quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/heal...15f5a6e6389a51&ei=42

It's likely past the point where anything we do will make any difference in our lifetimes, and fuck the kids, who cares about them?

We've got money to make today.

I wonder if his timing is anything to do with this report recently released?

https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155...sHmgGW1yNbF_WNuKXgas

All evidence resulting from the analyses of the longest available modern time series of atmospheric concentration of [CO2] at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, along with that of globally averaged T, suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. This direction of causality holds for the entire period covered by the observations (more than 60 years).
Seasonality, as reflected in different phases of [CO2] time series at different latitudes, does not play any role in potential causality, as confirmed by replacing the Mauna Loa [CO2] time series with that in South Pole.
The unidirectional

quote:

unidirectional

1
: involving, functioning, moving, or responsive in a single direction
a unidirectional microphone
2
: not subject to change or reversal of direction

Hummm

Denial is unidirectional.

What are you saying ME?

I sadly agree with this:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

It's likely past the point where anything we do will make any difference in our lifetimes, and fuck the kids, who cares about them?

We've got money to make today.

The sad thing is where there is no will whatsoever, due to denial of the problem, and a concerted stalemate resulting, the inevitable consequence is for it to play out.

After all, those causing the problem don't have any worry. They will be Raptured in the sky forever.

Still none the wiser. I dont see how either reply has anything to do with the article I linked too. Other than a random meaningless quote

I'm not buying the premise of your article, shanks.

It's been supposedly well established the CO2 has a direct impact on climate change.

Claims and disinformation are rampant, for purpose.

It's gonna take general consensus of climate scientist to convince me of any merit in your linked article.

The wording alone in your abstract is enough to cross eyes.

ME, thats an abstract from a submission from the Imperial collage of london. Leading advisors on climate change.

https://www.fws.gov/refuge/midway-atoll

I'll be encouraging my daughter and her family to take a job here.

It will be under water Scott

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
https://www.fws.gov/refuge/midway-atoll

I'll be encouraging my daughter and her family to take a job here.

One of the key factors that kept me from re-enlisting was the iron-clad certainty that after a year in CONUS I was destined for a tour at Johnston Atoll, south of Midway, burning nerve agent. Somehow, in my youth, that didn't seem all that attractive.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
It will be under water Scott

Third blizzard warning this week here.

I'll reserve my pessimism regarding Midway for another decade or so.

Yep thats understandable. Im cautious too.

What I find interesting about the submission I linked too, is the idea that the warming is the cause of the carbon, not the other way around. It doesn't mean we are not suffering climate change but it potentially means it is part of a natural event.

That ME reacted how he did gives a view of those who promote the science when it suits them. And provides some insight into what we can expect should this paper go further.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Yep thats understandable. Im cautious too.

What I find interesting about the submission I linked too, is the idea that the warming is the cause of the carbon, not the other way around. It doesn't mean we are not suffering climate change but it potentially means it is part of a natural event.

That ME reacted how he did gives a view of those who promote the science when it suits them. And provides some insight into what we can expect should this paper go further.

If the temperature is rising, causing an increase in carbon dioxide, what is causing the temperature increase?

It's not increased solar output:

Link

I don't know. I guess if this paper proves correct, that would be the logical next step to look at.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
ME, thats an abstract from a submission from the Imperial collage of london. Leading advisors on climate change.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
That ME reacted how he did gives a view of those who promote the science when it suits them. And provides some insight into what we can expect should this paper go further.

I seldom read scientific abstracts. I figure they don't call them abstract for nothing.

I read the one you quoted three times and still didn't understand it.

That's my problem, of course, but they could have said it plainly.

I'm not faulting their findings, whatever they are, because I don't know what they are.

They should get Attenborough to decipher for them.

I think they are saying that CO2 is both cause and effect. Methane is too. Warming releases stored methane especially in the arctic.

The one difference between the current climatological fluctuation, and all those previous, is the existence of eight billion people on the planet. I don't think there is a lot of question as to whether or not human activity has an effect on the global environment. The question is whether or not any change, sufficient to make any real difference, is possible; just due to inertia.
It is certain that stupid ideas, like carbon taxes and carbon credits, will have no effect whatsoever. We have spent the last 150 years building infrastructure which is not only predicated on continuing fossil fuel use, but encourages it. This continues unabated.
Why, if you want to curtail the use of fossil fuels, with the inevitable CO2 production, would you spend billions to improve infrastructure to facilitate the movement of traffic? Along with this, why would you subsidize the production of ethanol, shown to be a net loser in energy production and fossil fuel use, and mandate it's use? Why would you enable or encourage the manufacture of goods in countries with much worse emissions production, along with the required use of fuel to transport materials and manufactured goods to their respective markets?
David Attenborough ( for whom I have great respect) can proclaim all he wants, but it is only the individual who can make any change. If you commute 50 miles to work every day, make a change. If you are not willing to do that, shut up. If you live in a 2500sq. ft. plus house, and have to either heat it or cool it, downsize and use less energy, or just shut up.
How likely is it, given the total cost in energy, the loss of forest cover (in some cases), and habitat destruction, that hydroelectric mega-projects are really energy efficient? Especially if that energy is being distributed and used to charge electric vehicles. There are many areas where low impact, run of the river, generating stations were eliminated in favor of mega projects and long distance transmission of power.
"How dare you!", snarls Greta, just before hopping on a jet. She is just another example of the hypocrisy shown by so many, regardless of political affiliation. Greta Thunberg, Al Gore, David Suzuki, Justin Trudeau, all do a great job of talking the talk while making no attempt to walk the walk.
Recently, I travelled from my home in British Columbia, to my Daughter's home in Florida, to visit her and her family. This year, instead of driving my fuel guzzling 1 ton Ram, pulling the travel trailer, I drove the thriftier Mazda CX-5 and camped in a tent. I did my part! By taking the trip, I saved a month where I didn't have to heat my 900 sq. ft. house. Would I have done more to combat climate change by staying home and paying a lot of carbon tax on the fuel I could have burned to heat the house? I don't know, but Justin Trudeau seems to think so. Regards, Bill

quote:

the existence of eight billion people on the planet.

Earth is just a big pasture. Every rancher on earth worth his salt knows what happens when you overstock a pasture.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Yep thats understandable. Im cautious too.

What I find interesting about the submission I linked too, is the idea that the warming is the cause of the carbon, not the other way around. It doesn't mean we are not suffering climate change but it potentially means it is part of a natural event.

That ME reacted how he did gives a view of those who promote the science when it suits them. And provides some insight into what we can expect should this paper go further.

If the temperature is rising, causing an increase in carbon dioxide, what is causing the temperature increase?

It's not increased solar output:

Link

I dunno. Temperature is up on the surface of Mars, as well. Atmosphere is mostly CO2 but not much of it...

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
ME, thats an abstract from a submission from the Imperial collage of london. Leading advisors on climate change.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
That ME reacted how he did gives a view of those who promote the science when it suits them. And provides some insight into what we can expect should this paper go further.

I seldom read scientific abstracts. I figure they don't call them abstract for nothing.

I read the one you quoted three times and still didn't understand it.

That's my problem, of course, but they could have said it plainly.

I'm not faulting their findings, whatever they are, because I don't know what they are.

They should get Attenborough to decipher for them.

I think they are saying that CO2 is both cause and effect. Methane is too. Warming releases stored methane especially in the arctic.

Im actually not surprised at your defensiveness.

Ill write it simply for you.

All evidence resulting from the analyses of the longest available modern time series of atmospheric concentration of [CO2] at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, along with that of globally averaged T, suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. This direction of causality holds for the entire period covered by the observations (more than 60 years).
Seasonality, as reflected in different phases of [CO2] time series at different latitudes, does not play any role in potential causality, as confirmed by replacing the Mauna Loa [CO2] time series with that in South Pole.
The unidirectional

All evidence from the analysis of the longest running set of modern data at one site. As well as the globally averaged temperature, suggests a one directional link with temperature as the cause and carbon dioxide levels as the effect.
This cause and effect direction holds correct over the entire time period and holds correct both close too the equator and near the south pole, meaning its not a seasonal effect.

he has only been saying this same shit for the last 10-15 minutes of his TV shows for the last 20 years now.

it's as stupid as the bronze age being broke down into the dark ages because of climate change.
yeah,, that's the 'new' theory.
and all humanity died during that time frame.
fuck me,, buncha morons.

What a load of bullshit!

Humans have as control over the environment as voters have over politicians!

ONE BIG FAT ZERO!

The world has been changing, continuously, for millions of years.

Now someone is making money out of this agenda!

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

the existence of eight billion people on the planet.

Earth is just a big pasture. Every rancher on earth worth his salt knows what happens when you overstock a pasture.

The simple fact is that the earth cannot sustain the growth that post 19th century humans have incurred…indefinitely. A correction is built into our future. It’s unraveling is all that is yet to be witnessed. For in some form or fashion…it will and boil things down to a new sustainable level.

To think that life is going to merrily skip along as it has for the last century forever is being blindly obtuse.

quote:

Originally posted by Lamar:
he has only been saying this same shit for the last 10-15 minutes of his TV shows for the last 20 years now.

fuck me,, buncha morons.

And you have been saying your same shit for at least 20 years.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I wonder if his timing is anything to do with this report recently released?

https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155...sHmgGW1yNbF_WNuKXgas

All evidence resulting from the analyses of the longest available modern time series of atmospheric concentration of [CO2] at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, along with that of globally averaged T, suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. This direction of causality holds for the entire period covered by the observations (more than 60 years).
Seasonality, as reflected in different phases of [CO2] time series at different latitudes, does not play any role in potential causality, as confirmed by replacing the Mauna Loa [CO2] time series with that in South Pole.
The unidirectional

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

unidirectional

1
: involving, functioning, moving, or responsive in a single direction
a unidirectional microphone
2
: not subject to change or reversal of direction

Hummm

Denial is unidirectional.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I'm not buying the premise of your article, shanks.

It's been supposedly well established the CO2 has a direct impact on climate change.

Claims and disinformation are rampant, for purpose.

It's gonna take general consensus of climate scientist to convince me of any merit in your linked article.

The wording alone in your abstract is enough to cross eyes.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
ME, thats an abstract from a submission from the Imperial collage of london. Leading advisors on climate change.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Yep thats understandable. Im cautious too.

What I find interesting about the submission I linked too, is the idea that the warming is the cause of the carbon, not the other way around. It doesn't mean we are not suffering climate change but it potentially means it is part of a natural event.

That ME reacted how he did gives a view of those who promote the science when it suits them. And provides some insight into what we can expect should this paper go further.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
ME, thats an abstract from a submission from the Imperial collage of london. Leading advisors on climate change.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
That ME reacted how he did gives a view of those who promote the science when it suits them. And provides some insight into what we can expect should this paper go further.

I seldom read scientific abstracts. I figure they don't call them abstract for nothing.

I read the one you quoted three times and still didn't understand it.

That's my problem, of course, but they could have said it plainly.

I'm not faulting their findings, whatever they are, because I don't know what they are.

They should get Attenborough to decipher for them.

I think they are saying that CO2 is both cause and effect. Methane is too. Warming releases stored methane especially in the arctic.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

Im actually not surprised at your defensiveness.

Ill write it simply for you.

All evidence resulting from the analyses of the longest available modern time series of atmospheric concentration of [CO2] at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, along with that of globally averaged T, suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. This direction of causality holds for the entire period covered by the observations (more than 60 years).
Seasonality, as reflected in different phases of [CO2] time series at different latitudes, does not play any role in potential causality, as confirmed by replacing the Mauna Loa [CO2] time series with that in South Pole.
The unidirectional

All evidence from the analysis of the longest running set of modern data at one site. As well as the globally averaged temperature, suggests a one directional link with temperature as the cause and carbon dioxide levels as the effect.
This cause and effect direction holds correct over the entire time period and holds correct both close too the equator and near the south pole, meaning its not a seasonal effect.

=================================================

BTW, I did not see where the linked article submission came from the Imperial collage of London. It seems very thorough, Also I did not see where it is peer reviewed.

From the article linked: https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155...sHmgGW1yNbF_WNuKXgas

Clearly, the results […] suggest a (mono-directional) potentially causal system with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. Hence the common perception that increasing [CO2] causes increased T can be excluded as it violates the necessary condition for this causality direction.

[…] in other words, it is the increase of temperature that caused increased CO2 concentration. Though this conclusion may sound counterintuitive at first glance, because it contradicts common perception […], in fact it is reasonable. The temperature increase began at the end of the Little Ice Period, in the early nineteenth century, when human CO2 emissions were negligible […].

=================================================

As I understand it, CO2 is BOTH cause and effect, something that's accepted as fact. IOW, it's not unidirectional. Methane is another example.

https://www.newswise.com/factc...2%20being%20released.

10-Jun-2022 2:30 PM EDT, by Newswise

Fact Check By: Craig Jones, Newswise

Truthfulness: Mostly False

Claim:
Dramatic new findings from two climate science professors suggest that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere follows a rise in temperature rather than coming before it and causing it, throwing into doubt the whole of the current theory of human-driven global warming.
Claim Publisher and Date: The Daily Sceptic on 2022-06-10

=================================================================

So, basically I called out your initial post based mostly on intuition, and what little I knew, remembered, from previous reading.

Then I was forced to affirm my view due to your criticism.

There are illnumerable pseudo-science and drastic amounts of dis/misinformation out there. And lies. Deniers latch onto them all,

There are a few sources which are reliable. Here's a sample:

https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1

Two sources in particular:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital...20than%20200%20years.

https://www.un.org/en/climatec...hd_sx9xoC7SoQAvD_BwE

===================================================================

"Also, gotta love this quote from Deltoid in answer to the CO2 lag argument": 'See also my forthcoming paper: Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them '.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

https://youtu.be/8nrvrkVBt24?si=iEaQMee5t-5jbTJf

ME, MY subsequent posts have not been about climate change. They are about your attitude and the disdain you apply to any hint of disagreement.

Go back and find one sentence from me that makes a claim against any level of anthropomorphic Climate change. Or a claim that the overall situation might not be more complex.

All I posted was a reason why Sir David might be choosing that moment to double down. And also you jumped straight too the BS mode before stopping to realise that every bit of science information, whether it suits your viewpoint or not, is actually building a better understanding of the overall picture.

Your responses are more an indicator of your character and disdain for others than anything else. I mean for fucks sake, choosing to blame the entire situation on christianity is a problem in itself.

I didn't blame Christianity for the entire situation. But, IMO, Christianity is to blame for at least half the denial of climate science. That's nothing new. They have always conflicted in several ways with science. They even tried to rationalize/reconcile it a few times, such as Christian Science.

Sir David is not likely to be choosing a pseudo-science study and report as a "moment" to double-down. After all, your link seems to not be the only one of such contrary "science" going back a while, causing the need from real scientist to debunk it, again then again.

Maybe you didn't directly claim but by posting such article as though legit, you indirectly claimed.

It was determined long before the so-called "studies" you posted that a warming climate releases stored CO2, methane, etc., from sea and land.

If such articles/studies actually contributed to a better overall picture, then I would not be criticizing them.

They don't re-invent the wheel. They twist them.

As best I can determine, the article is one of several, over several years, which is part of the denier narratives. At least if not intended that way, the deniers latch onto the notion specifically to cause doubt or affirmation to say that anthropomorphic Climate change science is wrong. That's not adding to the body of science knowledge. It's in direct conflict with it - AND one may presume it's with intent.

Now, this post is for the deniers. I hope you enjoy.

The stone age didn't end because of a shortage of stone. It ended because we found something better" Al Gore - (who attributed it to an oil minister).

https://youtu.be/79Cg8JCXsd4?si=TzmOoKWPzwyIrYWB

ME,

This is worth reading from the British royal society on this paper and the issue.



The remaining real-world case study led to an important side product of the current research. This is the surprising finding that, while in general, the causal relationship of atmospheric T and CO2 concentration, as obtained by proxy data, appears to be of HOE type with principal direction

OK for some reason It wont let me post the whole conclusion, you will have too read through it yourself but I think its justifiably good science when addressed by such a society. and thier final paragraph.



We believe that counterintuitive results, such as those about the causal link between temperature and CO2 concentration conveyed in this paper, can indeed open up avenues of research. However, these avenues of research might not resolve the issue in a way compatible with what intuition dictates. In the history of science, such avenues were often created when established ideas were overturned by new findings.

https://royalsocietypublishing...fPz_sq6lq9LYFen4ZacM

Scientific American article.
If you say science is right, you are wrong.
by Naomi Oreskes
This is Kabob right to the capital K.

There must be a lot of money available for such research. Scientists need a paycheck too. Controversy pays, don't you agree?

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Scientific American article.
If you say science is right, you are wrong.
by Naomi Oreskes
This is Kabob right to the capital K.

In a way, you have complimented me, although that's not your intent.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/516709308

Naomi Oreskes: Why Should We Believe In Science?

(excerpt)

"If science is what scientists say it is, then isn't that just an appeal to authority? And weren't we all taught in school that the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy? Well, here's the paradox of modern science that actually scientist is the appeal to authority. But it's not the authority of the individual no matter how smart that individual is like Plato or Socrates or Einstein. It's the authority of the collective community. You can think of it as a kind of wisdom of the crowd, but a very special kind of crowd. The collective knowledge, the collective work of all of the scientists who have worked on a particular problem."

================================================

We have "discussed" this before. You don't listen.

We talked about the distinctions of "belief" and "faith", leap of faith, etc.

The word I use is "trust" when it comes to science, always with an appropriate amount of skepticism.

Belief and faith may or may not be contingent on facts and evidence. Trust is earned primarily from longstanding reliance on facts and evidence and testing of premise to reach a tentative conclusion, subject to revision if new information becomes available.

Maybe those articles and findings in Shank's links qualify as "science", maybe not. It's not up to me to figure that out. But the conclusions seem contrary, and I confirmed that skepticism by fact checking.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
There must be a lot of money available for such research. Scientists need a paycheck too. Controversy pays, don't you agree?

I have no idea. I can only go off of what the paper states, and in this case there was no external funding for this research. As well all data is available for free.

IN all honesty, I feel that of more interest, too me anyway, is where they suggest the carbon is coming from and I feel that in relation too the anthropomorphic elements, Should we continue to try and remove at least that that we have created.

quote:

I feel that in relation too the anthropomorphic elements, Should we continue to try and remove at least that that we have created.

And should we continue to try to stop producing more?

Except Kabob, just as Naomi says, you are only skeptical when it goes against your firm belief. Whether your firm belief can be wrong, you will not see it.

ME is totally non-persuadable from his belief…I mean totally.

I have argued with him countless times from a basis of fact and you can’t budge him. He is the most steadfast in his beliefs of any poster here.

Hence the reason I rarely engage anymore.

quote:

And you have been saying your same shit for at least 20 years.

and the exact same nuthin has happened in those 20 years.

sept some retard pops up every now and then, flies around in his wifes airplane dumping 80 tons of carbon all over the planet, all the while loudly telling us how we are killing the planet with carbon.

TB40, LEDVM, I agree. But the sad thing is from other past threads, I know I also agree with ME on some aspects. Its just he hasn't allowed us to get too that conversation. Instead its all been about his beliefs.

I have sat here and deleted a number of replies because that fact makes me frustrated and angry. But i deleted them because its Christmas and I dont really want to be arguing with people like that today.
I thought the papers I linked too were interesting and gave some hope for the future. They give me some hope anyway.

I always know someone is talking bullshit when it is supposed to affect all humanity!