul 16, 2019)

ChaosEternal said:


> No system exists in a vacuum. It only exists because we perpetuate it. If everyone collectively decided to live as Hanafuda suggested, then things would begin to change. That's almost certainly not the easiest solution given our natural aversion to hardship, but I see no reason it wouldn't work if it were somehow logically carried out.



Its the anti global warmers you'll have trouble convincing. There in lies the problem.


----------



## ghjfdtg (Jul 16, 2019)

Stopping to use electricity and computers is not an option but you know what is an option? Stopping to buy a god damn new phone every year like some people do. It makes much more sense to start with the biggest causes than nitpicky things like electricity. The industry is by far the biggest cause and we support it by buying things we don't need or are very inefficiently made. The system won't change on it's own that's right.


----------



## ChaosEternal (Jul 16, 2019)

Ratatattat said:


> Its the anti global warmers you'll have trouble convincing. There in lies the problem.


Oh yeah, I don't believe it's at all plausible to actually convince enough people to start living as we did pre 1800s to make a difference in that way. All I'm saying is that if you somehow did, it would probably work. Perhaps that's ultimately a meaningless distinction.


----------



## notimp (Jul 16, 2019)

Here is maybe the key to the issue.

Inducing economical abstinence into capitalism - kinda seems like a hard sell. Thats the heart of the issue.

Then usually the argument "but capitalism also kind of seems to be a religion" comes into play - but then - its still kind of a better one that kind of works.

So - and because nobody wants to meddle with capitalism - we get all kinds of PR innitiatives that seem to have said - lets meddle with peoples motivations instead. And thats all kinds of odd.

In that scenario I have issues with unforseen, or rebound effects. But if it works, hey...

Its just that for the heck of it I can not imagine, that it would work. I mean - it works as long as the majority of your society are old folks that are more oriented in the direction of heaven -

- but to have a "moral" guiding system, that tells people, that they shoudl work harder on consuming less - so they will have it better in heaven (sorry - so that their children will have it better on earth). Kind of should not be possible to work.

Even if you get virtual Susy Goodschoes points, that you could exchange for some non (psysically) existing good, that you get sold in virtual economies.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 16, 2019)

ChaosEternal said:


> No system exists in a vacuum. It only exists because we perpetuate it. If everyone collectively decided to live as Hanafuda suggested, then things would begin to change. That's almost certainly not the easiest solution given our natural aversion to hardship, but I see no reason it wouldn't work if it were somehow logically carried out.


It's not a reasonable solution, and it also doesn't address the systemic causes.


----------



## ChaosEternal (Jul 16, 2019)

[Removed]


----------



## Lacius (Jul 16, 2019)

ChaosEternal said:


> As I admitted it's not reasonable, no, but I fail to see how it wouldn't correct the systemic issues. After all, you can't have systemic issues without a system. Unless you mean runaway effects that would continue to self-perpetuate even absent continued human intervention.


Much of the world would still be using fossil fuels, and the effect is cumulative. Ignoring the fact that asking half the population not to use electricity is unreasonable, it's not a solution either.


----------



## notimp (Jul 16, 2019)

We can make it a little more complex, and could say, that societies kind of work because you 'attach' earning money to 'productivity'. (That way you make sure, that inflation doesnt spike through the roof.) But now the call off the hour seems to be 'less productivity'.

Which doesnt work.  I'm so baffled by it..


----------



## ChaosEternal (Jul 16, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Much of the world would still be using fossil fuels, and the effect is cumulative. Ignoring the fact that asking half the population not to use electricity is unreasonable, it's not a solution either.


Oh, I was speaking of the event where the whole of humanity collectively decided to act, not just half of the population. Really though, I'm just quibbling over semantics. Barring some sort of global armageddon, such an event is vanishingly unlikely to occur. The possibility that this very forum thread somehow prompts global leaders to act is likely far more probable than humanity collectively deciding to start living a pre-1800's lifestyle.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 16, 2019)

ChaosEternal said:


> Oh, I was speaking of the event where the whole of humanity collectively decided to act, not just half of the population. Really though, I'm just quibbling over semantics. Barring some sort of global armageddon, such an event is vanishingly unlikely to occur. The possibility that this very forum thread somehow prompts global leaders to act is likely far more probable than humanity collectively deciding to start living a pre-1800's lifestyle.


If we are talking about a scenario where we can get the whole of humanity to act, there's no reason to go the route of ending all electricity usage. There are better options.


----------



## ChaosEternal (Jul 16, 2019)

[Removed]


----------



## dAVID_ (Jul 16, 2019)

Here is the chart that ends at the year 2000, from the NASA website mentioned by @osaka35.
This is much more representative than the first one, which ends at year 0.


----------



## Ratatattat (Jul 16, 2019)

The truth is the Earth will recover and the cockroaches won't give a damn once the offender is out of the way. We seem to pride ourselves on our intelligence, but the dinosaurs ruled the Earth for over 200 million years, so it would seem (perceived) intelligence may not be after all a good survival technique.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 16, 2019)

Ratatattat said:


> The truth is the Earth will recover and the cockroaches won't give a damn once the offender is out of the way. We seem to pride ourselves on our intelligence, but the dinosaurs ruled the Earth for over 200 million years, so it would seem (perceived) intelligence may not be after all a good survival technique.


Will life on Earth survive? Probably. However, the Permian-Triassic extinction event was caused in part by the natural release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and approximately 90% of all species went extinct. Also, the release of carbon dioxide was much slower then than it is now.

So, even though life on Earth might survive, a lot of species could still go extinct. I should also point out that there's a good example of a runaway greenhouse effect in our solar system: Venus. As far as we know, Venus is inhospitable to life now despite it once being very Earth-like.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jul 16, 2019)

I tend to see climate change as a hoax, but this planet does have a serious and undeniable problem with trash, specifically disposable plastic containers. This can't be eliminated completely, but I feel like it could be greatly reduced with some effort to market reusable containers with fill stations for common products like we already see with water. Plastic water bottles are still a huge problem though, so it would almost have to be government enforced in order to succeed.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 16, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> I tend to see climate change as a hoax, but this planet does have a serious and undeniable problem with trash, specifically disposable plastic containers. This can't be eliminated completely, but I feel like it could be greatly reduced with some effort to market reusable containers with fill stations for common products like we already see with water. Plastic water bottles are still a huge problem though, so it would almost have to be government enforced in order to succeed.


Climate change is not a hoax. Rising temperatures are correlated with increased greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, and we are dramatically increasing the carbon dioxide levels by burning fossil fuels. Climate change is real, it has been proven to be true, and it's a serious issue. Educate yourself.

Edit: Plastics are also a big issue.


----------



## Ratatattat (Jul 16, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Climate change is not a hoax. Rising temperatures are correlated with increased greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, and we are dramatically increasing the carbon dioxide levels by burning fossil fuels. Climate change is real, it has been proven to be true, and it's a serious issue. Educate yourself.
> 
> Edit: Plastics are also a big issue.



Lets just put aside climate change for the moment. Why is it that all the toxic pollution introduced to our atmosphere on a daily basis, does not seem to create concern of its own? Obviously that is largely man made. Is it out of sight out of mind?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 16, 2019)

Ratatattat said:


> Lets just put aside climate change for the moment. Why is it that all the toxic pollution introduced to our atmosphere on a daily basis, does not seem to create concern of its own? Obviously that is largely man made. Is it out of sight out of mind?


Greenhouse gases are arguably the only existential threat when it comes to air pollution. This shouldn't be confused with me saying that other kinds of pollution are not bad things. They are.


----------



## Ratatattat (Jul 16, 2019)

I just don't get people. We have one Earth. That's it.


----------



## kuwanger (Jul 16, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> If you're not doing those things, then it's clear that the manmade global warming crisis is not as important to you as your dependence on the things causing it. Which makes it impossible for you to lead by example, because it looks like hypocrisy to the rest of us who aren't sure about it.



Uh, yea, no amount of me personally not using a computer is going to resolve the problem of climate change.  Why?  Because "lead by example" in the way you describe doesn't really work.  You know early Christianity?  Fundamentally it was a suicide cult.  They took in members, distributed their wealth, and discourage procreation.  The idea was to lead as many people into the salvation of Christianity because the final days were upon us.  After less than a hundred years, that general practice obviously stopped.

Back to the original chart, there's a saying:  it's not the velocity that kills you but the suddenly deceleration at the end.  The issue with current climate change is how rapid it is.  No doubt a lot of animals will survive, but a lot of plants/animals/etc will also go extinct because they won't find new contiguous habitat to migrate to over the next couple hundred years.  The other part is, trying to reverse climate change after a certain point becomes substantially more expensive (as in, probably at least orders of magnitude), which given the current will to fund stuff to stop it now when we actually have the organization and resources makes it almost certain it won't be done.

Humans will survive.  Civilization as we know it may or may not.  If you don't get a shit about future generations, climate change doesn't matter.


----------



## Ratatattat (Jul 16, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> Uh, yea, no amount of me personally not using a computer is going to resolve the problem of climate change.  Why?  Because "lead by example" in the way you describe doesn't really work.  You know early Christianity?  Fundamentally it was a suicide cult.  They took in members, distributed their wealth, and discourage procreation.  The idea was to lead as many people into the salvation of Christianity because the final days were upon us.  After less than a hundred years, that general practice obviously stopped.
> 
> Back to the original chart, there's a saying:  it's not the velocity that kills you but the suddenly deceleration at the end.  The issue with current climate change is how rapid it is.  No doubt a lot of animals will survive, but a lot of plants/animals/etc will also go extinct because they won't find new contiguous habitat to migrate to over the next couple hundred years.  The other part is, trying to reverse climate change after a certain point becomes substantially more expensive (as in, probably at least orders of magnitude), which given the current will to fund stuff to stop it now when we actually have the organization and resources makes it almost certain it won't be done.
> 
> Humans will survive.  Civilization as we know it may or may not.  If you don't get a shit about future generations, climate change doesn't matter.



I disagree that Humans will survive. We are simply not smart enough.


----------



## ChaosEternal (Jul 16, 2019)

[Removed]


----------



## Lacius (Jul 16, 2019)

ChaosEternal said:


> Commanding someone to educate themselves is probably one of the most consistent ways to ensure that they don't. If humans were that purely logical, then we wouldn't be in this position to begin with.


There is nothing wrong with telling a person to educate oneself. It's good advice.


----------



## ChaosEternal (Jul 16, 2019)

[Removed]


----------



## Lacius (Jul 16, 2019)

ChaosEternal said:


> Sure, but if your goal is to actually get someone to educate themselves then it's a piss-poor method of doing so. It smacks of condescension which makes people less receptive to your message.


See below:


ChaosEternal said:


> Truth be told, I'm not entirely sure why I even bothered to argue such an inane point. Perhaps I've developed a bad habit of arguing for the sake of argument.


----------



## ChaosEternal (Jul 16, 2019)

[Removed]


----------



## Lacius (Jul 16, 2019)

ChaosEternal said:


> Now, if you were to argue that this is completely off topic, then I would agree. Hence, I won't argue this point any further.


It's inane because it's off topic.



ChaosEternal said:


> I don't believe this point to be inane. If you genuinely want to change people's minds, then I'd recommend you consider modifying your methods. Or in your own words, "Educate yourself."



Telling a person to educate oneself is not condescending.
A person who believes climate change is a hoax is unlikely to be swayed regardless of my methods.
I suggest reading up on the Backfire Effect. My use of the phrase "educate yourself" likely had no effect on the odds of changing one's mind.
Educate yourself.


----------



## zomborg (Jul 17, 2019)

Climate change Is real. Too bad accurate climate models are not.


----------



## notimp (Jul 17, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> Humans will survive.  Civilization as we know it may or may not.  If you don't get a shit about future generations, climate change doesn't matter.


To be exact, if you dont give a shit about a generation not yet born, or people that are not in developed countries - climate change doesnt matter.

Also - baby boomers didn't give a shit about millenials or generation z (or people in the third world), when they were in power, which is still continuing on - so it kind of isn't that outrageous a thought to begin with.

That now part of them seems to be 'well into combating climate change' is basically a power fantasy up until their end. They want to be the only ones that have structural capital until they are in their graves. (Millennials will never be able to earn any.) It gives them 'better lives' and a better starting position in all arguments, also - they are many, we are few.

Thats the part you usually don't hear in public deliberations, but its also, absolutely correct, structurally.

If you want it less agressive. Millennials where set up and left hanging as a 'lost generation' unable to own, or ever decide anything. We were only ever drafted to play in virtual economies, that dont matter at all. They are useless. We were only ever needed to be pacified, or act against our interests in movements like "tsafe our planetz". But we are too small of a demographic to change that in the next 10 years.

After that baby boomers have already indoctrinated gen-z and subsequent generations, to start into life on their first recession (our third) - so they can have it better later in life (energy transition finished).

We never had. We are a lost generation. We got to see the transitioning, but hated every moment of it.

Unless we could be motivated religiously, or purely by PR - of course.

Speaking for developed western societies. If you are a bangladeshi by any chance - you've seen your wages double afair three times in the last ten years. So - entirely different story. (Globalization is kind of out to minimize differences in living standards. With that bigger governmental structures become viable.)


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Jul 17, 2019)

I so badly wish (in a way) that "people" could understand, "It's not just you." and roll with that.
Meaning, you aren't the only organism on Earth that feels pain---everything feels "pain", but "you" have the power to change that....to a certain degree.

The problem is, words can only go so far; there are connotations of pains and denotations of "pain". 
I can't really get into it, but essentially, take your head out of your ass and see what "shit" is composed of and who's making piles on piles. 
Then, actually do the most agreed upon plan to deal with the mess.


----------



## notimp (Jul 17, 2019)

Nah. Everything is perspective as well.

So for example - if you are set up to be set for your life simply by what you inherit - you are fine. What you already own gets worth more (low inflation + better investment opportunities).

If you are well into spending disposable income for useless trinkets, and whatever gets advertised on instagram - and have fun in straw fire "trend based" economies, your are fine (you will never be advertised that owning your home, or any land should be what millenials are aspiring to), because your function currently in society is to keep the economy going on empty spending. (You can't put money aside to 'safe up', because thanks to 0% interest it will become worth less over time - unless you are willing to gamble - or have bigger assets to start out with - which offer other investment opportunities).

To ease that a little credits to f.e. build your own homes are at the lowest interest rates they ever where (not double checked), but then prices near and around cities (through speculation bubbles) are so high, that you basically will not be able to afford to own anything there. So you could go back into more rural areas - where you will matter less politically - if there are strikes, or large demonstrations.

If you are well into doing something about the climate - which will never benefit you in your life, you are fine as well - because all advertising money is in that right now. Also all big structural investments will be made in those areas, they just will not 'pay out' in your lifetime. At least in Europe. US, maybe... (There is talk about a marshall plan for climate related environmental development - that Europe cant - and isn't willing to produce in the next 20 years.)

If you are into automating away peoples jobs, because you think that the future will be easier living conditions from money that is earned by machines, and that will be equally distributed in societies. You can make money for about 10 years still (automation ongoing), then you will have a third of people already out of jobs, or forced to work in gig economies. And then have a huge political struggle to establish "free money for everyone" (based on nationality).

If you are well into working a gig economy job, with no rights, no stability - but immense freedoms to be outcompeted by a guy in india - you are fine still.

If you are highly educated in any field thats still needed for any of the above - you are fine as well.

If ...

I'm not into any of that - so I'm not fine..  Just saying.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 17, 2019)

While I agree that @Hanafuda 's position is unreasonable he does have a point.
There's never gonna be a systemic solution that does not involve personal limitation, period. Renewables are all fine and dandy, they have the capacity to fullfil our energy needs for the rest of the century, but they're likely not gonna be enough beyond that and the problems with energy storage make it even worse.
I would hope that we find a solution that gives people the personal choice what type of energy consumption they want to limit but seeing how people in this thread refuse to change their habits unless it's systemic (i.e. government mandated limitation) it's quite evident that this is not gonna work.

So I would like to know about how to deal with this.

Housing has a huge carbon footprint. High energy efficiency standards will drive up prices to the point where building affordable housing isn't economically viable. What would you propose here?

Individual transport needs to change massively. You could incentivize bicycling or taking public transport, you could disincentivize using cars but for those stubborn ones, how would you mandate change of behaviour when it comes to individual transport? Increasing prices for high emission transport options through taxation would probably work but will ultimately make the same people suffer who would also be struggling with increased housing cost.

Airtravel is a big problem. You could either increase prices by taxation to disincentivize flying or limit flights to a certain amount per person per year.

Personally I try to do my best to limit my energy consumption wherever I can. We're taking our bikes whenever we can, especially for everything in a 6 mile radius, we've gotten rid of all but one car and are coordinating when someone needs it, as an IT professional I'm trying to look for ways to optimize energy efficiency for my client's infrastructure, we're taking buses that allow us to take our bikes to get around the destination town when we go on vacation, we're looking for bike friendly hotels, I'm being active in my community to advocate for bike friendly traffic infrastructure, etc.


----------



## notimp (Jul 17, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Housing has a huge carbon footprint. High energy efficiency standards will drive up prices to the point where building affordable housing isn't economically viable. What would you propose here?


Subsidies for the people who have already inhereted their own homes, so they can put free solar cells there which our economic sector (middle class) imports from china (every 30 years, because lifespan). Lower the energy footprint of old homes over time by retrofitting (not only solar). Which is costly and no one can afford. So that the issue is solved in terms of marketing, but not actually.

You don't need more houses, because world population figures are declining. If you have too many unused privately owned homes because of "investment portfolios" - wait until babyboomer have died (the ones with money and numbers), then have millennials in their 60's fight for living space in cities. Before that, this issue will not even be touched.

Build 'not actual houses' like Kanye does for the poor (sorry, that one is actually a joke).


supersonicwaffle said:


> Individual transport needs to change massively. You could incentivize bicycling or taking public transport, you could disincentivize using cars but for those stubborn ones, how would you mandate change of behaviour when it comes to individual transport? Increasing prices for high emission transport options through taxation would probably work but will ultimately make the same people suffer who would also be struggling with increased housing cost.


Transport as a service. Get people into self driving UBERs and apps that can offer them more viable "route stitching" with public transport, so your transporation systems will become more efficient. It just doesnt work for rural populations. So that the issue is solved in terms of marketing, but not actually.



> Airtravel is a big problem. You could either increase prices by taxation to disincentivize flying or limit flights to a certain amount per person per year.


Dont do anything about that. Leave it as be. You don't even have a marketing solution for that one. Airtravel will increase by large amounts as the developing world reaches developed world status. Fake out people, that not taking actual world spanning vacations is the new cool. Sell them on VR, or something. (Virtual (as in not real) content.)



> Personally I try to do my best to limit my energy consumption wherever I can.


Why?

You know, that you are only doing that to help ease the transition phase until renewable energy solutions are viable and deployed - right? So that the third, maybe forth generation after yours may have more worthwile living conditions.

You do it for 'heaven'.

Which brings us to 'pray for technical innovation' in which the babyboomers havent invested in - in their last 40 years. Then don't conjur up revolutionary tendencies - because it would make things even worse.

Here is your Sophies choice. Keep people 'poor' (not asking for economic development), by keeping them poor. Or keep them poor, by making them think, that poor is the new hip. Millennials didn't buy the second one. But Gen Z did. In Europe mostly. So I guess - as a babyboomer, don't look at your children anymore, and spend more time with your grandkids.

edit: Also - the reason, why I'm emotionally invested into this is, that I know video games. And to me the believe that it would be possible to keep people engaged in virtual worlds or economies to keep their dreams and aspirations there - even if just for one generation. Urks me to no end.

The only thing that hurts me more is people that tell me 'I try to do the best I can do in my life - to live a little less'.

And the only thing that hurts me more than that is if people ask me if 'I want to do actual marketing, so more people would think that way' - or actually pick up a concept of a worthwhile life, that we create for them in marketing or in NGOs.

I cant count the articles of "the millenials aren't able to think in just potentials anymore" I've read in my life. So this is a well established notion in the political sphere as well.

If its true, we have to see. The next climate summit is in September in New York. It is expected, that most of the US will also make "we'll be carbon neutral by 2050" pledges.

(See Merkel speech from a month ago in Harvard for example.)


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 17, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> While I agree that @Hanafuda 's position is unreasonable he does have a point.




I thought everyone would understand it was sarcasm. Nobody's gonna agree to giving up their modern lifestyle unless forced by an authoritarianism that makes Chairman Mao look like the nicest mayor ever of the best town to live in. Even the most ardent advocates of world doom still just recycle their orange peels or something to feel good about themselves, while all the while enjoying modern fossil-fuel burning technology all day long. It doesn't matter who you elect President, it doesn't matter how strongly some reps in Congress feeeeeeeeeeel about it. China already produces almost twice as much greenhouse gases as the USA, and that's only going to get worse. Much worse. All that plastic in the ocean we hear about ... China, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc. It's unreasonable to tell anyone to volunteer themselves back to a 1899 lifestyle, and it's unreasonable to hope for governments that will make it happen. God help us if they try.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 17, 2019)

notimp said:


> You don't need more houses, because world population figures are declining. If you have too many unused privately owned homes because of "investment portfolios" - wait until babyboomer have died (the ones with money and numbers), then have millennials in their 60's fight for living space. Before that, this issue will not even be touched.



The population isn't declining in (wealthy) countries with high energy consumption. Your statement makes no sense. We had this argument before and I showed you studies that predict the number for elderly people will be rising for at least the next 15 years. Produce something to substantiate your argument like I did then or stop it.



notimp said:


> Transport as a service. Get people into self driving UBERs and apps that can offer them more viable "route stitching" with public transport, so your transporation systems will become more efficient. It just doesnt work for rural populations. So that the issue is solved in terms of marketing, but not actually.



This is still quite a ways off. People are falling for the classic hype cycle and haven't reached the through of disilluisonment quite yet. There will be many more things necessary to safely operate these vehicles without a driver and people are currently being oversold on what the technology can do. Current systems can be demonstrably tricked into behaving unsafely and I'm not sold on that it will be entirely fleshed out without massive investments into infrastructure.
Mercedes has had autonomous S-Class vehicles with no additional sensors compared to the regular model and recently revealed that the industry is struggling to make traffic light recognition 100% reliable while Tesla will tell you that Lidar is unneccessary.

It's just not a viable solution to bank on in the near future.



notimp said:


> Dont do anything about that. Leave it as be. You don't even have a marketing solution for that one. Airtravel will increase by large amounts as the developing world reaches developed world status. Fake out people, that not taking actual world spanning vacations is the new cool. Sell them on VR, or something. (Virtual (as in not real) content.)



So to rephrase your argument: It's a problem, it will get worse, just ignore it and hope people will do VR? You can't be serious.



notimp said:


> You know, that you are only doing that to help ease the transition phase until renewable energy solutions are viable and deployed - right? So that the third, maybe forth generation after yours may have more worthwile living conditions.



Renewable energy will first have to be demonstrated to be capable of satisfying the world's energy demands long term, including storage solutions and their respective efficiency.
You make the argument yourself that energy consumption will shoot up massively with developing countries reaching developed status. Solar power isn't an infinite power source as you're going to run out of surface area to plant panels at some point.



notimp said:


> The only thing that hurts me more is people that tell me 'I try to do the best I can do in my life - to live a little less'.



I'm not living less by using a bike for transport, arguably I'm living more as I'm healthier, save money and have significantly lower risk of being injured in traffic while often saving time because I get to bypass traffic.

I'm not making the argument for people to not do what they want but as it stands the environmental damage isn't priced into a lot of energy products so the market doesn't get a chance to regulate itself. One contributing factor to the rise in SUV sales has been stagnant gas prices over the last decade, whereas rising gas prices would have likely lead to more sales of lighter and more fuel efficient cars.



Hanafuda said:


> I thought everyone would understand it was sarcasm. Nobody's gonna agree to giving up their modern lifestyle unless forced by an authoritarianism that makes Chairman Mao look like the nicest mayor ever of the best town to live in. Even the most ardent advocates of world doom still just recycle their orange peels or something to feel good about themselves, while all the while enjoying modern fossil-fuel burning technology all day long. It doesn't matter who you elect President, it doesn't matter how strongly some reps in Congress feeeeeeeeeeel about it. China already produces almost twice as much greenhouse gases as the USA, and that's only going to get worse. Much worse. All that plastic in the ocean we hear about ... China, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc. It's unreasonable to tell anyone to volunteer themselves back to a 1899 lifestyle, and it's unreasonable to hope for governments that will make it happen. God help us if they try.



I understand that you were hyperbolic but other commenters took you quite literally. I also agree that the there's a lot of hyprocrisy surrounding the issue.
Here's a tweet that made me laugh: https://twitter.com/realmartinhagen/status/1080860209298452482?lang=de

On the left you have picture of a german green party politician she snapped on vacation in california (12h flight from Gemany), she is also using a plastic spoon. On the right you have a picture of a liberal politician who went on vacation in Germany and had a drink out of a reusable glass bottle.


----------



## kuwanger (Jul 17, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> It's unreasonable to tell anyone to volunteer themselves back to a 1899 lifestyle,



I'm pretty sure going back to an 1899 lifestyle would actually be just as bad.  We've went from 1.6 billion to 7.7 billion people in ~120 years.  The 1899 lifestyle of burning coal and wood for heat was terrible.  Moving towards nuclear/renewables would be costly and it would undoubtedly cause a regression in standard of living, but it wouldn't be nearly equivalent to 1899 energy uses or carbon output.  The other big elephant in the room is meat consumption would have to dramatically decrease.

I don't know if it'd take the likes of Mao to change society that way.  I do think it'd take a substantial part of most societies (80%) to get on board to the idea, though.  It's a chicken and egg problem, though.  It's fueled by a desire to be warm and eat good food, some of the more basic things of society.  To be actually enforced in some fashion, society itself would likely react violently to others perceived to be gluttonous.  I fear that is more of the dystopian risk than some Mao character appearing.  It's why so many people (me included) are really hoping that technology improves enough to compensate and why it's most frustrating when government funding (in part) is so strongly rebuffed by some as not some sort of answer.

Look at how the internet, computers, and solar panels have grown together.  It's obviously not only a private nor only a public venture.  There's been massive efficiency improvements.  When talking of how streaming on the internet uses so much of a carbon footprint, I only think how much that streaming has offset all the other activities that would have occurred that would have released much more carbon and how those data centers as a centralized point are a lot easier to make carbon neutral than the diverse activities of millions or billions of people.

It just seems clear to me that we've taken the threat as not very serious ever since the 80s.  I mean, who gives a fuck about the people of 2200?  And yea, I'm obviously as guilty as anyone. :/


----------



## notimp (Jul 17, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> The population isn't declining in (wealthy) countries with high energy consumption. Your statement makes no sense. We had this argument before and I showed you studies that predict the number for elderly people will be rising for at least the next 15 years.


No - I agree on that. But houses arent built for 15 years. 

Anything thats related to millennial needs - politically is not relevant. (If you understand politics as a game of numbers.) So you might do some things to ease the issue, but structurally you wont be able to do anything about it in the next 15 years. When millennials are around the age of 60, babyboomes will start to die and populations in western societies will decline. Then we can make our first political argument, that will be heard, in our lives.

Thats the quick logic (not necessarily correct - but should be..  ).

No one is investing large into anything in regards to our (?) generation specifically - that isnt related to 'keep that generation happy in fake economies' in my mind.

People try to reframe the gig economy as great.

People try to wrap their heads around universal basic income, because it might be needed.

People try to make money in automation, because it raises productivity still - but that will become a societal issue in 10-15 years, which already is kind of forecast.

And after that point, we still arent in political control for 10 more years (demographic issue).

Big Data was opened up to be a free for all, regardless of all societal problems that might result out of it - because it was seen as one of the only growth markets in the short to mid term.

My thinking goes along those lines.



supersonicwaffle said:


> I'm not living less by using a bike for transport, arguably I'm living more as I'm healthier, save money and have significantly lower risk of being injured in traffic while often saving time because I get to bypass traffic.


Yes, thats how you reframe "Bikes were always better than cars". it worked on you.  It doesnt work on me. Never will. Thats the issue.

If you can currently be made to think your way - and even be all 'hyped up' about it so that you can get the thought that regression is progress out into the public - you'll have endless job opportunities in todays market.

People will literally pay you high wages, to try to change peoples behavior. You are exactly whats needed, at the current point in time.

And the joke is, that you probably think that this is that right thing to do, because of a childs smile.

Btw: Whats your fitbit score for today? (Virtual economy.)


----------



## notimp (Jul 17, 2019)

Maybe I have to explain how this "I try to produce as litte of an issue for the planet (for heaven)." Works in the real world.

I dont't own a car. I dont make long distance vactions. I dont have children. I hardly ever eat meat.

People that do everything of the above - still tell me, that I should buy less plastic bags if I literally go two miles to my next supermarket. Not knowing, that paper packaging actually has a higher CO2 footprint overall, because its heavier, and uses more energy being delivered to stores.

They tell me, that I should do it (f.e. use reusable hemp bags), because everyone has to show a little effort and try to abstain from something they liked previously in their lives.

I'm intelligent enough to see - that this is a race to the bottom, more affluent people will use every day to keep lower classes from attaining middle class privileges.

Its mostly signaling without substance. It produces unintended negative feedback loops. (Doing that, makes oil cheaper for australia, which has just politically decided not to do any of it.) Its highly unethical.

And the only payout - will be in the fourth generation down the road.

If you want to sell me on the health benefits - cure cancer (cells stopping to regenerate themselves without errors after a fixed set of cycles) first.

Thats the sad logic.

If you are cycling to your appointments, being all happy - that you are saving the world. You are in a cult.

A socially accepted one, but a cult nevertheless.

The point where our opinions meet again is, that if everyone reduces their aspiration of economic progress, you buy people working on the energy transition issue more time.

The difference is, you can do it with a blessed smile on your face, and I cant. I see 'negative growth' as less growth. No social progress. Increasing societal issues in the mid term. Without having any chance to divert from that politically, because its fixed.

The children in germany were only needed for the "some of us now do it out of their own volition" part. Voluntarily. If you want to icrease voluntarily, you rase marketing spending. Which feels also kind of odd.

From an overview perspective of what is needed, yes - I should experience the third recession in my lifetime, and and then look forward to a society where in a short period of time about a third of the work force is expected to loose their jobs (automation). But then, knowing that doesnt help.

To make it a full argument - at the same time the political movement to produce a carbon tax that would encompass all sectors, doesnt get anywhere - because it harms the private sector ('jobs'). So its now expected from me, that I do what I don't want to, that harms me more than most people I know, that I can't freely chose (because its not based on a 'economy'), that brings me no benefit, that produces large scale believes that I don't agree with, thats out there to harm my generations economic outlook, while knowing, that I cant do anything about it politically - and shouldnt do anything about it, if I look at it as a big picture issue. While seeing societies in China, India, even the US, still on a steeper growth path than Europe, or Japan historically in decades...

While having read articles, that the fridays for future movement has NO, I reapeat, no short - or mid term plans (in fact they have no plans at all), but purely are a PR and faith based operation, that wants to remind people of self stated UN goals. And they do it without knowing, or caring about any social impacts ('i guess it has to be done in a socialy responsible matter' - but it has to be our highest policitcal goal because - and I quote: "we should all panic", and "we have no time".).

Am I correct so far?


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jul 17, 2019)

LOL.. Nerdtendo is quiet and I bet he read it but didn't say anything. He is a lacking of education about this global warming because it is very real. He is just simple ignorant just like Trump even Trump knew it was real but he won't admitted it. Reason ? Trump just wants to make more money from business. I can't wait to see Trump being broken one day. Not him but everyone in the political because they are simply corruption.


----------



## notimp (Jul 17, 2019)

Dont. Its a complex issue. I dont want to 'win' public sentiment, I just dont want people to step into it entirely naively.

I've basically accepted, the whole 'lost generation' narrative. Which is also just one perspective. You don't have to look at the issue in age groups at all, you can look at a smaller part of it, and make it work for you, you can look at the overarching goal and decide, that its still worth it.

I'm outraged, because I have an issue with PR basically.  But thats me.


----------



## zomborg (Jul 17, 2019)

If global warming /climate change supporters are so intensely concerned about the environment and saving the earth for the future, who are they saving it for?

Remember? This IS the same group of people that want to kill our next generation of children. They are completely ok with abortion so if they wipe out our next generation, who are we "saving" the environment for?


----------



## notimp (Jul 17, 2019)

No, dont. Wrong thread. Abortion isnt killing babies. Apparently the people that aren aborted also want an earth to live on. Wrong thread. Wrong approach. Not even logic.

Sounds like it would be something that follows logically - but isnt.

Also that 'group' is half of the worlds countries, capital investors, even private companies. So if there is an issue, that lay out there in the open, with next to all affiliations transparent as can be - it is this one. I mean it is literally a UN project, and was so for years. That people didn't care about it until the children came along and picked it up - separate issue.

Also if you dont do it for the climate, around 2030 peak oil - so its not as if we can sit this one out. Something has to be done. The activism moves only around timetables and potential outcomes.

Again, the issue rather is, that the last mover wins short term, which is kind of problematic. So everyone (important) kind of has to move at the same time. International problem.

zomborg you are presenting an 'enemy' image infowars might have invented, if I'm not mistaken? Is it the liberal world conspiracy of the left baby killing billionaires again?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 17, 2019)

zomborg said:


> If global warming /climate change supporters are so intensely concerned about the environment and saving the earth for the future, who are they saving it for?
> 
> Remember? This IS the same group of people that want to kill our next generation of children. They are completely ok with abortion so if they wipe out our next generation, who are we "saving" the environment for?


Abortion has been legal in every state of the United States since 1973, and the population has continued to increase since then. Your argument is absurd. Legal abortion does not equal "killing the next generation."

In other words, being pro-choice isn't the same as being anti-reproduction.


----------



## zomborg (Jul 17, 2019)

notimp said:


> No, dont. Wrong thread. Abortion isnt killing babies. Apparently the people that aren aborted also want an earth to live on. Wrong thread. Wrong approach. Not even logic.
> 
> Sounds like it would be a something that follows logically - but isnt.
> 
> ...





Lacius said:


> Abortion has been legal in every state of the United States since 1973, and the population has continued to increase since then. Your argument is absurd. Legal abortion does not equal "killing the next generation."
> 
> In other words, being pro-choice isn't the same as being anti-reproduction.


I agree with that. The people who aren't aborted will want a place to live but to hear some pro abortion voices talking they wouldn't mind if all babies are aborted. In such a scenario there would be no reason to preserve our environment. 
 At least that is something to know that being pro-choice isn't the same as anti-reproduction. But there are many powerful people in our world who would like to eliminate at least 3 fourths of the world's population due to "over population".


----------



## Lacius (Jul 17, 2019)

zomborg said:


> I agree with that. The people who aren't aborted will want a place to live but to hear some pro abortion voices talking they wouldn't mind if all babies are aborted. In such a scenario there would be no reason to preserve our environment.
> At least that is something to know that being pro-choice isn't the same as anti-reproduction. But there are many powerful people in our world who would like to eliminate at least 3 fourths of the world's population due to "over population".



Virtually nobody wants "all babies aborted."
Humans are not the only species on Earth.
Virtually nobody wants to "eliminate at least 3/4 of the world's population."
Respectfully, you're being ridiculous.


----------



## notimp (Jul 17, 2019)

> .. but to hear some pro abortion voices talking they wouldn't mind if all babies are aborted.



No, nobody wants that you can still have your family, nobody is going to take it away, this is not what the abortion debate is about. People are not saying that - if you have heard that before, chances are that you might have provoked the other person/side before, so that was a personal attack.

More likely that you are taking "artisitc freedoms" and are exaggerating. 

(Wong thread.  )


----------



## Vieela (Jul 17, 2019)

zomborg said:


> I agree with that. The people who aren't aborted will want a place to live but to hear some pro abortion voices talking they wouldn't mind if all babies are aborted. In such a scenario there would be no reason to preserve our environment.
> At least that is something to know that being pro-choice isn't the same as anti-reproduction. But there are many powerful people in our world who would like to eliminate at least 3 fourths of the world's population due to "over population".



I think generalizing an opinion and putting it as the pillar of a whole discussion isn't correct. Certainly, there are people that do agree with what you said, but no most of the people who defend pro abortion certainly has actual ethical reasons behind it. IMO, it's much better not having a baby than, for example, having to raise a baby without having the money to pay for the expenses or a baby that has been fruit of an unplanned intercourse (rape/abuse) where it would leave severe marks for both the baby's lifestyle and the woman.

Also, global warming effects don't take a thousand years to happen - it has literally been felt already and it is a bigger problem than it sounds. We are not only saving any future generations that may come, but also the younger generation, who likely can and probably will live to their 70+ years of life (talking people that were born in 1990's and forth.), but also the current old generation. It won't be any much longer, in the current state we are (and how likely it is for this whole situation to worsen, seeing that as we develop technology, we require more energy, and therefore, we have to find ways to generate it.) that we could see global warming as a true safety hazard and something that push humanity quite to it's edge, and of course, it's going to be the overall older generation that is going to feel it more amongst us, since their body and overall life conditions have been fragilized with time.


----------



## zomborg (Jul 17, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Virtually nobody wants "all babies aborted."
> Humans are not the only species on Earth.
> Virtually nobody wants to "eliminate at least 3/4 of the world's population."
> Respectfully, you're being ridiculous.


Perhaps you are right. 



notimp said:


> No, nobody wants that you can still have your family, nobody is going to take it away, this is not what the abortion debate is about. People are not saying that - if you have heard that before, chances are that you might have provoked the other person/side before, so that was a personal attack.
> 
> More likely that you are taking "artisitc freedoms" and are exaggerating.
> 
> (Wong thread.  )


That may be it. Maybe words like that were only spoken in the heat of debate.

By the way, I am not a believer in man-made global warming /climate change. Man is imperfect and as such inherently faulty and inaccurate. Governments for decades have been basing their environmental strategies on inaccurate data (guesses) of imperfect men.

When we look at actual satellite and surface temperature observations vs. what was predicted by 90 different climate models, 95 percent of models overestimated actual temperatures.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 17, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Perhaps you are right.


I am right. I'm usually right.



zomborg said:


> By the way, I am not a believer in man-made global warming /climate change. Man is imperfect and as such inherently faulty and inaccurate. Governments for decades have been basing their environmental strategies on inaccurate data (guesses) of imperfect men.


Human-caused global warming and climate change are definitely happening, and it has been proven. To deny this is to deny virtually all of the scientific evidence. Here are the facts:

We know from ice measurements that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has historically been correlated with increased temperatures.
We know that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere insulates heat from the sun, which makes the correlation actually causation.
We know that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are increasing dramatically.
We know that we are burning fossil fuels and releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate the Earth has never seen before.
We know the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is from our fossil fuels, since the carbon from fossil fuels has different isotope proportions than carbon that occurs naturally. The math also lines up (i.e. fossil fuel carbon dioxide = atmospheric carbon dioxide increase).
We know that Earth's temperatures are increasing proportionally with the increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.
For various reasons I won't get into, climate predictions are much easier than weather predictions, and climate predictions related to global warming and climate change have largely been very accurate. The graph you posted was demonstrated to be flawed years ago, but the memes and conspiracy websites are still out there. Here's the correct graph using a lot of the same data:


----------



## notimp (Jul 17, 2019)

Ok in statistics, there is something called a confidence interval, so in all predictions you are predicting an outcome with plus minus something. What you are showing there is basically such a corridor - and then two measurement curves, that arent really outside of that. And that probably arent measuring mean wold temperature - but just 'something'? (On set of measurements isnt as steep?)

Also data ends in 2013 - why? Update your graphs. 

Also the data shows the same trend (still rising), so its not anything that would even prop up your point, that you think that none of this is man made.

Can we agree on some basics. man made or not - if its an issue that continuing to get worse, and is kind of costly - we have to do something about it? If you know nothing about statistic - and are complaining, that the models arent exact in comparison to two sets of measurements - I don't know what they are exactly measuring - chances are that someone just used "selective sampling".

Its easier than that. Just ponder the potential, that all of science in that an related fields might not be bought, that the issue is real.

Other people in the internet community of your choice, might not be better informed. Humans usually tend to rationalize wha they want to believe, sciene was developed as a process to kind of prevent that (set of best practices, multiple people, multiple independant sets of data points).

So if in the end you end up with - but I believe that science is wrong... you just outsmarted humanities best way to get data and theories. As a single human being, looking at a graph.

Which isnt supposed to happen, or be very likely. Politics we can discuss for days, there everyone is welcome, and your opinion is just as valuable as the next guys' - science, not so much.

If you cant interpret p-value ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value ) correctly you dont know what any statistical finding is saying. So just trust the scientists on this one? Please.

Outliers are normal. Models don't represent reality exactly (thats why you need many of them). And the end result of all of the creative arguing is still not, that everything is fine, and we don't need to do anything.


----------



## Ratatattat (Jul 17, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I am right. I'm usually right.
> 
> 
> Human-caused global warming and climate change are definitely happening, and it has been proven. To deny this is to deny virtually all of the scientific evidence. Here are the facts:
> ...



You forgot number 7. We know there are those who refuse to know even in the face of factual data.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 17, 2019)

Ratatattat said:


> You forgot number 7. We know there are those who refuse to know even in the face of factual data.


What's Number 7?


----------



## dAVID_ (Jul 17, 2019)

notimp said:


> Ok in statistics, there is something called a confidence interval, so in all predictions you are predicting an outcome with plus minus something. What you are showing there is basically such a corridor - and then two measurement curves, that arent really outside of that. And that probably arent measuring mean wold temperature - but just 'something'? (On set of measurements isnt as steep?)
> 
> Also data ends in 2013 - why? Update your graphs.
> 
> ...



The P-value is used when we know that a hypothesis is null, that is, that there is no relationship between two phenomena. However, climate change has been greatly studied, and almost all research arrives at the conclusion that there is a strong relationship between human emission of CO2 and an increase in global temperature.
Then, the only way to rationalize the belief that climate change doesn't exist, is to resort to conspiracy theories, which cannot comply with the scientific method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis


----------



## zomborg (Jul 17, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I am right. I'm usually right.
> 
> 
> Human-caused global warming and climate change are definitely happening, and it has been proven. To deny this is to deny virtually all of the scientific evidence. Here are the facts:
> ...


Lol ok Mr perfect. Your data is faulty and flawed.









If you need more proof, follow this link. Lots of study material to educate those who think they're usually right.


----------



## dAVID_ (Jul 17, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Lol ok Mr perfect. Your data is faulty and flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great. One (1) 12 page paper, and a letter from one (1) dead physicist.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 17, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Lol ok Mr perfect. Your data is faulty and flawed.
> 
> If you need more proof, follow this link. Lots of study material to educate those who think they're usually right.


Once again, you're posting stuff that was debunked a long time ago. I'm not the one using "faulty and flawed" "data."
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/


> *Mostly False
> *
> What's True
> A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the concept of anthropogenic global warming.
> ...


In reality, the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists (>99%) is that human-caused global warming and climate change is happening.

If you're not going to bother researching your own points because you've come to the conclusion that aligns with your conservative worldview because it's what the anti-abortion folks tell you to believe, you're going to continue to, respectfully, make idiotic statements about climate change.


----------



## Ratatattat (Jul 17, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Lol ok Mr perfect. Your data is faulty and flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Assuming their legitimate, 32,000 is a fairly small number.
Don't think I'd be rooting victory over that.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 17, 2019)

Ratatattat said:


> Assuming their legitimate, 32,000 is a fairly small number.
> Don't think I'd be rooting victory over that.


It's not a legitimate number. See my post above.


----------



## zomborg (Jul 17, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Once again, you're posting stuff that was debunked a long time ago. I'm not the one using "faulty and flawed" "data."
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/
> 
> In reality, the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists (>99%) is that human-caused global warming and climate change is happening.
> ...


Poor Lacius, you had to go look it up on snopes to determine if the petition was true or false. 

Guess what? Snopes is not reliable. Here's an article from, not a conspiracy website, not a conservative site but a mainstream and respected site:

I'm sorry if it's a long read. You may not possess the attention span and will just say TL;DR

*FACT CHECKING THE FACT CHECKERS
*
"Yesterday afternoon a colleague forwarded me an article from the Daily Mail, asking me if it could possibly be true. The article in question is an expose on Snopes.com, the fact checking site used by journalists and citizens across the world and one of the sites that Facebook recently partnered with to fact check news stories on its platform. The Daily Mail’s article makes a number of claims about the site’s principles and organization, drawing heavily from the proceedings of a contentious divorce between the site’s founders and questioning whether the site could possibly act as a trusted and neutral arbitrator of the “truth.”

When I first read through the Daily Mail article I immediately suspected the story itself must certainly be “fake news” because of how devastating the claims were and that given that Snopes.com was so heavily used by the journalistic community, if any of the claims were true, someone would have already written about them and companies like Facebook would not be partnering with them. I also noted that despite having been online for several hours, no other major mainstream news outlet had written about the story, which is typically a strong sign of a false or misleading story. Yet at the same time, the Daily Mail appeared to be sourcing its claims from a series of emails and other documents from a court case, some of which it reproduced in its article and, perhaps most strangely, neither Snopes nor its principles had issued any kind of statement through its website or social media channels disclaiming the story.

On the surface this looked like a classic case of fake news – a scandalous and highly shareable story, incorporating official-looking materials and sourcing, yet with no other mainstream outlet even mentioning the story. I myself told my colleague I simply did not know what to think. Was this a complete fabrication by a disgruntled target of Snopes or was this really an explosive expose pulling back the curtain on one of the world’s most respected and famous fact checking brands?

In fact, one of my first thoughts upon reading the article is that this is precisely how the “fake news” community would fight back against fact checking – by running a drip-drip of fake or misleading explosive stories to discredit and cast doubt upon the fact checkers.

In the counter-intelligence world, this is what is known as a “wilderness of mirrors” – creating a chaotic information environment that so perfectly blends truth, half-truth and fiction that even the best can no longer tell what’s real and what’s not.

Thus, when I reached out to David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, for comment, I fully expected him to respond with a lengthy email in Snopes’ trademark point-by-point format, fully refuting each and every one of the claims in the Daily Mail’s article and writing the entire article off as “fake news.”

It was with incredible surprise therefore that I received David’s one-sentence response which read in its entirety “I’d be happy to speak with you, but I can only address some aspects in general because I’m precluded by the terms of a binding settlement agreement from discussing details of my divorce.”

This absolutely astounded me. Here was the one of the world’s most respected fact checking organizations, soon to be an ultimate arbitrator of “truth” on Facebook, saying that it cannot respond to a fact checking request because of a secrecy agreement.

In short, when someone attempted to fact check the fact checker, the response was the equivalent of “it’s secret.”

It is impossible to understate how antithetical this is to the fact checking world, in which absolute openness and transparency are necessary prerequisites for trust. How can fact checking organizations like Snopes expect the public to place trust in them if when they themselves are called into question, their response is that they can’t respond.

When I presented a set of subsequent clarifying questions to David, he provided responses to some and not to others. Of particular interest, when pressed about claims by the Daily Mail that at least one Snopes employee has actually run for political office and that this presents at the very least the appearance of potential bias in Snopes’ fact checks, David responded “It’s pretty much a given that anyone who has ever run for (or held) a political office did so under some form of party affiliation and said something critical about their opponent(s) and/or other politicians at some point. Does that mean anyone who has ever run for office is manifestly unsuited to be associated with a fact-checking endeavor, in any capacity?”

That is actually a fascinating response to come from a fact checking organization that prides itself on its claimed neutrality. Think about it this way – what if there was a fact checking organization whose fact checkers were all drawn from the ranks of Breitbart and Infowars? Most liberals would likely dismiss such an organization as partisan and biased. Similarly, an organization whose fact checkers were all drawn from Occupy Democrats and Huffington Post might be dismissed by conservatives as partisan and biased. In fact, when I asked several colleagues for their thoughts on this issue this morning, the unanimous response back was that people with strong self-declared political leanings on either side should not be a part of a fact checking organization and all had incorrectly assumed that Snopes would have felt the same way and had a blanket policy against placing partisan individuals as fact checkers.

In fact, this is one of the reasons that fact checking organizations must be transparent and open. If an organization like Snopes feels it is ok to hire partisan employees who have run for public office on behalf of a particular political party and employ them as fact checkers where they have a high likelihood of being asked to weigh in on material aligned with or contrary to their views, how can they reasonably be expected to act as neutral arbitrators of the truth?

Put another way, some Republicans believe firmly that climate change is a falsehood and that humans are not responsible in any way for climatic change. Those in the scientific community might object to an anti-climate change Republican serving as a fact checker for climate change stories at Snopes and flagging every article about a new scientific study on climate change as fake news. Yet, we have no way of knowing the biases of the fact checkers at Snopes – we simply have to trust that the site’s views on what constitutes neutrality are the same as ours.

When I asked for comment on the specific detailed criteria Snopes uses to screen its applicants and decide who to hire as a fact checker, surprisingly David demurred, saying only that the site looks for applicants across all fields and skills. He specifically did not provide any detail of any kind regarding the screening process and how Snopes evaluates potential hires. David also did not respond to further emails asking whether, as part of the screening process, Snopes has applicants fact check a set of articles to evaluate their reasoning and research skills and to gain insight into their thinking process.

This was highly unexpected, as I had assumed that a fact checking site as reputable as Snopes would have a detailed written formal evaluation process for new fact checkers that would include having them perform a set of fact checks and include a lengthy set of interview questions designed to assess their ability to identify potential or perceived conflicts of interest and work through potential biases.

Even more strangely, despite asking in two separate emails how Snopes assesses its fact checkers and whether it performs intra- and inter-rater reliability assessments, David responded only that fact checkers work together collaboratively and did not respond to further requests for more detail and did not answer whether Snopes uses any sort of assessment scoring or ongoing testing process to assess its fact checkers.

This raises exceptionally grave concerns about the internal workings of Snopes and why it is not more forthcoming about its assessment process. Arguing that because multiple fact checkers might work on an article, reliability is not a concern, is a false argument that shows a concerning lack of understanding about reliability and accuracy. Imagine a team of 50 staunch climate deniers all working collaboratively to debunk a new scientific study showing a clear link between industrial pollution and climate change. The very large team size does not make up for the lack of diversity of opinion. Yet, David provided no comment on how Snopes does or does not explicitly force diversity of opinion in its ad-hoc fact checking teams.

A robust human rating workflow must regularly assess the accuracy and reproducibility of the scores generated by its human raters, even when they work collaboratively together. Typically this means that on a regular basis each fact checker or fact checker team is given the same article to fact check and the results compared across the groups. If one person or group regularly generates different results from the others, this is then evaluated to understand why. Similarly, an individual or group is also periodically given the same or nearly identical story from months prior to see if they give it the same rating as last time – this assesses whether they are consistent in their scoring.

More troubling is that we simply don’t know who contributed to a given fact check. David noted that Snopes’ “process is a highly collaborative one in which several different people may contribute to a single article,” but that “the result is typically credited to whoever wrote the initial draft.” David did not respond to a request for comment on why Snopes only lists a single author for each of its fact checks, rather than provide an acknowledgement section that lists all of the individuals who contributed to a given fact check.

One might argue that newspapers similarly do not acknowledge their fact checkers in the bylines of articles. Yet, in a newspaper workflow, fact checking typically occurs as an editorial function, double checking what a reporter wrote. At Snopes, fact checking is the core function of an article and thus if multiple people contributed to a fact check, it is surprising that absolutely no mention is made of them, given that at a newspaper all reporters contributing to a story are listed. Not only does this rob those individuals of credit, but perhaps most critically, it makes it impossible for outside entities to audit who is contributing to what fact check and to ensure that fact checkers who self-identify as strongly supportive or against particular topics are not assigned to fact check those topics to prevent the appearance of conflicts of interest or bias.

If privacy or safety of fact checkers is a concern, the site could simply use first name and last initials or pseudonyms. Having a master list of all fact checkers contributing in any way to a given fact check would go a long way towards establishing greater transparency to the fact checking process and Snopes’ internal controls on conflict of interest and bias.

David also did not respond to a request for comment on why Snopes fact checks rarely mention that they reached out to the authors of the article being fact checked to get their side of the story. Indeed, Journalism 101 teaches you that when you write an article presenting someone or something in a negative light, you must give them the opportunity to respond and provide their side of the story. Instead, Snopes typically focuses on the events being depicted in the article and contacts individuals and entities named in the story, but Snopes fact checks typically do not mention contacting the authors of the articles about those events to see if those reporters claim to have additional corroborating material, perhaps disclosed to them off the record.

In essence, in these cases Snopes performs “fact checking from afar,” rendering judgement on news stories without giving the original reporters the opportunity for comment. David did not respond to a request for comment on this or why the site does not have a dedicated appeals page for authors of stories which Snopes has labeled false to contest that label and he also did not respond to a request to provide further detail on whether Snopes has a written formal appeals process or how it handles such requests.

Putting this all together, we simply don’t know if the Daily Mail story is completely false, completely true or somewhere in the middle. Snopes itself has not issued a formal response to the article and its founder David Mikkelson responded by email that he was unable to address many of the claims due to a confidentiality clause in his divorce settlement. This creates a deeply unsettling environment in which when one tries to fact check the fact checker, the answer is the equivalent of “its secret.” Moreover, David’s responses regarding the hiring of strongly partisan fact checkers and his lack of response on screening and assessment protocols present a deeply troubling picture of a secretive black box that acts as ultimate arbitrator of truth, yet reveals little of its inner workings. This is precisely the same approach used by Facebook for its former Trending Topics team and more recently its hate speech rules (the company did not respond to a request for comment).

From the outside, Silicon Valley looks like a gleaming tower of technological perfection. Yet, once the curtain is pulled back, we see that behind that shimmering façade is a warehouse of good old fashioned humans, subject to all the same biases and fallibility, but with their results now laundered through the sheen of computerized infallibility. Even my colleagues who work in the journalism community and by their nature skeptical, had assumed that Snopes must have rigorous screening procedures, constant inter- and intra-rater evaluations and ongoing assessments and a total transparency mandate. Yet, the truth is that we simply have no visibility into the organization’s inner workings and its founder declined to shed further light into its operations for this article.

Regardless of whether the Daily Mail article is correct in its claims about Snopes, at the least what does emerge from my exchanges with Snopes’ founder is the image of the ultimate black box presenting a gleaming veneer of ultimate arbitration of truth, yet with absolutely no insight into its inner workings. While technology pundits decry the black boxes of the algorithms that increasingly power companies like Facebook, they have forgotten that even the human-powered sites offer us little visibility into how they function.

At the end of the day, it is clear that before we rush to place fact checking organizations like Snopes in charge of arbitrating what is “truth” on Facebook, we need to have a lot more understanding of how they function internally and much greater transparency into their work."

*Source*


----------



## Ratatattat (Jul 17, 2019)

Typical Lacius battering when you can't handle the truth.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 17, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Poor Lacius, you had to go look it up on snopes to determine if the petition was true or false.



I didn't have to look at Snopes to determine if the petition was true or false. I already knew it was false.
I posted a link to Snopes for your own benefit and research (similar to when I or someone else refers to a compendium like Wikipedia), but I guess I was expecting too much to think you might research it and look at the facts objectively.



zomborg said:


> Guess what? Snopes is not reliable.



Snopes is not an authority, and it's not infallible, but it's a good starting point for someone wanting to actually research the issue.
Snopes is very reputable. In 2012, a random sampling of Snopes pages found no errors and no biases.
Your "30,000 signatures" post is a fake, regardless of what Snopes has to say about it, so anything you have to say about Snopes is irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you want to continue to perpetuate the "30,000 signatures" meme, you need to address what makes it false, not Snopes itself.
Similarly to #3, your post about "30,000 signatures," if it had been true (it's not), is also irrelevant to whether or not human-caused climate change is a real concern (it is).



zomborg said:


> I'm sorry if it's a long read. You may not possess the attention span and will just say TL;DR



Your article doesn't actually list any substantive criticisms of Snopes. It's as though you Googled "Snopes bad" and pasted the first thing that came up without reading it. I suppose you did not possess the attention span needed to read it.
If you are going to use evidence in a debate setting, it's important that you summarize the point that you're attempted to demonstrate with a source. In other words, it's not enough to drop a large source and run; you need to explain why it's relevant. "Snopes bad, here read" isn't sufficient. If you want someone to read a source, particularly if it's long, you need to explain its relevance. Was the criticism that Snopes is biased? Because that's not in the article, and it's not true. Was the criticism that Snopes is inaccurate? Because that's not in the article, and it's not true. When I told you the "30,000 signatures" meme was false, I included a short summary of what made it false. I didn't say, "Meme bad, here read."
Edit: I'm also not particularly impressed when people resort to personal attacks in lieu of argumentation, and you should know I don't usually address them. They usually mean one's arguments are bad.


----------



## dAVID_ (Jul 17, 2019)

Ratatattat said:


> Assuming their legitimate, 32,000 is a fairly small number.
> Don't think I'd be rooting victory over that.


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/


----------



## zomborg (Jul 18, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I didn't have to look at Snopes to determine if the petition was true or false. I already knew it was false.


And that's your opinion. You are no different from any other liberal or conservative. You believe what you believe and it doesn't matter what anyone else tells you. You say look at it objectively and yet you do not practice what you preach. You do not look at things in an objective manner yourself. You think that what you have read is correct and whether it really is or not, it is what you want to believe, therefore none can change your mind. It is evident that you do not practice objectivity in your simple, smug statement that you are usually always right. So even if you read evidence to the contrary, even if you read evidence that clearly proves what you believe to be false, because you think you are always right, your arrogance will not allow you to admit it. Instead, the first thing that will pop into your mind is well, that's false, that's a conspiracy theory. Let me check snopes....... Yep yep I knew it wasn't true!



Lacius said:


> I posted a link to Snopes for your own benefit and research (similar to when I or someone else refers to a compendium like Wikipedia), but I guess I was expecting too much to think you might research it and look at the facts objectively.


Here again, you were expecting too much. I'm not insulting you and I'm not resorting to personal attacks in lieu of debate, but your posts have been laced with (not just in this thread. Pick 1) words like "idiocy" and "your argument is absurd" and "you're being ridiculous" and when I decide not to argue by saying perhaps you are right" you come back with the classic "I am right. I'm usually right".

And then there's this little nugget from your earlier post :
"If you're not going to bother researching your own points because you've come to the conclusion that aligns with your conservative worldview because it's what the anti-abortion folks tell you to believe, you're going to continue to, respectfully, make idiotic statements about climate change."
I've already covered this but once again, the same can be said of you. You think you are always right, therefore any comment or proof presented to counter what you believe in your smugness will be automatically dismissed.
It is quite evident, since you are so smug in your mental superiority, that you set out, in each thread to make anyone with an opposing viewpoint look like an idiot and no it's not because the responses they post sound idiotic, it is because you appear to enjoy "debunking" their words and telling them how stupid they sound. In another recent thread SG854 called you out on an Assholish comment you made which I'm sure was unsettling for you because people rarely call you out.



Lacius said:


> Snopes is not an authority, and it's not infallible, but it's a good starting point for someone wanting to actually research the issue.Snopes is not an authority, and it's not infallible, but it's a good starting point for someone wanting to actually research the issue.



It's a good starting point for the uninitiated. It's a lazy man's option and because everybody thinks since they are a fact checking site it must be right



Lacius said:


> Snopes is very reputable. In 2012, a random sampling of Snopes pages found no errors and no biases.


Again your opinion when not rooted in fact. Also no source provided. Wait let me guess, you asked snopes.


Lacius said:


> Your "30,000 signatures" post is a fake, regardless of what Snopes has to say about it, so anything you have to say about Snopes is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
> Similarly to #3, your post about "30,000 signatures," if it had been true (it's not), is also irrelevant to whether or not human-caused climate change is a real concern (it is).


Again, as above, your opinion. I'm thankful you are not the authority on climate change.




Lacius said:


> Your article doesn't actually list any substantive criticisms of Snopes. It's as though you Googled "Snopes bad" and pasted the first thing that came up without reading it. I suppose you did not possess the attention span needed to read it.



Oh, I read every word of the article I posted but it is quite evident you did not. What was it I said about attention span?

To summarize the journalist at Forbes, wrote his article in response to an expose released by Daily Mail. The daily mail article produced official court documents and stated that the founder of
Snopes David Mikkelson was engaged in many illegal activities. Not the least of which were embezzling funds and lying to cover it up.

At first the Forbes writer thought it had to be a fake story because no other media outlet covered it. So he emailed Mikkelson and questioned him only to be stunned with his not so transparent reply. Mikkelson said he could answer a few questions but not all.

Here are quotes from Forbes :
_
"Daily Mail’s article makes a number of claims about the site’s principles and organization and questioning whether the site could possibly act as a trusted and neutral arbitrator of the “truth.”

" perhaps most strangely, neither Snopes nor its principles had issued any kind of statement through its website or social media channels disclaiming the story." 

"When I reached out to David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, for comment, I fully expected him to respond with a lengthy email in Snopes’ trademark point-by-point format, fully refuting each and every one of the claims in the Daily Mail’s article and writing the entire article off as “fake news.”

"It was with incredible surprise therefore that I received David’s one-sentence response which read in its entirety “I’d be happy to speak with you, but I can only address some aspects in general" 

"This absolutely astounded me. Here was the one of the world’s most respected fact checking organizations, soon to be an ultimate arbitrator of “truth” on Facebook, saying that it cannot respond to a fact checking request because of a secrecy agreement." _

"* In short, when someone attempted to fact check the fact checker, the response was the equivalent of “it’s secret.”*

_"It is impossible to understate how antithetical this is to the fact checking world, in which_ *absolute openness and transparency are necessary prerequisites for trust. How can fact checking organizations like Snopes expect the public to place trust in them if when they themselves are called into question, their response is that they can’t respond? "*

_" we have no way of knowing the biases of the fact checkers at Snopes – we simply have to trust that the site’s views on what constitutes neutrality are the same as ours."


" When I asked for comment on the specific detailed criteria Snopes uses to screen its applicants and decide who to hire as a fact checker, surprisingly David demurred, saying only that the site looks for applicants across all fields and skills. He specifically did not provide any detail of any kind regarding the screening process and how Snopes evaluates potential hires. David also did not respond to further emails asking whether, as part of the screening process, Snopes has applicants fact check a set of articles to evaluate their reasoning and research skills and to gain insight into their thinking process."

" Even more strangely, despite asking in two separate emails how Snopes assesses its fact checkers and whether it performs intra- and inter-rater reliability assessments, David responded only that fact checkers work together collaboratively and_ *did not respond to further requests for more detail and did not answer whether Snopes uses any sort of assessment scoring or ongoing testing process to assess its fact checkers."*

*" This raises exceptionally grave concerns about the internal workings of Snopes and why it is not more forthcoming about its assessment process*. Arguing that because multiple fact checkers might work on an article, reliability is not a concern, is a false argument that shows a concerning lack of understanding about reliability and accuracy.  David provided no comment on how Snopes does or does not explicitly force diversity of opinion in its ad-hoc fact checking teams."

*" More troubling is that we simply don’t know who contributed to a given fact check*. _David noted that Snopes’ “process is a highly collaborative one in which several different people may contribute to a single article,” but that “the result is typically credited to whoever wrote the initial draft.” David did not respond to a request for comment on why Snopes only lists a single author for each of its fact checks, rather than provide an acknowledgement section that lists all of the individuals who contributed to a given fact check_."

" _David also did not respond to a request for comment on why Snopes fact checks rarely mention that they reached out to the authors of the article being fact checked to get their side of the story. Indeed, Journalism 101 teaches you that when you write an article presenting someone or something in a negative light, you must give them the opportunity to respond and provide their side of the story but Snopes fact checks typically do not mention contacting the authors of the articles about those events to see if those reporters claim to have additional corroborating material, perhaps disclosed to them off the record."_

"* In essence, in these cases Snopes performs “fact checking from afar,” rendering judgement on news stories without giving the original reporters the opportunity for comment*. _David did not respond to a request for comment on this or why the site does not have a dedicated appeals page for authors of stories which Snopes has labeled false to contest that label and he also did not respond to a request to provide further detail on whether Snopes has a written formal appeals process or how it handles such requests."_

" *This creates a deeply unsettling environment in which when one tries to fact check the fact checker, the answer is the equivalent of “its secret.” Moreover, David’s responses regarding the hiring of strongly partisan fact checkers and his lack of response on screening and assessment protocols present a deeply troubling picture of a secretive black box that acts as ultimate arbitrator of truth, yet reveals little of its inner workings*."

" once the curtain is pulled back, we see that behind that shimmering façade is a warehouse of good old fashioned humans, subject to all the same biases and fallibility, but with their results now laundered through the sheen of computerized infallibility. Even my colleagues who work in the journalism community and by their nature skeptical, had assumed that Snopes must have rigorous screening procedures, constant inter- and intra-rater evaluations and ongoing assessments and a total transparency mandate. Yet, the truth is that we simply have no visibility into the organization’s inner workings and its founder declined to shed further light into its operations for this article"

"what does emerge from my exchanges with Snopes’ founder is the image of the ultimate black box presenting a gleaming veneer of ultimate arbitration of truth, yet with absolutely no insight into its inner workings. While technology pundits decry the black boxes of the algorithms that increasingly power companies like Facebook, they have forgotten that even the human-powered sites offer us little visibility into how they function."


----------



## Xzi (Jul 18, 2019)

Zomborg really out here dropping a wall of text tryin' to defend the legitimacy of some geocities-looking website straight out of the early 90s.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 18, 2019)

zomborg said:


> -snip-


Forgive me if I don't take the time to respond to your post point by point. A few things though:

The "30,000 signatures" meme is objectively untrue, regardless of how you feel about it or Snopes. It's not a matter of opinion.
Problems with the "30,000 signatures" meme include (but aren't limited to) being unverifiable and not actually being about climate scientists.
I don't think I am always right, so don't put words in my mouth.
This is demonstrably one of the times I am right.
I'm not particularly interested in talking about whether or not you think I'm smug. It's impossible to understate how much your opinion of me matters to me, and the whole thing serves as a petty distraction.
I don't have to be the authority on climate change to be able to communicate the science.
Aside from "I personally don't know their fact-checking process," neither you nor your article articulated any problem with Snopes.
Snopes has been demonstrated to be fairly reputable.
The reputation of Snopes is irrelevant to whether or not the "30,000 signatures" meme is correct (it's not). We can pretend Snopes is majorly biased (it's not), and it doesn't change anything.
The "30,000 signatures" meme is irrelevant to whether or not human-caused climate change is real (it is). We can pretend your "30,000 signatures" are valid (they aren't), and it doesn't change anything.
Considering #9 and #10, you wasted quite a lot of time on your post for no good reason.

Edit: Oh, and here's a source and here's a source and here's a source for the reputation of Snopes, not that it matters to the topic at all.


----------



## notimp (Jul 18, 2019)

Its also not just snopes, see: https://www.google.com/search?q=fact+check+30000+signatures


----------



## Lacius (Jul 18, 2019)

notimp said:


> Its also not just snopes, see: https://www.google.com/search?q=fact+check+30000+signatures


I've been trying to tell him that Snopes is irrelevant, but he won't listen.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 18, 2019)

notimp said:


> Yes, thats how you reframe "Bikes were always better than cars". it worked on you.  It doesnt work on me. Never will. Thats the issue.



I'm not reframing anything. Bikes work for me, I'm aware they don't work for everyone. I may have not gotten it across well enough but I would be in favor of personal choice of limitation because this whole thing will not work without personal limitation and I'm also aware that the same things don't work for everyone.
On the other hand studies are quite clear that there's significant bike traffic increases if the infrastructure makes cyclists feel safe in traffic. Germany has been been guilty of planning traffic with only cars in mind since the 60s, a lot of bikepaths around here are actually illegal to use because you would put yourself in harms way. I don't know how things are around your town but over here we're struggling with traffic and even parking space has gotten an issue. You don't have to use a bike yourself but it would be very wise for any city to offer a safe alternative to motor traffic, especially now with e-bikes enabling more and more people to use it as a serious alternative.

But we also have to stop thinking it's reasonable for a soceity to be essentially subsidizing wasteful behaviour by not taxing kerosene for example. Being energy efficient saves a lot of money so not doing that is just being bad at your job, the assertion that I'm just doing it to feel better about myself or "for heaven" how you call it is just retarded. I'm also fine with being wasteful with energy if you can afford it but the fact of the matter is that if environmental damage was properly priced in to energy products people just wouldn't be able to afford being wasteful.

Of course living standards will have to be lowered, but that's pretty much the reality of things.



notimp said:


> People try to reframe the gig economy as great.



Personally never heard people talk positively of it for low skill jobs, for high skill jobs it can be very liberating for the worker. There's a reason why Freelancer status in Germany is only granted for specific occupations or require a certain level of education and I agree with that.



notimp said:


> People try to make money in automation, because it raises productivity still - but that will become a societal issue in 10-15 years, which already is kind of forecast.



GDPR has hampered a lot of growth in that sector within the EU. EU countries have a very different idea about the fourth industrial revolution than the US and china. People think automation only applies to manual labor, which in reality automation levels there have been steadily increasing since Henry Ford introduced the assembly line, soceity has had enough time to adapt since then. Automation of office jobs requires huge amounts of data for machine learning. The integration levels the industry desires for automation will likely be a massive cost factor for acquisition of licenses that will end up being spent outside of the EU and likely slow adoption rate here.
On top of that I implore people to keep the hype cycle in mind. I may sound like a broken record but it's a real thing. The tech industry likes to communicate ideas about what is potentially possible after a breakthrough event and is too euphoric and optimistic about it. It's nothing malicious really, most of the time it's just excited engineers who haven't found the technology's limitations during late stage development yet. Some aspects of cloud technology for example have recently hit the plateau of productivity and it's become evident that its use cases are much more limited than initially thought.
Elon Musk is certainly one of the most guilty here, his communication of what is actually possible with upcomping technology is bordering on ludicrousness, just last year Tesla had to walk back a bunch of automation because it caused them to be way behind in manufacturing.


----------



## notimp (Jul 18, 2019)

I'm overreacting. But I really kind of hate the entire pivot that was possible in society because of childrens smiles. Makes me feel like people are - idk, less likely to be receptive to actual arguments.

Even that they are still susceptible to metaphors of religious saints, (Richard David Precht said the exact same thing (allthough in a different context), so its not just me.. ) all those years after...

Also - dont like the whole -yes- lets have millennials enter their third recession in their lives, because not even green party leaders seem to want to assess probability of key buyer markets for german offshore wind farms in 20 years time...

I basically dont like everything about it (the FfF movement part, not the actual issue). Which makes me partial - and not receptive for most arguments, that dont see it that way.. 

Well, at least I see how that goes with other folks in here... (Yourself excluded.).


----------



## Glyptofane (Jul 18, 2019)

Snopes is definitely biased. They are evil liars. I'll agree maybe it's a good starting point such as Wikipedia, but you will only get partial truths at best. Maybe they are correct about this specific climate change horseshit. The fake computer models are too meaningless to me to care about it anymore. The proposed measures are deceptions to impose wealth confiscation at the minimum and one world government as the end goal. These ghouls don't even care about the planet, they just want your money and control over you. I consider myself a dark hippy and actually care about the planet and all life, even the evil stupid life to a degree. I can tell when someone or multiple millions of them are bullshitting me.


----------



## Nerdtendo (Jul 18, 2019)

Y'all look like your having some fun. Make sure you play nice


----------



## Ratatattat (Jul 18, 2019)

Nerdtendo said:


> Y'all look like your having some fun. Make sure you play nice



Kinda difficult to play nice when the other guy in the sandbox keeps diggin' up the cat turds.


----------



## zomborg (Jul 18, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Forgive me if I don't take the time to respond to your post point by point. I don't think I am always right, so don't put words in my mouth. This is demonstrably one of the times I am right. I'm not particularly interested in talking about whether or not you think I'm smug. It's impossible to understate how much your opinion of me matters to me, and the whole thing serves as a petty distraction.



You may not be interested in my opinion of you but those statements I just quoted serve to illustrate my point about how you think you are mentally superior to all who would engage in debate with you.

To use your own words, it also cannot be understated, how little your opinion of me matters.

Since you apparently are having issues concentrating, let's skip the topic of the obvious untrustworthiness of Snopes as a reputable source of truth.

You, as with most climate alarmists, center most of your arguments around the harmful effects of C02. Let's address that first shall we? I will reserve other points for a later time as I'm sure this will be adequate to keep your hamster wheel spinning for the present.

A few bullet points if I may:


Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.
If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).
It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.
There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures - in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.
Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere
Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control
Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.
After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher - more than ten times as high.
Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history.
Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds
Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas (C02) in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.
Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water - including CO2, calcium, and water - can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.
William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organization, wrote, “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1°C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”
Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback - and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.
A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.
Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.
Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming
The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years
Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms
Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 18, 2019)

zomborg said:


> You may not be interested in my opinion of you but those statements I just quoted serve to illustrate my point about how you think you are mentally superior to all who would engage in debate with you.


I don't think I'm mentally superior to anyone here, and I never said I was. Putting words in my mouth only serves to demonstrate how disingenuous you are, and I'm not particularly interested in having conversations with people who are intentionally disingenuous.



zomborg said:


> Since you apparently are having issues concentrating, let's skip the topic of the obvious untrustworthiness of Snopes as a reputable source of truth.


As I've demonstrated, I don't have issues concentrating. You're being presumptuous, condescending, and ridiculous. If you had read my posts, you would know that Snopes doesn't need to be discussed because the topic of Snopes is irrelevant, and I explained why. Perhaps you have issues concentrating.



zomborg said:


> -snip-


I'm not particularly interested in responding to copy/pasted bullet points from discredited sources. I'll simplify my response:

1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

2. Earth's temperatures over the past 800,000 years correspond directly with carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.





3. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are rising at a rate never before seen on Earth, and the rate has been increasing.




4. Carbon dioxide levels are increasing as a direct result of burning fossil fuels.




If you want to argue against one or more of my four points (directly, and using your own words), great. Otherwise, I'm not particularly interested in continuing this conversation for the reasons I stated above.


----------



## Loyalty (Jul 18, 2019)

H1B1Esquire said:


> It's also fucking up trees, which is going to be a really uncool double-whammy when those trees get processed into firewood.
> 
> "The study also is providing insights into *the role forests may play in global climate change*."
> 
> ...



Yeah, lets kill all the Vegans that demand more and more Soy burgers...
The majority of Rain forests are being cut for farm land to grow Soy. 

http://www.rainforestrelief.org/What_to_Avoid_and_Alternatives/Soy.html

Heck if you want to get down to it, cutting down the rainforests would actually increase the oxygen produced... seems all the carbon stored in trees rots at the base under the trees and the forest is not the "lungs of the Earth"... 

Don't take my word for it, here is a tree-hugger admitting it. 

https://medium.com/@frederic_38110/rain-forests-lungs-of-the-earth-8eae87573e7c


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 18, 2019)

My issue with all this global warming BS, is that global warming IS real. It's been warming up since the last ice age...  I don't think there is anything we can do about it except advance tech and hope the scientists can come up with something that will terraform this planet until we can get off this rock.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 18, 2019)

double post (lag?)


----------



## zomborg (Jul 18, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I'm not particularly interested in responding to copy/pasted bullet points from discredited sources. I'll simplify my response:


Typical response but it really doesn't surprise me. You glance at my list of 24 points to refute climate alarmists and you are either too lazy to take the time to read them, much less respond to them or do not possess the knowledge to adequately refute them. So instead you use the trusty old excuse that they are from discredited sources so that you don't have to respond. Very revealing. 

Then, also typical, you bring out the colorful charts. Yes I'm sure they are enough to placate the simple minded and distract them with pretty colors but, just as you pointed the finger at me saying you only want to address me if I use my own words and not copy/paste from other sources, your nasa link and pictures are not your own. They are copy/pasted from other sources. 


But let's play patty cake and go ahead and address your 4 points:



Lacius said:


> Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.


I agree. Yes C02 can be deadly but as I stated in my previous post:

"Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. 
And
"It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere."



Lacius said:


> Earth's temperatures over the past 800,000 years correspond directly with carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.


Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. 

After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

Temperature increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends. 

Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists - in what was known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that data has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming. 

The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change

Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates. 

The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago




Lacius said:


> Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are rising at a rate never before seen on Earth, and the rate has been increasing. Carbon dioxide levels are increasing as a direct result of burning fossil fuels.



Let's address these 2 last points together for the sake of convenience. 
I agree the rate is increasing but:

Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of temperature and climate change. 

 It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything

 One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies  has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”

Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests.

So in essence,  my point is, whether you deny it or not,  There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity. Yes yes, I know you will say but but what about the charts? What about the mountains of studies conducted and research done?

A good example of this is the Michael Mann hockey stick chart




But in modern times when McShane and Wyner input all of the exact same data as Mann in an effort to duplicate his results, though they tried repeatedly they were not able to replicate his results. As you see from their chart. 




And of course climate alarmists will immediately tell us this too was already debunked long ago but you see that's the thing. Your so called experts will say that their data is the ONLY accurate data then our experts will debunk it and then yours will debunk our debunk and on and on into infinity. 

Make no mistake, there are very intelligent scientists on both sides of this but the difference is the left has the superior funding and the support of the media. Which makes it much easier to quickly stamp out results that are presented to the contrary and thus just label them as fake, untrue and conspiracy.





This picture sums it up quite adequately.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 18, 2019)

Loyalty said:


> Yeah, lets kill all the Vegans that demand more and more Soy burgers...
> The majority of Rain forests are being cut for farm land to grow Soy.
> 
> http://www.rainforestrelief.org/What_to_Avoid_and_Alternatives/Soy.html


Deforestation is a real problem when it comes to global warming and climate change, but vegans (particularly American vegans) are not to blame. The United States also has little to nothing to do with soybean production in other countries, since we don't really import soy.



Loyalty said:


> Heck if you want to get down to it, cutting down the rainforests would actually increase the oxygen produced... seems all the carbon stored in trees rots at the base under the trees and the forest is not the "lungs of the Earth"...


Cutting down rainforests doesn't increase oxygen production, and it doesn't decrease carbon dioxide concentration. Rainforests are a carbon sink. It absorbs more carbon than it releases. You also have to remember that the seasons affect carbon dioxide concentrations. Forests take in carbon in the spring (when trees grow, leaves grow, etc.), and they release carbon in the fall (when leaves rot, etc.). However, some of that carbon isn't released back into the air in the autumn because it's trapped in the trees themselves.



Psionic Roshambo said:


> My issue with all this global warming BS, is that global warming IS real. It's been warming up since the last ice age...  I don't think there is anything we can do about it except advance tech and hope the scientists can come up with something that will terraform this planet until we can get off this rock.


The Earth naturally goes through periods of warming and cooling, often due in part to naturally changing carbon dioxide concentrations, but that's not what is happening now. Humans are drastically changing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, which causally affects the Earth's temperatures. The rate at which carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere is unprecedented in Earth's entire history, and it's currently about twice as much as it has been in the last 800,000 years.


----------



## zomborg (Jul 19, 2019)

Loyalty said:


> Yeah, lets kill all the Vegans that demand more and more Soy burgers...
> The majority of Rain forests are being cut for farm land to grow Soy.
> 
> http://www.rainforestrelief.org/What_to_Avoid_and_Alternatives/Soy.html
> ...


Wow that second article you posted really surprised me  I did not realize rainforests do not really absorb carbon from the atmosphere.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 19, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Typical response but it really doesn't surprise me. You glance at my list of 24 points to refute climate alarmists and you are either too lazy to take the time to read them, much less respond to them or do not possess the knowledge to adequately refute them. So instead you use the trusty old excuse that they are from discredited sources so that you don't have to respond. Very revealing.


I took the time to read "your" points and was working on responding to the first few before I realized from a Google search that they were all copy/pasted. I'm not interested in responding to a barrage of copy/pasted bullet points that I would probably be taking more time to read than you did. If you want me to talk to you, you're going to have to talk to me. That's how discourse works.



zomborg said:


> Then, also typical, you bring out the colorful charts. Yes I'm sure they are enough to placate the simple minded and distract them with pretty colors but, just as you pointed the finger at me saying you only want to address me if I use my own words and not copy/paste from other sources, your nasa link and pictures are not your own. They are copy/pasted from other sources.


I made my points, explained my points, and used the charts and links as evidence. You copy/pasted bullet points without making nor explaining any points. I am sorry you don't see the difference.



zomborg said:


> I agree. Yes C02 can be deadly but as I stated in my previous post:
> 
> "Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.


In the last 800,000 years, carbon dioxide has never gone higher 280 ppm. Since the industrial revolution, however, carbon dioxide levels have reached approximately 413 ppm. That's a significant increase, and it's only getting worse. Your "0.00022 percent" was debunked long ago as wildly inaccurate and misleading. It's like me saying that the 10,000 gallons of water I'm about to put into my pool this summer is only 1% of the water I've ever put into it. While technically true if I've refilled my pool 100 times in the past, it's misleading and says nothing about whether or not 10,000 gallons is a lot or if my pool can hold that much.



zomborg said:


> "It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere."


None of this is relevant. Carbon dioxide doesn't have to be the most common greenhouse gas for it to be the major cause of human-made climate change. It also doesn't take a lot of something to be a greenhouse gas. We're talking about parts per million, after all.



zomborg said:


> Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.


Yes, and changing carbon dioxide concentrations are correlated with temperature changes. There are also other factors that affect the climate, but carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are big ones.



zomborg said:


> Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.


There are other variables that affect climate. Sometimes, one thing leads to warmth, which leads to increased carbon dioxide, which leads to more warmth, etc. That's called a positive feedback loop. It doesn't change that increased carbon dioxide levels means increased heat.



zomborg said:


> After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.


Temperatures did not "fall for four decades" after 1940. Temperatures, on average, went up approximately 0.1 degrees C between 1940 and 1980. Between 1980 and 2019, the change has been more than 0.7 degrees C.



zomborg said:


> Temperature increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.


No, they're not. It's not even consistent with trends over the last 2,000 years, let alone the last 100 years.







zomborg said:


> Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists - in what was known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that data has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming.


There's no real evidence for this, and the findings I believe you are referring to have been independently verified, so it's irrelevant.



zomborg said:


> The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change


It didn't actually show this. You didn't provide a source, but if it's what I believe you're talking about, it was one scientist who made bold claims about a single team without any corroborating evidence.



zomborg said:


> Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.


Read about the Soon-and-Baliunas controversy. His methodology was flawed, and he's been heavily criticized by the scientific community. He also failed to disclose over a million dollars he received from the fossil fuel industry during his work.



zomborg said:


> It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates.


1-2 degrees doesn't sound like a lot, but it is a lot when we are talking about the climate of the entire Earth. The difference between the present and a major ice age is only a few degrees when we are talking about a global scale.
The temperature increase is not within natural rates. See the chart above for natural rates over the past 2,000 years and natural rates over the past 800,000 years.



zomborg said:


> The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago


I hope you know you're talking about drastic changes to Earth's climate that occurred in part due to changes in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. Also, what's your point?



zomborg said:


> Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms


Rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere causes more harm than good, and most importantly, it is a direct cause of global warming. Whether or not you think global warming is "positive" to some species is also irrelevant to the conversation.



zomborg said:


> Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of temperature and climate change.



Ice data actually shows that temperature is very much correlated to carbon dioxide levels.
In some cases in climate history, a smaller climate event can cause a positive feedback loop. For example, colder temperatures caused by something unrelated to greenhouse gases can then reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases, which can decrease the temperature even more, which can then reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases even more. Your point is irrelevant and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how climate science works. Nothing about this suggests there's "little evidence that concentrations of CO2 are the cause of climate change."



zomborg said:


> It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything


Saying computer models can be maliciously manipulated is irrelevant to whether or not climate predictions are true. If you're going to say there's something wrong with the math or science, you need to show the problem.



zomborg said:


> One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”


Virtually all of the evidence shows that increased carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet.



zomborg said:


> Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests.


Different plants in different areas are going to respond to climate change brought upon by human-caused global warming differently. Generally speaking though, areas with the most deforestation that are the biggest carbon sinks will shrink in response to heat and droughts. This could cause a positive feedback loop.



zomborg said:


> So in essence,  my point is, whether you deny it or not,  There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.


The evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet is overwhelming, and there's virtually no evidence that counters it. Human-caused global warming and climate change is real.



zomborg said:


> A good example of this is the Michael Mann hockey stick chart
> 
> But in modern times when McShane and Wyner input all of the exact same data as Mann in an effort to duplicate his results, though they tried repeatedly they were not able to replicate his results. As you see from their chart.


The "hockey stick chart" has been replicated more than two dozen times, including by McShane and Wyner. I suggest this reading on why climate-deniers really want to disprove the "hocket stick chart," how they tried to do it, and why they inevitably failed.



zomborg said:


> And of course climate alarmists will immediately tell us this too was already debunked long ago but you see that's the thing. Your so called experts will say that their data is the ONLY accurate data then our experts will debunk it and then yours will debunk our debunk and on and on into infinity.


I'm not saying it was debunked. I'm saying it doesn't make the point you think it makes.



zomborg said:


> Make no mistake, there are very intelligent scientists on both sides of this but the difference is the left has the superior funding and the support of the media. Which makes it much easier to quickly stamp out results that are presented to the contrary and thus just label them as fake, untrue and conspiracy.


Virtually every climate scientist (>99%) agrees that human-caused global warming is real. The problem isn't funding (the fossil fuel industry throws money at anything that could discredit climate change). The problem isn't the media. The problem is the anti-global warming side doesn't have science on its side. When there's scientific evidence that burning fossil fuels isn't warming the planet, that's when it's time to believe it. Right now though, the scientific evidence is clear: Burning fossil fuels adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and it's acting as a greenhouse gas that is warming the planet.



zomborg said:


> This picture sums it up quite adequately.


There's no profit motive in perpetuating a myth that burning fossil fuels is causing global warming. A lot of the corruption can be found on the fossil fuel industry side. I referenced one example earlier in this post.



zomborg said:


> Wow that second article you posted really surprised me  I did not realize rainforests do not really absorb carbon from the atmosphere.


Rainforests are indeed carbon sinks.

Now, I have spent more time than I wanted responding to you, but I told myself it was okay as long as I laid down some ground rules afterwards. We have now responded to each other's posts in full, but I don't really want to do this essay back-and-forth more than I already have. So, if you want me to respond to your posts:

You can pick a single point of mine to contradict, and we can take them one at a time. If you attempt to tackle more than one point at a time, I will not participate.
I will not move on from a topic until one of us concedes the topic. We are dealing with a lot of objective facts here, and I'm not going to let you get away with moving on to another topic without conceding that you were wrong.
You're perfectly free to ignore my rules (I expect you will, which will give me a break). If you don't follow these rules though, do not expect a substantive response.


----------



## Loyalty (Jul 19, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Cutting down rainforests doesn't increase oxygen production, and it doesn't decrease carbon dioxide concentration. Rainforests are a carbon sink. It absorbs more carbon than it releases. You also have to remember that the seasons affect carbon dioxide concentrations. Forests take in carbon in the spring (when trees grow, leaves grow, etc.), and they release carbon in the fall (when leaves rot, etc.). However, some of that carbon isn't released back into the air in the autumn because it's trapped in the trees themselves.



Again, I just point out that all science does not support that.... they just don't know... Environmentalist are tying to spin it as due to deforesting, but it is not clear if the old untouched forests are actually the ones emitting more than it absorbs. Seems it varies on how liberal a publication is or how conservative. Things like who funds your research makes a difference (and you and me both know it)...

QUOTE: A study now suggests that tropical forests today return more carbon back into the atmosphere than they remove from it as carbon dioxide (CO2). As plant matter (including leaves, tree trunks and roots) break down — or rot — their carbon will be recycled back into the environment. Much of it will enter the atmosphere as CO2. /End Quote

Another article QUOTE: Although no one doubts that forests are taking up some of the CO2 emitted by human activity, scientists are still unsure which forests are sequestering the most carbon, and how much is stored in long-lasting wood versus in roots and soil. 

There can also be bias in how researchers have typically chosen plots and measured biomass, Muller-Landau says. Tropical forests can be hot, humid, buggy, dangerous and in some cases nearly impossible to reach. So rather than sample randomly, scientists often choose study sites based on ease of access. And biomass estimates vary depending on the choice of species-specific equations used to convert circumference and height measurements; for many tropical trees, reliable equations are still being worked out. /End Quote

https://www.nature.com/news/the-hunt-for-the-world-s-missing-carbon-1.17867

Most oxygen is produced in the top few feet of the ocean... More CO2 means it probable will benefit for it. Those Algae are more important than all the rainforests. 

http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/12/important-organism/


----------



## Lacius (Jul 19, 2019)

Loyalty said:


> Again, I just point out that all science does not support that.... they just don't know... Environmentalist are tying to spin it as due to deforesting, but it is not clear if the old untouched forests are actually the ones emitting more than it absorbs. Seems it varies on how liberal a publication is or how conservative. Things like who funds your research makes a difference (and you and me both know it)...
> 
> QUOTE: A study now suggests that tropical forests today return more carbon back into the atmosphere than they remove from it as carbon dioxide (CO2). As plant matter (including leaves, tree trunks and roots) break down — or rot — their carbon will be recycled back into the environment. Much of it will enter the atmosphere as CO2. /End Quote
> 
> Another article QUOTE: Although no one doubts that forests are taking up some of the CO2 emitted by human activity, scientists are still unsure which forests are sequestering the most carbon, and how much is stored in long-lasting wood versus in roots and soil.


As I said, rainforests absorb more carbon than they release back into the atmosphere, which is what makes them a carbon sink, but a lot of that carbon is seasonally released back into the atmosphere. I'm not sure what your point is, given you didn't contradict anything I said.


----------



## Loyalty (Jul 19, 2019)

Lacius said:


> As I said, rainforests absorb more carbon than they release back into the atmosphere, which is what makes them a carbon sink, but a lot of that carbon is seasonally released back into the atmosphere. I'm not sure what your point is, given you didn't contradict anything I said.



You did read where some reports say the forest release twice as much CO2 as they absorb... so what I am saying is nobody knows. The environmentalist sites try to spin it as because of deforestation X happens, but nobody knows, it may just as well be the old forest were not a carbon trap... in one of my previous articles it pointed out that X amount was captured by forest but pointed out that if it was trapping as much as they claimed it would be far far far more... another article also mentioned the "missing carbon sink" that scientist can't find (because forest are not doing what they though it was doing). I imagine they will find the debts of the ocean does more carbon trapping then they thought. But then again, what do I know.

I just know God set up a system that works, and it is more sturdy than most scientist give it credit for.... Now to read an article on where the Prince revised his "dooms day" date back again... because it didn't pan out like the alarmist thought... and made him look foolish.


----------



## Nerdtendo (Jul 19, 2019)

Got this ad when lurking. I think the internet is trying to tell me it hates me


----------



## Loyalty (Jul 19, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Virtually every climate scientist (>99%) agrees that human-caused global warming is real.



Hold it, I thought it was 97% and if you did the raw data ... ONLY 1.6% thought Man was the main cause of global warming... When you lump in those that thought man contributed to warming with those that thought man was the main cause, you get the 97%... 

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/16_not_97_agree.html


----------



## Lacius (Jul 19, 2019)

Loyalty said:


> You did read where some reports say the forest release twice as much CO2 as they absorb... so what I am saying is nobody knows. The environmentalist sites try to spin it as because of deforestation X happens, but nobody knows, it may just as well be the old forest were not a carbon trap... in one of my previous articles it pointed out that X amount was captured by forest but pointed out that if it was trapping as much as they claimed it would be far far far more... another article also mentioned the "missing carbon sink" that scientist can't find (because forest are not doing what they though it was doing). I imagine they will find the debts of the ocean does more carbon trapping then they thought. But then again, what do I know.
> 
> I just know God set up a system that works, and it is more sturdy than most scientist give it credit for.... Now to read an article on where the Prince revised his "dooms day" date back again... because it didn't pan out like the alarmist thought... and made him look foolish.


It's not physically possible for a tree to release more carbon dioxide than it takes in. Carbon dioxide has to come from somewhere.

I don't believe in any gods, since there's no reason to think any exist, but the subject of God is irrelevant. Humans are burning fossil fuels, not God.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Loyalty said:


> Hold it, I thought it was 97% and if you did the raw data ... ONLY 1.6% thought Man was the main cause of global warming... When you lump in those that thought man contributed to warming with those that thought man was the main cause, you get the 97%...
> 
> https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/16_not_97_agree.html


This is a flawed analysis. It's saying 1.6% of the study abstracts mentioned human causes, even though that wasn't the scope of the vast majority of studies analyzed. So, it's irrelevant to how many climatologists believe human-caused global warming is real.


----------



## Loyalty (Jul 19, 2019)

Lacius said:


> This is a flawed analysis. It's saying 1.6% of the study abstracts mentioned human causes, even though that wasn't the scope of the vast majority of studies analyzed. So, it's irrelevant to how many climatologists believe human-caused global warming is real.




Hold it, it wasn't flawed when you claim greater than 99 percent (but your link only said 97%), but suddenly when someone used the data as given and breaks it down it is flawed.

I see ... You chose to use the headline that said one thing (man caused this)... but the data said that that headline was flawed.... Whatever, I see how you play.





Lacius said:


> It's not physically possible for a tree to release more carbon dioxide than it takes in. Carbon dioxide has to come from somewhere.



Microorganisms metabolizing all that dead wood.

I found another interesting article.... 



			
				article said:
			
		

> After a massive tree die-off, conventional wisdom has it that a forest would go from carbon sink to carbon source: Since the soil microbes are still around, they are expected to release large amounts of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, where it is thought to accelerate climate change.
> 
> "Surprisingly, we couldn't find a big pulse," said Moore, who is also a member of the UA *Institute of the Environment*.
> 
> Trahan added: "In the first few years after beetles have come in and killed trees, the carbon release from the surrounding soil actually goes down."



https://uanews.arizona.edu/story/dead-forests-release-less-carbon-into-atmosphere-than-expected

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

BTW... you may notice I edit my posts a lot... I am a horrible speller and I find flaws constantly... also I am still learning the ropes here. I am not a fan of fast paced discussions, so understand if I reply days later. Old fart that has roamed in a young man's playground.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 19, 2019)

Loyalty said:


> Hold it, it wasn't flawed when you claim greater than 99 percent (but your link only said 97%), but suddenly when someone used the data as given and breaks it down it is flawed.
> 
> I see ... You chose to use the headline that said one thing (man caused this)... but the data said that that headline was flawed.... Whatever, I see how you play.
> 
> ...


You seem to have misunderstood or misread. My link doesn't say anything about 1.6%: Yours does. That's the one that's flawed.

Microorganisms cannot release more carbon dioxide from dead wood than was absorbed from the atmosphere to make the wood in the first place. Carbon doesn't come out of nowhere.

No worries about your edits. I do the same thing.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jul 19, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I've been trying to tell him that Snopes is irrelevant, but he won't listen.


You are the one who sources them, so not irrelevant.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Jul 19, 2019)

Loyalty said:


> Heck if you want to get down



Fucc yea, bby.
Seriously, we may be at the point we can "modify" certain moss to produce more O2 by growing on certain trees that _______™.

Honestly, if a firm paid me enough, I'd solve all of these "crises" "we" face.....and very efficiently, to boot.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 19, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> You are the one who sources them, so not irrelevant.



I've explained why the quality of Snopes is  irrelevant to whether or not his point about "30,000 signatures" is correct (it's not).
The Snopes article is accurate, and Snopes broadly is a reputable source.


----------



## Ratatattat (Jul 19, 2019)

Loyalty said:


> Yeah, lets kill all the Vegans that demand more and more Soy burgers...
> The majority of Rain forests are being cut for farm land to grow Soy.
> 
> http://www.rainforestrelief.org/What_to_Avoid_and_Alternatives/Soy.html
> ...



I won't take your word for it nor the fairy tale from the supposed tree huger either. You are totally avoiding the fact of just where is that carbon. And your oxygen statement is senseless also.


----------



## notimp (Jul 19, 2019)

@Soy Burgers: Cattle consumes vastly more soy (or equivalent) to produce a unit of beef, than a unit of soy. 'Biofuels' (Currently not good for anything at all) - even more so.

But in the end those pieces of rainforest get torched to get space for plantations, that produce whatever makes most money at that point. So its all about raising the worth of 'standing trees', and if thats not possible (too costly), doing it through political channels (basically demanding a form of 'corruption').

This would be a case where corruption could be declared morally good, btw. 

That said - people looking at beef as a food to aspire too, is something that could be modified (lets say through PR). And would produce minimal 'harm'.

In Europe we currently have a configuration, where we are going into open trade relations with south america, which will swamp us with beef. So the more people not going for that, the more it would be beneficial for our economy in that trade configuration. So now it could be even seen as patriotic. 

Free choice is still a minimum requirement though.

And if you try to guilttrip people into the next recession by consuming less - for heaven - and you give them all kinds of good tips on how to not aspire to any economic development as middle class. You still are below bottom feeder category in my book.

That said - getting people to eat less meat - kind of something that has limited potential to 'hurt' lives or outlooks, so - not the stupidest idea. If you start preaching it though, I still would like to hit you in your mouth (figuratively speaking).


----------



## Loyalty (Jul 19, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I've explained why the quality of Snopes is  irrelevant to whether or not his point about "30,000 signatures" is correct (it's not).
> The Snopes article is accurate, and Snopes broadly is a reputable source.



It is some sort of Fallacy to condemn the source and not the substance of an article. So I agree. I don't care for the Washington Post, but that doesn't mean everything they write is wrong. You may not like Fox News, but not everything they write is wrong. Most news from sources like CNN, CNBC, Fox and The New York Times is presented to appeal to their demographic. Which means they will write it to best spin it to make their audience happy to read it. Snopes is the same and yes it is slanted when they can get away with it. But that doesn't mean everything they write is wrong. You just better watch them on political matters cause they will stretch the truth or ignore it when they think they can get away with it.

For example: During the democratic convention (for Hillary) it was rightfully pointed out that beyond the opening ceremonies no US flags were displayed. Snopes tried its best to cover for them, even displaying pictures taken from different time frames.

https://dailycaller.com/2016/07/28/...k-of-american-flags-at-democratic-convention/

Yeah, Snopes is not what I consider a good source on political matters without doing your own investigation, they will slant as hard left as they can get away with.

____________________________
____________________________

Back on subject... I am at least glad everyone (for the most part) did accept one point I brought up. That Soy was profitable enough that Brazil is clearing the land to make for more of its production. I ruffled a few feathers with my "Soy burger" joke but whatever the use of the Soy (Soy Burgers, Cow feed, or Fish feed which a lot of areas use), it is being used to deforest the Amazon. I just wanted to point out that the science for its effect probable ain't what the doomsday people are predicting.

I noticed that when presented with "can't release more carbon than put in" was thrown at me, and I pointed out that micros and bugs eat the rotten wood that yes more carbon can be released than absorbed. That point was ignored and the  real carbon sink question still remains. As one scientist suggested, cut down the forest and bury the wood instead of letting it rot or be burned... I think Brazil would have cause to kill a few scientists that would try to destroy their economy like that.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 19, 2019)

Loyalty said:


> It is some sort of Fallacy to condemn the source and not the substance of an article. So I agree. I don't care for the Washington Post, but that doesn't mean everything they write is wrong. You may not like Fox News, but not everything they write is wrong. Most news from sources like CNN, CNBC, Fox and The New York Times is presented to appeal to their demographic. Which means they will write it to best spin it to make their audience happy to read it. Snopes is the same and yes it is slanted when they can get away with it. But that doesn't mean everything they write is wrong. You just better watch them on political matters cause they will stretch the truth or ignore it when they think they can get away with it.
> 
> For example: During the democratic convention (for Hillary) it was rightfully pointed out that beyond the opening ceremonies no US flags were displayed. Snopes tried its best to cover for them, even displaying pictures taken from different time frames.
> 
> ...


You ignored my point that microbes and insects cannot release more carbon from a tree than was absorbed to make the tree in the first place. That is physically impossible. You're objectively wrong on this one.


----------



## zomborg (Jul 20, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I took the time to read "your" points and was working on responding to the first few before I realized from a Google search that they were all copy/pasted. I'm not interested in responding to a barrage of copy/pasted bullet points that I would probably be taking more time to read than you did. If you want me to talk to you, you're going to have to talk to me. That's not how discourse works. Now, I have spent more time than I wanted responding to you, but I told myself it was okay as long as I laid down some ground rules afterwards. We have now responded to each other's posts in full, but I don't really want to do this essay back-and-forth more than I already have. So, if you want me to respond to your posts:
> 
> You can pick a single point of mine to contradict, and we can take them one at a time. If you attempt to tackle more than one point at a time, I will not participate.
> I will not move on from a topic until one of us concedes the topic. We are dealing with a lot of objective facts here, and I'm not going to let you get away with moving on to another topic without conceding that you were wrong.
> You're perfectly free to ignore my rules (I expect you will, which will give me a break). If you don't follow these rules though, do not expect a substantive response.



So I began this debate with my original post. Therefore I should dictate what rules we should observe. Reminds me of when I was a young boy. I had friends whom if I didn't play the game the way they wanted it to be, they would take their ball and go home. But, for now, I will observe your rules. I will pick just one of your points for address. 




Lacius said:


> There's no real evidence for this, and the findings I believe you are referring to have been independently verified, so it's irrelevant. It  didn't actually show this. You didn't provide a source, but if it's what I believe you're talking about, it was one scientist who made bold claims about a single team without any corroborating evidence



So in a nutshell, The climate - gate scandal came about when an unknown hacker, hacked into a server containing emails between a group of scientists at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK. A chief member of the team was prominent scientist Michael Mann of hockey stick fame. 

Many things were revealed when the emails on the server were released to the public via internet. There were really too many to list here but I will just share with you a sampling of some highlights. 

Several emails shows that scientists “artificially adjusted” temperature data to hide the decline in temperatures after 1960. The graphs cited by global warming advocates to argue for continued man-made global warming in the modern era are therefore largely fraudulent.

The leaked documents are the hard evidence, that there has been no unprecedented warming and that global mean temperatures since the industrial revolution have not been in the least bit unusual. These documents also confirm that there has even been a cooling over the last decade, as many have long suspected

CO2 continues to rise yet temperature does not. The causal link between CO2 and temperature have been shown to be a fraud. CO2 cannot be driving temperature, the hard evidence of this fact is contained within these leaked documents. 

Here is one of the most frequently circulated emails :

"From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: [email protected],[email protected]

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil"


Now those first few points are interesting in themselves but we've only scratched the surface. In the following points I will provide quick snapshots of the actual emails with the juiciest parts highlighted. I have obtained the original emails (60mb).Excuse the imperfect highlighting as I am currently in an environment with low stability. 
*
Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published skeptic papers*. 








*Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request*







*Phil Jones says he has used Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline*”







*Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t*. 







*Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data”. Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago. *







*Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible*. 







*Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report*. 







*Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with skeptics*








Ok, so that was just a small sampling of the emails which contain the proof that tree huggers and climate alarmists need to hear BUT

As embarrassing as the e-mails are, some of the documents are more embarrassing. They include a five-page PDF document titled *The Rules of the Game*, that appears to be a primer for propagating the AGW message to the average person. 

The real smoking gun proving deception and fraud can be found in the *code* of *climate models* which prove that temperature numbers were “*artificially adjusted*” to hide the decline in global warming since the 1960’s.

Man-made climate change proponents gamed their data models to *make them produce the results they wanted*. 

This next quote is from another email but in 60mb of emails I'm having trouble finding it again. If anyone wants to read the the entire 60mb of emails just pm me. I attached a few at the bottom of this post. Anyhow, here's the quote :

"Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; *plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures*"

*This shows that scientists “artificially adjusted” temperature data to hide the decline in temperatures after 1960*. The *graphs* cited by *global warming* advocates to argue for continued man-made global warming in the modern era are therefore largely *fraudulent*.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is the regulatory body that established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the politicized organization that has *attempted to slam the lid shut on global warming skepticism* by claiming it is the supreme authority, despite the fact that *scientists* used by the IPCC were *caught manipulating data *and *conspiring* to *hide evidence of global cooling* during the climategate scandal.

UK scientist Piers Corbyn:
The data, real data, over the last one thousand, ten thousand or million years, shows there is no relationship between carbon dioxide and world temperatures or climate extremes. Now we can see that *actually the people in charge of data have been fiddling it, and they have been hiding the real decline in world temperatures* in an attempt to keep their so called moral high ground,” Corbyn said. 

UAE climate science professor Mike Hulme:
[Upcoming UN climate conference in Copenhagen] “is about raw politics, not about the politics of science. […] It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. *The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science*. It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production – just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.

And finally, to get even more detail if you are not already overwhelmed, please click here for one of my sources.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jul 20, 2019)

funny how it got hotter since Trump reverse EPA rules at least here it it it's been 90's all month about here in virginia (a temperate state ecological wise) thats not normal 70-80's yes but tomorrow and sunday are 99 F at this point I rather have WW3 happen then us boiling to death...slowly


----------



## Lacius (Jul 20, 2019)

zomborg said:


> So I began this debate with my original post. Therefore I should dictate what rules we should observe. Reminds me of when I was a young boy. I had friends whom if I didn't play the game the way they wanted it to be, they would take their ball and go home. But, for now, I will observe your rules. I will pick just one of your points for address.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How is anything in your post relevant when the climate data I've cited has been repeatedly independently verified?


----------



## zomborg (Jul 20, 2019)

Lacius said:


> How is anything in your post relevant when the climate data I've cited has been repeatedly independently verified?


Really? 
You have got to be kidding me. I mean come on. I have put a LOT of work into my previous post. Only to have you dismiss it with "Oh well how is any of that relevant?"

Sounds like you are dodging to me.  I could have just as easily summarily dismissed any of your previous posts in the same manner.

Firstly, independently verified. Verified by whom? Whoever verified it (repeatedly) how can we say that they are any more qualified than Michael E. Mann. I mean he's basically the godfather of past climate change.

Small excerpt from his Wikipedia article :

" has contributed to the scientific understanding of historic climate change based on the temperature record of the past thousand years. He has pioneered techniques to find patterns in past climate change, and to isolate climate signals from noisy data."

For all intents and purposes, all current scientific research and studies are based on or heavily influenced by his research on climate change data for the last 1000 years (his hockey stick graph).

The Climate-gate emails revealed that he and his fellow scientists were altering the data to make it appear global warming is a real and present danger. They were hiding the true numbers to fit their narrative.

So how is my post relevant? It is supremely relevant, almost to the point of being one of the only relevant posts on this topic.

In light of the information I have shared with you, the correct question is, how is your post relevant?
How is ANY of the climate data that you or others have posted in this thread relevant in the least?
Because of what Mann and his cohorts done, it has rendered every last bit of your data and everyone else's data that was influenced by him totally irrelevant.
Except to illustrate to everyone just how corrupt man is and maybe to teach us how easily we can be deceived by climatologists with an agenda.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 20, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Really?
> You have got to be kidding me. I mean come on. I have put a LOT of work into my previous post. Only to have you dismiss it with "Oh well how is any of that relevant?"
> 
> Sounds like you are dodging to me.  I could have just as easily summarily dismissed any of your previous posts in the same manner.
> ...


I'm not interested in talking about emails that do nothing to contradict my previous points. I'm interested in the actual science. The fact that the climate science I've articulate has been corroborated by multiple independent sources means everything about "email gate" is irrelevant. In other words, the science speaks for itself.

If you want to talk about how the science of one of my points is wrong, I'm listening.

I'm sorry you allegedly spent a lot of time on your last post, but you hopefully understand now why emails don't matter.

Edit: I'll bite though. The emails were mischaracterizations of scientific jargon and mathematical jargon. There was no impropriety, and nothing was hidden. However, as I already explained, the emails are irrelevant to whether or not the climate science is valid (it is), and I don't want to spend more time than I have on irrelevant emails.


----------



## notimp (Jul 20, 2019)

Loyalty said:


> Which means they will write it to best spin it to make their audience happy to read it.


Actually, as a journalist, in reporting, you try to write without spin. Just report on stuff that happened basically.

Whats responsible for the spin usually is the 'working environment' ('line of the paper'). So lets say you are perfectly neutral and center in your political opinion (which will never happen), after a while, interacting with people that think a certain way - and seeing which stories take off, and which dont, and how your colleges think about it, you will start to write 'in that style' - if you are not entirely opposed to it, which the hiring process might indicate.

You can even see me doing it in here - writing attention seeking headlines, just because its the 'style' of this forum.

Same with online communities. If you go to a certain corner of the internet these days, you kind of know what to expect... 

Issues where direct (top down) influence is 'needed' (because of national interest, owner group interests, editor in chief telling you, that your audience would want to read it with more '10 things you'd never believe'...) are not that common (at least with outlets that honor actual jounalism).

On the other side FOX f.e. often enough is scraping alongside spreading actual lies and propaganda these days - which feels pretty damn odd, because they themselves should be able to see the logical inconsistancies at least. So I guess the "environment" idea can be moved pretty far.

The key in all instances is, to consume a spread if you can - so you dont only get the stories from one side. And ideally to stay away from outlets that try to lead with 'emotional pull' most of the time.

Thats basically it - if times werent changing - and even one of my preferred online newspapers is looking into creating facebook style bubbles currently, because 'research has shown, that people then stay longer and read more'. At which point the 'they do it, because their users want to read those stories' aspect becomes entirely correct. So direct user feedback on news outlets - pretty bad idea in my book. But then prevent that from happening in their current economical sphere, where people hardly ever leave instagram of facebook, and get their 'stories' from there.

If you do - kind of - stop doing it, at that point its an 'optimized for particular attention' algorithm that tells you how the world works, or more likely - doesnt.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Example for 'journalism on the edge of propaganda':


It is a perfect example of different 'genres' of 'journalism'. I have to explain the entire clip, because the voice over is german and loud enough to sometimes drown out the english original text.

The clip itself is from a documentary and starts using all style elements of mood setting, that are possible in a documentary. All of those are entirely manipulative, but also - why we like watching documentaries...  The mood setting part then fades into a direct commentary about Kenneth Feinberg, an arbitrator in high profile cases (in this case spreading compensation money from fonds, after the 911 attacks), talking about how Fineberg gets to act independently, without oversight, without seperation of power, without resorting to the legal system (because he is out there to basically settle as many cases as possible outside a courthouse, so they can be dealt with cheaper, faster, with less risk, and keeping the legal system working, because it isnt overwhelmed) - and that that constitutes - real power. Again thats commentary (but also entirely correct  ). Then the clip moves into a 'news reporting piece' about illegal immigrant victims of the 911 attacks forming stakeholder groups (because they were working in the towers, when they collapsed as well - because honorable corporations care so much to have every work relationship entirely above board - not), which is purely reporting and 'neutral', then it moves into an introduction of an NGO advocate for the interests of illegal migrants, talking about how naive she was back then, in what she thought about how the US migration/law system worked. Then it moves on to a clip where she gets interviewed by a TV anchor, who is doing a PR hit job on her.

One question asked:

Q: So are getting illegal immigrants more money out of the 9/11 victims funds (state financed), than actual families of an american citizen?
Disregarding the answer almost entirely (which is: They have to prove how much they were earning and are getting compensated according to whats proofable. And - they were working in undocumented, low paying jobs, so no.) - "Good, because it is so hard to stomach, that the families of foreigners who might have had multiple wives, get more money than americans, as compensation for 9/11'

This is not real journalism, because the question asked is dumb. Statistically not relevant. Leading. Racist. And the purpose of the 'interview' is to spew moral outrage - with prefabricated opinion pieces, that are emotionally grounded - but again illogical and without a direct connection to the answer given, or the case at hand. And again - it is racist.

So you see pretty much every relevant 'genre' of TV journalism in this clip, and you also see how it looks, if used for propaganda.

Now - as a viewer, you are kind of expected to learn this after a while. But there are many people who never do. Which is more of a problem, than those all being journalistic genres that are in use - every day, because it comes from the expectation - that someone out there cares about you being especially stupid, and giving you an unbiased view of the world, just because you are so exceptionally stupid, and in need for it.

This is not how the world works. Although many people believe it.

Fineberg - btw. also got used by Shell, after their biggest oil spil to settle cases out of court, cheaply, somewhat fairly, and without overwhelming the legal system. Theres something to be said about that as well. Suckers.

edit: Sorry, forgot to link src. Here it is: https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/062942-000-A/spielen-sie-gott-mr-feinberg/ (German and French voice over available.)


----------



## zomborg (Jul 20, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I'm interested in the actual science.
> the science speaks for itself.
> If you want to talk about how the science of one of my points is wrong, I'm listening
> Edit:climate science is valid (it is)



No all of your points are invalid AND climate science itself is invalid. At least anything that has to do with man-made global warming because as I said earlier, they are ALL proceeding off the same faulty information produced by Michael Mann. 

He started it out with false figures and fast forward to 2019 all so called "reputable" scientists are using his inaccurate work as the foundation, as the starting point for their own work. 

Until you produce evidence to the contrary, I have officially won this debate. So game over. 
You have mentioned, independently verified repeatedly, yet you have yet to present proof.
You are still dodging, It is evident that you have no clue who independently verified that climate data or either as I said the independent verifiers are using the same information produced by Michael Mann to "verify" their "so - called" climate data.


----------



## notimp (Jul 20, 2019)

zomborg said:


> No all of your points are invalid AND climate science itself is invalid. At least anything that has to do with man-made global warming because as I said earlier, they are ALL proceeding off the same faulty information produced by Michael Mann.


This is the logic that crackpots use to declare the moon landing fake as well.

You have thousands of people working in their respective fields, all over the world. You have a 'process' called science thats all about trying to remove uncertainty, or 'a human factor' (people lying) from results. You have everybody basically questioning everybody - and doing that mostly in public. You have many of those people not following financial pressures (at least not directly) - because much of this science is state financed.

But yet some guy - managed to pull a ruse and managed to mislead every single one of them. And the entire media system (because that always gets explained away with a 'they all corrupt, our president says' these days). And done did it - for the extremely nefarious reasons of...

A prank.

Apparantly. Because again, neither Blackrock, nor Vanguard (largest private investor firms on earth) divested towards renewable economy investments quite yet.

And some guy on the internet knew. He just knew.

And he told us.

Have you ever considered, that you might just be crazy on that particular point. Not in general, just on that one? Because - it happens, you know? 

Now - that said, yes there are self-propelling effects in place as well. F.e. if you work in those fields as a scientist, your work becomes more important. But. All the proposed solutions will come from the fields of engineering, psychology and politics. So as a climate scientist, its not as if this will propel you very far - career wise. Keep checking those numbers though. And thanks indeed for checks and balances.

And even if - the next  kind of huge problem that would cause us to act in a very similar fashion (peak oil, expected to happen around 2030) isnt that far out. But that guy on the internet just knows that all of it is a ruse, organized to...

... sorry, I really dont know to do what exactly right now, because humanity even tries to prevent the next migration causes doing it, so it can't even be to kill babies, or to destroy white radicals cultural identity, ...

..., but that guy just knows - that it is all a psyops operation, because - here - he showed us the two images he found on the internet. One of which was a well known fake - according to all fact check platforms, but those are all in it as well of course.

Do you see a flaw in this logic? Anywhere?


----------



## notimp (Jul 20, 2019)

One addition. Just because, you might be crazy on this one point. Doesnt mean, that some of the folks screaming in panic on the streets that the world is dying - arent crazy as well. Its equal opportunity that way. 

Doesnt mean, that we dont have to start acting in some fashion or another though.

edit:

Just because - here are the best crackpot theories, I could come up with, why to engage in such an immense, highly unlikely "lets pull a ruse on the entire world" project.

1st: World unification project. To basically establish something like a unified world government, that doesnt instantly break because of a conflict of interest, you have to somehow bring all of the actors on a similar level economically. Please understand, that everything would be easier than that. Especially continuing onward on an already known trajectory - having to do nothing, because the world is fine as usual.

2nd: Easing transitioning states - so lets say, china is on their way to become the next world leading power, and europes development trajectory is to be too old, to be too unimportant, and to be outcompeted within the next two generations. How about you reduce your own economic state over time, by freezing it in place for a while.

I think, that thats about it.

Its much more likely though, that having to transition energy sources is a very real thing, and that investing in that is something that makes sense. Its just, that 'when' is also a major point of contention that makes and brakes entire economies and countries even. So - if you are the USA, and you are experiencing a fracking boom, and energy independence, for the first time in several houndreds of years - do you:

a. Act swiftly and according to the expectations of china and europe, as well as the entire developing world at least?

b. Do you say - frack it, we only made it so fun for everyone that established themselves as a part of those economies - lets wait and see a little longer. We can deal with the fallout afterwards, because - magical thinking (and low probability that we can come up with something that would actually work, scale - and basically be unproblematic terraforming in a box).

Which of those very high concept theories seems more likely? Lets complete some thought processes here.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 20, 2019)

zomborg said:


> No all of your points are invalid AND climate science itself is invalid. At least anything that has to do with man-made global warming because as I said earlier, they are ALL proceeding off the same faulty information produced by Michael Mann.
> 
> He started it out with false figures and fast forward to 2019 all so called "reputable" scientists are using his inaccurate work as the foundation, as the starting point for their own work.
> 
> ...



Whether or not the emails are scandalous (they aren't) is irrelevant to whether or not the science is true. That's what the peer review process and data-replication are for. I could perform a really scandalous study on climate change, for example, and that wouldn't mean that climate change isn't real.
The science has been independently verified. (Source compendium)
The emails are mischaracterizations of scientific and mathematical jargon, and they aren't actually salacious. (Source) (Source) (Source) (Source) (Source) (Source)
I await your concession(s) so we can move on from the distracting topic of emails. I'm here to talk about the science of global warming and climate change. You can call that a cop-out if you want, but #1 and #2 above explain why it's not.


----------



## notimp (Jul 20, 2019)

The far right is problem solving again:


> Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has accused his own country's national space institute of lying about the scale of deforestation in the Amazon.
> 
> He said the institute was smearing Brazil's reputation abroad by publishing data showing a dramatic increase in deforestation there.
> 
> The far-right president said he wanted to meet with the head of the agency to discuss the issue.


src: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49052360


----------



## notimp (Jul 23, 2019)

notimp said:


> 2nd: Easing transitioning states - so lets say, china is on their way to become the next world leading power, and europes development trajectory is to be too old, to be too unimportant, and to be outcompeted within the next two generations. How about you reduce your own economic state over time, by freezing it in place for a while.


SDGs have to be linked there, probably. 

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs

Actually read them and dont read them naively (first ones probably more important in that agenda, there are some of them in there that are contrary in direction, there are some of them in there that might conflict with universal human rights, there are some of them in there that might partly be in there for a PR angle (cheap talk), dont dismiss them entirely, either though. Imho.)

Here is a progress report as well:
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg17


----------



## Loyalty (Jul 24, 2019)

zomborg said:


> How is ANY of the climate data that you or others have posted in this thread relevant in the least?
> Because of what Mann and his cohorts done, it has rendered every last bit of your data and everyone else's data that was influenced by him totally irrelevant.
> Except to illustrate to everyone just how corrupt man is and maybe to teach us how easily we can be deceived by climatologists with an agenda.



Yep... you may want to gander at this article from a few months ago I posted on my FB page.... I ran across it when cleaning my page up the other day (I delete a lot of old stuff on my FB page every so often)... 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archi...kSeHRKvSXky6OCswgW_2yKjXf-EBKKNur7xxzCMn0VLyg


----------



## notimp (Jul 24, 2019)

Loyalty said:


> Yep... you may want to gander at this article from a few months ago I posted on my FB page.... I ran across it when cleaning my page up the other day (I delete a lot of old stuff on my FB page every so often)...
> 
> https://www.powerlineblog.com/archi...kSeHRKvSXky6OCswgW_2yKjXf-EBKKNur7xxzCMn0VLyg


Source lists such valuable contributions like:


> Since about 2007, there has been a notable counter-theory to the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. The counter-theory is that fluctuations in world temperatures over the past several decades have been caused more by fluctuations in the cloud cover of the earth than by increases in greenhouse gases like CO2. This counter-theory is often called the “Svensmark hypothesis,” after Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, who proposed it.



Ok, listen to this. You take one of the metrics, thats not able to be modeled sufficiently at all (cloud cover - because, its too chaotic). Then you propose that it is the cause of everything.

Tadaaa! The far right is problem solving again.

God their readers must be mooooooorooooooons.

This is logically very close to: You cant tell me the weather report of 01.01.2050, so climate change isn't real.
The stuff people on the right are dragging out just to have something to convince the morons with - is... very special.

This is p-value stuff again. Does your model measure what you want it to measure, and with what confidence interval. "Ups it was all the cloud patterns." May be a potential explanation - but maybe not a very likely one. So if your entire argument against a thing consists of 'but randomness is with us now, politically". Go home.


----------



## Loyalty (Jul 24, 2019)

How do you take a report on Australia changing their old early 1900s temp records to read lower so that it seems today is warmer as anything other than what it is.... A deliberate attempt to buff their argument for political reasons. Or do you want to deny that is what they did?  They freaking changed the readings lower and....

Nevermind, I see the replies have devolved to droll fests of name calling the left is famous for.

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/02/hi...n2-raises-australias-warming-rate-by-over-20/

In other news today...

All-Time Record Low Temperatures set across Montana + one tied from 1898

https://electroverse.net/new-all-time-record-low-temperatures-set-across-montana/


----------



## notimp (Jul 25, 2019)

If you google for ACORN version 2, you only get highly dubious climate sceptics blogs on the first 2 pages of google results, which is always a good sign. When reading the most 'extensive' version of the 'something is very wrong here' version of one of those sites (top search result), you'll find that it doesnt link sources, but when it makes the appearence of doing so - it links to its own reportings again.

When you take the time to actually look at sources:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/BRR-032.pdf

You'll find, that the blog massaged the messaging ("they did raise mean average by ultimately 50% over raw - and partly so only because of 'new equipment - automatically reporting data faster!111!1!!!1" - in the source becomes actually:



> In the absence of any other influences, an instrument with a faster response time will tend to record higher maximum and lower minimum temperatures than an instrument with a slower response time. This is most clearly manifested as an increase in the mean diurnal range. At most locations (particularly in arid regions), it will also result in a slight increase in mean temperatures, as short-term fluctuations of temperature are generally larger during the day than overnight (Trewin, 2018).





> Figure 8 shows two examples of this. Alice Springs is the most extreme example; the November 2011 probe replacement there resulted in an increase in mean one-minute temperature fluctuations of approximately 0.16 °C at 1500 and 0.03 °C at 0600. Assuming that the increased variation is distributed symmetrically about the one-minute mean and that the change of probe did not introduce any inhomogeneities into the one-minute mean, this equates to an upward shift of about 0.08 °C for maximum temperature and a downward shift of 0.01-0.02 °C in minimum temperature. In less arid climates the effect is smaller (e.g., for Sydney, around +0.03 °C for maxima and –0.01 °C for minima). Given the relatively small proportion of the network which is affected, it is estimated that the overall effect on national maximum temperatures is in the order of +0.01 °C, and on minimum temperature, between zero and −0.01 °C.





> In the context of overall Australian temperature change and variability, these network-wide impacts are negligible, whilst even at the worst-affected stations, the size of the impact falls well below the 0.3 °C minimum threshold normally applied for station-specific adjustments in the ACORN-SAT dataset. No specific adjustment for this change was therefore made in version 2 of ACORN-SAT.



Which now raises the question, why are those blogs suddenly using that as a main example - that there is 'something shady going on'?

You can read up on other factors in the actual report. Like - measuring stations having been moved farther away from city centers (when cities grew f.e.), so there was a difference in location - and then you look at what caused the magnitude of changes according to the report and you see this:






Which gives you the following problem. If you move measuring sites, and change measuring equipment, and then look at your results over time, and that that resulted in "breaking points" on 'how temperature was measured', and that then correcting those results in trend shows a higher increase on some metrics than before.

Do you stop doing that, because 10 blogs on the internet will accuse you of having done it fraudulently?

Answer still is no.

Also: That part - as far as I can tell - from your main source is just plainly untrue:



> Another Australian named Gillham has also worked to uncover the shenanigans at Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology. He created this chart, which plots the original raw temperature records against ACORN1 and ACORN2.


So you use words like uncover, and "greatest fraud of all time", then you act all like "raw" would be higher quality somehow, then you only link within your bubble ('The manhattan contrarian blog states, that...'). Then you use "adjustments" in quotes. Then you infer the cause of all this as 'to better bamboozle voters". And you have the dumb fucks up in arms again.

Lets say - I give you, that this is "the biggest fraud of all time" and that the Manhattan Contrarian blog states undercover sources, bamboozling voters correctly, and that raw is god (regardless of if you moved the measuring site or not).

What you are doing on top of that is to infer - that this is happening all over the world - for coordinated 'bamboozling voters' reasons - which you cant show. Not at all. Thats a logic jump that induces more issues - than all of the adjustments you are criticising combined - and that you have no proof for.

And once you understand how cheap that is, you'll have understood the issue with your argument.

Btw. higher changes in cities, because there moving the measurement stations caused higher mean temperature changes. So what do the blogs do? Show significant changes of ACORN 2 only on cities - but then don't name the causes.

If you look at all 57 weather stations in australia on average annual max temperature, where raw, ACORN 1 and ACORN 2 are plotted - the differences arent that high - and do not change the trend at all.



> *1910-1963* - v1 24.98C / v2 24.83C / raw 25.03C
> 
> *1964-2017* - v1 25.37C / v2 25.32C / raw 25.35C
> 
> ...


src: http://www.waclimate.net/acorn2/ ()

But all you guys do is use big fonts, but not brains.

Thats suffuciant for your cause.

Because you then take the changes in average annual mean minimum temperature - which media never talks about - in fact, no one but climate scientists does -



> *1910-1963* - v1 13.38C / v2 12.98C / CDO raw 13.48C
> 
> *1964-2017* - v1 13.89C / v2 13.69C / CDO raw 13.87C
> 
> ...


src: http://www.waclimate.net/acorn2/
And then make a fuss about.

You suck.


----------



## notimp (Aug 4, 2019)

Also quite interesting. (Not 'the truth', only a part of it - but nevertheless...  )





src: https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Consensus_Handbook-1.pdf


edit: Second part of that story:
https://thebulletin.org/2019/07/top...utm_content=ClimateChange_FrankLuntz_07272019


----------

