Global warming/climate change, facts and/or fictions?

[CCTV]

This is a massive area to understand for us. We have lots of data and we have lots to learn still.

The scientific community is fighting back against what it see's as hysteria or alarmism, pseudo science and a politicisation of this area.
We see increasingly young children being brought forward as speakers, radicalisation of the young.

I can put forward Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, NASA scientist and more highly academic people who oppose the pseudo science and alarmism.

The consensus often referred to as 97% seems to be a fabrication when one looks into these claims. I've seen presentations by NASA scientists iirc to congress where they say while they are in agreement man contributes to climate change, they have been grossly misrepresented thereafter in the 97%. The caricature of deniers are often as ignorant assholes. Most deniers I've met are in favour of most environmental causes.

Personally I think we should be looking at reducing our fishing quotas somewhat and allow our stocks to regenerate. I think we should be rolling out Allen Savourys work on a larger scale. Continuing with our attempts to plant more trees.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
Allen savoury tedtalk, theres been some aspersions about his claims since getting widespread exposure from this talk. (Widespread for the scientific community does not mean widespread). Following this topic since to the best of my ability his claims seem to be supported by science. He addresses a hypothethcial situation where he says let's pretend it doesn't help global warming and his tact here is to address the numerous other reasons for undertaking this work.
Theres plenty out there for you to look at from Savoury.

Patrick Moore the sensible environmentalist
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UFHX526NPbE
Kind of covers a lot of the area iirc including the scientific consensus.
He looks at green peace as do others in this area.

Nobel Laureate in Physics Ivar Giaever; "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

Physicist Lawrence Krauss Bombs out on Climate Science
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tYw6YMJd-tw

Global Warming; 31,487 Scientists say NO to Alarm
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eiPIvH49X-E

Climatology is a "Joke" - Nobel Laureate in chemistry Dr Kary Mullis
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1FnWFlDvxE

25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EhW-B2udhQw

Freeman Dyson on the Global Warming Hysteria April, 2015.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs

Most of these youtubes are from frolly1000 channel. A channel dedicated to this area so it was easy to find the various speakers there.

Anyway these are cited for you in case you think that all the challenges to the narrative are from uneducated fools or conspiracy theorists.

I'd recommend the first 3 YouTube links for watching to get a grasp of Savoury's work and then the other 2 as insightful introductions to the issue of climate change/global warming.

Any thoughts ?

[RedNoodle]

I think you'd have to be an idiot and/or have vested interests to not at least think, never mind admit that our actions have a negative impact on the environment. The only thing that is questionable is exactly how much impact the various things we do are having.

Personally I think that it's better to err on the side of caution rather than risk going past a point of no return.

[Insidious]

I think the big problem for those fighting to see better environmental changes is that there seems to be hyperbole about the worst possible outcomes.

"If X and Y happens along with factor Z, water levels could rise anywhere between 5cm and 100cm in a 15-100 year period" is a statement that allows for a lot leeway - and it'll automatically become "scientists say water levels will rise 100cm in 15 years" as a headline - and when this worst-case scenario doesn't play out, we see "hyuk hyuk hyuk, climate science is silly" and so on.

We should try to clean up our act in every sphere possible as safely as possible - it'll do us good and will protect us against the worst - and if the worst doesn't happen, well, great, we came away from non-sustainable sources of energy / ruining our Planet anyway.

[CCTV]

I think you'd have to be an idiot and/or have vested interests to not at least think, never mind admit that our actions have a negative impact on the environment. The only thing that is questionable is exactly how much impact the various things we do are having.

Personally I think that it's better to err on the side of caution rather than risk going past a point of no return.

Agree since civilization began we've halved the number of trees on the planet, more so in recent millenia. Our ability to impact the planet is obvious.
Agree caution/discretion is the better part of valor. The knowledge or understanding I think is where we are lacking to an extent. The commonplace narrative seems to be misleading and far too simplistic.

[CCTV]

I think the big problem for those fighting to see better environmental changes is that there seems to be hyperbole about the worst possible outcomes.

"If X and Y happens along with factor Z, water levels could rise anywhere between 5cm and 100cm in a 15-100 year period" is a statement that allows for a lot leeway - and it'll automatically become "scientists say water levels will rise 100cm in 15 years" as a headline - and when this worst-case scenario doesn't play out, we see "hyuk hyuk hyuk, climate science is silly" and so on.

We should try to clean up our act in every sphere possible as safely as possible - it'll do us good and will protect us against the worst - and if the worst doesn't happen, well, great, we came away from non-sustainable sources of energy / ruining our Planet anyway.

Yep, when I see internet wars on this topic the arguments are more about the theory than the action in most cases. Cleaner air in cities, more trees, cleaner seas no plastics theres massive agreements between people.

Controversy arises over the presentation of the theory and on manners of energy production and how to tackle it otherwise.

The modelling or predictions made by gw/cc though is really embarrassing. When you think of the realm of prediction in some aspects of science versus the constant failures of predictions in this realm it gives plenty of ammo to critics. It seems there are genuine issues about data collection too and not sharing the data sets is generally a marker of suspicion imo.

[CCTV]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/amp/
"So what’s going on? It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks”.

The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise.

Similarly, parts of the oceans release about 330 Gt of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much – and are now soaking up slightly more.

Ocean sinks
Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February 2007 (pdf format). Disturbances to the land – through deforestation and agriculture, for instance – also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year.

About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14."

Theres more on the page itself and a link to other myths, this site isn't entirely in one camp or the other.

The origins of life on earth are still mystical, a quantum event is posited as occurring and life began. The planet has protected life with its atmosphere etc etc.
To me it seems the planet is to some extent a remarkable agency for balancing itself out. The sensible environmentalist shows a good bit in his presentation along these lines.

If we look at rising populations set to rise and plateau somewhere around 10-11 billion and we see how plants/trees already do such a job. Then extending the number of plants/trees seems an obvious pathway to offset man made emissions.

That's why I think the savoury work is such a good Avenue.
The regions where his methodology is centred on are arguably the most important regions for food production given their regional locations and natural climate.
The soils sequester carbon when restored. Even on existent soils further sequestering of carbon is possible.
If the sea level rise and we see more rain, having more land masses capable of storing rainfall/water in the soil would be another interesting capacity for offsetting this issue.

[stevie harkness]

I've never understood how CO2 can let the suns rays get past on the way into the atmosphere but it stops them on the way out.
I don't hear the phrase "Carbon footprint" as much anymore. The amount of CO2 released from the building of wind-farms can nullify them on that score but they still go ahead. It's not about carbon. It's not about the environment. It's about money. When I was a kid in the 70s I saw my first electric car, they were laughed at, solar panels, wind power were all laughed at, but better technology made them profitable and now i'll bet the same jokers are making money hand over fist from them.

Science has produced biodegradable plastic, developed bacteria that eats plastic, problem solved - except that they are made from plants, and the plastics business is a spin off from the oil business. Can you please stop making plastics (money)? Not on your life.

Science is amazing but it isn't fortune telling and even the 5 day weather forecast isn't all that accurate all that often. As for global warming, climate change, who knows? I'm open to believe it's a natural phenomena but I'd be astonished if human activity had nothing to do with it. But nobody will take responsibility for it.

Taking out the recycling, insulating your house, going vegan, buying a reusable coffee cup, using public transport, will do fuck all to save the planet. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it but it's nothing to pat ourselves on the back for. It's not 'doing your bit for the environment' - it doesn't tackle the problem.

I'm afraid we are doomed. I just hope we win the league first.

[fagin]

I've never understood how CO2 can let the suns rays get past on the way into the atmosphere but it stops them on the way out.
I don't hear the phrase "Carbon footprint" as much anymore. The amount of CO2 released from the building of wind-farms can nullify them on that score but they still go ahead. It's not about carbon. It's not about the environment. It's about money. When I was a kid in the 70s I saw my first electric car, they were laughed at, solar panels, wind power were all laughed at, but better technology made them profitable and now i'll bet the same jokers are making money hand over fist from them.

Science has produced biodegradable plastic, developed bacteria that eats plastic, problem solved - except that they are made from plants, and the plastics business is a spin off from the oil business. Can you please stop making plastics (money)? Not on your life.

Science is amazing but it isn't fortune telling and even the 5 day weather forecast isn't all that accurate all that often. As for global warming, climate change, who knows? I'm open to believe it's a natural phenomena but I'd be astonished if human activity had nothing to do with it. But nobody will take responsibility for it.

Taking out the recycling, insulating your house, going vegan, buying a reusable coffee cup, using public transport, will do fuck all to save the planet. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it but it's nothing to pat ourselves on the back for. It's not 'doing your bit for the environment' - it doesn't tackle the problem.

I'm afraid we are doomed. I just hope we win the league first.

Unfortunately we are all doomed but only as our life ends the Planet is not doomed in any shape or fashion.we all need to admit human activity can be improved upon but none of this will stop the natural phenomena which will occur irrelevant of man's attempts at otherwise.
It's happened before in the history of this planet and is really nothing to get excited about it all has to do with the Ice Age nothing more nothing less we are at the end of the last Ice Age hence the slight warming of Glaciers etc this will continue until we begin yet another Ice Age many thousands of years away.So most of the scare mongers etc are just that just like Y2K scare etc etc.

I didn't include how an Ice Age occurs including relationship between the Earth and Sun and the gravitational pull or the fact the Earth moves closer or further away from the Sun as thousands of years transpire including the final phase which is when planet Earth tilts on its own axis when its at its furthest point from the Sun and the cycle continues.Many already learned this in school back in the day.

[stevie harkness]

Watching the news coverage of the "Extinction Rebellion" protestors saying that climate change is more important than Brexit or anything else because without a planet nothing else matters. Then a passer by says we should sort out knife crime first.

Putting their methods to one side it does show that most people just want to live in their own bubble of what's important to them.

[CCTV]

Watching the news coverage of the "Extinction Rebellion" protestors saying that climate change is more important than Brexit or anything else because without a planet nothing else matters. Then a passer by says we should sort out knife crime first.

Putting their methods to one side it does show that most people just want to live in their own bubble of what's important to them.

Will get back to this thread later on but this is a great point.

[Balinkay]

It is. Still, a hungry, scared or myopic person can't be expected to care about anything other than what's right in front of them.

[stevie harkness]

It is. Still, a hungry, scared or myopic person can't be expected to care about anything other than what's right in front of them.

Yes, true. But surely that is the root of the problem. It's not really plastic in the ocean or carbon dioxide or Brexit or knife crime, it's the disconnection people feel.

(Or am i just talking out of my own bubble?! :)

[Balinkay]

Disconnection from what?

[stevie harkness]

Disconnection from what?

Exactly.

That is the question.

I'd say it's different for different people but some may feel disconnected from nature, or society (community), or family / loved ones, a meaningful life or job, a sense of freedom? basically all the invisible or intangible stuff that they can't put in a packet and sell you.

[stevie harkness]

Edit ...I suppose some might say disconnected from God but if you believe in God then you're not really disconnected from him, and if you don't believe in God then you don't care!

[Balinkay]

I'm not sure I'd put it in those exact words, but I think I know what you mean.

[CCTV]

Has anyone looked at the videos in the op, or seen them before or heard the speakers speak elsewhere?