Topic: It's hard to know who to believe. (Read 814 times)

Ahh...What a thread this was. Me and Carlton started with discussions on environmental costs of Solar power plants vs Fossil-fired power plants, the economic implications of Kyoto protocol and climate accords, the possibility of powerful petroleum lobbies being the driving force to push through such legislation.
It was all going fine. How the hell did we get hung up on 0.01%...LOL..Ohh yeah, it was Banks' fault.. (Told ya, Banks are the worst)

All in all, this was indeed a good discussion on climate change although the original question is about "Who to trust?" That important philosophical debate is getting sidelined due to petty arguments over climate change.

I love Jet Cash's theories though. When it comes to climate change, he is the in-house conspiracy theorist's theorist. It was amusing to see the "Cows farting Methane into atmosphere" argument coming up..Haha, gotta love all you crazy people here.

tre's have an important part for lung health.. but so does for instance filling old quarries with water and turning them into algea /seaweed ponds/farms

as oppose to drylands and concrete cities dont help water to evaporate.

and sorry jetcash but more water in the air is better.. it will cool the land and reflect the sun off the land
(more rainbows the better)
not sure why you think that less carbon=trees sucking up more water from soil and releasing it from pores as being a problem.

any way.
each region of the planet should adopt different tactics
cities should have carbon absorbers(lung health) and mist makers(temperature control).

use old rock/mineral quarry's as premade potential lakes and water life based farming
woodland should not just be cut and move on. but cut and replanted.

vegetable farms can become efficient greenhouses using solar and finely tuned red blue LED lights. maximising yields for less costs and because its in sealed greenhouses no pesticides or herbicide risks.

water ways to reintroduce muscles and oysters and clams to clean water and also use water surface skimmer machines/nets to get some of the plastics out the water without hooking fish up.

stop building houses/buildings at costal edges /floodlands

use snow making machines/misters near the poles
..
the whole 'just plant tree's' is a weak effort

..
as for the extent of things like 'water level rising'..
its happened many times before

heck people think the flood in new orleans is climate change.. no the reason thousands of homes got flooded is because they buiid cheap houses on swamp land for the poor people like the ethnic community.

if you live in an area where an old house is built on stilts.. expect to experience some flooding in your life time no matter what the climate change reasons are

you've not once provided even a shred of evidence for this claim, despite how often you repeat it



that all sounds like total nonsense, Jetcash



I'm slightly skeptical about both of these claims, and I'm not a climate change alarmist by any stretch



provide evidence for these sensational claims. I expect you cannot link to anything credible (which isn't an endorsement of "Big Pharma" or "Big Agriculture")

Energy cannot be destroyed, you can only change its form.

Water vapour, ie. clouds etc. is the greatest cause of global warming by a long way. Reducing carbon starves the tress and vegetation of its life breath. As a result of this, it has to open its pores as it gasps for breath, this releases water vapour into the atmosphere, and it has to be replaced from the soil. We need to increase CO2 to increase trees and vegetation, and to preserve the water in the ground.

We are entering a new solar minimum, and sea ice is increasing - that is the true change to our climate.

We need more cows and ruminants to rebuild the mineral content in the soil as well. The only reason they fart is because they are fed animal based protein created by Big Pharma.

ahh, they should have predicted the outburst of nCOV in 2020!
 Atleast, this would have help countries that would have to love to sell the nCOV medication(s) to other countries at a high rate prepare in advance.

@Jet Cash,
"......energy cannot be destroyed....." energy cannot be destroyed.

Do you still believe this principle?

Thanks
Soldierwitlittlefaith

just to clear this matter up
33% increase but not a 33% temperature rise
they say average temperature was 15'c now 17'c =13% thus no correlation

the scientific equipment used to measure back to 1820 is not the same equipment method used for 1960+
expect anomalies between datasets using different models

also with oxygen at 780,000ppm and co2 at ~300->400ppm.. co2 is not the worry
nitrogen can change by 27000ppm purely due to if its raining or not.
the difference of rain in of itself can change by a few thousand ppm

and the funny part is. rather than taking a reading of co2 on a sunny day and a rainy day and just recorded the results as is.. after all thats the actual amount of carbon in the air, if it happend to be rainy they take that number and manipulte it into a number that represents a sunny day and just log everything as results from dry days

ok here is a test for you to try to realise how impactful something is.
ok  dry day. go to a city (high carbon) go just outside the city(low carbon) i bet there is not much temperature change
oh yea when in a city dont huddle against a skyscaper building using it as a wind break(intentional varienc). go to the top and then when in country go to a hill at the same altitude so the wind factor is the same (reduce manipulating variance)

ok now try a day where part of the day is sunny and the other part is rainy.. or be in an area of sun and drive to where its rainy. i bet the temperature is more noticable different

yep water in the atmosphere has bigger impact than carbon.

next funny fact. the warmer the temperature gets the more the water is evaporated from lakes/oceans, causing clouds which then cause temperatures to drop. (self fixing mechanism.. nature is good like that)

traffic, modern industry is said to account for just 90ppm change of atmospheric content. yes rain can make the difference of thousands of parts

so lets really concentrate on this carbon thing first
ok so they say todays 17'c average is based on 0.04% instead of previous 15'c of 0.03% 2'c increase for 0.01%
so imagine if 0.09%=12'c increase.
so imagine if 0.9%=120'c increase.
so imagine if 9%=1200'c increase.
so imagine if 90%=12000'c increase.

yet. planets like venus are 95% yet not anywhere near to 12,000'c
and also venus is closer to the sun so less heat lost in space so numbers should be even higher than 12,000'c
sorry but venus is under 500'c

here is a clue to the real climate change
RAIN forests. there are less of them meaning. less what (it begins with R)

same for the poles. snow doesnt miraculously turn up and layer the poles it comes from what.. wait.. no it doesnt magic up from less carbon. it comes from water

the water is the most impactful factor.
carbon emmissions are not that much atmosphere affecting. but water content is.

if you really think that a smoggy city on a dry day is hotter than a beach to such a degree that it makes a rainy day vs sunny day less impactful then here is another test

why isnt it hottest at 9am and 5pm when most commuters are driving to and from work/school. but is hotter/colder depending on if its a clear or rainy day

in short industry emissions is not the cause. its the lack of forests and soil rich in water. to allow for good evaporation.
these days water runs off buildings into gutters and then into drains, instead of evaporating from tree's and fields

most ocean based evaporation form clouds and then rains on the same oceans. thus hardly much lasts long enough to rain on mainlands to affect mainland results so dont try moving the observations that its oceans that cause differentials in mainland temperature studies

here is an analogy for you
co2 experts are saying co2 increased and temperature increase. thus co2 caused temperature
the analogy is that people with lung cancer have more stained teeth. thus stained teeth caused cancer

actual thing is
deforestation/ concreting and draining land of natural wet topsoil caused less water causing higher temperatures
the analogy, smoking ruins the lungs and stains the causing more risk of lung cancer

thats not to say that emissions are not harmful, as they can kill wildlife and harm human health. but thats a debate for biology not climatology

have a nice day

My approach is to always be skeptical, and whenever I'm assessing the veracity of any claim, the first question I always ask myself is 'what's in it for them?'. In some cases it's obvious - for example climate change deniers who have commercial interests in fossil fuels, but in other cases it can admittedly be very difficult - who funded which "independent" report. However I do think that 'what's in it for them?' is always the most important question to ask. If nothing else, it sets you on the path towards objective truth.

so only (small) changes in CO₂ alters rainfall or typhoon intensity?


I put this to you two:

• rainfall patterns have changed before, when CO₂ was not really changing
• typhoon intensity has changed before, again, when CO₂ was not really changing

not only that, but climate scientists are unanimous that CO₂ is not changing at an uncontrolled rate. A change of 0.01% over 200 years is not runaway exponential growth.

China is the last country that I would ask updates about climate change. Their country is one of the top carbon emissions and that is seen by the growing number of factories. It's not just China though; a lot of other countries that are and being urbanized have the largest contribution on the air pollution.
Global warming is real; climate change is REAL. As a Southeast Asian, I observed and experience that typhoons are getting stronger and their occurrences are increasing through the years.

I can say that global warming is real. when you are leaving in a tropical country you really feel the changed now. Here in our country, there are only 2 seasons of Sunny and Rainy seasons. Before when it was a Sunny season the only thing will come up to my head is no rain for a couple of months and the heat of the sun will cost the water supply to go below average. But now, Guess what? when Sunny seasons come, the water supply will go to almost nothing we ended up digging well so that we can have access to some water resources. also when its raining the rain is always above average. flooding all the time, this was not the case before though. That's why I think global warming is real it is happening right now.

It's really not all that confusing. For some reason you've taken 0.03% and 0.04% and put those out there with no clear context as far as I could see i.e. 03% of what? That's a percentage of volume and so the misleading statement is to say it's increase by 0.01% and is designed to make the layman see it as a tiny number. 33% is the correct scientific way of stating that increase.

I already said you can find it for yourself if you care enough to get the knowledge. I was looking for something else related to the oil industry and stumbled across it. I downloaded the documents and would have to go searching again to find the site. You can do that yourself. I will note you didn't include links to your data sooooooo...

You cherry picked information and one can only assume you did it to mislead, or you read information that was designed to mislead you. You failed to point out that the temperature increased prior to that period and then after it as well. Although I would have to say the time frame I found did not match yours but that's beside the point.

I want to know the real truth and have looked at what both sides of this argument have said. While those that promote climate change tend to exaggerate parts of it, I have yet to see anything from the other side that has convinced me they're the ones that are right. More often than not I find statistics being blatantly twisted to fit the narrative. Couple years back the climate change deniers were all hyped up about some report that "proved" the math was wrong. I read the report and just had to shake my head as it was clearly written in order to give that group talking points in order to convince people that would never understand it, but it sure sounded reasonable. But from a scientific standpoint it completely failed to prove that the underlying methods the scientific community uses were flawed.

I can see how this will go though. So I'll just end this with you and say good luck to you.

completely depends on what you mean when you use the word "increase"



I agree, and that's exactly what I've already said



no, the other way round.

when you mix "percentage change" (0.01%) and "percentage change in the percentage change" (33%) together, THAT's confusing.



link?

the real facts are that the whole anthropogenic climate change argument cherry picks facts and statistics to make a "case", and apparently uses semantic sleight of hand expressing statistical statements now too

• if you look at temperature from 1960-2020, it increases. We're all gonna die!!!!1
• but if you look at temperature from 1920-1960, it decreases, from a higher peak than 2020

• if you look at ocean level from 1800-2020, it increases. Dooooooom!!!!!1
• but if you look at ocean level from 10,000 BC to 2020 AD, it increases (at the same rate)

The climate change people are full of these nonsense presentation strategies, and they wouldn't need to do it if their argument had any legs to stand on

I bolded the most important line in the entire thread.

This is the cause of all the pollution/global warming and the solution is simple showers and oral sex . A world wide reduction in population caused by lots of oral sex.

Once we shrink the worlds population to 4 billion a lot of the other problems leave us.

Of course we all know it won’t happen this way. What will happen is massive flooding and death over the next 50 years.

The "difference" is 0.01 as you've said. But that's is not how much it's increased. It's increased by 33%. Well.. I guess what I should say is that the percentage increase is 33% which would be more accurate.

Here. I'll do the math for you.. 0.04 - 0.03 / 0.03 = 0.33 or, 33%. Saying it's 0.01% "increase" as opposed to difference, is usually what people do when they want to mislead someone into thinking it's not as big as it is.

As per the OP and "who to believe", a couple documents were leaked awhile back from internal reports for Exxon and Shell. Both of them outlined the same sort of stuff that the climate change people have been saying. That was in the 80s and the reports said that we wouldn't be able to really tell until the turn of the century or within 5-30 years as the oceans might delay temperature increases etc. Those companies have known what was coming for a long time so it's "entertaining" to see them fund some of the anti climate change groups etc while at the same time, very slowly and quietly moving into more green industries and also related ones that are impacted by increases in CO2 etc. The info is out there for anyone to dig up on their own as I did.

Seriously..?? Whatever dude! Nobody needed the flat-earther..You are the one quoting him so apparently, you did.

^^^^


you see, you guys literally need flat-earthers to support your argument, this is clever stuff



Carlton: 3 + 1 = 4
climate doomsday breathing tax people: no no no, 3 + 1 = 33% 33% 33% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Carlton: 3 + 1 still equals 4, unfortunately
flat-earther: why that's right, 3 + 1 = 4! The earth is flat


laaaame

Astrophysics, geology, paleontology, archeology, theoretical physics, psychology & psychiatry just to name a few "modern" sciences that don't adhere to the scientific method and can't withstand even modest criticism.


I hate to break it to you, but there's no "planet A" either.




"I’m pleased to announce that on this Shavuot/Pentecost, the 9th of Sivan, that the judge presiding over a civil court case in which I was being sued for the amount of $15,000, ruled in my favor and sided with the evidence I presented." -- https://www.stolenhistory.org/threads/2019-court-case-globe-vs-flat-earth.1338/

that's as vague/wrong as you are, and so really proves my point that if you're not careful with the language describing the statistic, then you will end up misleading readers

so, for the millionth time now, I will make it clear:

• CO₂ increased from 0.03% to 0.04% since the 1800's, a difference of 0.01%
• that difference, expressed as a percentage, is 33% (0.01 is 33% of 0.03)

do you understand this yet?

(in before "no, the increase was 33%, you're totally wrong" )




how could you come to that conclusion, when I didn't say it


why are you putting words in my mouth? you don't need to do that, unless there's something wrong with your argument

This is where the argument about you calculating the percentage wrongly actually started:


The math is basically settled that if someone asks that How much has CO2 concetration increased from pre-industrial levels, they will quote the 20-40% figure depending on what baseline you take. Check this BBC report that quotes "has increase by about 40%".This report says "20% increase in less than 40 years"

Lets put it to rest as it really doesn't matter how the motley three of us look at the figure in this rather non-descript corner of the BCT forum.

Lets just agree that if you can accuse us of saying that "it is alarmist to show 300 PPM to 400 PPM as a 33% increase", then you can be similarly accused of supporting those who want to continue polluting the environment by saying that "Hey, its not a problem, Carbon has only gone up by 0.01%".

The real question as you say is:

Which is what i wanted to ask from your discussion on percentage increase not being a problem when i said:

---

So yeah, the three of us have been wasting our breath on the percentage argument.

When you say whether this is dangerous or not, that is when we get to that stage of climate skepticism that says, "Hey its just not hot enough yet". The basic infographic on any climate report I have seen quotes the worldwide observations like reduced polar ice caps, Receding Glaciers, Erratic Weather patterns. I have spent at least 2 decades seeing the summers getting harsher and watching people face drought conditions. So when i see that report and match it with my personal experience as well as what Discovery/ NG shows on the receding polar ice caps, I go, oh well, maybe it is increasing.

I am interested in knowing that what makes you think that 0.04% (+0.01 or 33% increase.. )is not dangerous. We have to consider that if emissions keep increasing at the same rate, this percentage of the total will increase resulting in the 1.5 deg celsius temperature increase that needs to be adhered to as per consensus. What is the harm in erring on the side of caution when its supposedly the planet's inhabitability which is at stake?

Like I keep asking and you keep ignoring, What is the solution from your side of the non-alarmist debate. What sources are you referring to? Are there any or you are just feeling colder as years pass by like I feel warmer here around the tropics..?? LOL..

Also, Should I start a separate topic on this if @Saltypitoon and you would be interested AND if we can stop hurling insults and expressing skepticism at each other's mental faculties...??LOL..