Trump

[47MVEagle]

Might as well, seems me Brookie think alike on lots of things.

I'm still interested in HIS answer to my question though.

 

[Brookie1973]

On climate change being politicised
Agree with you that politicians should not politicise it. eg. why do I want to hear politician X's thoughts on it? It is unfair on climate researchers that the choice of politicians to politicise it may also lead to people discrediting their work (from what I see online).

I do think they have politicised it in the sense of 'vote for me, I care about it more'. Is that what you are thinking? If it is something else; then against who / for what?

My solution may differ from yours but I think it is the only way to keep politics out of it is to have the parties lean solely on the leading experts to advise them. Both parties then work out a compromise to ensure the climate response remains the same irrespective of who is in power (i.e. do so in private, prior to election cycles).

Particularly in the US (although also in AUS) it is too easy for politicians to make big decisions based on their own opinion and/or external motives that disrupts long-term planning and direction.

___________________
On model accuracy (additional note)
In my last post I included a pdf detailing the accuracy of the temp rise model used by the IPCC. In this one ill also include the sea level one. I think there are a lot of misleading ideas spread online about accuracy of models; people often acknowledge only worst case (upper bound) estimates and neglect effects such as sea-level rise being non-uniform (oceanographers better suited to explaining the many variables than I). Many low-lying nations have already been affected. mean global rise of 98.3mm since 1993 w/ accelerating rates. Many people don't realise more CO2 is being extracted and released than ever before in spite of the notion of climate initiatives being widespread and/or overblown.

___________________
On research funding
From what I hear, scientific research in general is poorly funded. From my initial search I looked at R&D budgets in Aus. For CCEEW (climate change, energy, the environment and water); they get $1.2 billion, ranked 4th (of the top 6, they get 8% of the total funding). Note that this isn't purely dedicated to climate change either. A large portion of R&D funding I would expect goes to R&D of energy-production technologies (nuclear, hydrogen, osmotic / hydropower methods) and energy storage (eg. EV batteries). Some also to upgrading monitoring systems and improving efficiencies of existing systems (food production, electrical grids). It isn't people in labs endlessly trying to validate that global warming is sensitive to C02 emissions. The research papers on that topic are well established and accessible to the public already, why kick a dead horse?

The potential costs of climate change are not trivial either. At the end of the day I don't think research should stop (mostly in the interests of the fossil fuel industry) just because it may or may not be 97% of scientists that agree with it. Such investment helps beyond just climate change (and its mitigation).


View attachment 31360
________________
On climate change being monetised
For corporations, yes. Marketing teams love it. Fun story; when attending my university they would advertise "100% clean energy supplied at campus" or something of the like. In reality they just outsourced a bunch to the grid and made use of a loophole in reporting.

But for politics/science, no I don't agree.

Have you considered that there's a buttload more money to be made in Fossil fuel usage (existing infrastructure and technology, readily available) than funding research teams and renewable sources? Trump latches onto fossil fuels for this reason, noting that environmental concerns are not a factor for him.

The fossil fuel industry reminds me of the Tabacco industry of old. Wouldn't be surprised if they actively spend $$$ opposing climate research and/or activism.

____________________
On author of that Forbes article
Agree with the author that the percentage stat is ambiguous (eg. what type of scientists? what do they agree on? what is the source? etc.). But I find this a bit immaterial given we've already established that modern scientific view = humans causing accelerated rates of global warming.

The author overall was fairly opinionated and expressed a general level of uncertainty about what the current scientific understanding is. His comment that jumped out to me was:

"Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels--which are crucial to the livelihood of billions."​

To me that gives away that the author doesn't really care about the implications of this topic anyways. Also, for some unknown reason ($?) the author appears motivated solely by protecting the fossil-fuel industry. Banning fossil fuel usage isn't even remotely in consideration at this stage, the whole idea is to research and develop scalable alternatives and/or more energy-efficient methods.

Once again you are cherry picking. There was a lot more in the 97% articles than the one comment you chose to highlight. Bottom line, the “97%” figure is seriously flawed but has been widely used to silence opposition. As to the $ question, I think you are forgetting the trillions in future revenue to be gained by replacing the worlds energy sources.

 

[Brookie1973]

One more just example of his continual lies (lets skip over the election, Biden bashing stuff)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1973029208000704900

It was not even close...but who cares right?

U.S. Overdose Deaths Drop 26.9% in 2024 - Prevention Technology Transfer Center (PTTC) Network

Annual drug overdose deaths reached their lowest level since 2019, down 26.9% from 110,037 in 2023 to 80,391 in 2024.

pttcnetwork.org

Maybe switch off the Fox News for a while.

 

[Brookie1973]

There are just so many from yesterday. I wonder who the enemy from within is?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1973027387383152644

Would you consider open border globalists as being enemies of a nation state?

 

[47MVEagle]

Maybe switch off the Fox News for a while.

Yeah, because Trump never actually said these things, right?

You’d rather stick your head in the sand though.

 

[Buddy Love]

Sometimes AI is awesome 👌

 

[h27272727]

Once again you are cherry picking. There was a lot more in the 97% articles than the one comment you chose to highlight. Bottom line, the “97%” figure is seriously flawed but has been widely used to silence opposition. As to the $ question, I think you are forgetting the trillions in future revenue to be gained by replacing the worlds energy sources.

Oh boy. Everything's some big deceitful plot, isn't it? What are we even arguing here? That climate change isn't the commonly held scientific opinion? That it's 80%, not 97%? 96%? 51%?

Between the 2012 apocolypse theory guy and the pro-fossil-fuel author/Forbes blog-post writer perhaps we should stop and reflect on the meaning of 'bias' and 'cherry picking'

Look I don't want to get too judgemental. I think I need to step it back a bit to get a better idea of where exactly you are coming from because I'm not quite understanding if your issue is with climate change research, science or just flat out establishment.

Im no educator - at least not a paid one. The Forbes article cynically suggests that 'the evidence isn't there'. I pointed you to the IPCC and NASA as a starter. The information is sitting literally right there. It's on a platter, members of the public can access it, critique it or challenge it. Ignoring it plays no part in the process of arriving at a truth / better model. If you want to pretend it isn't there and focus on semantics then that's OK. Just not what I thought this was about. I thought you believed current understanding should be attributed to X Y Z instead of A B C.

Aside from NASA/IPCC resources (and cited works), There's textbooks. Textbooks hundreds of pages long about not only the understood cause, but the ramifications and costs associated with ignoring the issue.

Staunchly defending the use of fossil fuels should not be a concern of you or I, that is for the fossil fuel industry to look after. When a more efficient source comes along it will lose market share and when that happens, so be it. If that efficient source also happens to be renewable, great

It is not cherry picking to skim over a rambling article of a hardcore fossil-fuel advocate (author of 'Fossil Future') on the topic of ... climate change. I read every word, and that is time I will never get back.

If you care about this topic than maybe this video will challenge your current understanding. If not, id be keen to know why not. But up to you as always

 

[Brookie1973]

Oh boy. Everything's some big deceitful plot, isn't it? What are we even arguing here? That climate change isn't the commonly held scientific opinion? That it's 80%, not 97%? 96%? 51%?

Between the 2012 apocolypse theory guy and the pro-fossil-fuel author/Forbes blog-post writer perhaps we should stop and reflect on the meaning of 'bias' and 'cherry picking'

Look I don't want to get too judgemental. I think I need to step it back a bit to get a better idea of where exactly you are coming from because I'm not quite understanding if your issue is with climate change research, science or just flat out establishment.

Im no educator - at least not a paid one. The Forbes article cynically suggests that 'the evidence isn't there'. I pointed you to the IPCC and NASA as a starter. The information is sitting literally right there. It's on a platter, members of the public can access it, critique it or challenge it. Ignoring it plays no part in the process of arriving at a truth / better model. If you want to pretend it isn't there and focus on semantics then that's OK. Just not what I thought this was about. I thought you believed current understanding should be attributed to X Y Z instead of A B C.

Aside from NASA/IPCC resources (and cited works), There's textbooks. Textbooks hundreds of pages long about not only the understood cause, but the ramifications and costs associated with ignoring the issue.

Staunchly defending the use of fossil fuels should not be a concern of you or I, that is for the fossil fuel industry to look after. When a more efficient source comes along it will lose market share and when that happens, so be it. If that efficient source also happens to be renewable, great

It is not cherry picking to skim over a rambling article of a hardcore fossil-fuel advocate (author of 'Fossil Future') on the topic of ... climate change. I read every word, and that is time I will never get back.

If you care about this topic than maybe this video will challenge your current understanding. If not, id be keen to know why not. But up to you as always

I thought you were the analytical guy who likes to crunch numbers to prove points? Now it doesn’t matter if 97% or 51% of scientists agree on man made climate change. You were the one who used the 97% first, I am just adopting your evidence based approach to refute it, and you get all defensive.

Do you think people wouldn’t be so cowered into not questioning the “science” if the real number is not 97% but 51%?

I go back to my original position. Science should be open-minded and willing to invite questioning and the continual reassessment of theories. Climate science is the opposite. Why? Politics and greed, neither of which belong anywhere near science. The fallacy of the 97% was the starting point for silencing dissent.

 

[h27272727]

I thought you were the analytical guy who likes to crunch numbers to prove points? Now it doesn’t matter if 97% or 51% of scientists agree on man made climate change. You were the one who used the 97% first, I am just adopting your evidence based approach to refute it, and you get all defensive.

Do you think people wouldn’t be so cowered into not questioning the “science” if the real number is not 97% but 51%?

I go back to my original position. Science should be open-minded and willing to invite questioning and the continual reassessment of theories. Climate science is the opposite. Why? Politics and greed, neither of which belong anywhere near science. The fallacy of the 97% was the starting point for silencing dissent.

OK I see where you are coming from. You are of the opinion that the 97% figure is a gross misrepresentation of the consensus of the scientific community and that this is a construct specifically aimed at silencing objectors.

I did not spend the time to look into the source of that statistic today because I didn't realise this is central to your fear/distrust of the climate research community.

I looked into a bit of its origins and it is quite different than you or I thought. Somewhat unsurprisingly, it turned out that the fossil-fuel advocating author of that Forbes article never read the paper it stems from, ultimately concocting his own narrative.

For a big picture view lets overview key developments in what is today known as 'climate change research'. This will be my last big post for this week, I have gotten a bit too preoccupied with this, although I enjoyed researching the history of this more because reflecting on it now I can still learn a whole heap more about this topic.

1820's - Joseph Fourier observation
In the 1820's, a question proposed by French physicist Joseph Fourier kicked off scientific research into possible heat-trapping properties of carbon-dioxide.

"Why is Planet Earth such a warm place? It should be an ice-ball at this distance from the Sun"​

For over 100 years, scientists were unable to prove a mechanism.
Remained a hot topic of research, although as with every scientific study - it was to remain an observation until it could be explained.

1956 - Landmark paper on climate change transforms the observation to an explanation
“The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change” (Gilbert Plass, 1956) - explained the mechanism for how C02 traps heat in the atmosphere. The terminology "climate change" is introduced. Breakthrough findings reignite the interest of the scientific community and particularly climate researchers. Repeatable, verifiable procedures implemented.

Over the ensuing 60+ years, thousands of research papers are published on different aspects, new research areas, theory validation,etc.

1982 - Exxon Mobil (oil/gas industry) Scientists memo to management about concern over the "Greenhouse Effect"
Link to the scientist's memo

In 2015, investigative journalists uncovered that Exxon Mobil Scientists' had an internal global warming model that accurately predicted subsequent warming. Documents found from the early 1980's included a memo to Exxon management warning about the greenhouse effect. Allegedly the effects were known by the fossil fuels industry since the 50's (aligns with previous section), though publicly they desperately tried to convince the public it was a hoax. If anything, definitely give the memo a quick read (link above), it is interesting to hear perspectives back in the 80's today regardless of your stance.

"In Glaser’s summary to management, he writes that the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere now stands at 340 ppm and that fossil fuel combustion along with clearing of virgin forests are the contributions to the trend. Glaser writes, “our best estimate is that doubling of the current concentration could increase average global temperature by about 1.3 degrees celsius to 3.1 degrees celsius.” Glaser acknowledges that there is “considerable uncertainty” about the impact this warming will have on society and that there is “currently no unambiguous scientific evidence that the earth is warming.” Glaser writes that greenhouse effect could be detected by 1995 or 2020 if the climate models are exaggerating.​

​

Glaser writes that mitigation of the greenhouse effect will require reductions in fossil fuel combustion, and that the warming might not be reversible. On page A15, Glaser calculates the total carbon dioxide emitted from burning “primary fossil fuels.....”​

​

2016 - Consensus on consensus paper is released (attached)

"Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming." (Cook et al, 2016). Paper co-authored by 6 researchers who in the preceeding decade each independently arrived at consensus estimates ranging between 90%-100% among publishing climate scientists. They each adopted different methodologies in their independant studies leading up to this joined effort. Was not based on a poll and the 6 initial studies each adopted different methodologies; mainly involved analysis of published, peer-reviewed scientific research papers (i.e. the library of scientific research). The main study involved over 11,000 papers sampled randomly, with analysis concluding that 97% of published literature supported or agreed with the notion that greenhouse gases are causing recent global warming. As stated above, the other papers arrived at estimates upwards of 90%.

 

[Brookie1973]

OK I see where you are coming from. You are of the opinion that the 97% figure is a gross misrepresentation of the consensus of the scientific community and that this is a construct specifically aimed at silencing objectors.

I did not spend the time to look into the source of that statistic today because I didn't realise this is central to your fear/distrust of the climate research community.

I looked into a bit of its origins and it is quite different than you or I thought. Somewhat unsurprisingly, it turned out that the fossil-fuel advocating author of that Forbes article never read the paper it stems from, ultimately concocting his own narrative.

For a big picture view lets overview key developments in what is today known as 'climate change research'. This will be my last big post for this week, I have gotten a bit too preoccupied with this, although I enjoyed researching the history of this more because reflecting on it now I can still learn a whole heap more about this topic.

1820's - Joseph Fourier observation
In the 1820's, a question proposed by French physicist Joseph Fourier kicked off scientific research into possible heat-trapping properties of carbon-dioxide.

"Why is Planet Earth such a warm place? It should be an ice-ball at this distance from the Sun"​

For over 100 years, scientists were unable to prove a mechanism.
Remained a hot topic of research, although as with every scientific study - it was to remain an observation until it could be explained.

1956 - Landmark paper on climate change transforms the observation to an explanation
“The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change” (Gilbert Plass, 1956) - explained the mechanism for how C02 traps heat in the atmosphere. The terminology "climate change" is introduced. Breakthrough findings reignite the interest of the scientific community and particularly climate researchers. Repeatable, verifiable procedures implemented.

Over the ensuing 60+ years, thousands of research papers are published on different aspects, new research areas, theory validation,etc.

1982 - Exxon Mobil (oil/gas industry) Scientists memo to management about concern over the "Greenhouse Effect"
Link to the scientist's memo

In 2015, investigative journalists uncovered that Exxon Mobil Scientists' had an internal global warming model that accurately predicted subsequent warming. Documents found from the early 1980's included a memo to Exxon management warning about the greenhouse effect. Allegedly the effects were known by the fossil fuels industry since the 50's (aligns with previous section), though publicly they desperately tried to convince the public it was a hoax. If anything, definitely give the memo a quick read (link above), it is interesting to hear perspectives back in the 80's today regardless of your stance.

"In Glaser’s summary to management, he writes that the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere now stands at 340 ppm and that fossil fuel combustion along with clearing of virgin forests are the contributions to the trend. Glaser writes, “our best estimate is that doubling of the current concentration could increase average global temperature by about 1.3 degrees celsius to 3.1 degrees celsius.” Glaser acknowledges that there is “considerable uncertainty” about the impact this warming will have on society and that there is “currently no unambiguous scientific evidence that the earth is warming.” Glaser writes that greenhouse effect could be detected by 1995 or 2020 if the climate models are exaggerating.​

​

Glaser writes that mitigation of the greenhouse effect will require reductions in fossil fuel combustion, and that the warming might not be reversible. On page A15, Glaser calculates the total carbon dioxide emitted from burning “primary fossil fuels.....”​

​

2016 - Consensus on consensus paper is released (attached)

"Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming." (Cook et al, 2016). Paper co-authored by 6 researchers who in the preceeding decade each independently arrived at consensus estimates ranging between 90%-100% among publishing climate scientists. They each adopted different methodologies in their independant studies leading up to this joined effort. Was not based on a poll and the 6 initial studies each adopted different methodologies; mainly involved analysis of published, peer-reviewed scientific research papers (i.e. the library of scientific research). The main study involved over 11,000 papers sampled randomly, with analysis concluding that 97% of published literature supported or agreed with the notion that greenhouse gases are causing recent global warming. As stated above, the other papers arrived at estimates upwards of 90%.

Your posts seem to follow a pattern where you seek to discredit the authors/sources of information you disagree with, rather than debating their actual conclusions. The Forbes article is just one which discredits the 97% methodology, but you choose to attack that particular author rather than consider how inaccurate the 97% conclusion is. Simply reattaching the source of the 97% doesn’t prove it’s correct or valid.

Anyway, I think you will have a hard time proving to me that climate science hasn’t been captured by vested interests which have no desire to hear competing views, which is the point I was trying to make. Science should always be open to questioning.

 

[h27272727]

Your posts seem to follow a pattern where you seek to discredit the authors/sources of information you disagree with, rather than debating their actual conclusions. The Forbes article is just one which discredits the 97% methodology, but you choose to attack that particular author rather than consider how inaccurate the 97% conclusion is. Simply reattaching the source of the 97% doesn’t prove it’s correct or valid.

Anyway, I think you will have a hard time proving to me that climate science hasn’t been captured by vested interests which have no desire to hear competing views, which is the point I was trying to make. Science should always be open to questioning.

Your whole perspective is still based on a preconception that the scientific community is closed minded. Many scientists dream of solving problems. If anyone sees a possible breakthrough in current understanding, they most definitely are motivated by the potential claim to fame. Once you publish a paper, it is out there.

They waited 136 years for someone to prove Fourier's observation was scientifically explainable.
Offering a repeatable, verifiable explanation for observed physical phenomena was the requirement.

What you haven't really considered thus far is that there already was a time where 50%+ opposed the underlying theories behind climate change. It was likely back sometime during the 1820's-1960s. Note climate change itself only was mentioned in that landmark 56' paper. The scepticism gradually dies off after 1956 (not without a fight against the fossil fuel industry)

Making it up, there likely was a good 20-30% that continued being skeptical. Yet results ended up pointing in the same direction (hence why even Exxon had their own scientific model and dedicated research teams).

If anyone manages to prove an independent variable of key studies that is infact dependant on another (non-human) factor, then climate theory may well go out the window. Problem is that there's been 75 years for that to happen, yet even fossil fuel funded research groups haven't been able to achieve it. Similar to how the Tabacco industry failed to prove cigarettes were not a cancer risk. Research moves on.

______________________________________________

I do review information sources.

This will come across as lecturing and yes, it mostly is, but without a doubt the most important thing with online information today (7-8 billion people in the world) is to check the author and assess possible conflicts of interests.

If a sex offender writes a piece about lowering the age of consent; that's relevant. If a nurse of 40 years writes about a recent, negative change for hospitals, also relevant. If a Tabacco industry lobbyist is associated with a paper that argues 'smoking is actually safe, discredit the science', jot it the **** down.

Fossil fuel author advising people to discredit climate researchers on climate change? Have a proper read of the 1982 Exxon case study.

Note doing this isn't purely to discredit the content; there are times where you may find that the background of the author actually grounds the basis of their ideas, or gives weight to their perspective (nurse example).

Neither of us knew where that 97% statistic came from earlier today, neither did we have any clue about the methodology used to derive it. NASA told me it was a thing, you got told it's a weaponised fabrication. The Forbes author didn't even touch on the methodology or research paper. And yet here we were, all guilty of either using or abusing that statistic.

Now the real source of that information is right there at your fingertips, 8 or so pages long. Still, it doesn't matter. After all, why would you need to read a paper to discredit it?

And ain't that a shame,

The information is there. My post provides the necessary context. Freedom to you to do what you want with that.

 

[lsz]

Your whole perspective is still based on a preconception that the scientific community is closed minded. Many scientists dream of solving problems. If anyone sees a possible breakthrough in current understanding, they most definitely are motivated by the potential claim to fame. Once you publish a paper, it is out there.

They waited 136 years for someone to prove Fourier's observation was scientifically explainable.
Offering a repeatable, verifiable explanation for observed physical phenomena was the requirement.

What you haven't really considered thus far is that there already was a time where 50%+ opposed the underlying theories behind climate change. It was likely back sometime during the 1820's-1960s. Note climate change itself only was mentioned in that landmark 56' paper. The scepticism gradually dies off after 1956 (not without a fight against the fossil fuel industry)

Making it up, there likely was a good 20-30% that continued being skeptical. Yet results ended up pointing in the same direction (hence why even Exxon had their own scientific model and dedicated research teams).

If anyone manages to prove an independent variable of key studies that is infact dependant on another (non-human) factor, then climate theory may well go out the window. Problem is that there's been 75 years for that to happen, yet even fossil fuel funded research groups haven't been able to achieve it. Similar to how the Tabacco industry failed to prove cigarettes were not a cancer risk. Research moves on.

______________________________________________

I do review information sources.

This will come across as lecturing and yes, it mostly is, but without a doubt the most important thing with online information today (7-8 billion people in the world) is to check the author and assess possible conflicts of interests.

If a sex offender writes a piece about lowering the age of consent; that's relevant. If a nurse of 40 years writes about a recent, negative change for hospitals, also relevant. If a Tabacco industry lobbyist is associated with a paper that argues 'smoking is actually safe, discredit the science', jot it the **** down.

Fossil fuel author advising people to discredit climate researchers on climate change? Have a proper read of the 1982 Exxon case study.

Note doing this isn't purely to discredit the content; there are times where you may find that the background of the author actually grounds the basis of their ideas, or gives weight to their perspective (nurse example).

Neither of us knew where that 97% statistic came from earlier today, neither did we have any clue about the methodology used to derive it. NASA told me it was a thing, you got told it's a weaponised fabrication. The Forbes author didn't even touch on the methodology or research paper. And yet here we were, all guilty of either using or abusing that statistic.

Now the real source of that information is right there at your fingertips, 8 or so pages long. Still, it doesn't matter. After all, why would you need to read a paper to discredit it?

And ain't that a shame,

The information is there. My post provides the necessary context. Freedom to you to do what you want with that.

You need to stop bringing facts to a bias fight…..nothing ever changes as people who say we should be “open minded” are only open minded when it suits their view
(I do like reading your posts though)