Yet more proof.

[patman post]

I guess I could make the point that the faster my SUV travels along the motorway the nearer my right foot gets to the floor.

Should I then wonder if my breakfast coffee, my new shirt, the music I'm playing, the blue sky, or any of the many other factors I might identify, are causing the vehicle to speed...?

[Nick]

I think Flat Earth and climate denialism have a chunk in common.

Both are contrarian movements.

Both feature "look at this simple proof that the earth is flat" arguments.  Often Based on misunderstandings of what the science shows.

Both tend to shift the goalposts when a particular proof is debunked.

Both feature a variety of "what things actually are" scenarios, often self contradictory .  So for deniers it's  a range from "there is no global warming it's all instrument error/lies" to "there is global warming but it's sunspots, volcanoes, earth's axis" via "more co2 is a good thing - did you know CO2 is vital for plants?"

Both require that thousands of scientists around the worlds funded by hundreds of different routes are all collaborating for nebulous reasons

I have 2 questions for you.

Do you agree that the radiation from the Sun is reradiated by CO2, 50% back into space?

Do you agree that this happens in real time?

[Nick]

I think Flat Earth and climate denialism have a chunk in common.

Both are contrarian movements.

Both feature "look at this simple proof that the earth is flat" arguments.  Often Based on misunderstandings of what the science shows.

Both tend to shift the goalposts when a particular proof is debunked.

Both feature a variety of "what things actually are" scenarios, often self contradictory .  So for deniers it's  a range from "there is no global warming it's all instrument error/lies" to "there is global warming but it's sunspots, volcanoes, earth's axis" via "more co2 is a good thing - did you know CO2 is vital for plants?"

Both require that thousands of scientists around the worlds funded by hundreds of different routes are all collaborating for nebulous reasons

The big difference is that there is scientific evidence that the Earth is not flat, and there is not one single PHD on the planet that thinks it is. There are 100's of PHD climatologists working for institutes like NASA, Harvard etc that say that AGW is based on the worst science in history. I have asked you 5 times to provide the scientific and mathematical evidence that AGW is a thing and you have totally ignored it. You're the one following the doctrine from a group believing the unbelievable. 

[cromwell]

I think Flat Earth and climate denialism have a chunk in common.

Both are contrarian movements.

Both feature "look at this simple proof that the earth is flat" arguments.  Often Based on misunderstandings of what the science shows.

Both tend to shift the goalposts when a particular proof is debunked.

Both feature a variety of "what things actually are" scenarios, often self contradictory .  So for deniers it's  a range from "there is no global warming it's all instrument error/lies" to "there is global warming but it's sunspots, volcanoes, earth's axis" via "more co2 is a good thing - did you know CO2 is vital for plants?"

Both require that thousands of scientists around the worlds funded by hundreds of different routes are all collaborating for nebulous reasons

I don't think there's a single person on here who questions the climate change movement believes in a flat earth,the point I was making and you are missing is that however that is presented not just to you but to so many others is shown in my post you replied to.

Few doubt that the climate is changing but there are differences of opinion as to the whys and wherefores of that.

There is imo a religious  fervour that the science cannot be wrong or challenged so the majority concur and the few who do not are dismissed as cranks literally heretics.

Anyone who points out that science can be wrong as has happened in the past are derided because that was then science is different today so much more advanced but that was pretty much what they said then.

Tbh my opinion is that the biggest threat to humanity is not climate change but themselves and their numbers,there are simply too many human beings on this earth.

[BeElBeeBub]

I think Flat Earth and climate denialism have a chunk in common.

Both are contrarian movements.

Both feature "look at this simple proof that the earth is flat" arguments.  Often Based on misunderstandings of what the science shows.

Both tend to shift the goalposts when a particular proof is debunked.

Both feature a variety of "what things actually are" scenarios, often self contradictory .  So for deniers it's  a range from "there is no global warming it's all instrument error/lies" to "there is global warming but it's sunspots, volcanoes, earth's axis" via "more co2 is a good thing - did you know CO2 is vital for plants?"

Both require that thousands of scientists around the worlds funded by hundreds of different routes are all collaborating for nebulous reasons

[cromwell]

Oh my god you soooo nearly get it.

Yes, there the runaway effects.  Things like melting arctic permafrost, increased solar absorption via darker surfaces no longer covered in snow and ice, higher atmospheric temperature leading to increased amounts of water vapour.

These are the things that keep climate scientists awake at night.these are the things that make them shout that we need to curb our emissions now least we accidentally trip one of these conditions and push the climate into a runaway.

How on earth (ha!) can you justify your argument "nature would not design such a mechanism"?

Nature doesn't design anything.  It just is.

If nature has such a brilliant design why has the earth been too hot for us and too cold for us in the past?


Your argument seems to be "warming oceans emit co2 and therefore co2 cannot cause warming because if it did there could be thermal runaways and those are not allowed by nature"

Someone once told me that some things are true whether you believe them or not, and you are trying very hard to not believe co2 can cause global heating.

BTW where do you stand (ha again) on the question of flat earth?

And there we go and there I was thinking you were better than that but no Flat earth the usual retort from those believing in the supremacy of their thought and intellect pretty much like the attitudes of early European colonialists to the natives they encountered but in that context something they would abhor and condemn and expect us all to hang our heads in shame for.

Then there's deniers comment also harking back to a past and where those who questioned the legitimacy of a religion and the infallibility of ideas it represented resulted in the inquisition.

And we are seeing that today which regards any questioning of the causes of global warming to be dismissed as heresy and of course those that question heretics.

Funnily enough those that are engaged in what I regard as the new religion are under other circumstances liberal people and roundly condemn that which I referenced above but in reality there is little difference in their attitudes and those of the past.

[Nick]

So it's not so much you don't think CO2 drives temperature

It's that you don't actually care if the climate changes.

Which makes sense.

What are you talking about? I've never said I don't care and I certainly don't think CO2 drives temperature. 

If you don't care about climate change, why bother making the effort to avoid it?

Which is why your arguments always seem like post rationalisation to make it seem like you have more of a position beyond "don't bother me, I don't give a shit"

I'm not that surprised tbh, it's a fairly common attitude (across alot of sectors) amongst people of a certain age.

Do you know how old I am? I believe not by yet another condescending comment. Are you another contributor that thinks they are better than everyone else on here like Pat?

Don't care? I just don't trouble my self with things that are out of my control.  

You never did answer, do you think the earth is flat?..... I think there's a good chance you do. 😆

I've been to 72 countries, I'm not going to dignify this with an answer. 

[BeElBeeBub]

So it's not so much you don't think CO2 drives temperature 

It's that you don't actually care if the climate changes.

Which makes sense.

If you don't care about climate change, why bother making the effort to avoid it?

Which is why your arguments always seem like post rationalisation to make it seem like you have more of a position beyond "don't bother me, I don't give a shit" 

I'm not that surprised tbh, it's a fairly common attitude (across alot of sectors) amongst people of a certain age.

You never did answer, do you think the earth is flat?..... I think there's a good chance you do. 😆

[Nick]

That's my point. We have never experienced the extremes deniers keep pointing to "relax, the earth has experienced worse in the past" - sure but we haven't.

It's gonna be pretty hard for the UK to operate as a nation under hundreds of meters of ice.

Would (rather like the film) lead to the novel situation of Europeans jumping into small boats to cross the Med to get to safety and Americans crossing the border to get to Mexico.

If you follow the Mitochondrial DNA trail of early humans you will see that the ice was the governing factor in their movements.  They came out of Africa and went east and
west close to the shore line, and as the ice retreated they travelled north up threw Asia and into Eastern Russia. They walked on ice across the Bering straits and hugged the west cost down into South America, as the ice withdrew more  they moved back north into the USA.

Neanderthal man experienced the ice and was driven down as far as Gibraltar, I'm not going to worry about it cause I have no control over it.

[BeElBeeBub]

....
I believe Solar activity and our proximity to the Sun are what controls our climate. See Baz Luhrmann quotes.

Yes, but that doesn't answer the hypothetical.

What if there was proof that satisfied you that CO2 would lead to global cooling to conditions nearer the last ice age than today.  Would you be arguing that we try to avoid that happening?  Or that it's fine as Great Britain has seen ice ages before.

[BeElBeeBub]

That's my point. We have never experienced the extremes deniers keep pointing to "relax, the earth has experienced worse in the past" - sure but we haven't.

It's gonna be pretty hard for the UK to operate as a nation under hundreds of meters of ice.

Would (rather like the film) lead to the novel situation of Europeans jumping into small boats to cross the Med to get to safety and Americans crossing the border to get to Mexico.

[Nick]

But crucially this has NEVER happened in human history

As a species we barely have any history, this is why we have not experienced the extremes.

Let's say we had conclusive proof that our CO2 emissions were actually cooling the planet and we were predicted to fall around 1.5C from preinduatrial levels (about 3C lower than now).  This would probably cause glaciation as far south as the UK.  Would you shrug and go "ah! This happened before!  We should carry on"?

I believe Solar activity and our proximity to the Sun are what controls our climate. See Baz Luhrmann quotes.

[BeElBeeBub]

Again, absolutely normal and something that has happened thousands of times.

But crucially this has NEVER happened in human history 

Let's say we had conclusive proof that our CO2 emissions were actually cooling the planet and we were predicted to fall around 1.5C from preinduatrial levels (about 3C lower than now).  This would probably cause glaciation as far south as the UK.  Would you shrug and go "ah! This happened before!  We should carry on"?

[Nick]

You keep going on about the fact it has been hitter or colder previously - true

You keep saying "the earth will protect itself" - sort of true. The earth will continue to exist (assuming no cosmic collision) for billions of years, but there is no guarantee the conditions on the surface will be conducive to human civilization.

And you keep going on about how co2 cannot drive temperature change which is patently false. Of course it can. We can see it on Venus. Without an atmosphere it would have a mean temperature if around 50C. Instead it has mean temp around 250C due to the extreme effect of it's very high CO2 atmosphere.


Are you saying if we raised the co2 levels to 40,000 ppm there wouldn't be an effect on global temperatures?

The debate is not "can co2 drive a change in global temps"  it's "are the amounts of co2 humans are emitting capable of driving a change in global temps"


It would be comforting to think they don't. Because that would mean we didn't have to do anything particularly different. We could go on burning coal, oil and gas with merry abandon.

Of course we'd still have to deal with the undeniable change in climate.

But if we are responsible then we might have to do something. But the flip side is we can avoid the worst of the climate changes which will be cheaper and better in the long run.

I have NEVER said CO2 can't drive temperature change, what I said was in the past millions of years it never has, I also said I'm betting that CO2 is a cooling agent rather than a heating agent. I will show you my theory on the maths behind that later. 

[Nick]

1.5C is the level the climate scientists think will avoid tipping into thermal runaway effects. The more we go above this the higher the chance we will kick off something nasty like ending the monsoon season in SE Asia or stopping the warm currents that keep Europe from being like Newfoundland etc.

If you don't understand how big a deal a 1.5C rise in global mean temperature is then it's not that you "haven't bought in", you just don't understand the science.

Again, absolutely normal and something that has happened thousands of times.