On September 29, 2019 at 18:10, djy said...
First I am not the IPCC or work for them, you have to stop fighting them and bring the discussion to DJY and Anthony.
The whole issue of climate change is how the IPCC is using 'science' to promote a preferred global political agenda. Regardless of whether one believes their science to be legitimate or flawed, one cannot separate it from the argument.
On October 5, 2019 at 14:06, Anthony said...
Regardless of whether one believes their science to be legitimate or flawed, one cannot separate it from the argument.
there is an expression, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Some will look at the clock and say "it says 11:55, so that must be the time", others will look at the clock and say "it says 11:55 and since it is usually wrong it must be wrong again and so it is not 11:55". IMHOP if you have an issue with the broken clock look at a different clock that is not broken and it will be better able to tell you what time it really is.
I'm not sure how your expression applies to your original comment, but if I were to use it I see IPCC science as the broken clock and sceptic science telling me what the time really is.
On September 29, 2019 at 18:10, djy said...
Second you say "two imperatives of tackling world poverty and hunger;" I don’t understand how that makes them the bad guys, those sound like good goals to me.
I've made no claim about the UN's goals; they are indeed entirely desirable. It is, however, ridiculous to promote a course of action that will not only not solve those issues, it will make life worse for many millions more.
On October 5, 2019 at 14:06, Anthony said...
I've made no claim about the UN's goals; they are indeed entirely desirable. It is, however, ridiculous to promote a course of action that will not only not solve those issues, it will make life worse for many millions more.
But that is exactly the point, your comments have an axiomatic contradiction in them. it is ridiculous if they are trying to pull a fast one (help the poor and hungry by complaining about a made up global warming issue) it is not ridiculous if
a) they are not trying to help the poor and hungry or
b) they (rightly or wrongly) believe GW is a real issue.
The IPCC is political organisation which assesses climate change science and issues reports upon it on behalf of the UN. Being political it seeks evidence to support a narrative and ignores that which does not. The concern of sceptic scientists is that political science (their willingness to overlook outrageous behaviour and bad science at the expense of alternative, less frightening scenarios) is overriding the scientific method. In short, that genuine understanding is being sacrificed for a political agenda.
1There are two issues at play here:
1). If we cannot trust the IPCC/UN on the science, how can we trust them on the politics?
2). The solutions they wish to employ will not only not help the existing poor, but exacerbate the hardship already being suffered by the poor of those 'richer' nations expected to make the sacrifices.
2 – 4 As we have already seen in France, the imposition of a simple climate change levy on fuel has brought both violent protest and suppression. In this regard, the climate catastrophe will become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Not through climate change itself, but through the policies being employed to supposedly combat it.
On October 5, 2019 at 14:06, Anthony said...
Then, I fear, one has no understanding of leftist ideology and its desire for control.
please explain.
If one is unable to recognise the principle of it being wrong to shout fire when there isn't one, it would be pointless to expanding the discussion into the motivation of those shouting fire.
Some of the provided links offer clues. You just have to read them.
On October 5, 2019 at 14:06, Anthony said...
As I said, the IPCC is a political organisation. It is not their role to be dispassionate about the evidence of climate change; they merely seek that which supports their cause. It is they who are turning a blind eye.
but you said earlier that it does not support their cause
Where?
On October 5, 2019 at 14:06, Anthony said...
Uncertainty is the whole issue. As I pointed out, your 'stable' climate has undergone radical change in the past without any help from CO2. One must also note that in a naturally warming world, atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase due to planetary out-gassing.
but so are mass extinctions, destruction of quality of life, famine and plagues.
And your point is?
On October 5, 2019 at 14:06, Anthony said...
"Yes, the average global temperature has risen. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Yes, global atmospheric CO2 content has increased. Yes, there's likely an anthropogenic component to that increase."
However, there is no clear understanding of the size of the presumed anthropogenic component, nor is there any clear understanding of the level surface heating which can be attributed to it.
agree and that was the point I made earlier on I don't think it is 100% man made and I don't think we can ever say it is x% man made and y% natural. But that some of it is man-made makes a huge difference IMHO. Let me put it this way, my friend’s house that got flooded was at the outer reach of the flooding, his house has a few steps in front, if there was just a bit more water his first floor would have been ruined as well and if there was just a bit less water his house would have been spared, it is not an all or nothing thing but a matter of degrees and if we add to those degrees we are the ones making it worst.
Well I think that rather depends upon one's interpretation of worse. Again I don't mean to be crass, but I don't see your friend's flooding issues being justification for spending trillions and impoverishing entire countries on 'combating' what could be a non-issue. Indeed, an enhanced level of atmospheric CO
2 could just as easily be seen a positive boon.
5 & 6 Adaption to change would be a more pragmatic solution.
On October 5, 2019 at 14:06, Anthony said...
And if CO2 isn't the problem the IPCC would have us believe it is, what do you propose we do
fight it anyways because it is part of the problem, you agreed to it several words earlier in this exact post
The following is the whole exchange. Please advise me on what I'm supposed to have agreed with.
On September 29, 2019 at 18:10, djy said...
But there is. All the evidence sais the same thing, it is a matter of interpretation As to how much is man made and how much is natural. The issue I have is does it really matter ? like I said before if it is all man made then we can more easily deal with it, the more it is natural the more we need to fight nature (which should be harder).
The whole rationale for picking on CO2 is that it's a global phenomenon requiring a global response: meat and drink for an organisation wanting global political change. The evidence that CO2 is the problem it's claimed to be, though, is far from conclusive – hence all the shenanigans about polar bear extinction, polar ice cap collapse, accelerating sea-level rise, increased wildfires, increased weather event severity, the denigration of those who disagree, threats to the livelihoods of those who dare to do so, the shameless use of a credulous teenager etc. etc.
And if CO2 isn't the problem the IPCC would have us believe it is, what do you propose we do – modify the ocean and air currents, change our orbital trajectory, put a large UV filter between us and the sun? Sorry, but the idea of combating nature, in this regard, is even more absurd than trying to restrict/reduce CO2 emissions.
On October 5, 2019 at 14:06, Anthony said...
modify the ocean and air currents, change our orbital trajectory, put a large UV filter between us and the sun? Sorry, but the idea of combating nature, in this regard, is even more absurd than trying to restrict/reduce CO2 emissions.
why is it straw man with you did I say any of that absurd stuff. We have been reshaping and changing the world for thousands of years, from waterways being artificially routed for irrigation and transportations to the Netherlands where at this point 1/3 the country is technically below sea level.
I fully appreciate you didn't say 'any of that absurd stuff', but one needs to reread your comment:
"like I said before if it is all man made then we can more easily deal with it, the more it is natural the more we need to fight nature (which should be harder)."Reshaping the world to better serve our needs is not challenging natural climate change. The question thus remains, what would you do?
[1]
[Link: thegwpf.org][2]
[Link: thegwpf.org][3]
[Link: thegwpf.org][4]
[Link: thegwpf.org][5]
[Link: thegwpf.org][6]
[Link: thegwpf.org]
