Climate change as a tool of tyranny

[Subduction Zone]

I have no idea... I checked further and found information lacking... But just on the short list... there were many countries with the 5% - it really wasn't "US has the most"

Why did you ignore the other 14%?

 

[Copernicus]

Well, in various ways but let's try one... they could use false information to push their desired agenda for more control...
...

But this doesn't address the OP, which you said "Yes, yes, yes" to. The question is how a country could cause climate change, so just pushing disinformation about climate change that happens doesn't address it. At this point, we should probably assume that Shaul was using hyperbole and that no country has actually caused any climate change in order to push a political agenda. So now the discussion is over whether anthropogenic climate change, which he stipulated to was real, could be used to push a desired agenda.

What is that agenda? Just political control? Using scare tactics to take advantage of a bad situation? You used the situation of an exploding volcano, but you thought that would cause the climate to heat up. Actually, in the past, that has caused the climate to cool temporarily as the ash blocks and reflects heat away from the Earth. But that isn't anthropogenic climate change, and the exploding volcano wasn't caused by a government. So you are still way off base in terms of your analogy.

If you want to argue that climate change isn't anthropogenic, that is too much of a goalpost shift and should probably be the topic of another thread. I can see an argument where a government might conspire to push misinformation about natural climate change in order to manipulate people, although I don't think that is what is happening. The consensus among climate scientists is that anthropogenic warming and consequent climate change is both real and catastrophic. So what should we do about it? It doesn't look like our government or any other one is actually doing much at all to stop it, since all of the proposed solutions so far have no chance of stopping it. In fact, climate change is unstoppable now, so mitigating its effects is what the public dialog has been about.

 

[Kenny]

You were the one that proposed false information. An immense volcanic explosion of that sort would actually cool the Earth. One cannot just put water into the atmosphere. It needs to be stable water vapor. A volcanic explosion would not have the accompanying warming needed to for that increase of water to be permanent. It would form clouds, which reflect energy out during the daytime. Such events cause a drop in temperatures historically. Though that is probably due to the sulfur that accompanies such explosions. At any rate such events have caused a drop in temperatures. Not a rise. One country could not lie about that.

Hmmm..... false information:

Tonga Eruption May Temporarily Push Earth Closer to 1.5°C of Warming - Eos

The underwater eruption of Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai sent megatons of water vapor into the stratosphere, contributing to an increase in global warming over the next 5 years.

eos.org

When Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai (HTHH) erupted in January 2022, it shot the standard volcanic cocktail of ash, gas, and pulverized rock into the sky. But the eruption included one extra ingredient that’s now causing climate concerns: a significant splash of ocean water. The underwater caldera shot 146 metric megatons of water into the stratosphere like a geyser, potentially contributing to atmospheric warming over the next 5 years, according to a new study published in Nature Climate Change.

 

[Kenny]

Why did you ignore the other 14%?

Not at all... the other 14% acknowledged global warming.

 

[Kenny]

But this doesn't address the OP, which you said "Yes, yes, yes" to. The question is how a country could cause climate change, so just pushing disinformation about climate change that happens doesn't address it.

Good point... my error.

I don't think government could cause climate change... but they could manipulate the information "in the name of climate change" - same effect IMV.

 

[Soandso]

Ignoring any particular country, let's discuss archetypes. Particular countries may be affected by a particular climate change more than others. For example a low lying island country may be harmed more by sea level changes than a landlocked country. Similarly a food exporting, more self-reliant country will be affected less by climate changed food shortages than a country that must import all of its food. From these descriptions it is possible to imagine that different countries will be impacted to different extents due to global climate change. In other words, climate change is global but the magnitude of its effects on a population is localized in expression. A country that understands this can use global climate change for its own hegemony and power relative to other countries.

I'm failing to see the relevance to my point. 97% of all climate scientists from every country, whether they are from countries who are our allies or our adversaries, are saying that our current climate predicament and future projections are due to man made causes. The consensus is telling a very consistent story all across the planet

Sure, some countries may be effected more than others or governments/corporations can spin whatever they like about the narrative, but if it's different than what 97% of the majority of what climatologists are saying, then chances are it's very easy to spot who is trying to manipulate who

The science tells a very black and white story when it comes to this topic. The only grey areas are the ones people are weaving using that black and white data

 

[Copernicus]

I don't think government could cause climate change... but they could manipulate the information "in the name of climate change" - same effect IMV.

That's true, but it seems to me that politicians will always spin their campaign pitches to promote their politics, and that isn't all bad. We need to hear both sides of a debate and try to sort out which side seems to be making more sense. Democracy depends on that kind of public debate taking place. The fact that both sides get things wrong--either deliberately or accidentally--is pretty normal. What I think is happening with climate change is that the discourse has largely shifted from debating whether it is anthropogenic to a debate over what, if anything, we can do about those aspects of human behavior and activity that are causing the warming and other causes of climate change. We know that the release of greenhouse gasses is one of the problems. So, what can we do about it, and what should our government be doing about it? That is where the real debate is.

The topic in this thread seems to be stuck on the idea that people are using climate change as an excuse to promote some vague, unexplained nefarious political agenda, but it is never exactly clear what that agenda is. Should we not stop polluting the air and water that life depends on to survive on this planet? Is that not going to take some kinds of sacrifice and lifestyle changes on our part? Should we just ignore impending environmental catastrophes and not plan for the future? Frankly, I don't understand what the point of this debate over ulterior motives is really trying to establish.

Climate change isn't going to stop happening just because we can identify people who are using it to promote their political agenda. Suppose we could stop those people from promoting their political agenda. What then? That won't stop the hurricanes/typhoons, tornadoes, floods, droughts, and other forms of extreme weather patterns caused by excessive global warming. It won't stop the crop failures, pandemics, wars, and dried up water supplies from happening. It won't stop the sea levels from continuing to rise.

 

[InChrist]

Neither are wars. Yet governments have used wars for the purposes of controlling populations. A wrecked climate can serve the purpose of such governments by engendering fear among the people. Frightened people are easier to control.

That makes perfect sense. Instilling fear into populations is often used as a tool to garner more control.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmmm..... false information:

Tonga Eruption May Temporarily Push Earth Closer to 1.5°C of Warming - Eos

The underwater eruption of Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai sent megatons of water vapor into the stratosphere, contributing to an increase in global warming over the next 5 years.

eos.org

When Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai (HTHH) erupted in January 2022, it shot the standard volcanic cocktail of ash, gas, and pulverized rock into the sky. But the eruption included one extra ingredient that’s now causing climate concerns: a significant splash of ocean water. The underwater caldera shot 146 metric megatons of water into the stratosphere like a geyser, potentially contributing to atmospheric warming over the next 5 years, according to a new study published in Nature Climate Change.

Quote mining is a no no. Here is some more context:

"We show that HTHH has a tangible impact of the chance of imminent 1.5 °C exceedance (increasing the chance of at least one of the next 5 years exceeding 1.5 °C by 7%), but the level of climate policy ambition, particularly the mitigation of short-lived climate pollutants, dominates the 1.5 °C exceedance outlook over decadal timescales."

There is a slight chance of an increase. But it would only be temporary and the long range forecast shows the opposite.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not at all... the other 14% acknowledged global warming.

Oh my, no. Not at all. The other 14% were AGW deniers.

 

[VoidCat]

If we assume anthropogenic climate control is real, then it is possible for unscrupulous governments to change the climate in ways that will tyrannize populations and control them.

Only why i can see governments changing the climate purposely and causing it to be worse is by not doing it. That is by lying and saying the climate is worse then it is and scaring the public in order to control them. But i see no evidence of that happening yet tons for the climate getting worse in reality and it's us humans fault.

 

[Kenny]

Quote mining is a no no. Here is some more context:

"We show that HTHH has a tangible impact of the chance of imminent 1.5 °C exceedance (increasing the chance of at least one of the next 5 years exceeding 1.5 °C by 7%), but the level of climate policy ambition, particularly the mitigation of short-lived climate pollutants, dominates the 1.5 °C exceedance outlook over decadal timescales."

There is a slight chance of an increase. But it would only be temporary and the long range forecast shows the opposite.

no... you have to dig a little deeper.

How the Tonga volcano eruption could have warmed the planet, study says

The January 2022 eruption of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai in the island nation of Tonga was so powerful that it may have caused the climate to warm temporarily, a study says.

news.yahoo.com

But, I understand your position. It debunks your position that it will get colder and it supports my position... a no go for you. It wasn't "false" like you suggested.

 

[Kenny]

Oh my, no. Not at all. The other 14% were AGW deniers.

Cherry picking...

 

[Subduction Zone]

no... you have to dig a little deeper.

How the Tonga volcano eruption could have warmed the planet, study says

The January 2022 eruption of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai in the island nation of Tonga was so powerful that it may have caused the climate to warm temporarily, a study says.

news.yahoo.com

But, I understand your position. It debunks your position that it will get colder and it supports my position... a no go for you. It wasn't "false" like you suggested.

No it doesn't. You did not read or understand the source that article was based upon. The quote I supplied was from that source. That warming would have been only temporary. I was a bit remiss in not including the link to the original article:

Tonga eruption increases chance of temporary surface temperature anomaly above 1.5 °C - Nature Climate Change

The Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai eruption in January 2022 injected large amounts of water vapour into the atmosphere. Here, the authors show that this can cause additional warming over the next years, which increases the likelihood of exceeding 1.5 °C warming over a short time period.

www.nature.com

It says that the warming would only be temporary if it occurs. Longer term, over decades, the event would cause cooling.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cherry picking...

Yes, that is exactly what you did. The poll had two types of science deniers. The total loons that denied that there was not any warming at all, and science deniers, that denied AGW. I can understand why you cherry picked, it was your only hope.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If we assume anthropogenic climate control is real, then it is possible for unscrupulous governments to change the climate in ways that will tyrannize populations and control them.

I think you'd have to assume a lot more than merely anthropogenic climate change. You'd need to assume a level of directive control, and a much more specific and intense causal link between human action and climate change.

If a country could directly control major short term impacts on climate, this would be true.
If a country could control asteroids and use them as weapons, this would also be true.

 

[Kenny]

No it doesn't. You did not read or understand the source that article was based upon. The quote I supplied was from that source. That warming would have been only temporary. I was a bit remiss in not including the link to the original article:

Tonga eruption increases chance of temporary surface temperature anomaly above 1.5 °C - Nature Climate Change

The Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai eruption in January 2022 injected large amounts of water vapour into the atmosphere. Here, the authors show that this can cause additional warming over the next years, which increases the likelihood of exceeding 1.5 °C warming over a short time period.

www.nature.com

It says that the warming would only be temporary if it occurs. Longer term, over decades, the event would cause cooling.

But it is relatively new and we still don't know what are the results thereof of that massive influx of water into the air. And do we really know how much was actually released into the air and how many years it will take to get it out of the air.

So it remains a "possibility". Incidentally, to help you, it is the ash from volcanoes that cools the earth when released into the air. But most of the ash was kept in the ocean and that is why it heats the earth as the vapor, scientifically, creates a green house effect of heating the earth... so probably science will lean more my way than yours.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, that is exactly what you did. The poll had two types of science deniers. The total loons that denied that there was not any warming at all, and science deniers, that denied AGW. I can understand why you cherry picked, it was your only hope.

LOL, Yes... it is hard to admit you are wrong.

 

[wellwisher]

My point was challenging your assertion that I "...presume that governments seek cooperation to 'solve' problems more than they seek their own interests."



It should be assumed that governments likely are going to act in self-interest. Hopefully that will not negate the problem-solving, which is in their self-interest.



I should hope any policy is open to questioning! The dissent against it should also be open for questioning. Why has a portion of our government insisted on kicking the can down the road using climate change denialism for so long? How have they been acting in self-interest by not wanting to change the status quo?

Name me one problem the Government has solved, and then got rid of the useless bureaucracy, that solved the problem? Government creates problems so it can have an excuse to grow. The war on poverty is over 50 years old and it grows each year. They either have to be the most incompetent people on the planet, or their mission is not to solve the problem, but to milk the problem, forever. This is also about job creation and sustainability.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But it is relatively new and we still don't know what are the results thereof of that massive influx of water into the air. And do we really know how much was actually released into the air and how many years it will take to get it out of the air.

So it remains a "possibility". Incidentally, to help you, it is the ash from volcanoes that cools the earth when released into the air. But most of the ash was kept in the ocean and that is why it heats the earth as the vapor, scientifically, creates a green house effect of heating the earth... so probably science will lean more my way than yours.

No, we do know. We know about rain. We know that at best it would be temporary.

If you studied climate change at all you would hear the term "forcing". This was a reaction without any forcing behind it. There is feedback in climate change. So a sudden influx of water can bump the temperature temporarily. But that is a reaction without any forcing. Carbon dioxide causes forcing because it takes a long long time for it to get it out of the atmosphere. It sets a bare minimum amount of warming even when the air is rather dry. That warmer temperature allows more water vapor to stay in the atmosphere. A temporary increase, such as the one mentioned, is not going to last. You ignored the "Temporary" in the title. You ignored the explanation of why it was temporary in the abstract of the paper that it was based upon, Your story would not work because there are too many climate scientists all around the world that would refute it.