CO2 Alarmism

[Mock Turtle]

I work in the steel industry.

Irrelevant.

Typical leftist tactic. Attack the messenger.

Deal with cold hard facts:

What the Stations Say

Hardly attacking, given that one might be rather bold to put one's own opinion, even if somewhat knowledgeable, against those of the vast majority of relevant scientists. But then perhaps I have more sense than you - that is attacking.

And what has politics to do with it - apart from apparently informing your beliefs.

 

[Revoltingest]

You lied about the oil industry.

I claimed nothing about the oil industry.
Are you paying attention?
Please be civil.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Sorry. Pointless thread.
Say Goodnight Gracie.

 

[exchemist]

What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.

Richard Lindzen -MIT

The guy is 82. Almost nobody in the relevant field agrees with him. That ship has sailed, long since.

 

[Secret Chief]

Humanity will get through this….but what about the biodiversity of our world?

...yes, and weirdly....it seems like that the massive ongoing denudation (caused by humans) of the biosphere is going to have a teensy-weensy effect upon humans.

 

[exchemist]

Is Big Oil claiming no climate change still?

Nope.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope.

Then it seems that LIndzen is just an aging kook
desperately defending a claim he once made, &
now sticks to, despite overwhelming evidence to
the contrary.

 

[ChristineM]

No one claims that.

Straw dogs are a waste of time. Why bother?

Facts

in 1995, he [Richard Lindzen] charged “oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services,”

His trip to testify before Senate in 1991 was paid for by Western Fuels.

His speech “Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus” was underwritten by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

 

[PureX]

From wiki ...

"The Guardian reported in June 2016 that Lindzen has been a beneficiary of Peabody Energy, a coal company that has funded multiple groups contesting the climate consensus."

"Lindzen has been called a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues. Lindzen's graduate students describe him as "fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak."

The characterization of Lindzen as a contrarian has been reinforced by reports that he claims that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking.[87][88] When asked about this during an interview as part of an Australian Broadcasting Corporation documentary, Lindzen said that while "the case for second-hand tobacco is not very good ... the World Health Organization also said that” (referencing a 1998 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), on the other hand "With first-hand smoke it's a more interesting issue ... The case for lung cancer is very good but it also ignores the fact that there are differences in people's susceptibilities which the Japanese studies have pointed to." Again, when asked to clarify his position by a climate skeptic blogger, Lindzen wrote, "there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order ... the much, much weaker case against second hand smoke [is] also being treated as dogma."
​

I have a long time friend who is a well known and "fiercely intelligent" life-long "contrarian". And he has had his moments of brilliant observations over the years, but within a long history being mostly an annoying crank. He is unable to tell the difference between these because he is driven by a very deep-seated psychological need for a "hidden" reality from which we are all being fooled, and/or are fooling ourselves, and that only he is able to recognize.

He suffered a peculiar form of child abuse that comprised a lot of subtle intellectual "gaslighting" by his professor father and his catastrophizing mother that he has never been able to get over, or get past. I love the guy, and he has his moments of insight, but mostly he's just an annoying crank. And mostly he's just wrong about these hidden realities.

 

[Brickjectivity]

CO2 levels lag temperature increase historically, they do not lead. This means that CO2 is not causing the warming.

That chart looks like overlap, not lag.

 

[exchemist]

From wiki ...

"The Guardian reported in June 2016 that Lindzen has been a beneficiary of Peabody Energy, a coal company that has funded multiple groups contesting the climate consensus."

"Lindzen has been called a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues. Lindzen's graduate students describe him as "fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak."

The characterization of Lindzen as a contrarian has been reinforced by reports that he claims that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking.[87][88] When asked about this during an interview as part of an Australian Broadcasting Corporation documentary, Lindzen said that while "the case for second-hand tobacco is not very good ... the World Health Organization also said that” (referencing a 1998 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), on the other hand "With first-hand smoke it's a more interesting issue ... The case for lung cancer is very good but it also ignores the fact that there are differences in people's susceptibilities which the Japanese studies have pointed to." Again, when asked to clarify his position by a climate skeptic blogger, Lindzen wrote, "there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order ... the much, much weaker case against second hand smoke [is] also being treated as dogma."
​

I have a long time friend who is a well known and life-long "contrarian". And he has had his moments of brilliant observation over the years, but within a long history being mostly an annoying crank. He has been unable to tell the difference between these because he is driven by a very deep-seated psychological need for a "hidden" reality from which we are all being fooled, and/or are fooling ourselves, and that only he is able to recognize this.

He suffered a peculiar form of child abuse that comprised a lot of subtle intellectual "gaslighting" by his professor father and his catastrophizing mother that he has never been able to get over, or get past. I love the guy, and he has his moments of insight, but mostly he's just an annoying crank. And mostly he's just wrong about these hidden realities.

Yes I think this is insightful. Contrarians are useful, as they can challenge groupthink and sharpen sloppy arguments. But more than not they are wrong.

In the case of climate change science, this has been challenged more vigorously than just about any theory of science, because of the uncomfortable implications it has for the way we live and the vested interests in showing it to be false. So we don't really need this octogenarian's opinion much.

 

[exchemist]

View attachment 62033


CO2 levels lag temperature increase historically, they do not lead. This means that CO2 is not causing the warming.

Wrong.

Here is the explanation: CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

 

[wellwisher]

Yes I think this is insightful. Contrarians are useful, as they can challenge groupthink and sharpen sloppy arguments. But more than not they are wrong.

In the case of climate change science, this has been challenged more vigorously than just about any theory of science, because of the uncomfortable implications it has for the way we live and the vested interests in showing it to be false. So we don't really need this octogenarian's opinion much.

The main problem with the science of climate change is connected to manmade climate change. Even if we assume this was true, this is a singular event in the history of the earth. At no other time have humans caused this problem. In essence it very similar to one science team creating cold fusion in the lab. We are supposed to take their word, without a second verifying example, to show this type of event is even possible. Science is ignoring its own philosophy. One unique event is not sufficient to satisfy the philosophy of science.

On the other hand, geological evidence can show that the earth itself can cause climate change. This mechanism has more than one singular event. It fully satisfies the philosophy of science, yet this is being played down by science, in favor of that odd ball singular manmade event that has not been proven, as possible, by a second and maybe even third manmade event. Science is cheating its own philosophy. Why the loophole?

 

[KW]

No. It doesn’t mean that “CO2 is not causing the warming”. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011300/a011362/G2013-077_AACS_CO2_lag_youtube_hq.mov

Yes it does with regard to historical temperature changes. This also means that at the end of each trend CO2 was rising while temperatures fell. Look at the charts.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The main problem with the science of climate change is connected to manmade climate change. Even if we assume this was true, this is a singular event in the history of the earth. At no other time have humans caused this problem. In essence it very similar to one science team creating cold fusion in the lab. We are supposed to take their word, without a second verifying example, to show this type of event is even possible. Science is ignoring its own philosophy. One unique event is not sufficient to satisfy the philosophy of science.

On the other hand, geological evidence can show that the earth itself can cause climate change. This mechanism has more than one singular event. It fully satisfies the philosophy of science, yet this is being played down by science, in favor of that odd ball singular manmade event that has not been proven, as possible, by a second and maybe even third manmade event. Science is cheating its own philosophy. Why the loophole?

There's no loophole. We understand the mechanisms behind fossil fuel pollution and the greenhouse effect, as well as other human activity like deforestation and urbanization.

 

[Yazata]

What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.

Richard Lindzen -MIT

I have no way of knowing the future, but I suspect that's probably true.

What might in better circumstances have been an intelligent scientific issue has somehow been co-opted into being a political and moral cause. It's become apocalyptic, intolerant of any sort of disagreement, skepticism or doubt, and serves as the rhetorical engine for driving the kind of utopian social change that until around 1990 were supposedly justified by Marxism.

I'm exceedingly skeptical about the whole thing.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Here are what the rural weather stations say worldwide.

Much different than the propaganda:

What the Stations Say

John Daly wasn't a climate scientist as far as I can see: John Lawrence Daly - Wikipedia

The data from the linked website appears outdated.

 

[Kooky]

@KW Don't worry, thanks to the ceaseless lobbying efforts of the fossil fuel industry, nobody will do anything substantial to combat climate change anyway!

 

[wellwisher]

Yes it does with regard to historical temperature changes. This also means that at the end of each trend CO2 was rising while temperatures fell. Look at the charts.

This makes sense since as the it gets colder, plants are not able to fix CO2 at the same rate. Instead, there will be more plant rot via soil bacteria breaking down the plant material to CO2; composting.

 

[exchemist]

Yes it does with regard to historical temperature changes. This also means that at the end of each trend CO2 was rising while temperatures fell. Look at the charts.

This is irrelevant.

As the attached article points out, the fact that a house can heat up when the central heating is off does not mean that the central heating does not work.

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming | New Scientist

You are propagating a myth here that is an old chestnut. People that follow the science of climate change can see you coming a mile off.