Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Climate Change

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #26
    I'm sure the Koch lads only mean well

    Comment


      #27
      Anton, you ought to remain open to a constructive debate. Unfortunately in the last decade or two people have become religiously entrenched into their views, approaching what is fundamentally a scientific subject with religious fervor and visceral hostility.

      Originally posted by Lang Spoon View Post
      Has she taken cash from them Koch lads or their proxies?
      I think it's fair to say that she's taken a huge financial hit, and a lot of personal aggravation (to put it mildly) from the academic establishment for going against the grain. Her stance is definitely not financially motivated, there is a lot more money on the warmist side (see prof. Richard Muller's career path at Berkeley). Smearing Curry as a Koch shill is totally baseless.

      No idea who Delingpole is, or what your point is about him, looks like another case of guilt by association.

      Michael Mann on the other hand, I do remember, we've crossed paths at our alma mater as I've minored in OR. I also had Muller for my undergrad physics class, he was a good prof.

      Another leading Berkeley figure in the field of climate science is Roger Revelle, who might have been the most influential graduate of all time, as he is credited with setting up the whole field of AGW in the late 50s. Well before my time, but he was Al Gore's mentor at Harvard. Revelle has also had a change of heart on CAGW towards the end of his career.

      Comment


        #28
        James Delingpole is the main hack at Breitbart UK. When he’s not denying climate change he’s being a racist cunt. His bs on Climate Change was too much even for the Daily Mail which has had to issue corrections on some of his worst screeds for them.

        Anyone who uses him to bolster their arguments is a dubious fucker.
        Last edited by Lang Spoon; 03-10-2018, 23:26.

        Comment


          #29
          Who benefits from the Great Climate Change Conspiracy? I can see who would benefit from shilling mistruths and denying anthropogenic climate change. And even once Respected Scientists can become vulnerable to being mouthpieces for Koch style bastards. Grand conspiracies smell like so much bullshit, whether 9/11 or an academia wide cover up on climate change.

          Comment


            #30
            Originally posted by linus View Post
            Anton, you ought to remain open to a constructive debate. Unfortunately in the last decade or two people have become religiously entrenched into their views, approaching what is fundamentally a scientific subject with religious fervor and visceral hostility.
            That's an interesting turn of phrase. There constructive debates to be had about what policy should be. There are important scientific discussions about the degree and pace of change.

            There aren't any serious debates about whether climate change is happening, nor about whether it's the biggest problem facing humanity.

            This is like saying "I wish people were less religious in their position on the brakes on a bicycle", and rather than debating whether they should have disk or rim brakes, someone thinks we shouldn't religiously hold the belief that bikes should be able to stop when the rider wants them to.

            Comment


              #31
              Anton, you ought to remain open to a constructive debate
              I am open to it. But you are deliberately misrepresentating the IPCC by suggesting that they have ignored the last 120 years of sea level data. That's not constructive.

              The original sea level predictions from 1990, which predict that we are screwed in 2100, they have been bang on thus far (i.e. up to 2018). It's like predicting the speed of a heavy ball rolling a gentle slope. If I predict that it will start off slow, gather speed and then be very fast at the bottom, people like you look at the speed after the first two seconds and say, "aha, look, how could such a slow object ever go so fast!" This is literally the level of 'constructive' debate you want to engage in. I couldn't be arsed.

              The main problem is, by polluting every climate change thread on this board, you have succeeded in shutting down any serious exchange of knowledge on the subject on OTF.

              Comment


                #32
                Originally posted by Lang Spoon View Post
                Who benefits from the Great Climate Change Conspiracy? I can see who would benefit from shilling mistruths and denying anthropogenic climate change. And even once Respected Scientists can become vulnerable to being mouthpieces for Koch style bastards. Grand conspiracies smell like so much bullshit, whether 9/11 or an academia wide cover up on climate change.
                You see LS, the roots of climate change denialism are to be found in the murky world of extreme libertarians. The notion that agitates them is that of a coordinated, global solution and that is the very essence of evil to them. Add to them the usual rw nutjobs who think the UN is about to take over the world and herald a One World socialist government and voila...The great climate change conspiracy, to them, is that AGW will be used to conquer the world by sinister commie types. Obviously, to them, the whole of academia is onto it because they share the same socialist dream.

                Interestingly, the conspiracy wingnuts had a very different take on AGW back in the 90's, the conspiracy they saw was one of denial by government because it would scare people into action. It was a popular point of view on places like Disinfo.com.

                Comment


                  #33
                  AGW?

                  Comment


                    #34
                    Originally posted by Gangster Octopus View Post
                    AGW?
                    Anthropogenic Global Warming

                    Comment


                      #35
                      Speaking of.

                      Comment


                        #36

                        Comment


                          #37
                          The future generations are going to be screwed

                          Populations continuing to rise, energy consumption is following that, food production will have to increase and that will involve even more energy intensive farming with associated pollution

                          If you want to get depressed (or looking for a reason to drink excessively), the World Business Council for Sustainable Development report is worth a read

                          https://www.gwp.org/globalassets/glo...wbcsd-2014.pdf

                          Comment


                            #38
                            IPCC Report out.

                            We are completely fucked. Anti-environmentalist shitheads either in power or likely to gain power everywhere, it seems no one gives a shit or is an outright liar/denier/sceptic/"just asking questions", so long and thanks for all the fish.

                            Comment


                              #39
                              Meanwhile, the UK Government, having announced lofty "Road to Zero" plans to pivot to electrification of transport, been defeated multiple times in Court on the inadequacy of its air pollution plans and in the face of the IPCC Report, decides to cut the EV grants by £1k for full EVs and completely for PHEVs.

                              Comment


                                #40
                                Originally posted by Eggchaser View Post
                                IPCC Report out.

                                We are completely fucked. Anti-environmentalist shitheads either in power or likely to gain power everywhere, it seems no one gives a shit or is an outright liar/denier/sceptic/"just asking questions", so long and thanks for all the fish.
                                The only good spin I can put on it is that solar power is rapidly become cheaper and cheaper.

                                But these people in power might subsidise the oil industry to compensate.

                                Comment


                                  #41
                                  Ah, they're not subsidies, they're tax breaks. It's only the "green" industry that gets an unfair leg up from the powers that be

                                  Comment


                                    #42
                                    Ah, that's right.

                                    Comment


                                      #43
                                      As well as ceasing CO2 emissions, there is going to have to be a very concerted effort to geoengineer our way out of this (due to the CO2 already in the atmosphere). This would have to include CO2 removal and possibly even somehow reducing solar insolation reaching the Earth.

                                      Geoengineering is a dirty word for many climate scientists (because it can be used as an excuse for not ceasing CO2 emissions), but it has to be on the table now.

                                      Comment


                                        #44
                                        As Noam Chomsky said, the Republican party is "the most dangerous organisation in human history".

                                        Comment


                                          #45
                                          Isn't Geoengineering a dirty word because we have fuck all idea how to control feedback mechanisms? So if we massively seed clouds, say, to prevent insolation, we have no idea what other things we're going to trigger. If we start sequestering compressed CO2 in empty oil wells, same question... Adding extra potentially uncontrolled stuff in the atmosphere on top of the current uncontrolled stuff may create extra risks.

                                          Comment


                                            #46
                                            There's that as well. If you add aerosols to the atmosphere, you can cool things down, but the plants won't be very happy due to less sunlight, which might result in food shortages.

                                            If the world spent as much on removing CO2 from the atmosphere as it does on, for example, weapons, it might be possible to come up with a solution. You could say the same about other things as well though, such as diseases, poverty, etc.

                                            Future palaeontologists will think, shit species, deserved to go extinct.

                                            Comment


                                              #47

                                              Comment


                                                #48
                                                https://twitter.com/edyong209/status/1051928958336417793

                                                Comment


                                                  #49
                                                  Wow! At first glance that looks remarkably civilised.

                                                  Comment


                                                    #50
                                                    If you haven't watched 15 year old Greta Thunberg address the Katowice conference you really should.

                                                    https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1073701026660843520

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X