I read the news today (oh boy) - Current world events | Page 130 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

You have proof of your first point that the scientists are paid to mislead ….I’d be very interested…….That proof would of course undermine their arguments.

Conservative minded billionaires regularly pay for like minded ‘intellectuals’ to go on speaking tours round universities delivering propaganda about this stuff. For example, Ben Shapiro’s two minutes of hate college tours (in which he spouts his ‘if your house is flooding, just MOVE’ nonsense) are sponsored by Young America’s Foundation, which is funded by the Mercers, DeVos family and the Kochs. They have also funded lectures for the likes of Charles Murray, Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter. Of course, this isn’t objective proof, but it’s not hard to fill in the blanks, is it? These billionaires, often in businesses such as oil and coal, have everything to lose from anti-global warming action, so to prevent anything happening about it they pay for propaganda to deliberately muddy the waters. 

Sources: https://www.yaf.org/shapirotou…..um=ios_app

https://www.alternet.org/2017/…..um=ios_app

I’m aware that the latter article talks specifically about hate speech, but most conservative figures offer horrendous takes on a wide variety of topics, of which climate change is pretty often present… and certainly of interest to those they are funded by. 

Not ‘conflation’ which suggests confusion and not understanding the difference between weather and climate……Just the point that if the science, often with the assistance of world’s super computers struggles to accurately predict local weather patterns with any certainty for periods over 5 days, what certainty can we have that climate changes which are not fully understood can be fully predicted and the causes precisely identified? 

Long term trends are much easier to identify than rapidly changing patterns. Short term forecasting depends on factors such as short term temperature changes, clouds, precipitation, wind and pressure. These things all fluctuate more rapidly than the metrics we use to identify long term climate change, which include temperature change over a period of years, amount of sea ice over a period of years and atmospheric pollution also over a period of years. 

The Co2 argument is compelling ……I understand it and and I’m sure that man’s activities contribute to the levels in the atmosphere……It makes sense to me to either reduce these levels or not burn down the trees that recycle Co2 into Oxygen……

But the rise in Co2 from man hasn’t been present in previous warmings…….So for me it can’t be man’s output alone which is responsible……In which case other factors are at work, perhaps water vapour is more significant……There must be other factors or there never would have been cycles of cooling and warming ever before….Therefore your sweep ‘We understand it …It’s the Co2…… falls short for me.

If you watch Potholer’s video that I linked, he debunks this idea that CO2 hasn’t been linked to heat levels in the past. The graph used by Patrick Moore and others to attempt to illustrate that point comes from a blog who stuck two different graphs from sources several years apart together. If you look at the sources for the information individually, both of the studies state in their conclusions that there is in fact correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. There isn’t correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature in the graph, but there also isn’t correlation for the factor Moore himself places great stock in – the warming effect of the sun, which has been getting hotter and hotter over time, and nobody would claim that the temperature of the sun doesn’t affect the earth’s temperature, surely? The obvious takeaway is that global temperature is influenced by a variety of factors, and when you take them into account the graph looks more like this:

Now, I’m a layman, not a scientist. I got Cs on my chemistry and physics GCSEs. I don’t properly understand the ins and outs of this stuff, not even close. That’s why I have to place my trust in the hands of the people best qualified to talk about this stuff – the researchers and the experts in the field. To quote Bakunin:

“In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure.” 

Unfortunately, my abilities of critique are unfortunately limited by my lack of knowledge. Still, based on what I do know, the hypotheses presented by these scientists all make sense to me, and I’ve yet to encounter an argument denying… sorry, questioning climate change that held up to either my objections or the objections of those more qualified than me. 

Source: http://www.searchanddiscovery……r.pdf.html

Until you can explain to me why, before the Industrial age…….Before the missing link between us and the apes ever drew breath…….before the dinosaurs etc that there have been warmings and coolings…..

The fact that there have been changes in global temperature independent of human influence does not invalidate the potential for humans to influence it now, but I imagine if you asked a climate scientist on this they would tell you what the CO2 hypothesis itself supports – that amongst other factors, the temperature of the earth is largely dictated by the makeup of its atmosphere and also the amount of incoming solar radiation (which in the former example the CO2 argument facilitates, as its properties as a heat trapping gas help to trap in the heat from the latter solar radiation within the atmosphere). 

I don’t think it’s any secret that the Green New Deal is also intended to do other things than just make the US economy more environmentally friendly. It’s named after the New Deal, after all, and having just looked on Wikipedia the first of its ten goals is to “guarantee a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security” to all US citizens. If this was part of some dastardly plan by AOC to smuggle progressive economic reform in with environmental protection, she’s doing a pretty poor job of hiding it

In regards to that video, I think a lot of what makes what he’s saying sound impressive is how he frames it. Making a big deal about how ‘it’s only warmed one degree’ without properly addressing the huge effects that just one degree of change can have. Admittedly, I’m not capable of fact checking what he says here because I simply don’t know enough about the topic, but the only point he makes that I can’t see being explained is that the earth’s temperature rose in the 20s-40s when according to him there wasn’t enough CO2 production for this to occur. 

Also, he’s one to talk about political motives influencing climate science, given that he’s a scholar at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank founded in 1974 by… well, you can probably guess: it’s oil billionaire Charles Koch. No prizes for guessing his motivations in promoting this stuff. 

Overall though, I think we’ve exhausted the ‘is climate change real’ debate as far as we can take it with none of us being actual scientists (to my knowledge). I think at this point it would be more interesting to discuss different solutions to the problem under the presupposition that the earth is warming and that human activity is contributing to it.