What do you think of climate change?

[LeafByNiggle]

Metis1:

Some seen to rather conveniently forget that science is ongoing, thus what we know now is significantly greater in many different areas than even in just a half century ago. As a long-term subscriber to “Scientific American”, I have seen this drift on climate change that’s based on more and more studies that have been completed over the last few decades especially.

IOW, global warning is real, which should be rather obvious to anyone who
studies and thinks objectively.

Until you begin assessing how much money is being poured into research from the “warming” agenda side.

Which is minuscule compared to the money available from the fossil fuel industry to suppress science about global warming.

Many researchers are funded based upon how well they validate the warming narrative.

Pure speculation that funding is dependent on a specific finding.

Unfortunately, many on here will point to the “fossil fuel interests” and completely discount that the politics and economics of the “warming interests” are far better funded and more influential.

Another supportable claim.

 

[HarryStotle]

Which is minuscule compared to the money available from the fossil fuel industry to suppress science about global warming.

Any peer-reviewed articles to support that assertion?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is a fact:

Fossil Fuel Trade Associations Spent $1.4 Billion on Ads in Past Decade

I did not see any peer-reviewed article from you on how there is more money from “warming interests.”

 

[HarryStotle]

It is a fact:
Fossil Fuel Trade Associations Spent $1.4 Billion on Ads in Past Decade

I did not see any peer-reviewed article from you on how there is more money from “warming interests.”

We could rehash that series of posts upthread on the topic, starting with this one.

What do you think of climate change? Social Justice

Except that there is profit to academic institutions. The Nickolas Drapela and George Taylor cases show just how profitable research is for academics. Five years ago, Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor went around quietly saying that he was not a believer. Then Governor Ted Kulongoski and many faculty at OSU including Dr. Jane Lubchenco made life impossible for Taylor, and he retired. (Lubchenco is now head of NOAA in the Obama administration.) Under those currently in charge, OSU cl…

Besides, it isn’t me that claims “peer-reviewed articles” are the only reliable basis for drawing conclusions.

Ergo, for YOU to have concluded what you have about the fossil fuel industry, I assumed you did the relevant research on science funding.

I suppose we can take your post as an admission that your conclusion is without proper substance.

 

[Xenon777]

There are many reactors that reuse waste fuel from other reactors. The thing is, is that older reactors are INCREDIBLY inefficient. From what I read, many of the older reactors would use 1 pound of fuel out a hundred pound and the other 99 pounds would be wasted. The fact is, reactor design has changed greatly in the years since Chernobyl. And many of the new designs are more effeicient. Also, there is a species of fungi inside Chernobyl that actually EATS the radiation, and converts it to energy. THAT could be a solution, You take waste and you give it fungi to eat the radiation.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It is a fact:
Fossil Fuel Trade Associations Spent $1.4 Billion on Ads in Past Decade

I did not see any peer-reviewed article from you on how there is more money from “warming interests.”

We could rehash that series of posts upthread on the topic, starting with this one.

What do you think of climate change? - #1160 by HarryStotle

This story, as told by the aggrieved party, of course will paint this event that way. But even if true, it is an anecdote and not suitable for establishing any statistical conclusion. You will recall we were discussing a statistical question.

Besides, it isn’t me that claims “peer-reviewed articles” are the only reliable basis for drawing conclusions.

Technical scientific conclusions.

 

[gama232]

Eats radiation? You mean eats radioactive material? If so, that still does not solve the alleged problem which is too much CO2 in the air. A global network of monitoring devices has given scientists an exact number of ‘excess’ CO2. The technology exists to extract it from the air and liquefy or solidify it. The liquefied CO2 could be pumped into worked out oil wells. The solid form could be dumped into worked out coal mines. That said, there has been little movement to actually do either one. It appears cost is the primary factor stopping conversion or capture.

 

[Xenon777]

Yeah, it actually exists, they found in on the walls in Chernobyl. It somehow converts the radiation into food. It is true look it up. Regardless, the last time it was the warm was back in 1908 I believe. Were they having global warming back then? I find science outside of hard science like Chemistry and the like, unbelievable. My trust in science was shattered as a kid. I would rather believe a scientist who has developed new types of explosives than many environmental sciences. In my eyes science has become too politicized to be reliable. In my view, much of science has become little more than political mouthpieces for global politics. I believe in EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. I wish for hard PROOF. Studies taken over 100’s of YEARS. NOT mere decades. I find the 'proof" insufficient to be taken seriously, IMO.

 

[Xenon777]

Cryptococcus neoformans is the fungus. Turns out, fungus will eat just about…anything. Jet fuel…rubber…nylon…asbestos. They are NOT picky

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Cryptococcus neoformans is the fungus. Turns out, fungus will eat just about…anything. Jet fuel…rubber…nylon…asbestos. They are NOT picky

But they do not convert radioactive material into non-radioactive material. They just become radioactive themselves, or the poop out radioactive material. Any chemical reaction that takes place in a living organism is unable to change the radioactive nature of a material.

 

[HarryStotle]

This story, as told by the aggrieved party, of course will paint this event that way. But even if true, it is an anecdote and not suitable for establishing any statistical conclusion. You will recall we were discussing a statistical question.

Uh huh.

This is a technical question?

Which is minuscule compared to the money available from the fossil fuel industry to suppress science about global warming.

When was the last time you heard of $10 billion being donated to climate denial research by the fossil fuel industry?

Liberals Angry: Jeff Bezos DONATED ONLY $10 BILLION To Fight Climate Change - The Lid

Your “fossil fuel industry suppresses science” narrative is rapidly losing credibility.

 

[gama232]

While what Mr. Bezos did is commendible, it has no operative mechanism. Who qualifies for any money? On what basis? And will the qualifying companies be identified? Ten billion sounds like a lot for an alleged global problem. And it could be that 10 or less qualify. Climate scientists are very reluctant to go forward with ideas proposed long before this. Their concern is that any rapid, drastic change may cause other problems.

 

[HarryStotle]

While what Mr. Bezos did is commendible, it has no operative mechanism. Who qualifies for any money? On what basis? And will the qualifying companies be identified? Ten billion sounds like a lot for an alleged global problem. And it could be that 10 or less qualify. Climate scientists are very reluctant to go forward with ideas proposed long before this. Their concern is that any rapid, drastic change may cause other problems.

If Bezo’s actions were truly “commendable” he would be financing unbiased, neutral research into whether there truly is a warming crisis – given that the green new deals will ultimately gut the economies of Europe, N. America and the underdeveloped countries in Africa and S. America — not funding measures assuming a crisis.

Regardless, the point was that climate alarmism is receiving vastly more funding than the skeptic side, which is why the MS media have fully gotten on board the propaganda train.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

When was the last time you heard of $10 billion being donated to climate denial research by the fossil fuel industry?

That’s not how they do it! They run it like an advertising campaign, because that is what it is. Consider how the tobacco companies sowed distrust in the science that said smoking caused lung cancer and heart disease. They eventually were sued for their deception. But they did not “donate to denial research” for the point they wanted to deny.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

When was the last time you heard of $10 billion being donated to climate denial research by the fossil fuel industry?

That’s not how they do it! They run it like an advertising campaign, because that is what it is. Consider how the tobacco companies sowed distrust in the science that said smoking caused lung cancer and heart disease. They eventually were sued for their deception. But they did not “donate to denial research” for the point they wanted to deny.

A few years from today perhaps the climate alarmists will be sued for their deception if it turns out that they “sowed distrust in science” by claiming increasing CO2 by a few hundred PPM would cause a global catastrophe.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

When was the last time you heard of $10 billion being donated to climate denial research by the fossil fuel industry?

That’s not how they do it! They run it like an advertising campaign, because that is what it is. Consider how the tobacco companies sowed distrust in the science that said smoking caused lung cancer and heart disease. They eventually were sued for their deception. But they did not “donate to denial research” for the point they wanted to deny.

A few years from today perhaps the climate alarmists will be sued for their deception if it turns out that they “sowed distrust in science” by claiming increasing CO2 by a few hundred PPM would cause a global catastrophe.

Speculation with no support.

 

[littlebird]

If it happens, we will have many years to prepare for it. For me , it is more conceivable that we will be able to adapt or live on another planet.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

When was the last time you heard of $10 billion being donated to climate denial research by the fossil fuel industry?

That’s not how they do it! They run it like an advertising campaign, because that is what it is. Consider how the tobacco companies sowed distrust in the science that said smoking caused lung cancer and heart disease. They eventually were sued for their deception. But they did not “donate to denial research” for the point they wanted to deny.

A few years from today perhaps the climate alarmists will be sued for their deception if it turns out that they “sowed distrust in science” by claiming increasing CO2 by a few hundred PPM would cause a global catastrophe.

Speculation with no support.

So is climate alarmism.

 

[Ender]

I try to educate myself when possible.

Why? Your response to scientific objections is to fall back on the “consensus”, so why bother to educate yourself if it doesn’t enable you to argue the science involved? We already know the “consensus”, so what is it you’re trying to learn? If your only response to scientific challenges is “I believe whatever NOAA says” then it doesn’t matter if you understand what they’re saying or not.

Some seen to rather conveniently forget that science is ongoing, thus what we know now is significantly greater in many different areas than even in just a half century ago

Is it? You wouldn’t know that from the progress climate scientists have made determining the climate sensitivity. The predicted range hasn’t changed in about half a century. Apparently it’s not ongoing as much as advertised.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why? Your response to scientific objections is to fall back on the “consensus”, so why bother to educate yourself if it doesn’t enable you to argue the science involved?

I wouldn’t mind arguing the science if there was someone here to argue against who is also arguing the science instead of appealing to authority just like me, except to different authorities.