The Green Wave: Washing away all common sense?

Bill The Boer

DEPORTED
PI Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
749
Likes
224
I'm pretty sure you could have easily made this post and your point without all the abuse.
No, there's a good point to it, actually.

Tyndall had fuck all data or temperature measurement equipment worth talking about at his disposal in 1925 and neither had Lotka the statistician(?!). They also lacked all the satellites we use today and much of the the ice core data. They knew fuck all.
First I was responding to your seeming assumption that all of this started with "that asshole Al Gore".

But to repeat, Tyndall in 1859 had the insight, and it has proven correct, that gases present in tiny proportions in the atmosphere were key to maintaining temperature.

Just 30 years later the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius built on his work, coined the term "Greenhouse effect”, and calculated the relationship between changes in CO₂ levels and atmospheric temperature with an accuracy that in retrospect is astonishing (his calculations are thoroughly borne out by the later geological rock data and the six different ice core data of 2009 etc.).

And Lotka was not only a statistician, he was also a mathematician and physical chemist, interested in his world as scientists are, working in fields including population dynamics and energetics.

I mentioned him, because back in 1925 he was talking about industrial exploitation changing the impact of the carbon cycle, releasing in decades carbon which had been laid down over millions of years, seriously disturbing the environmental balance.

Now I know this is hard for a 15 year old know-it-all like yourself to grasp, but these great men of science knew a lot more about their world and its nature than you ever will with all your spreadsheets of inanimate "data" downloaded from climate denier websites, that you don't properly understand the significance of. (And they certainly would not descend on some anomalous data (GISP2) with the kind of sentiment, and intent that you swoop on it. :rolleyes:)

And actually the phenomena we want to talk about are not in fact understandable by notions of simple cause and effect, determinism, and reductionist approaches.

Even the "climate change" evangelists themselves have dropped the term "global warming" like a hot potato at this stage due to their warming models contradicting actual measured data undermining even that very basic prediction. Get with the program!! :LOL:

"Climate change" on the other hand can cover a rise or a fall in temperature, it can never be argued with as it is suitably nebulous and a catch all for whatever the climate ever decides to do. Perfect for use in a propaganda campaign.
Ah, more dastardly conspiracies substituted for adequate understanding of how the world actually works. :rolleyes:

Ok so the massively overwhelming consensus of peer reviewed scientists is that human activity is accelerating warming. But it is a separate question bringing this scientific knowledge to the layman in a way they can grasp.

Now no real scientist worth their salt thought that the world would linearly heat up. That is not how complex systems behave. Rather, complex systems exhibit unstable behaviour before jumping to a new equilibrium.

The problem is that this type of thinking is beyond the layman. - In climate systems we are in fact dealing with a system that is (a) so complex as to be indescribable, (b) so complex as to be not deterministic but probabilistic, (c) any system that reaches this level of complexity becomes self-organising based on numerous feedbacks.

So linear predictable behaviour goes clean out the window. But this is the way the vast majority of people think, and they are incapable of thinking in other terms that are the terms appropriate to the analysis of climate systems.

Sure the terminology used to communicate with the public may have changed. But this does not change the central theses of warming occurring with rising CO2 levels, and the significance of the human contributions in accelerating this process.

The carbon tax is not addressing water vapor which can be up to 4% of the atmosphere it is addressing CO2 which constitutes only 0.04% of the atmosphere.
That might well be one of the very dumbest things I have ever encountered in this "debate".

Oh, and if you are really concerned about climate change you'd be better served staunching the greenhouse gases spewing from Israeli F35s attacking Syria or pouring from the mouth of liars like Netanyahu, or working to help prevent an Israel stoked war with Iran (which will definitely produce a huge excess of greenhouse gases as the oil wells burn) rather than backing pointless carbon taxes on impoverished paddies in rural Ireland!
Yeah, your essential instinct is to blame the Jews Israelis for climate change too. Quelle surprise. :rolleyes:
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • Thread Starter
  • #26
OP
GodsDog

GodsDog

Staff member
Moderator
Premium
PI Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
8,883
Likes
8,476
Location
Barkshire
No, there's a good point to it, actually.
Well yes I suppose there IS when you think about it..
If your argument is good enough to stand on it's own merits then there is really no need
for all the ad hominem to distract from it's flaws. Apparently you yourself don't even believe your argument is good enough
hence the necessity to add abuse to distract from it.

First I was responding to your seeming assumption that all of this started with "that asshole Al Gore".
Go on, beat the shit out of that straw man Bill! :p I never assumed any such thing.
We all know Gore merely kickstarted the recent fashionable hyped concern with CO2 and AGW with his fake graph and facile film
and he profited very nicely out of it to the tune of about 400M or so at this stage

But to repeat, Tyndall in 1859 had the insight, and it has proven correct, that gases present in tiny proportions in the atmosphere were key to maintaining temperature.
Are you referring to water vapour? Because that's nothing to do with CO2 and is present in the atmosphere as a much higher percentage than 'CO2.

The Irish carbon tax does not address water vapour at all.

from wiki:
"He concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small. Prior to Tyndall it was widely surmised that the Earth's atmosphere has a Greenhouse Effect, but he was the first to prove it. The proof was that water vapour strongly absorbed infrared radiation.[8][9] Relatedly, Tyndall in 1860 was first to demonstrate and quantify that visually transparent gases are infrared emitters"

Just 30 years later the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius built on his work, coined the term "Greenhouse effect”, and calculated the relationship between changes in CO₂ levels and atmospheric temperature with an accuracy that in retrospect is astonishing (his calculations are thoroughly borne out by the later geological rock data and the six different ice core data of 2009 etc.).
Yawn! yet another patronising history lesson from wikipedia but scant actual hard science and figures to quantify it
or even a decent link to some.

And Lotka was not only a statistician, he was also a mathematician and physical chemist, interested in his world as scientists are, working in fields including population dynamics and energetics.

I mentioned him, because back in 1925 he was talking about industrial exploitation changing the impact of the carbon cycle, releasing in decades carbon which had been laid down over millions of years, seriously disturbing the environmental balance.
Yawn x2! More fluffy kindergarten wiki history snippets. Pure padding. But again short on any actual hard science and figures.
Your arrogant posturing start promised so much more then when it came to delivering it was a real disappointment.
No doubt your wife would concur! :ROFLMAO:

Irish carbon tax won't affect all of the many serious third world industrial polluters one iota.

Now I know this is hard for a 15 year old know-it-all like yourself to grasp, but these great men of science knew a lot more about their world and its nature than you ever will
It's debatable who the 15 year old bullshitter is here!!

At least I have an actual educational foundation in the hard sciences. What exactly did you study in university?
"Propaganda and rhetorical tricks and techniques of persuasion in modern electronic information warfare"? :ROFLMAO:

Common Fallacy: "proof by authority"

Actually in truth modern science currently knows far more now than these men ever did in their time about atmospheric physics.
Any decent college course in the subject likely ventures deeper into the subject than they did.

with all your spreadsheets of inanimate "data" downloaded from climate denier websites, that you don't properly understand the significance of. (And they certainly would not descend on some anomalous data (GISP2) with the kind of sentiment, and intent that you swoop on it. :rolleyes:)
WTF are you on about here??

FYI I never posted a single "spreadsheet of inanimate data". Stop plucking stupid stuff out of your hole.

And there is no such thing as a "climate denier website". Nobody denies the climate!
In any case I don't frequent climate discussion sites funded by dubious sources.
There are better ways of obtaining data than sifting through the various pissing contests and propaganda of vested interests.

My current concern (and reason to post a discussion thread here) is that we are going to have a pointless tax imposed on the poorest in our society
without any proper discussion or cost benefit analysis. If you look at the data, any effect our changes in behaviour or carbon taxes
will have will be simply non existent.

All it amounts to is that people have been so brainwashed by the constant references to climate change that they
have been softened up enough to swallow it. They really have no idea what they are going along with here

And actually the phenomena we want to talk about are not in fact understandable by notions of simple cause and effect, determinism, and reductionist approaches.
Or if you were remotely scientific you might say that the equations that govern aspects of climate are ill conditioned
and are only amenable to numerical methods or probabilistic solutions. But so what.
A carbon tax in Ireland still makes no sense.

Ah, more dastardly conspiracies substituted for adequate understanding of how the world actually works. :rolleyes:
Ha! I have to admire the neck on you!
I do have an adequate understanding of how the world works thanks. Probably somewhat more rigorous than your own too
despite all your patronising guff. In the case of an Irish carbon tax, the world is working to impoverish us further
without any actual measurable return.

Ok so the massively overwhelming consensus of peer reviewed scientists is that human activity is accelerating warming. But it is a separate question bringing this scientific knowledge to the layman in a way they can grasp.
Accelerating it? Yes. Just as a gnats fart could be described as Accelerating it
But in the scheme of things the acceleration our contribution in Ireland is causing is likely not even measurable.



I think the massively overwhelming consensus among scientists here is mainly that you follow the grants
and if you choose certain topics of research you get them wheras if you don't your career is dead in the water.
Scientists have to eat.

Now no real scientist worth their salt thought that the world would linearly heat up. That is not how complex systems behave. Rather, complex systems exhibit unstable behaviour before jumping to a new equilibrium.
Do you even understand what linear means? Could you even recognise an ill conditioned equation if it bit you in the arse??
More wiki C+P and hand waving. Do you even have the remotest clue what you are actually talking about?
Have you ever actually even solved even a simple differential equation or programmed an algorithm to solve a simple matrix??
Let alone delved into modelling complex dynamical systems?? You're busted mate!


The problem is that this type of thinking is beyond the layman. -
well it's clearly beyond you!!


In climate systems we are in fact dealing with a system that is (a) so complex as to be indescribable, (b) so complex as to be not deterministic but probabilistic, (c) any system that reaches this level of complexity becomes self-organising based on numerous feedbacks.
"I read a bit of James Gleick's popular science book on chaos once and I puked a few phrases up from it"!
Just a bunch of buzzwords you heard somewhere which you clearly don't remotely understand
strung together isn't it? C'mon. Fess up. You're a total faker Bill! :ROFLMAO:


So linear predictable behaviour goes clean out the window. But this is the way the vast majority of people think, and they are incapable of thinking in other terms that are the terms appropriate to the analysis of climate systems.
Sure the terminology used to communicate with the public may have changed. But this does not change the central theses of warming occurring with rising CO2 levels, and the significance of the human contributions in accelerating this process.
Complete horseshite now. Its like something a second rate inter cert english student might regurgitate
bluffing under time pressure in his exam essay on climate.

That might well be one of the very dumbest things I have ever encountered in this "debate".
well given your own post, that's certainly saying something indeed!!

Yeah, your essential instinct is to blame the Jews Israelis for climate change too. Quelle surprise. :rolleyes:
Ah! finally the payload. All that bluffing and bullshit was just the lead up to this. This is what your real focus always was.
Good job too. Because your grasp of science is pitiful as anyone with even a basic grounding in physics could clearly see!
In fact someone could probably code a markov chain algorithm to generate better sounding fake science!!

========================================================

Ok Mr science, You tell us...
Exactly what percentage of a decrease in the total percentage of CO2 in the earths atmosphere
do you expect imposing carbon taxes on the people of Ireland will achieve??
Will this attenuate even one weather event in this country??
No. It won't.

Pretty shit investment to return ratio don't you think?

And in any case, any money raised by this opportunistic and cynical tax will just be blown on yet another FG privatisation project overrun, not on planting trees, because at the end of the day they couldn't really give a toss about climate change and no doubt they also realise humans can't really change anything as long as we are all living under globalised capitalism. Even if we managed to pull together right across the entire planet
all the combined efforts of the little people sorting through their rubbish, holding in their farts and driving less would likely change pretty much nothing at all. Just pissing in the wind.

I'm not a "climate denier" (nobody is! We all accept there is a climate ).
I'm not even a "climate change denier". The climate IS changing. It always has been. It always will be.
I am however quite sceptical as to how much of this climate change is down to the activities of human beings.
i.e. Anthropocentric Global Warming as it USED to be called until the real measured data stopped acting as predicted
by the crappy models on computers and they had to rebrand as "climate change" And how much minor changes in the behaviour
of ordinary people can really influence this process. We should concentrate on dealing with other more tangible forms of pollution
in the environment like systematic industrial chemical pollution by corporations or proliferation of single use plastics.

I don't blame the Jews for anything. In fact I have the greatest of respect for many Jewish people.
Some of the finest human beings to walk the planet and quite a few of my own personal heroes would be Jewish.
However I do have a few serious issues regarding the behaviour of Israeli zionists.
(Which is presumably the main reason you have posted as we both know!)

But causing climate change is however not one of them. That one I mostly attribute to the behaviour of the sun, the nature of it's output, it's various complex cycles and related varying interactions with our magnetic field, our upper atmosphere etc etc. and the various sinks, systems and feedback loops that absorb, distribute and dissipate the solar energy pumped into the system. Many of which we still do not properly understand as any decent scientist will tell you. We are a tiny factor in this equation. And the people of Ireland, a minute part of a tiny factor.

But constant media hype over time has somehow managed to give us an inflated sense of our own ability to control this process. And this inflated sense of our own ability is being harnessed by cynical political forces to impose meaningless new taxes on the poor. Holding in our farts and sorting our rubbish and paying a carbon tax in Ireland will not even make the tiniest measurable deviation in the way our climate is changing.
 

Bill The Boer

DEPORTED
PI Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
749
Likes
224
It is a very, very basic first point that before the industrial age, sources of CO2 were effectively balanced by sinks.

So, let's start with that. Let's start with this "impressive" diagram you've posted up, and get to the bottom of what is actually the reality behind the diagram.

Do you understand that natural CO2 emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions, and the added CO2 from humanity burning carbon deposits that were laid down in the earth millions of years ago is upsetting an environmental balance?

Now, let's address this first, then we can get into the question of evidence of whether or not CO2 levels have in fact risen sharply since the advent of the industrial age under the impetus of this added carbon which upsets a pre existing natural balance.

And then we can get into the question of CO2's impact as a greeenhouse gas even in tiny proportions. The question of feedbacks and so on.

You see your little picture there tries to tell a story that is extremely misleading.

Actually maybe perhaps towards the end of this process we can discuss it too in a wider political context, because I see your diagram has a lot of the same attributes as the slogans and mantras that you're so fond of. There's a pattern in all of your histrionics.

But one point at a time. I'd like you first to admit how your diagram is extremely misleading, and in what way it is so.

(Your post just above was more guff of course, we can return to parts of it as we go.)
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • Thread Starter
  • #28
OP
GodsDog

GodsDog

Staff member
Moderator
Premium
PI Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
8,883
Likes
8,476
Location
Barkshire
It is a very, very basic first point that before the industrial age, sources of CO2 were effectively balanced by sinks.

So, let's start with that. Let's start with this "impressive" diagram you've posted up, and get to the bottom of what is actually the reality behind the diagram.

Do you understand that natural CO2 emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions, and the added CO2 from humanity burning carbon deposits that were laid down in the earth millions of years ago is upsetting an environmental balance?

Now, let's address this first, then we can get into the question of evidence of whether or not CO2 levels have in fact risen sharply since the advent of the industrial age under the impetus of this added carbon which upsets a pre existing natural balance.

And then we can get into the question of CO2's impact as a greeenhouse gas even in tiny proportions. The question of feedbacks and so on.

You see your little picture there tries to tell a story that is extremely misleading.

Actually maybe perhaps towards the end of this process we can discuss it too in a wider political context, because I see your diagram has a lot of the same attributes as the slogans and mantras that you're so fond of. There's a pattern in all of your histrionics.

But one point at a time. I'd like you first to admit how your diagram is extremely misleading, and in what way it is so.

(Your post just above was more guff of course, we can return to parts of it as we go.)
Patronising git! :ROFLMAO:

You can't even SPELL greenhouse gas!!
 

Catalpa

PI Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2018
Messages
2,328
Likes
4,835
Well I'm in my mid 60s now and I can honestly say that overall the Climate in Ireland is not appreciably warmer or colder than it has ever been in my experience

Fluctuations and variations within of course

Yet 30 years ago we were told unless we did something NOW then 30 years hence it would be to late...

Well here we are 30 years later

- and they are telling us that unless we do something NOW then 30 years hence - yes you've guessed it folks

- it will be too late...

Go figure...
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • Thread Starter
  • #30
OP
GodsDog

GodsDog

Staff member
Moderator
Premium
PI Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
8,883
Likes
8,476
Location
Barkshire
Interesting to note that many more people in the US believe aliens are being hidden in area 51
than believe man made climate change is a profitable social control hoax.

Roswell was of course another well known deliberate government misinformation campaign intended to hide
what a crashed balloon was actually doing. One which also took on a life of it's own quite divorced from what
the evidence actually supported

 

valamhic

PI Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
2,940
Likes
1,251
Interesting to note that many more people in the US believe aliens are being hidden in area 51
than believe man made climate change is a profitable social control hoax.

Roswell was of course another well known deliberate government misinformation campaign intended to hide
what a crashed balloon was actually doing. One which also took on a life of it's own quite divorced from what
the evidence actually supported

None of these are related, they can't be bunched together in one bag. A conspiracy theory is a theory inviting us to consider that
some event which appears to be random, normal or an everyday occurrence is in fact contrived by other people not easily recognized.
Usually there has to be an event such as the 9/11 attacks. The theory there is that Muslim terrorists were not involved at all, but it was staged by
elements within the US government.

The moon landing was faked is a proper one because the issue is not whether men went to the moon but whether false media reports
were broadcast using props and actors on earth who never went anywhere. There had to be a plan with managers to implement that plan.

If there is no climate change, those claiming it are not involved in a conspiracy because those pushing it do so openly doing it and the area they occupy is too big for then to control a warming scare, It is like the witch trials of the middle ages. Its more mass hysteria. Those like me are not conspirators because we are not managed or controlled.
 
Last edited:
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • Thread Starter
  • #32
OP
GodsDog

GodsDog

Staff member
Moderator
Premium
PI Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
8,883
Likes
8,476
Location
Barkshire


No sign of Ireland on this at all. We're not even big enough to register on this graph.

And remember :
This total graph only amounts to our tiny little 3.4% human contributed slice of the 0.04% that constitutes CO2 in the atmosphere

after all the volcanoes, natural coal fires, termite farts etc etc etc have had their way.





3.4% of 0.04% = all of humanity's contribution to date to the CO2 in the atmosphere
The fact is Ireland's entire contribution doesn't even register on the scales

So what possible difference could a FG carbon tax on poor people in Ireland actually make? None!

WHY ARE WE BUYING THIS DODGY ARGUMENT
FOR NEW CARBON TAXES THAT HIT POOR PEOPLE HARDEST???
 
Last edited:

Ire-land

Donator
PI Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
4,736
Likes
7,228
Location
Doubling


No sign of Ireland on this at all. We're not even big enough to register on this graph.
And remember this total graph only amounts to our tiny little 3.4% human contributed slice of the 0.04% that constitutes CO2 in the atmosphere after all the volcanoes, natural coal fires, termite farts etc etc etc have had their way.
barely



3.4% of 0.04% = all of humanity's contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere
The fact is Ireland's entire contribution doesn't even register

So what possible difference could a FG carbon tax on poor people in Ireland actually make? None!

WHY ARE WE BUYING THIS DODGY ARGUMENT FOR NEW CARBON TAXES THAT HIT POOR PEOPLE HARDEST???
They're buying it because people are thick generally, and also because portraying virtue today is far more important that being virtuous.

It's all a big ploy to get the farmers to sell their land so they can build gaffs for the invaders and make loads a money.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2017
Messages
2,529
Likes
3,722
If everything they say is true, then the first thing we can do that will make a difference is immidiately stop all immigration from less complex societies.

Everyone from africa to eastern europe, asia etc.. needs to be deported back to the countries they came from to reduce their carbon footprint and they know how to function in said societies.

The findings of this study indicate that future levels of immigration will have a significant impact on efforts to reduce global CO2 emissions. Immigration to the United States significantly increases world-wide CO2 emissions because it transfers population from lower-polluting parts of the world to the United States, which is a higher-polluting country. On average immigrants increase their emissions four-fold by coming to America.
The next thing we can do is tear down all the tech giants here, and destroy all data centres, and similar policies.

IRELAND’S ENERGY DEMAND will shoot up over the next decade due to the spread of data centres across the country – making harder the government’s task of avoiding fines for missed EU renewable-energy targets.

In its recent ‘all-island generation capacity statement’, which includes forecasts to 2026, EirGrid predicted energy demand would be flat in Northern Ireland – but it would continue increasing in the south “largely due to new data centres connecting”.

The semi-state electricity grid operator predicted a 21% increase in total electricity demand in the Republic over the next decade after a fall in demand during the recession years. The need for extra power supply would be centred around the capital.

“A significant proportion of this extra data centre load will materialise in the Dublin region,” the report said.
“Given the lead times associated with transmission reinforcements, generation capacity or equivalent may need to be available in the Dublin region to accommodate this additional demand in the short-term.”
According to EirGrid’s mid-range scenario, 15% of all electricity demand in Ireland will come from data centres by 2026.

All the while preparing for the religious crusade to prevent the apocalypse as we prepare to wipe out china which is the biggest polluter by far and will steadily increase as they continue to bring 100's of millions of people up closer to a western level of complexity in their living standards and india as even though they are 6% of the problem for now, will eventually bring their 1.2 billion people up in a similar way.

So we need to send hundreds of millions of people to die to kill a few billion, which will also help greatly in combating co2 emmisions.
We could nuke them, but either way its mass death that's going to come out of this.

All aid and support for africa or any other developing country must stop and we must do our best to keep their populations and abilities to increase their carbon foot print down as well of course.

So is this the policies the greens are pushing ?


Or are their policies more like subsidsing the car industry on the tax payers expense as they get everyone to buy brand new electric cars which have up to double the carbon footprint in their creation that petrol or diesel cars have.

The car industry and so exports are in trouble to i would suspect the later and similar policies to keep the money flowing in the correct direction.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • Thread Starter
  • #36
OP
GodsDog

GodsDog

Staff member
Moderator
Premium
PI Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
8,883
Likes
8,476
Location
Barkshire
If everything they say is true, then the first thing we can do that will make a difference is immidiately stop all immigration from less complex societies.

Everyone from africa to eastern europe, asia etc.. needs to be deported back to the countries they came from to reduce their carbon footprint and they know how to function in said societies.



The next thing we can do is tear down all the tech giants here, and destroy all data centres, and similar policies.



All the while preparing for the religious crusade to prevent the apocalypse as we prepare to wipe out china which is the biggest polluter by far and will steadily increase as they continue to bring 100's of millions of people up closer to a western level of complexity in their living standards and india as even though they are 6% of the problem for now, will eventually bring their 1.2 billion people up in a similar way.

So we need to send hundreds of millions of people to die to kill a few billion, which will also help greatly in combating co2 emmisions.
We could nuke them, but either way its mass death that's going to come out of this.

All aid and support for africa or any other developing country must stop and we must do our best to keep their populations and abilities to increase their carbon foot print down as well of course.

So is this the policies the greens are pushing ?


Or are their policies more like subsidsing the car industry on the tax payers expense as they get everyone to buy brand new electric cars which have up to double the carbon footprint in their creation that petrol or diesel cars have.

The car industry and so exports are in trouble to i would suspect the later and similar policies to keep the money flowing in the correct direction.
I'm assuming a certain degree of hyperbole and sarcasm in that post snowflake!! :p

yes, their greenwash policies are suspiciously selective certainly!
And, as you say, assuming things are as serious as they say regarding the extent of human activity's impact on the behaviour of the atmosphere (which is quite a big assumption!!) then their choice of actions to combat this has seemingly far more to do with taxing the serfs, getting people to buy more shit they don't need and adhering to a hodgepodge of fashionable politically correct views than actually getting to the real root of increased human carbon emissions!
 
Top