Climate Change - a poll

[leicsmac]

11 hours ago, pazzerfox said:

Whenever I get sent something like this,  my first thought is always "I think I'll get a more reasoned view from @leicsmac "

 

 

Appreciate the heads-up.

 

Well...

 

Firstly, there would need to be more than hearsay, innuendo and the word of one person to establish whether this is true at all. That rich and powerful people have looked to manipulate society for their own ends is hardly in question, there just needs to be a lot more proof of it in this particular instance.

 

Secondly, this reads like similar theories regarding Covid/education systems/globalism where such theories are floated without much in the way of hard evidence backing them. I can understand a. such evidence is bloody difficult to come by and b. people want to feel that a human-shaped boogeyman is doing the dirty rather than simply acts of nature (sometimes exacerbated by human action) because it gives them an element of control over their lives, but it is, quite simply, living a lie. Sometimes bad things just happen, and sometimes nature is badder than humans could ever be, and sometimes there is no one to blame. And no man is ever an island and to believe otherwise is simply wrong.

 

Finally, if such a conspiracy is true, it is taking place with the (at least implied or deferential) consent of the entire climate science corps. What exactly do they have to gain from this? They, as well as anyone, know that such a conspiracy based on consequences beyond human control wouldn't make any sense - because the overall objective for those running the conspiracy is control and power. It doesn't make sense that some of the smartest people on this planet would go along with such a lie without there being some evidence of what's in it for them.

 

So yeah, there's really little of substance here - it's just a bloke scared of the changes to the status quo affecting him personally so he's trying to bury his head in the sand and put out misinformation that puts off the necessary changes until they don't affect him - at the cost of massive amount of materiel and countless lives in the future. Self-centred to the extreme.

 

NB. As an exercise, remember the reverse Pascals Wager here: if he's right and the entire climate science corps are wrong, then the worst possible outcome is 1984. If he's wrong and the entire climate science corps are right, the worst possible outcome is the Mad-Max-style downfall and eventual extinction of our species in a mass extinction event that will cause incredible damage to the biosphere. I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather choose an overthrowable (in time) dystopia over irreversible annihilation.

[st albans fox]

12 hours ago, pazzerfox said:

Whenever I get sent something like this,  my first thought is always "I think I'll get a more reasoned view from @leicsmac "

 

 

I’d be wondering about the people sending me stuff like this rather than the content 

[pazzerfox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Appreciate the heads-up.

 

Well...

 

Firstly, there would need to be more than hearsay, innuendo and the word of one person to establish whether this is true at all. That rich and powerful people have looked to manipulate society for their own ends is hardly in question, there just needs to be a lot more proof of it in this particular instance.

 

Secondly, this reads like similar theories regarding Covid/education systems/globalism where such theories are floated without much in the way of hard evidence backing them. I can understand a. such evidence is bloody difficult to come by and b. people want to feel that a human-shaped boogeyman is doing the dirty rather than simply acts of nature (sometimes exacerbated by human action) because it gives them an element of control over their lives, but it is, quite simply, living a lie. Sometimes bad things just happen, and sometimes nature is badder than humans could ever be, and sometimes there is no one to blame. And no man is ever an island and to believe otherwise is simply wrong.

 

Finally, if such a conspiracy is true, it is taking place with the (at least implied or deferential) consent of the entire climate science corps. What exactly do they have to gain from this? They, as well as anyone, know that such a conspiracy based on consequences beyond human control wouldn't make any sense - because the overall objective for those running the conspiracy is control and power. It doesn't make sense that some of the smartest people on this planet would go along with such a lie without there being some evidence of what's in it for them.

 

So yeah, there's really little of substance here - it's just a bloke scared of the changes to the status quo affecting him personally so he's trying to bury his head in the sand and put out misinformation that puts off the necessary changes until they don't affect him - at the cost of massive amount of materiel and countless lives in the future. Self-centred to the extreme.

 

NB. As an exercise, remember the reverse Pascals Wager here: if he's right and the entire climate science corps are wrong, then the worst possible outcome is 1984. If he's wrong and the entire climate science corps are right, the worst possible outcome is the Mad-Max-style downfall and eventual extinction of our species in a mass extinction event that will cause incredible damage to the biosphere. I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather choose an overthrowable (in time) dystopia over irreversible annihilation.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply (as always).

 

You've raised some valid points about evidence and the complexity of such claims.  Firstly, you're right that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. However, it’s also important to remember that many significant historical events and power dynamics were hidden in plain sight for long periods before documentation or whistleblowers brought them to light. I'm not claiming that Norgangard's book offers definitive proof (I haven't read it to sunstantiate his "evidence") on its own, but it compels a deeper examination of the ties between powerful financial interests and global initiatives, such as climate change. While the Rockefeller influence may be speculative to some degree, it's historically true that they have shaped many aspects of finance, industry, and philanthropy, often with significant global impacts. That doesn't mean every claim is accurate, but we shouldn't dismiss concerns without investigating more thoroughly.

 

In response to your point about it not making sense for some of the smartest peoplke on the plane, going alomng with the lie.  I guess It’s important to remember that many smart, well-intentioned people aren’t necessarily “in on” a grand lie but may be influenced by structural incentives, particularly when it comes to funding and career advancement. In academia and research, funding plays a massive role in determining which projects get pursued and published. Large-scale initiatives, like climate change research, often attract significant financial backing from governments, philanthropic organisations, and private donors. This isn’t inherently a problem, but it does create a system where certain narratives or approaches might be favored over others based on where the money flows.

 

I like (and agree) with your last paragragh of a 1984 scenario being the lesser of two evils and one that avoids the potential of a catastrophe! 

 

[leicsmac]

38 minutes ago, pazzerfox said:

Thanks for your thoughtful reply (as always).

 

You've raised some valid points about evidence and the complexity of such claims.  Firstly, you're right that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. However, it’s also important to remember that many significant historical events and power dynamics were hidden in plain sight for long periods before documentation or whistleblowers brought them to light. I'm not claiming that Norgangard's book offers definitive proof (I haven't read it to sunstantiate his "evidence") on its own, but it compels a deeper examination of the ties between powerful financial interests and global initiatives, such as climate change. While the Rockefeller influence may be speculative to some degree, it's historically true that they have shaped many aspects of finance, industry, and philanthropy, often with significant global impacts. That doesn't mean every claim is accurate, but we shouldn't dismiss concerns without investigating more thoroughly.

 

 

Yeah, that conspiracies happen and it sometimes takes a while for it all to come out is not in question. I'm just sceptical of such conspiracies when they involve elements and consequences beyond the control of the conspirers.

 

39 minutes ago, pazzerfox said:

In response to your point about it not making sense for some of the smartest peoplke on the plane, going alomng with the lie.  I guess It’s important to remember that many smart, well-intentioned people aren’t necessarily “in on” a grand lie but may be influenced by structural incentives, particularly when it comes to funding and career advancement. In academia and research, funding plays a massive role in determining which projects get pursued and published. Large-scale initiatives, like climate change research, often attract significant financial backing from governments, philanthropic organisations, and private donors. This isn’t inherently a problem, but it does create a system where certain narratives or approaches might be favored over others based on where the money flows.

 

 

If that were the case, we'd be seeing a great deal more pushback from the climate science corps, given the size of the corps and therefore the size of the conspiracy involved. Of course, funding for scientific research can get politicised which is why such funding should not be subject to personal or political opinion and should be ring-fenced no matter who holds the purse strings. The laws of thermodynamics and their consequences are not political.

 

42 minutes ago, pazzerfox said:

I like (and agree) with your last paragragh of a 1984 scenario being the lesser of two evils and one that avoids the potential of a catastrophe! 

 

Yeah.

 

"When presented with the direct choice between evil and oblivion, opt for the former, because evil, no matter how strong, can be vanquished - oblivion cannot."

[pazzerfox]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, that conspiracies happen and it sometimes takes a while for it all to come out is not in question. I'm just sceptical of such conspiracies when they involve elements and consequences beyond the control of the conspirers.

You're right—when elements or consequences lie beyond the control of those allegedly pulling the strings, it raises valid doubts about the feasibility of such plans.  It’s more about their ability to influence key systems—be it through funding, media narratives, or institutional pressures—in ways that benefit their long-term goals.  Skepticism is healthy, and I believe it can coexist with the pursuit of greater transparency.

 

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

If that were the case, we'd be seeing a great deal more pushback from the climate science corps, given the size of the corps and therefore the size of the conspiracy involved. Of course, funding for scientific research can get politicised which is why such funding should not be subject to personal or political opinion and should be ring-fenced no matter who holds the purse strings. The laws of thermodynamics and their consequences are not political.

You’re absolutely right that science should be shielded from political and personal biases, and ideally, funding would be ring-fenced from such influences. Unfortunately, in practice, funding decisions are often shaped by political, economic, or philanthropic agendas, even if the science itself remains neutral. Researchers tend to follow where the money is, and if certain areas receive more funding because they align with broader social or economic goals, those areas will naturally grow and become more dominant.

 

 

[Daggers]

17 hours ago, leicsmac said:

NB. As an exercise, remember the reverse Pascals Wager here: if he's right and the entire climate science corps are wrong, then the worst possible outcome is 1984. If he's wrong and the entire climate science corps are right, the worst possible outcome is the Mad-Max-style downfall and eventual extinction of our species in a mass extinction event that will cause incredible damage to the biosphere. I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather choose an overthrowable (in time) dystopia over irreversible annihilation.

Tbh, I think I'd cope better with scavenging and murder. I've never been good at conformity and rules.

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, Daggers said:

Tbh, I think I'd cope better with scavenging and murder. I've never been good at conformity and rules.

Fair enough.

 

Speaking personally, I know a lot of people who think they'll be Bill from The Last of Us but in actuality they'll be "guy #678" who gets merked in the opening 10 minute montage of shit going down.

 

Really rather not have it come to that at all.

[leicsmac]

23 hours ago, pazzerfox said:

You're right—when elements or consequences lie beyond the control of those allegedly pulling the strings, it raises valid doubts about the feasibility of such plans.  It’s more about their ability to influence key systems—be it through funding, media narratives, or institutional pressures—in ways that benefit their long-term goals.  Skepticism is healthy, and I believe it can coexist with the pursuit of greater transparency.

 

You’re absolutely right that science should be shielded from political and personal biases, and ideally, funding would be ring-fenced from such influences. Unfortunately, in practice, funding decisions are often shaped by political, economic, or philanthropic agendas, even if the science itself remains neutral. Researchers tend to follow where the money is, and if certain areas receive more funding because they align with broader social or economic goals, those areas will naturally grow and become more dominant.

 

 

Yeah, transparency is naturally a good thing.

 

The second paragraph represents a failure of society, rather than the scientific method itself, I think. I agree it can be a problem and needs addressing because in the end, those laws of physics, thermodynamics etc will have the last word.

[leicsmac]

Two of the worst hurricanes in decades hit Florida one after another over a matter of weeks.

 

Trump and his Repub team (apart from deSantis) instead focus on fake claims of relief money distribution, rather than actually addressing the problem itself or their policy decisions which will only result in bigger, more frequent and more devastating hurricanes hitting the same areas and beyond.

 

Standard, I guess.

[Otis]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Two of the worst hurricanes in decades hit Florida one after another over a matter of weeks.

 

Trump and his Repub team (apart from deSantis) instead focus on fake claims of relief money distribution, rather than actually addressing the problem itself or their policy decisions which will only result in bigger, more frequent and more devastating hurricanes hitting the same areas and beyond.

 

Standard, I guess.

Er.. They are not more frequent and the size increase is still up for debate. 

 

BBC News - Is climate change making hurricanes and typhoons worse?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42251921

 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Otis said:

Er.. They are not more frequent and the size increase is still up for debate. 

 

BBC News - Is climate change making hurricanes and typhoons worse?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42251921

 

From that very article:

 

Firstly, warmer ocean waters mean storms can pick up more energy, external, leading to higher wind speeds.

Record high sea surface temperatures were a key reason why US scientists forecast an above-normal Atlantic hurricane season for 2024.

The high temperatures are mainly due to long-term greenhouse gas emissions.

Secondly, a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, leading to more intense rainfall.

Climate change made the extreme rainfall from Hurricane Harvey in 2017 around three times more likely, according to one estimate, external.

 

and

 

The IPCC quotes "medium confidence" that there has been an increase in the average and peak rainfall rates associated with tropical cyclones.

The frequency and magnitude of "rapid intensification events" in the Atlantic has also likely increased, external. This is where maximum wind speeds increase very quickly, which can be especially dangerous.

There also seems to have been a slowdown in the speed at which tropical cyclones move, external across the Earth's surface. This typically brings more rainfall for a given location. For example, in 2017 Hurricane Harvey "stalled" over Houston, releasing 100cm of rain in three days, external.

In some places, the average location where tropical cyclones reach their peak intensity has shifted poleward - for example the western North Pacific, external. This can expose new communities to these hazards.

And there is some evidence, external the increased intensity of US hurricanes means they are causing more damage.

 

However...

 

Globally, the frequency of tropical cyclones has not increased over the past century, and in fact the number may have fallen, external - although long-term data is limited in some regions.

 

So yep, I should have been more accurate in my language and said that climate change, rather clearly, results in more incidences of bigger, more devastating hurricanes and cyclones (as shown by one of the charts in that article), rather than more hurricanes wholesale.

 

Appreciate the call for clarification, but I really hope this isn't a suggestion that climate change isn't contributing negatively to these situations and that the policy of Trump and the Repubs doesn't contribute to that by continually favouring carbon emissions that will result in increased global average temperatures.

[Otis]

32 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

From that very article:

 

Firstly, warmer ocean waters mean storms can pick up more energy, external, leading to higher wind speeds.

Record high sea surface temperatures were a key reason why US scientists forecast an above-normal Atlantic hurricane season for 2024.

The high temperatures are mainly due to long-term greenhouse gas emissions.

Secondly, a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, leading to more intense rainfall.

Climate change made the extreme rainfall from Hurricane Harvey in 2017 around three times more likely, according to one estimate, external.

 

and

 

The IPCC quotes "medium confidence" that there has been an increase in the average and peak rainfall rates associated with tropical cyclones.

The frequency and magnitude of "rapid intensification events" in the Atlantic has also likely increased, external. This is where maximum wind speeds increase very quickly, which can be especially dangerous.

There also seems to have been a slowdown in the speed at which tropical cyclones move, external across the Earth's surface. This typically brings more rainfall for a given location. For example, in 2017 Hurricane Harvey "stalled" over Houston, releasing 100cm of rain in three days, external.

In some places, the average location where tropical cyclones reach their peak intensity has shifted poleward - for example the western North Pacific, external. This can expose new communities to these hazards.

And there is some evidence, external the increased intensity of US hurricanes means they are causing more damage.

 

However...

 

Globally, the frequency of tropical cyclones has not increased over the past century, and in fact the number may have fallen, external - although long-term data is limited in some regions.

 

So yep, I should have been more accurate in my language and said that climate change, rather clearly, results in more incidences of bigger, more devastating hurricanes and cyclones (as shown by one of the charts in that article), rather than more hurricanes wholesale.

 

Appreciate the call for clarification, but I really hope this isn't a suggestion that climate change isn't contributing negatively to these situations and that the policy of Trump and the Repubs doesn't contribute to that by continually favouring carbon emissions that will result in increased global average temperatures.

Sure 👍

I'm not suggesting anything one way or the other. I just wanted to clarify the facts. 

 

[ozleicester]

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

[st albans fox]

38 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Doesn’t say by how much 

I think it’s a given that over a three month period the historic medians are going to be exceeded. of course there will be places across the globe that will be colder than average but that’s going to be over a shorter period. Would be surprised if there are many places at all that record below average over a three month period.  that’s where we are now 

[ozleicester]

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Doesn’t say by how much 

I think it’s a given that over a three month period the historic medians are going to be exceeded. of course there will be places across the globe that will be colder than average but that’s going to be over a shorter period. Would be surprised if there are many places at all that record below average over a three month period.  that’s where we are now 

So your saying the climate is changing.

[st albans fox]

5 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

So your saying the climate is changing.

Of course it is 

is anyone disputing that ?

 

The question is how much we are contributing to the upper level and what I consider to be more relevant,  the speed of change 

most available evidence is considerably on both 

our hope is the the planets natural ‘air conditioning’ will respond (as it has in the past)  but whilst that is likely to deliver over the next millennia,  it’s highly unlikely to be responsive enough to deal with the shorter term over the next couple hundred years. 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Of course it is 

is anyone disputing that ?

 

The question is how much we are contributing to the upper level and what I consider to be more relevant,  the speed of change 

most available evidence is considerably on both 

our hope is the the planets natural ‘air conditioning’ will respond (as it has in the past)  but whilst that is likely to deliver over the next millennia,  it’s highly unlikely to be responsive enough to deal with the shorter term over the next couple hundred years. 

Sadly yes. And some of these people have the power to shape political policy.

[ozleicester]

11 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Of course it is 

is anyone disputing that ?

 

The question is how much we are contributing to the upper level and what I consider to be more relevant,  the speed of change 

most available evidence is considerably on both 

our hope is the the planets natural ‘air conditioning’ will respond (as it has in the past)  but whilst that is likely to deliver over the next millennia,  it’s highly unlikely to be responsive enough to deal with the shorter term over the next couple hundred years. 

"There are 139 elected officials in the 117th Congress who still deny the scientific consensus of human-caused climate change". - 

"A total of 123 elected federal representatives – 100 in the House of Representatives and 23 US senators – deny the existence of human-caused climate change, all of them Republicans,"

"Tory MP Steve Baker shares paper denying climate crisis"

"Murdoch’s Climate Denial Has Australian Politics In Its Grip"

 

"Burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests and farming livestock are increasingly influencing the climate and the earth’s temperature.

This adds enormous amounts of greenhouse gases to those naturally occurring in the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect and global warming."

 

Just a few quotes.... and to check... you arent denying human influence is causing climate change are you?

[st albans fox]

7 hours ago, ozleicester said:

"Just a few quotes.... and to check... you arent denying human influence is causing climate change are you?

‘Causing climate change ‘

 

that’s a big statement 

 

our actions are part of the jigsaw. I’d say that our contribution is vastly accelerating the current natural warming pattern beyond what is likely to be a sustainable level for the planet to regulate for the future survival for vast numbers of ours (and many other) species.  Maybe it’s semantics but if it were framed a little differently then you could have a better chance of bringing some of those on the fringes of the ‘neeersayers’ with you.  Some of those make the argument that the warming is just part of what has always happened with the planet (which isn’t false) without being honest about the pace of change.  A few degrees average rise over the course of a millennia maybe something that the planet would manage to regulate itself. Over a hundred years will not be.   

Edited 14 October 2024 by st albans fox

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

‘Causing climate change ‘

 

that’s a big statement 

 

our actions are part of the jigsaw. I’d say that our contribution is vastly accelerating the current natural warming pattern beyond what is likely to be a sustainable level for the planet to regulate for the future survival for vast numbers of ours (and many other) species.  Maybe it’s semantics but if it were framed a little differently then you could have a better chance of bringing some of those on the fringes of the ‘neeersayers’ with you.  Some of those make are the argument that the warming is just part of what has always happened with the planet (which isn’t false) without being honest about the pace of change.  A few degrees average rise over the course of a millennia maybe something that the planet would manage to regulate itself. Over a hundred years will not be.   

Perhaps, but then also perhaps the same legit stuff you've pointed out here has been said rather a lot and so the ignorance from the "naysayers" now is largely wilful rather than innocent.

 

Again though, what you've said here is technically spot on imo, I'm just unsure as to how much utility being technically spot on has anymore.

[WigstonWanderer]

This sounds ominous, but perhaps an obvious positive feedback due to temperatures and other causes.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/14/nature-carbon-sink-collapse-global-heating-models-emissions-targets-evidence-aoe

 

This is one of the reasons that talk of deferring action on climate change, kicking the can down the road, letting the market sort things out at a more appropriate time, etc is so wrong.

Edited 14 October 2024 by WigstonWanderer

[st albans fox]

On 14/10/2024 at 07:51, leicsmac said:

Perhaps, but then also perhaps the same legit stuff you've pointed out here has been said rather a lot and so the ignorance from the "naysayers" now is largely wilful rather than innocent.

 

Again though, what you've said here is technically spot on imo, I'm just unsure as to how much utility being technically spot on has anymore.

Been reading some stuff recently ref geo thermal input into rising sea temps 

its feasible that this is a sig contributor.  now the deniers will point to that as meaning we aren’t responsible for rising air temps (they are obvs connected).  Have we ever been accused of being fully responsible?  However, we can’t do anything about the geo thermal stuff and it may well be that bringing our contribution way down won’t stop the rot but we have to try because where we’re headed isn’t survivable for the global population as it currently exists.  we don’t have the option to sit on our hands and hope for the best. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Been reading some stuff recently ref geo thermal input into rising sea temps 

its feasible that this is a sig contributor.  now the deniers will point to that as meaning we aren’t responsible for rising air temps (they are obvs connected).  Have we ever been accused of being fully responsible?  However, we can’t do anything about the geo thermal stuff and it may well be that bringing our contribution way down won’t stop the rot but we have to try because where we’re headed isn’t survivable for the global population as it currently exists.  we don’t have the option to sit on our hands and hope for the best. 

Yeah, it's another red herring in terms of contributions and those who want things to carry on as they are and let the future and people elsewhere pick up the tab will of course latch onto it. Any excuse to avoid taking responsibility or have accountability. The correlation between increased carbon emissions, human activity and rising global average temperature is what it is.

 

In any case, as you say, we at least have to make the effort to be resilient against forthcoming consequences, but the people you speak of don't want to do that either. They should not be near any kind of policy decision making. Or if they are and things go south (which they will), the mob yelling "who killed the world?" and looking to hold people accountable in their own way should be given their addresses.

 

 

[st albans fox]

27 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, it's another red herring in terms of contributions and those who want things to carry on as they are and let the future and people elsewhere pick up the tab will of course latch onto it. Any excuse to avoid taking responsibility or have accountability. The correlation between increased carbon emissions, human activity and rising global average temperature is what it is.

 

In any case, as you say, we at least have to make the effort to be resilient against forthcoming consequences, but the people you speak of don't want to do that either. They should not be near any kind of policy decision making. Or if they are and things go south (which they will), the mob yelling "who killed the world?" and looking to hold people accountable in their own way should be given their addresses.

 

 

The increase in ocean temps in the n Atlantic and n Pacific over the past forty years is likely more driven by geo thermal than any other contributor.  The issue for the planet is that the oceans are its natural air conditioning (over a long period which is also relevant ).  if we’ve been unlucky enough to get our massive co2 contribution occurring at the same time as a notable spell of ocean based geo thermal input then we’ve lost what might have mitigated some of the mess we’ve heavily contributed to. 
 

the red herrings are only going to get bigger if trump makes it in two weeks