Climate change as a tool of tyranny

[SkepticThinker]

No, it's about the gullibility of the cult of warm.

Sure thing. Why don't you post another conspiracy theory for us.

 

[Pete in Panama]

It all makes perfect sense, tho you're assuming that we already got warming from CO2. Once again that all very well may be true but personally I'm having a hard time finding believable numbers to back that up.

Do you mean that you can't find the data, don't believe it, don't agree that it supports the idea of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), or something else?

What I'm seeing is that there are a lot of science people who say they got numbers that support AGW, and there are other who say they got numbers that contradict AGW. Maybe it's your belief that one group is right and the other is wrong, but nobody's belief is going to stop the two groups from disagreeing.

What occurs to me is that we should be able to measure the average temperature of the earth's surface. Like, we got a lot of agreement on the temp of the sun and various planets to an amazing degree of accuracy, but so far I've not found any agreement on the earth. If AGW is correct then there must be a quantity of solar energy that is being absorbed by some mass of the earth. I've not found any agreement on what the amount of energy is nor what mass is absorbing that energy.

My failures do not disprove AGW. They just mean that I have failed to support the AGW claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It all makes perfect sense, tho you're assuming that we already got warming from CO2. Once again that all very well may be true but personally I'm having a hard time finding believable numbers to back that up.

Your opinion does not count since you refuse to learn even the basics of AGW.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I'm seeing is that there are a lot of science people who say they got numbers that support AGW, and there are other who say they got numbers that contradict AGW. Maybe it's your belief that one group is right and the other is wrong, but nobody's belief is going to stop the two groups from disagreeing.

What occurs to me is that we should be able to measure the average temperature of the earth's surface. Like, we got a lot of agreement on the temp of the sun and various planets to an amazing degree of accuracy, but so far I've not found any agreement on the earth. If AGW is correct then there must be a quantity of solar energy that is being absorbed by some mass of the earth. I've not found any agreement on what the amount of energy is nor what mass is absorbing that energy.

My failures do not disprove AGW. They just mean that I have failed to support the AGW claims.

And you cannot tell the difference between legitimate peer reviewed science and whack jobs that only appear to fringe publications. That is why your opinion does not matter. Try to limit yourself to peer review and you will see well over 90%, over 95%, perhaps even over 99% support at times.

 

[sayak83]

No, it's ignorance that gets people killed. People can adapt to gradual changes.

There are PPL who apparently crib about small inconveniences like a small increase in fuel and energy prices to pay for clean energy transition but are perfectly cool to let 30% of land area get submerged under the ocean triggering maybe deaths and displacement of billions and destruction and disfigurement of scores of nations and cultures as "people can adapt to gradual changes".
Nothing further to say.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What I'm seeing is that there are a lot of science people who say they got numbers that support AGW, and there are other who say they got numbers that contradict AGW. Maybe it's your belief that one group is right and the other is wrong, but nobody's belief is going to stop the two groups from disagreeing.

The solution to that is to learn to interpret the data yourself. The data regarding climate change comes from several sources besides average temperatures, such as rising sea levels, trends in CO2 ppm, receding glaciers, trends in extreme weather, changing migration patterns, changing ocean and atmospheric currents, coral blanching, and other proxies for global warming.

Next best is to recognize that there is something called expertise and learn to recognize which sources are reliable.

Failing both of those, one can only guess what to believe.

Think of the pandemic and the vaccines, and the disagreement there. The relevant data weren't difficult to interpret directly. Morbidity and mortality was essentially confined to the unvaccinated and immunocompromised, for whom vaccines don't always lead to the desired immunity. One could look at those numbers and recognize the benefit of the vaccine from them if able to understand what they said.

But if one can't do that, he or she can still recognize that taking advice from Dr. Fauci and taking it from Donald Trump are not equal.

And if one can't do that, then he must just guess. Vaccine or no vaccine? Remdesivir or dewormer and bleach?

What occurs to me is that we should be able to measure the average temperature of the earth's surface. Like, we got a lot of agreement on the temp of the sun and various planets to an amazing degree of accuracy, but so far I've not found any agreement on the earth.

You haven't? I have - among climate scientists. There isn't any controversy there. If you start listening to others, you'll hear any number of unscientific dissenting opinions. If you give them equal credence, then you're in that boat I just described - unaware of what expertise is and means, so you'll need to guess which to trust or believe nothing.

From Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia

Warmest years[edit]​

In recent decades, new high temperature records have substantially outpaced new low temperature records on a growing portion of Earth's surface. Comparison shows seasonal variability for record increases.

The warmest years in the instrumental temperature record have occurred in the last decade (i.e. 2012-2021). The World Meteorological Organization reported in March 2021 that 2016 and 2020 were the two warmest years in the period since 1850.

Each individual year from 2015 onwards has been warmer than any year prior to 1850. In other words: each of the seven years in 2015-2021 was clearly warmer than any pre-2014 year.

If AGW is correct then there must be a quantity of solar energy that is being absorbed by some mass of the earth. I've not found any agreement on what the amount of energy is nor what mass is absorbing that energy.

Same answer. Either learn to interpret the data directly yourself, learn to recognize expertise and accept expert opinion, or guess. Right now, I'd say you don't know where to look for answers and so must guess what to believe.

 

[Pete in Panama]

The solution to that is to learn to interpret the data yourself. The data regarding climate change comes from several sources besides average temperatures, such as rising sea levels, trends in CO2 ppm, receding glaciers, trends in extreme weather, changing migration patterns, changing ocean and atmospheric currents, coral blanching, and other proxies for global warming.

Next best is to recognize that there is something called expertise and learn to recognize which sources are reliable.

Failing both of those, one can only guess what to believe.

Think of the pandemic and the vaccines, and the disagreement there. The relevant data weren't difficult to interpret directly. Morbidity and mortality was essentially confined to the unvaccinated and immunocompromised, for whom vaccines don't always lead to the desired immunity. One could look at those numbers and recognize the benefit of the vaccine from them if able to understand what they said.

But if one can't do that, he or she can still recognize that taking advice from Dr. Fauci and taking it from Donald Trump are not equal.

And if one can't do that, then he must just guess. Vaccine or no vaccine? Remdesivir or dewormer and bleach?

You haven't? I have - among climate scientists. There isn't any controversy there. If you start listening to others, you'll hear any number of unscientific dissenting opinions. If you give them equal credence, then you're in that boat I just described - unaware of what expertise is and means, so you'll need to guess which to trust or believe nothing.

From Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia

Warmest years[edit]​

In recent decades, new high temperature records have substantially outpaced new low temperature records on a growing portion of Earth's surface. Comparison shows seasonal variability for record increases.

The warmest years in the instrumental temperature record have occurred in the last decade (i.e. 2012-2021). The World Meteorological Organization reported in March 2021 that 2016 and 2020 were the two warmest years in the period since 1850.

Each individual year from 2015 onwards has been warmer than any year prior to 1850. In other words: each of the seven years in 2015-2021 was clearly warmer than any pre-2014 year.

Same answer. Either learn to interpret the data directly yourself, learn to recognize expertise and accept expert opinion, or guess. Right now, I'd say you don't know where to look for answers and so must guess what to believe.

What I said was that for AGW to be correct then there must be a quantity of solar energy that is being absorbed by some mass of the earth. I've not found any agreement on what the amount of energy is nor what mass is absorbing that energy.

Granted, your links were very impressive and thoughtful, but please help me on this. Nowhere was I able to find what the amount of solar energy was being absorbed by what mass and seen as what temperature now and at what time earlier. These four things are necessary to support the AGW theory:

1. the amount of solar energy
2. the mass that absorbs the energy
3. the current temperature
4. the previous temperature

Lots of folks say the greenhouse is real but nobody has those four data. Sure we can say that those w/ the appropriate expertise are there to tell what we're supposed to think. However many of them tell us to think that the earth has warmed since the end of the industrial revolution and now it's about 1-1/2 degrees (F or C?) hotter.

When did the Industrial revolution end? Some say 1800, some say 1830, others 1840, 1850, and 1900. Nobody seems to have temperatures for that era and the best we can get are "anomalies". Not temperatures. We're supposed to believe that the earth is say, 1-1/2 degrees hotter but nobody knows what the temp is now and what it was at what time. That's crazy. Maybe it's true but the presentation sucks. Can u follow what I'm looking for and what I'm finding?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I said was that for AGW to be correct then there must be a quantity of solar energy that is being absorbed by some mass of the earth. I've not found any agreement on what the amount of energy is nor what mass is absorbing that energy.

Granted, your links were very impressive and thoughtful, but please help me on this. Nowhere was I able to find what the amount of solar energy was being absorbed by what mass and seen as what temperature now and at what time earlier. These four things are necessary to support the AGW theory:

1. the amount of solar energy
2. the mass that absorbs the energy
3. the current temperture
4. the previous temperature

Lots of folks say the greenhouse is real but nobody has those four data.

Your understanding is wrong.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What I said was that for AGW to be correct then there must be a quantity of solar energy that is being absorbed by some mass of the earth. I've not found any agreement on what the amount of energy is nor what mass is absorbing that energy.

That statement is incorrect if by earth you mean the solid part and not the atmosphere and oceans. That's the dangerous heat reservoir, not the crust. And I've explained how these things are determined. You seem uninterested except in a single parameter of your choosing. That's perfectly OK with me.

Nowhere was I able to find what the amount of solar energy was being absorbed by what mass and seen as what temperature now and at what time earlier. These four things are necessary to support the AGW theory:

1. the amount of solar energy
2. the mass that absorbs the energy
3. the current temperature
4. the previous temperature

I'm assuming you made this list up.

Sure we can say that those w/ the appropriate expertise are there to tell what we're supposed to think.

It's fine for you to remain in the dark on this. You can't evaluate the data yourself and don't trust those that do it professionally, so your lot is to guess. You would do yourself a service to recognize that and find out what's what. Don't be the last. Why? Did you see this earlier? Best of luck to you:

​

Here's what's coming, in my opinion. Certain areas are now in the process of transitioning to undesirable or uninhabitable locations. As this becomes more evident, homes in those areas will become progressively less desirable as properties become very expensive to insure or uninsurable, and property values start to fall. The alert will have sold and relocated before the rest figure it out and the housing market dries up. Once this begins, everybody's going to lose a little or a lot. The biggest losers in this game of musical houses will be the last to understand this. They will be the ones who get stuck with a home that they can't sell or insure, and then it burns down or is destroyed in a hurricane or tornado.​

​

If this describes your situation - if you are a homeowner in a transitioning locale - I expect you to recognize that and take action sooner than later and salvage the present equity in your home. Let a climate denier buy it from you. They'll be the last to recognize the situation and too late to avoid the loss - the price of faith-based thought (religion doesn't have a monopoly on that) and the avoidance of critical, evidence-based thought.​

​

​

​

​

 

[wellwisher]

Forest fires in Africa are mainly in grasslands and do not contribute much to net CO2 at all. Grasses are perennial plants and burning of grass simply releases CO2 that were collected a year ago from the atmosphere. If the grasses did not burn and instead were either eaten by grazers or decomposed, that would also release the CO2.

The same can be said of fossil fuels were also once part of the atmosphere. The earth can long term capture and store, CO2, as demonstrated by fossil fuels.

This topic is climate change as a tool of tyranny. Say, for the sake of argument, the Political Left and the consensus of science was correct about manmade climate change. If this science reality was to be used, as a tool for tyranny, the solution to the man made problem, would allow tyranny to prosper.

Science is good at testing and proving theory, but politicians with power and tax payer money, will decide how to solve the problem, often with unproven methods and unforeseen results usually over budget. As a tool of tyranny, the best solution would cause the most chaos thereby allowing a path to their easiest power grab and social control. That is what tyrants do. They do not keep the nation strong so they can gain power. That is an oxymoron.

I offered a path of CO2 offset, by reducing a large annual source of natural CO2. This can give us to the same CO2 end goals; reduce natural wild fires in African. This solution would act as an offset to industrial fossil fuel CO2 usage, in the short term, so the status quo stays more stable as we evolve and implement better technology like solar, hydrogen and nuclear. This path is not as conducive to any immediate power grab, nor is it a good excuse, to micro manage people's lives, like tyrants would prefer to do.

The best solution to our predicament, would make it harder for tyrants, right ? The tyrant will do it one way, while the concerned citizens, who wish to stay stable and free, but also solve the problem, may do it a different way.

Manmade climate change is the tool. How we use that tool is connected to the solution we propose. The type of solution will decide if we play into the hands of tyrants or whether free people have the upper hand.

During COVID, one side allowed more freedom, while the other side wanted to restrict and micromanage. If this had stuck for many decades, instead of a few years, how would each side have morphed, and which side created the best platform for tyrants to come to power? We need to ask what are the best solutions with the tool?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The same can be said of fossil fuels were also once part of the atmosphere. The earth can long term capture and store, CO2, as demonstrated by fossil fuels.
Yes, that can happen. But it took hundreds of millions of years for that to happen. We do not have hundreds of millions of years. It is the sudden change that is the problem.

This topic is climate change as a tool of tyranny. Say, for the sake of argument, the Political Left and the consensus of science was correct about manmade climate change. If this science reality was to be used, as a tool for tyranny, the solution to the man made problem, would allow tyranny to prosper.

But it has been shown not to be for tyranny. It is a real serious and pressing problem.

Science is good at testing and proving theory, but politicians with power and tax payer money, will decide how to solve the problem, often with unproven methods and unforeseen results usually over budget. As a tool of tyranny, the best solution would cause the most chaos thereby allowing a path to their easiest power grab and social control. That is what tyrants do. They do not keep the nation strong so they can gain power. That is an oxymoron.

No, this is just nonsense and conspiracy theories. I have noticed that you can never support your claims with reliable sources. That should tell you something.

I offered a path of CO2 offset, by reducing a large annual source of natural CO2. This can give us to the same CO2 end goals; reduce natural wild fires in African. This solution would act as an offset to industrial fossil fuel CO2 usage, in the short term, so the status quo stays more stable as we evolve and implement better technology like solar, hydrogen and nuclear. This path is not as conducive to any immediate power grab, nor is it a good excuse, to micro manage people's lives, like tyrants would prefer to do.

I can only remember you demonstrating your ignorance. You focused on non-problem areas. But we do need more solar, wind and nuclear power sources. You finally got at least one thing right.

By the way, do you know the current cheapest source of energy?

The best solution to our predicament, would make it harder for tyrants, right ? The tyrant will do it one way, while the concerned citizens, who wish to stay stable and free, but also solve the problem, may do it a different way.

Okay, I am confused. We already got rid of Trump, Why bring him into the conversation?

Manmade climate change is the tool. How we use that tool is connected to the solution we propose. The type of solution will decide if we play into the hands of tyrants or whether free people have the upper hand.

No, it is a problem. No one is using it as a tool

During COVID, one side allowed more freedom, while the other side wanted to restrict and micromanage. If this had stuck for many decades, instead of a few years, how would each side have morphed, and which side created the best platform for tyrants to come to power? We need to ask what are the best solutions with the tool?

Yes, and the side that "allowed more freedom: had a higher death rate as a result. I would think that death is the ultimate "tyranny". Why didn't you oppose that?

 

[sayak83]

The same can be said of fossil fuels were also once part of the atmosphere. The earth can long term capture and store, CO2, as demonstrated by fossil fuels.

This topic is climate change as a tool of tyranny. Say, for the sake of argument, the Political Left and the consensus of science was correct about manmade climate change. If this science reality was to be used, as a tool for tyranny, the solution to the man made problem, would allow tyranny to prosper.

Science is good at testing and proving theory, but politicians with power and tax payer money, will decide how to solve the problem, often with unproven methods and unforeseen results usually over budget. As a tool of tyranny, the best solution would cause the most chaos thereby allowing a path to their easiest power grab and social control. That is what tyrants do. They do not keep the nation strong so they can gain power. That is an oxymoron.

I offered a path of CO2 offset, by reducing a large annual source of natural CO2. This can give us to the same CO2 end goals; reduce natural wild fires in African. This solution would act as an offset to industrial fossil fuel CO2 usage, in the short term, so the status quo stays more stable as we evolve and implement better technology like solar, hydrogen and nuclear. This path is not as conducive to any immediate power grab, nor is it a good excuse, to micro manage people's lives, like tyrants would prefer to do.

The best solution to our predicament, would make it harder for tyrants, right ? The tyrant will do it one way, while the concerned citizens, who wish to stay stable and free, but also solve the problem, may do it a different way.

Manmade climate change is the tool. How we use that tool is connected to the solution we propose. The type of solution will decide if we play into the hands of tyrants or whether free people have the upper hand.

During COVID, one side allowed more freedom, while the other side wanted to restrict and micromanage. If this had stuck for many decades, instead of a few years, how would each side have morphed, and which side created the best platform for tyrants to come to power? We need to ask what are the best solutions with the tool?

Fossil fuels come from carbon that was buried hundreds of million years ago. Thus their burning releases carbon that was not part of the planetary carbon cycle for hundreds of millions of years. That is why CO2 in the atmosphere is rising as we burn them.
Grass absorbed carbon just a year before it was burnt. If it was not burnt, it will simply decompose and release the same CO2 back in 3-4 months. So stopping the burning of grass in African forest fires will not have any effect whatsoever. The carbon of grass will become CO2 and CH4 anyways by decomposition and get released in half a year. So nothing will change. Do you understand that?
So your proposal does not solve anything.

 

[Ebionite]

Whenever I see a comment like this alleging some defect in the thinking of those challenging the claims of fanciful thinkers

To err is human, therefore humanism can't be free from error. It's got nothing to do with whether or not someone believes that catastrophic AGW is a real.

 

[Ebionite]

These are long-ago debunked conspiracy theories.

Only for the cult faithful.

From Russia to the Indian Ocean to Antarctica, surface temperatures were much warmer than they are today during Medieval times.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/10/15/4-more-new-reconstructions-affirm-the-medieval-warm-period-was-warmer-than-today/

 

[Ebionite]

There are PPL who apparently crib about small inconveniences like a small increase in fuel and energy prices to pay for clean energy transition but are perfectly cool to let 30% of land area get submerged under the ocean triggering maybe deaths and displacement of billions and destruction and disfigurement of scores of nations and cultures as "people can adapt to gradual changes".
Nothing further to say.

30% of land submerged is cult propaganda. The PDF I posted documents the dishonesty of the sea level rise crowd.

Climate change as a tool of tyranny

We know that CO2 warms the world, that CO2 concentrations are at record-breaking levels Bollocks. At the time, atmospheric CO2 concentration was at a whopping 3000 to 9000 ppm! https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/

www.religiousforums.com

 

[sayak83]

I've added the PDF as an attachment.


OK, but I don't see anything that supports the original claim that lives are at risk because of climate change.

I read your document. Clearly this scientist is lying through his teeth. Sea level rise has been actually observed...and the talk about data change correction factor is nonsense. Maybe because he has been bought up by the oil industry or something. Similar to the scientists bought by the tobacco industry said lied about the link between tobacco and cancer. It is unfortunate that you choose to believe this one fraud over the thousands of honest scientists out their and their actual observations.

 

[Ebionite]

Clearly this scientist is lying through his teeth.

Do you have any facts to back up your allegation? Lying involves intent to mislead or deceive.

In a 2004 paper, New Perspectives for the Future of the Maldives, published in Global and Planetary Change, Mörner, Tooley and Posnert write

Novel prospects for the Maldives do not include a condemnation to future flooding. The people of the Maldives have, in the past, survived a higher sea level of about 50–60 cm. The present trend lacks signs of a sea level rise. On the contrary, there is firm morphological evidence of a significant sea level fall in the last 30 years.
In the IPCC scenarios, the Maldives were condemned to disappear in the sea in the near future (e.g. Hoffman et al., 1983; IPCC, 2001). Our documentation of actual field evidence contradicts this hypothesis.

Sea Level Scam

Mohammed Nashed, the new president of that string of low-lying islands in the Indian Ocean, the Maldives, has declared that he is setting up a sovereign wealth fund in order to purchase a new homel…

buythetruth.wordpress.com

Do you think that Tooley and Posnert are lying as well?

 

[sayak83]

Do you have any facts to back up your allegation? Lying involves intent to mislead or deceive.

In a 2004 paper, New Perspectives for the Future of the Maldives, published in Global and Planetary Change, Mörner, Tooley and Posnert write

Sea Level Scam

Mohammed Nashed, the new president of that string of low-lying islands in the Indian Ocean, the Maldives, has declared that he is setting up a sovereign wealth fund in order to purchase a new homel…

buythetruth.wordpress.com

Do you think that Tooley and Posnert are lying as well?

Yes indeed they are.
Because they are deliberately misleading people. Mean sea level rise does not mean that sea level is rising uniformly everywhere. It is not and satelite data shows that it is not. Some places are rising faster, other places it is actually decreasing. Mean means the average value. If you choose a location to study sea level where it's actually decreasing you can.

 

[Ebionite]

Yes indeed they are.
Because they are deliberately misleading people. Mean sea level rise does not mean that sea level is rising uniformly everywhere.

Where did they mention mean sea level rise?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only for the cult faithful.

From Russia to the Indian Ocean to Antarctica, surface temperatures were much warmer than they are today during Medieval times.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/10/15/4-more-new-reconstructions-affirm-the-medieval-warm-period-was-warmer-than-today/

For a debate on the sciences you need to be able to find a primary source or an honest secondary source. Watt's up is neither of those.