Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> Cue: a fusillade of vacuous narrative as a mediocre substitute for hard scientific evidence.

Well, I can't help there I'm afraid. Abiotic oil is beside the point from my perspective though. I've answered this before and I'm going to answer it again the same way now.

With the exception of a few economists who place their faith in markets to make new fields appear as if by magic, most qualified opinion puts world conventional oil peak somewhere between in the next couple of years and say 2025 or so.

If abiotic oil is to prevent the occurrence of that peak, it would need to be making a difference by now. It isn't.

It is making no evident difference to production. It is making no impact anywhere but in a few curious lab results (... and apparently also as a matter of faith in what seems to be some sort of ongoing shit-fight between two rival factions of online 911 conspiracy theorists. Which is getting tiresome.)

The US lower 48 is in a fairly advanced stage of depletion already and the North Sea is not far behind. If this deus ex-machina was going to make any difference, I think that we'd have noticed by now.

Unless of course *they* are keeping all that secret oil to themselves ....

 

[Loki]

But what we do know is that CO2 levels during the Cenozoic were 5 times what they are today. We also know that mammals (from which we are all descended) thrived and multiplied in this period of the planet's evolution and were not wiped out by the catastrophic event of the polar ice caps melting.

I see.

News just in!

A computer simulation of the Earth's climate 250 million years ago suggests that global warming triggered the so-called "great dying".

A dramatic rise in carbon dioxide caused temperatures to soar to 10 to 30 degrees Celsius higher than today, say US researchers.

The warming had a profound impact on the oceans, cutting off oxygen to the lower depths and extinguishing most lifeforms, they write in the latest issue of Geology.

The research adds to the growing body of evidence that higher temperatures, rather than a giant space rock hitting the planet, led to the greatest mass extinction in history.

Full article (BBC)

 

[nino_savatte]

What about Campbell and Leherrere and the "peak oil" myth? These two darlings of the Greenshirt doomsday mob are funded by the oil industry too, you know.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Colin_J._Campbell

I'm not talking about that, I am challenging peeb's source since he continues to believe the lie that research is conducted in an ideological vacuum. It is also a continuation of his campaign of disinformation.

 

[nino_savatte]

I passed college calculus .

I'm only about 20 credits short of a degree.

Stierscheiße.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

So he's not capable or qualified to tell us if the science is good then. That's all i needed to hear. As for my exams, i'll worry about them, you keep on going about how the guy who shot JFK is after you now truthseeker!

Earlier, when I attempted to engage politely with his anthropologist point. What I got was another loopy rant about abiotic oil.

*shrug*

I'm seeing less and less difference between bigfish and pbman these days.

 

[bigfish]

I'm seeing less and less difference between bigfish and pbman these days.

You're getting desperate Gunther. Pbman believes that it was AQ wot done 911 and the London bombings, just like you do. He's just as keen as you are in maintaining the fit up and spreading Islamophobia. I think your brownshirt's poking out from under your Green jumber.

Meanwhile, here's a story about a couple of saddo neo-Guntherites...

Couple offer lessons in life after doomsday

Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Tuesday August 30, 2005
The Guardian

While world leaders squabble about whether climate change is real and what action to take, one couple has retreated to rural Wales to help humanity plan for what they believe will be a dark future.
Bob Smith and his partner Jules Wagstaff are convinced that time is short after reading the science and the signs of increasing temperatures and severe weather.

They have set up a school to teach age-old skills of coppicing, green woodworking to make furniture and tools, shelter construction, and alternative business models such as cooperatives.


Their tools are not computers but rope, lathes and hand axes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1558773,00.html

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well you know bigfish, this is a thread about climate change. If you want to start a thread about "greenshirts" go ahead, it might be quite interesting.

 

[nino_savatte]

There are some pretty wild accusations coming from you today, bf. But then I shouldn't be surprised: you've called me a "racist" among other things. Yet there is demonstrably little evidence to support such outbursts. Is there?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> I'm still waiting for you and the rest of the gang to divi-up a single peer reviewed paper that shows the same for your own preferred 18th century squashed fish hypothesis.

Cue: a fusillade of vacuous narrative as a mediocre substitute for hard scientific evidence.

Oh, and by the way here is a list of some peer-reviewed papers that you might be interested in.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3457452&postcount=867

 

[parallelepipete]

He's able to cut a person open and remove an apendix, or tell you why religion is the opiate of the masses, he can't tell you how the mathematics for weather modeling works. He's not qualified, the fact he writes good fiction should tell you how persuasive he can be when talking shite.

You just admited that no one in your country is qualified to evaluade any of the science involved in global warming except, those who are paid to be alarmests.

PB, I don't follow you here. How can Bob's post be read as such an admission?

 

[ViolentPanda]

You're getting desperate Gunther. Pbman believes that it was AQ wot done 911 and the London bombings, just like you do. He's just as keen as you are in maintaining the fit up and spreading Islamophobia. I think your brownshirt's poking out from under your Green jumber.

Meanwhile, here's a story about a couple of saddo neo-Guntherites...

So, are you attacking their "belief system" re: global warming/climate change, their courage in following their beliefs, or the fact that they're teaching dying skills?

I ask because so often your posts, while interesting, carry the stamp of zealotry; the anger at and denigration of opposition, the contempt for those who do not believe as you do, the haughty assumption of moral and intellectual superiority.

Are you too a person with a "belief system" you're attempting to defend?

On current evidence imho the answer to that must be "yes".

 

[parallelepipete]

... doomsday mob ... Sir Robert Robinson, a Nobel Laureate and member of the Royal Society " ... petroleum ... not ... modified biogenic products ... ancient oils ... primordial hydrocarbon mixture ... . <snip>

OK. This thread is about the existence or otherwise of global climate change. What's the origin of the petroleum we burn got to do with the amount of CO2 it releases - which is what we greenshirts insist is a major contributor to such (alleged, m'lud) climate change? Does this wonderful primordial hydrocarbon mixture not contain, er, um, carbon?

 

[bigfish]

There are some pretty wild accusations coming from you today, bf. But then I shouldn't be surprised: you've called me a "racist" among other things. Yet there is demonstrably little evidence to support such outbursts. Is there?

Apart from this you mean: "Criminals who described themselves as British Muslims did blow up other British Muslims, that's a fact". (nino_savette)

For the third time of asking - do you stand by your statement?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

So, are you attacking their "belief system" re: global warming/climate change, their courage in following their beliefs, or the fact that they're teaching dying skills?

I ask because so often your posts, while interesting, carry the stamp of zealotry; the anger at and denigration of opposition, the contempt for those who do not believe as you do, the haughty assumption of moral and intellectual superiority.

Are you too a person with a "belief system" you're attempting to defend?

On current evidence imho the answer to that must be "yes".

The reason I think pbman and bigfish resemble each other is that they both seem to strongly favour extremely unlikely, conspiratorial explanations for evidence offered by environmentalists that seems to conflict with some of their most deeply held beliefs.

I myself favour occam's razor. I don't think that it's a matter of believing in the simplest explanation as a matter of faith though. It's a matter of believing the simplest explanation until you see a good reason to come up with a more complicated one.

The problem with conspiracy theorists is that they seem to just automatically reject the obvious explanation, often because it conflicts with their world-view and tend to start from the assumption that there is a hidden and much less likely explanation, and invest themselves very deeply in believing in it.

My impression is that what can happen with some of these conspiracy theorists, like religious or political zealots, is that they have some sort of existential committment to the idea of being in sole possession of the truth. The existential committment bit is where I think we find the key difference between a true believer and someone who merely provisionally entertains a conspiratorial explanation.

Someone merely provisionally entertaining a non-standard explanation has no reason at all to display paranoid aggression towards anyone who refuses to buy into their theories. They're merely seeing it as one possibility among many, and are open to being swayed by facts and logic to another viewpoint. They don't lose out personally in any sense by becoming convinced of a different viewpoint later on and can happily engage with other viewpoints.

A true believer on the other hand, can't afford to even provisionally entertain the slightest doubt about the priviledged status of their unusual world-view, without losing all the existential benefits that they are deriving from subscribing to it. This means that they are often highly intolerant of criticism or evidence that conflicts with their beliefs, and they either flee from it, or confront it with a kind of hysterical aggression.

Here we have both pbman and bigfish, for their different reasons, advancing a thesis along the lines that environmentalism is a cynical plot by somebody or other (oil companies if you follow bigfish, "commy alarmests" if you follow pbman) sustained by various conspiracies, because the possibility that environmentalists might have a point about some of this stuff is for various reasons not, apparently, compatible with their (admittedly different in other ways) world-views.

 

[parallelepipete]

... <political slander> ... Meanwhile, here's a story about a couple of saddo neo-Guntherites <snip=image of quite nice looking ger or some such tent>

Meanwhile, here's another bunch of abso-f**king-lutely crazy enviro-terrorist fundecologist types who threaten the world's prosperity and security...

*note to self: must cut down on the coffee*

 

[bigfish]

<deleted cheese-cart selection>

Are you too a person with a "belief system" you're attempting to defend?

I'm a Marxist... what are you?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

OK. This thread is about the existence or otherwise of global climate change. What's the origin of the petroleum we burn got to do with the amount of CO2 it releases - which is what we greenshirts insist is a major contributor to such (alleged, m'lud) climate change? Does this wonderful primordial hydrocarbon mixture not contain, er, um, carbon?

In fact, if the strong abiotic thesis were true then having an everlasting supply of fossil fuels (only I guess we'd need to call them something else if that were the case) would continue to increase greenhouse gas concentrations, reaching the levels where rapid and irreversable effects (melting ice shelves, natural CO2 and methane sinks turning into sources of greenhouse gas and so on) might be expected to kick in by the end of the century, unless something were done to alter the present demand trends.

Either way, it seems to me, we need to be thinking about changes.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm a Marxist... what are you?

I'm someone who doesn't peddle faith as scientific truth, and doesn't need recourse to (not very) smart remarks about cheese selections.

I do find it surprising that you claim to be Marxist but still have such a deep and obvious adherence to your religion.

 

[bigfish]

I'm someone who doesn't peddle faith as scientific truth, and doesn't need recourse to (not very) smart remarks about cheese selections.

Thanks for clearing that one up for me.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Oh, and by the way here is a list of some peer-reviewed papers that you might be interested in.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3457452&postcount=867

Psst, bigfish.

In case you missed this earlier

 

[Bernie Gunther]

bigfish, I think you should come out from behind those conspiracy theories and just deal with the facts.

I don't like the implications of global resource constraints any more than you apparently do, but that's what the numbers appear to be saying. Trying to find some crank theory that lets you ignore the problem and pretend it's all the work of evil men, isn't going to help here unfortunately.

As far as I know your motives are sound, I wish you'd stop acting like a dick.

 

[pbman]

PB, I don't follow you here. How can Bob's post be read as such an admission?

Very very few people outside the induesty have the training and expirance to evaluade the data,occording to his standards.

Politicians and general voters who actualy make the decitions, can't evaluate them either.

Yet they all seam to belive in the theory just the same.

And they all seam to be complety obliviouse, to the basics even of how the earth warms and cools naturley, and the forces that control it.

Read back were chriton said he thought this was the biggist chalenge faceing mankind in the future. Global warming was his example for this, and if you think about it it makes sense, apperently 99% of the people in europe belive in it, and only about 1 out of million understands the basics of it. All of the BBC articals i read are just filled with hype and few facts that are in a context of usefull information. They don't tell you that so and so, ran 30 different computer models with different input (guesses) and that the worst possible senario is the one that gets all the press.

 

[rocketman]

So you are not situated in New Orleans?
You know, where some of your oil comes from? Where the poor people live?
Go and do something useful there, build homes for the homeless.
At least I could respect that.

Very very few people outside the induesty have the training and expirance to evaluade the data,occording to his standards.

Politicians and general voters who actualy make the decitions, can't evaluate them either.

Yet they all seam to belive in the theory just the same.

And they all seam to be complety obliviouse, to the basics even of how the earth warms and cools naturley, and the forces that control it.

Read back were chriton said he thought this was the biggist chalenge faceing mankind in the future. Global warming was his example for this, and if you think about it it makes sense, apperently 99% of the people in europe belive in it, and only about 1 out of million understands the basics of it. All of the BBC articals i read are just filled with hype and few facts that are in a context of usefull information. They don't tell you that so and so, ran 30 different computer models with different input (guesses) and that the worst possible senario is the one that gets all the press.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I seriously doubt that an intelligent laymans understanding of climate change is only available to "one in a million"

Anyone with a basic knowledge of science can go, e.g. to Stephen Schneider's web page and read what's there. Then they'll understand it well enough for all practical purposes. They'll be able to discriminate between highly probable and merely possible and understand how uncertainty is present in an increasing degree as you move away from basic science into policy.

Let's do a quick straw poll. How many people here on U75 who bother to read this are comfortable witht the material presented and don't feel that it's going over their heads at all?

 

[pbman]

I seriously doubt that an intelligent laymans understanding of climate change is only available to "one in a million"

l?

It is if you exclude people such as Michael Crichton.

Maybe even one it 5 million.

But that was bob the lost who set the bar that high not me.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of science can go, e.g. to Stephen Schneider's web page and read what's there. Then they'll understand it well enough for all practical purposes. They'll be able to discriminate between highly probable and merely possible and understand how uncertainty is present in an increasing degree as you move away from basic science into policy.

Your complety missing the point, we have other sites that can explan the same things in simple terms, and reach complety differnt conclutions, and no one can compare the two, at least without a considerable effort of time doing real hard work understanding the issue. Most people today, can't be arsed with that level of work, so they just go along with whatever veiw is the most populare.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

One is based on science, the other is based on the output of oil company PR agencies.

I think that most people can tell the difference by now.

 

[pbman]

I better post this again.


by Michael Crichton
San Francisco
September 15, 2003

I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.

As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about environmentalism. And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including the consequences to other people, and the consequences to the environment. I believe it is important to act in ways that are sympathetic to the environment, and I believe this will always be a need, carrying into the future. I believe the world has genuine problems and I believe it can and should be improved. But I also think that deciding what constitutes responsible action is immensely difficult, and the consequences of our actions are often difficult to know in advance. I think our past record of environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best intended efforts often go awry. But I think we do not recognize our past failures, and face them squarely. And I think I know why.

http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1521.htm

I saw him give a simailar speach on CSpan, and answer questions from reporters, on global warming. Not one of the reporters was even in his league, its was extreamly obviouse. Yet these reporters are the ones who wright the very news on the issue, and they don't know enough to talk about the issue, with an educated layman, like Crichton. So your news is being filtered by the very people bob the lost said, are not qualified to make decitions on the issues........

Thats pretty sad.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Why post it again?

Do you think that people judge the validity of your arguments by the amount of bandwidth that you are using up?

 

[pbman]

One is based on science, the other is based on the output of oil company PR agencies.
.

lol

Oill companes don't give a shit about the issue of global warming, we need energy, and will buy it in huge quanties just the same.

 

[pbman]

One is based on science, the other is based on the output of oil company PR agencies.
.

lol

Oill companes don't really give a shit about the issue of global warming, we need energy, and will buy it in huge quanties just the same. You make it sound like they are fighitng for survival, and thats far far from the case.

I have a relative in the upper managment of haliburton, i know for a fact its a non-issue with them. Look at how badly the koyoto treaty was shot down. 98-0, if it was 51 to 49 then they might be scared.

But it wasn't even in the ballpark of passing.

And the global warming allarmest push things like wind power, and all the wind mills are backed up by gas turbine here in the us, so they make even more money, the more people buy into it. Energy companies can easily make money either way, and with little effort they could make a lot more with the public affaraid of global warming, such fear creates bad economic polices and conditions that can easily be exployted.