Climate Change Denialists (who get all shy)


Latest News Forums Discussion Forum Climate Change Denialists (who get all shy)

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 16 posts - 41 through 56 (of 56 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #92494 Reply
    glenn_nl
    Guest

    Bill – good on you in that case, I am very happy to be corrected. Thank you. If there’s anything you want to discuss about it so far, I am sure participants here will be very pleased to do so.

    #92497 Reply
    ET
    Guest

    For a little light relief Bill you could watch Sabine Hossenfelder’s video on YT.
    I Misunderstood the Greenhouse Effect. Here’s How It Works.

    She gives some interesting information in it, particularly how density/gravity affects the greenhouse gas effect.

    #92505 Reply
    Clark
    Guest

    I’d just like to say to all the “climate has always changed (so let fossil fuel companies do whatever they want)” brigade that around 300 million years ago, millipedes grew as big as cars, and flying insects bigger than dustbin lids. Earth’s atmospheric oxygen ratio has been up to 67% higher than it is now, and 33% lower. But obviously civilisation can survive anything, because Hollywood.

    #92506 Reply
    pretzelattack
    Guest

    Jon, “sweeping and rather vague conclusions” whut. Fossil fuel emissions are the most significant factor in causing the climate to change” is not “sweeping and vague”. I assume you are talking about the IPCC summary, which is well known for minimising some of the danger to appease policy makers. I suppose I could refer you to the Royal Society position on the matter, but I’m quite sure you can look at that for yourself.

    Here is a list of resources. the discussion forum is available for whatever questions you desire more precise answers to.
    https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

    #93294 Reply
    Clark
    Guest

    Fat Jon, I promised you a reply weeks ago, but I couldn’t formulate what I wanted to say and I still can’t, and I have been very short of time. So here is a post by Tom Murphy that I think says what I feel better than I could say it myself:

    Our Time on the River

    You’re absolutely right that climate change is used as an excuse, a sop, and a distraction from the broader problem; “oh, we just move to renewable energy and the problem is solved. Look, we’re already doing it!”

    Yeah, right :-/

    (I seem to remember spotting a few half-truths in your claims about climate change, but it’d be petty to bang on about them. Suffice to say that climate change is serious; details can be confirmed from appropriate sources.)

    #93295 Reply
    Clark
    Guest

    Here; I’ll quote the paragraph that resonated with what you wrote and prompted me to post the link. The “boat” is a metaphor for technology or “progress”:

    “Probably the most common reaction among the subset of the billions of privileged humans in the boat who even acknowledge the danger is to focus on the boat, and how it might be modified to continue insulating us from limits and danger. Technology, innovation, ingenuity, science, and extraction/exploitation have done marvels in getting us to this state (overlooking the dominant role of the river itself, as we are prone to do), so let’s double down and do more of that! Such reactions tend to be piecemeal: dividing the predicament into identifiable problems that individually might have viable “solutions” but do little to change the overall state of affairs. Solar panels might address CO2, for instance, but not the “meta” peril of ecological overshoot enabled by a hubristic, supremacist relationship to the natural world.”

    #93346 Reply
    Clark
    Guest

    Glenn_nl, brilliant! Arnold Schroder, and here is his website:

    https://www.againsttheinternet.com/

    You’re a more hardcore atheist than me, Glenn. It’s coincidences like that which convince me there is something, well, divine going on in our universe.

    #93369 Reply
    Clark
    Guest

    I hope Fat Jon sees my reply; I feel I have let him down, taking so long about it.

    #93396 Reply
    Andy G
    Guest

    I think glenn_nl’s generalisation about denialists’ “baseless assertions” (28th October) – which is itself a baseless assertion – indicates it’s rather unlikely honest debate is actually being sought but rather to use Craig Murray’s site to promote his own views on climate change. Calling someone a “denier” or denialist or some similar term is predicated on one’s own position being self-evidently true and the so-called “denier” being willfully ignorant. That’s not the basis for starting an honest debate. If you want honest debate you first need to stop using terms like “denier”, “denialist”.

    #93407 Reply
    glenn_nl
    Guest

    Andy – thanks for writing.

    My motivation for starting this thread was pretty much as stated. I was a bit irritated with people who drop into conversation that climate change is all a hoax, but then refuse to discuss the point past such assertions to any level of seriousness. They make a few standard simplistic assertions, ignore the rebuffs, and later just make them again and again.

    Do you think ‘sceptic’ is any more honest? Is a person really a ‘sceptic’ when it comes to physics and chemistry generally, or is this scepticism reserved for things they simply do not want to believe, and science then suddenly becomes – for this single subject – suddenly all bullshit and full of charlatans and hoaksters?

    Since these denialists or sceptics never – and I do mean never – stick around to argue their point, their position has gone way past scepticism and into denialism.

    So actually, I think the term ‘denialist’ is most fair.

    #93408 Reply
    Clark
    Guest

    Andy G, since you seem to be here to discuss language rather than climate, I think you mean “evident” rather than “self evident”:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_evident

    So what would you regard as convincing evidence?

    I was born in 1963, and I remember hearing about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) since the mid 1980s. I remember hearing on TV news that the “signature of AGW…” (namely, stratospheric cooling, though I didn’t know that at the time) had “been detected”, so that would have been 1988, when James Hansen so testified to the US government. I remember hearing that action had been taken about ozone depletion but that global warming remained unaddressed, so that would have been 1989 when the Montreal Protocol entered into force. I remember when the Stern Review described the effect of AGW in economic terms, so that would have been 2006.

    That’s essentially my whole adult life, so if I were still ignorant by now, I think it would be fair to call that wilful; wouldn’t you?

    #93409 Reply
    ET
    Guest

    Andy G, I think glenn_nl has invited those people who do not agree with the conclusions of AGW science to come and detail their disagreements with the conclusions.

    So, for instance, a common argument made against AGW is that it is variation in the radiative output from the sun. There is strong evidence based on first principle science that that cannot be the case because that would imply stratospheric warming whilst what we see is stratospheric COOLING.

    What we see when strong first principle science refutes an argument is people changing to another argument without acknowledging or countering with different evidence so that we can all take a look at it and assess it. In other words people have taken a view and will not allow themselves to change their view despite clear first principle science. Neither will they present evidence to back up their view preferring instead to exit the conversation, change to a different argument unrelated to what their original arguments and refuse to deal with the topic honestly. These drive-by grenade type posts get very tedious both here and in other threads. If you are gonna post about your disagreement with climate science, then at least have the decency to take it on properly.

    #93430 Reply
    Clark
    Guest

    Since this is the latest and hence most active climate change thread, here are a couple of really important articles about COP28 by Nafeez Ahmed. The first includes sections named “Al Gore’s Deception” and “Climate Scientists don’t Actually have the Answers”, which I highlight unashamedly as clickbait for deniers:

    ‘Keeping Carbon in the Ground’ Missed the Point: How COP28 Signals End of Oil

    We’re Crossing a Global Tipping Point on Fossil Fuels and There’s No Going Back

    However, comments about these are likely to be off-topic here. If you have a reply but it isn’t about hit-and-run denialism, please continue on the following, older thread, here.

    #93431 Reply
    Clark
    Guest

    Fellow rationalists, I’m suspecting a strange complementarity.

    In the red corner we have George Monbiot, Al Gore, Michael Mann and his ilk; Labour and Democrat ‘centrists’ generally, who stress the extreme danger and urgency of the ecological crisis including AGW, but accept, shall we call it, the Integrity Initiative framing of Russia being the most deadly and immediate threat, Bellingcat being a reliable source, and rarely or never supporting the likes of Julian Assange, Craig Murray, Jonathan Cook etc. They have large platforms and frequently appear in the commercial ‘news’ media.

    In the blue corner we have sundry anonymous commenters on blogs such as this one. Their narrative is quite strongly anti-war, they do support the sort of dissidents I list above, but they consistently push the handful of familiar AGW denial tropes, such as “Al Gore bought a beachfront mansion (so AGW must be a hoax)”.

    It takes liquid fuel to fight wars; nearly all the machinery of death runs on it. If we imagine a battery-powered military pitched against a military powered by diesel and kerosene, liquid fuel wins hands down, no question. Not only does liquid fuel have higher energy density, it takes only a couple of minutes to refill a fuel tank, whereas the time to charge a battery is comparable to how long it can be used before needing a recharge. Our hypothetical electric military would need twice as many fighting machines, because half would be being charged at any given time. And how do you get electricity to the front line? Liquid fuel can be simply conveyed in tankers.

    And wars are fought to secure liquid fuel. Iraq, Libya, the constant manoeuvring against Iran and its ally Syria, supporting the al Saud dynasty against Yemen, and now the assault on Gaza, with the Leviathan field off its coast.

    Climate change and war are intimately connected, yet my strange complementarity keeps the movements against each separated. Coincidence?

    #93432 Reply
    Clark
    Guest

    And it isn’t just AGW denial; covid denial and trivialisation correlates with AGW denial too. And Twin Tower pre-rigged demolition hypothesis (though that one seems to have been vanquished on this particular site), which shifts the target from Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to the otherwise fairly obscure US public-sector engineering authority NIST.

    This stuff is polluting the anti-war, anti-spook narrative; any rationalist who arrives is likely to be put off, throw out the baby with the bathwater, and consign important geopolitical insights with flat Earth and anti-vax.

    Our resident deniers won’t even admit to having seen these two latest comments of mine; they’ll deny ever having looked at this thread.

    #94093 Reply
    ET
    Guest

    I came across John Tyndall’s 1861 lecture, one of the earliest experiments to demonstrate that certain gases absorb and radiate heat and one of the earliest experiments contributing to our understanding of the greenhouse effect. It’s a masterpiece of first principle science. I post it for interest sake.

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/108724?seq=15

    The Wikipedia on John Tyndall is also worth looking at.

Viewing 16 posts - 41 through 56 (of 56 total)
Reply To: Climate Change Denialists (who get all shy)
Your information: