The concerns that fund climate change scientists do it to mitigate the risks. — Punshhh

You say that the concerns that fund climate change scientists do it to mitigate the risks. Doesn't that put pressure on climate change scientists to find and highlight risks? If climate change scientists don't find risks, or find positives about climate change, then they will be defunded. There is pressure to give the concern the results that they want.

During a mass extinction, there's a fundamental breakdown in the mechanics of the biosphere. This has happened several times. There's one mass extinction where they're still not sure how life survived at all. — frank

Yes. And? — frank

I am pointing out that even in a major mass extinction there are still many living things that will survive.

If "they" are still not sure how life survived at all in that mass extinction then it shows that "they" are lacking knowledge and are exaggerating. Unless the whole planet explodes life will continue.

This notion of scientists saying whatever will secure their funding is nonsense, conspiracy, populist claptrap. — Punshhh

How about the scientists that work for Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Meat and Dairy, Big Pharma, Big Ag (Agriculture), Big Food, Big Chemical, etc.

Are they influenced by the organisations that fund them?

What is your definition of life?
— Agree-to-Disagree

I don't think there is one. — frank

Okay, I will reword my question to make it easier to answer.

Are bacteria and archaea alive?

Are the organisms that are found around hydrothermal vents alive? The types of organisms that are found around hydrothermal vents include giant tube worms, clams, mussels, crabs, and certain fish.

What in this world can work without funds? — javi2541997

You are correct that funding is necessary for most things. But the important question is whether the results of the funding are worth (or likely to be worth) the cost.

There is also the question of whether the funds could have been better used elsewhere.

If the PO2 went down to 12% again, most living things on land and in the oceans would die. — frank

What are the chances of this happening?

Finally a point is reached where a critical component of the engine falters and the whole engine stops. — frank

Are you talking about EV's, and the critical component is the lithium-ion battery?... :grin:

There's one mass extinction where they're still not sure how life survived at all. — frank

Which mass extinction are you referring to?

What is your definition of life? Does it include bacteria and archaea? Does it include ecosystems that are found around hydrothermal vents? These ecosystems support specialised life forms like giant tube worms, clams, mussels, crabs, and certain fish, all adapted to the extreme conditions of the deep ocean, and relying on chemosynthesis for energy.

I saw this comment in the comments section of a YouTube video.

97% of climate scientists agree that they don't want to be defunded. The science is settled !!!

:rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl:

I watched this video and I couldn't stop laughing when I saw how incredibly unscientific Paul Beckwith is.

Here is the "About Paul Beckwith" from his YouTube channel.

Well known climate system science educator; joining the dots on abrupt climate change. Occasional part-time professor (sessional/contract instructor) in Geography (on climatology, oceanography, environmental issues) at University of Ottawa. Physicist. Engineer. Master's Degree in Science in Laser Optics, Bachelors of Engineering, in Engineering Physics. Won Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario gold medal. Also interested in climate solutions, renewable energy and energy efficiency. — Paul Beckwith

These qualifications sound very impressive and you would think that an occasional part-time professor in Geography (on climatology, oceanography, environmental issues) at University of Ottawa would know what he is doing. Instead, what I am about to show you proves that Paul Beckwith is an educated idiot. This makes a nice change from most climate fanatics and alarmists who are uneducated idiots.

In this video Beckwith discusses an article based on a new peer-reviewed paper that just came out recently, which talks about how the Permian mass extinction is now linked to a 10° Celsius global temperature rise which completely reshaped the Earth's ecosystems on both the land and in the ocean. The mass extinction was caused by huge volcanoes erupting and releasing 100,000 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere very rapidly.

No problems so far. But then a scientific statement appears in the article about the peer-reviewed paper which isn't alarmist enough for Beckwith. The article says:

This framework can be used to understand tipping behavior in the climate system in response to the present-day CO2 increase. If this increase continues at the same rate, we will reach the level of emissions that caused the Permian-Triassic mass extinction in around 2,700 years—a much faster timescale than the Permian-Triassic Boundary emissions. — phys.org

What is Paul Beckwith's comment about this statement? The transcript for the video shows Paul Beckwith's commentary. He says:

[...] it lets us understand tipping behavior today in the climate system in response to present day CO2 increases and it says uh you know it it says if the increase continues at the same rate we'd reach the level of emissions that caused the KT mass extinction it would take thousands of years but you know this is assuming this is not accounting for tipping point so this is I don't know why this statement is really in there [...] — Paul Beckwith

Firstly he misinterprets what the statement from the article says, even though he just read it out in the video. The article says "This framework can be used to understand tipping behavior in the climate system in response to the present-day CO2 increase.". Paul Beckwith responds with "but you know this is assuming this is not accounting for tipping point". But the article just said (and Paul Beckwith just read out) that the framework can be used to understand tipping behavior in the climate system.

Secondly (and this is even funnier), the fact that it will take about 2,700 years to reach the level of emissions that caused the Permian-Triassic mass extinction doesn't suit Paul Beckwith's agenda. Paul Beckwith wants to create immediate panic and 2,700 years is unlikely to cause immediate panic for many/most people.

So Paul Beckwith says "[...] it would take thousands of years [...] so this is I don't know why this statement is really in there [...]".

Here is a clue Paul Beckwith. The statement is there because the scientists who wrote the paper, and the scientists who peer-reviewed the paper, thought that the statement was revenant and true. If you can't see that then you are an idiot. Real scientists try to avoid putting incorrect statements in their papers.

Real scientists don't want you to ignore what they wrote. If you ignore what the scientists wrote then you are a science denier.

Glad to see this devolve into exactly the kind of absurdity that inspired it. Nice job boys :clap:

The only true way to deal with science-denying morons. Satire and sarcasm — Mikie

This shows that the only way that climate fanatics and alarmists can respond to scientific facts is to start talking about irrelevant non-scientific things like "asses".

This is very mature guys and demonstrates what a bunch of losers you are.

Here are the original questions that you refuse to answer:

Why do most people go on holiday to places that are warmer than where they live? Do these people have a death wish?

Why do many people retire to warm places like Florida? Do these people have a death wish?

Why are these scientific facts true?
- Cold-related deaths vastly outnumber heat-related deaths in all countries
- Globally, cold deaths are 9 times higher than heat-related ones. In no region is this ratio less than 3, and in many, it’s over 10 times higher. Cold is more deadly than heat, even in the hottest parts of the world.

They call this diversifying the oesophageal portfolio, I see your tail is very hedged, sir. — fdrake

You are obviously an expert at avoiding the facts that don't match your biases.

This is a form of confirmation bias.

I accept that climate change is happening but I don't like the scaremongering, exaggeration, and bigotry that usually accompanies it.

This is great. I can’t even see what you’re responding to, but I love it all the same. — Mikie

Hi Mikie

It is good to see that you can't stop looking at my posts. It must be hard for you that you can't respond.

Hugs and kisses xoxoxo
Agree-to-Disagree. :rofl:

Yes, and the considerable reduction in swamp ass from the global bumectomy seals the deal. My guy needs to get on this ASAP. — fdrake

I just realised why you don't need a bum to shite out of.

It is because your shite comes out of your mouth. :rofl:

Whole world's your oyster with no bum, mate. — fdrake

That sounds like a load of shite to me.

How are you going to shite if you don't have a bum?

Since you won't give me an honest answer to my question I will give you some things to think about.

Why do most people go on holiday to places that are warmer than where they live? Do these people have a death wish?

Why do many people retire to warm places like Florida? Do these people have a death wish?

Read these article for some facts that you might not be aware of:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66890135
There have been more than 50,000 heat-related deaths and more than 200,000 related to cold in England and Wales since 1988, new official figures show.

https://ourworldindata.org/part-one-how-many-people-die-from-extreme-temperatures-and-how-could-this-change-in-the-future
Here are some of the results:
- Cold-related deaths vastly outnumber heat-related deaths in all countries
- Globally, cold deaths are 9 times higher than heat-related ones. In no region is this ratio less than 3, and in many, it’s over 10 times higher. Cold is more deadly than heat, even in the hottest parts of the world.

The bodies of climate change are already mounting, and the mountain will grow more. — fdrake

If you want to minimise the number of people that die from temperature related deaths then you should welcome a little warming.

Have you considered all the ways that humanity could be improved by cutting our own bums off? Sounds like denial to me. — fdrake

You have deliberately avoided answering the question that I asked. That is the sort of response that a climate fanatic/alarmist usually gives. Avoid the question and call people names.

Can you really not think of any positive things associated with climate change?

You can answer "no" if you really think that there are no positive things associated with climate change.

Have you even thought about it?

The bodies of climate change are already mounting, and the mountain will grow more. — fdrake

Can you think of any positive things associated with climate change?

Could it be that you are ignoring (a form of denial) any positive aspects and are concentrating on the negative aspects?

This process repeats infinitely, but the distances form a geometric series that converges to a finite sum. The total time taken also converges to a finite limit. — Banno

Your statement explains the paradox in an accurate way.

Another simple way to look at this paradox is to see that:

"if you only look at times BEFORE Achilles reaches the tortoise, then it will appear as if Achilles never reaches the tortoise".

Well, they're going to go ahead and do it anyway. — RogueAI

I agree. And the petrostates are unlikely to stop production because their economies depend on it.

Libya (60% GDP)
Qatar (60% GDP)
Saudi Arabia (46% GDP)
Angola (28.9% GDP)
Oman (26.2% GDP)
Algeria (25% GDP)
Venezuela (25% GDP)
Iran (18% GDP)
Chad (17% GDP)
Kazakhstan (17% GDP)
Russia (17% GDP)
United Arab Emirates (15.67% GDP)

If you disagree with that statement, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. — ChatteringMonkey

Please leave me out of this. :grin:

Human life is a circus and you’re the jester. — Punshhh

Don't underestimate jesters. Here are some great quotes about jesters:

Jesters do often prove prophets. --- Joseph Addison

Even in the most repressive medieval kingdoms, they understood the need for the court jester, the one soul allowed to tell the truth through laughter. --- Joe Randazzo

The jester is brother to the sage. --- Arthur Koestler

An unemployed jester is nobody's fool. --- Danny Kaye. :rofl:

Oh, so you agree climate change is an existential threat? — RogueAI

I see climate change as a threat, but not really an existential threat.

I think that there is a lot of exaggeration going on.

Nothing that I said disagrees with what you said. I said that climate change is not a scam, which implies that it is real.

Saying that climate change is a circus, a fiasco, and a gravy train, is a statement about the lack of progress, the unrealistic goals, the blaming of the wrong people, the way that certain groups are protesting, the fact that not enough people are actually willing to do much or pay much to combat climate change, the fact that governments that are more right wing are being voted in and they often don't take climate change seriously, the efforts to force people into EV's, the lack of infrastructure to support efforts to fight climate change, the pushing of unreliable renewable energy at the expense of reliable energy based on fossil fuels, etc., etc.

Both the Achilles paradox, and the paradox of the tortoise who cannot actually reach the finish line, are illusions created by looking at time as if it was approaching a limit.

With the paradox of the tortoise who cannot actually reach the finish line you are only looking at times before the tortoise reaches the end point. The time limit that you are using is the time that it would actually take the tortoise to reach the end point. So it should be no surprise that it appears as if the tortoise never reaches the end point.

In the real world we don't normally look at time as approaching a limit, therefore the tortoise does reach the end point in a finite amount of time.

Climate change is not a scam.

It is a circus, a fiasco, and a gravy train.

Reducing pollution accelerates global warming. How do we solve this catch-22?

This article was published on 02 November 2023
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/11/02/reducing-pollution-accelerates-global-warming-how-do-we-solve-this-catch-22

Air pollution, a global scourge that kills millions of people a year, is shielding us from the full force of the sun.

Stripped of its toxic shield, which scatters and reflects solar radiation, China's average temperatures have gone up by 0.7 degrees Celsius since 2014 (note - this is since 2014, not since pre-industrial times).

This has triggered fiercer heatwaves, according to a review of meteorological data by news agency Reuters and confirmed by six leading climate experts.

The removal of the air pollution - a term scientists call 'unmasking' - may have had a greater effect on temperatures in some industrial Chinese cities over the last decade than the warming from greenhouse gases themselves, the scientists say.

They say efforts to improve air quality could actually push the world into catastrophic warming scenarios and irreversible impacts.

"Aerosols are masking one-third of the heating of the planet," says Paulo Artaxo, an environmental physicist and lead author of the chapter on short-lived climate pollutants in the most recent round of reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), completed this year.

"If you implement technologies to reduce air pollution, this will accelerate - very significantly - global warming in the short term."

During heatwaves, the unmasking effect can be even more pronounced. Laura Wilcox, a climate scientist who studies the effects of aerosols at the UK's University of Reading, says a computer simulation showed that the rapid decline in SO2 in China could raise temperatures on extreme-heat days by as much as 2C.

Which scenario do you prefer?

1) - have air pollution and lower temperatures and kill millions of people a year

2) - have improved air quality and higher temperatures and potentially catastrophic warming scenarios and irreversible impacts and possibly kill billions of people

But just regular food is getting called protein-food, when it's comparable to their non branded alternatives. — fdrake

One of my pet hates is how everything is labeled as using "AI". Product manufacturers are disadvantaged if they don't claim "AI" when their competitors do. To a certain extent this problem is made worse by the public's gullibility and lack of knowledge.

I don't have one, because I am adult. — AmadeusD

I was only joking about me having an ignore list. I don't want to miss out on Mikie's pearls of wisdom (wink, wink. :rofl: )

One of the things that I like about Mikie is that I don't have to spend any time making Mikie look foolish and immature. He does a great job of that himself. . :scream:

To what extent is it possible to shape the future by faith? — Jack Cummins

Whether you think you can, or think you can't, you're right — Henry Ford

Your mindset and belief in yourself can largely determine your success or failure in achieving a goal. If you believe you can do something, you are more likely to put in the effort to succeed, and vice versa.

Your belief, whether positive or negative, can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, shaping your actions and ultimately the outcome.

You are obviously not on Mikie's ignore list. He must want to continue talking to you.

I suggest that you put Mikie on your ignore list. I have put him on my ignore list and I no longer see his vacuous posts. . :rofl:

Won't our children's children be more capable of solving the problem than us?
— Agree-to-Disagree

No. — Moliere

Won't technology become better with time?

No. — Moliere

You have a very pessimistic view of the world. Pessimism can lead to a lack of action and/or depression.

The issue of climate change is a political, not an engineering, problem — Moliere

I disagree. It is a political AND an engineering problem.

We already have the means to address it in terms of the science — Moliere

There are many problems with the proposed solutions. Many of those problems are financial and engineering type problems. Science has not solved those problems.

Which governments are using force to get people into EV's? — Moliere

If you ask ChatGPT the question "which countries have electric vehicle ev mandates, it lists the following:
1. United States
2. Canada
3. European Union
4. United Kingdom
5. China
6. India
7. Japan
8. South Korea

It seems to me when you say "Don't move too quickly" I can't think of a single government that is moving at all. So I'm left wondering which specific countries are doing what specific things? — Moliere

Probably the best known mandate is the UK's. The UK government has now enacted the ZEV Mandate into law, which officially came into force from 3rd January 2024.
This has brought the UK to be more in line with EU countries and Canada.

Here is a summary:
- There is an imposition on car manufacturers to sell a percentage of ZEVs every year. This percentage is set to increase over time, until by the year 2035 it should be at 100%.
- ZEV sales made by car manufacturers will be converted into certificates. The sellers will need to hold a certain number of certificates by the end of each year to avoid fines.
- For car manufacturers who fail to reach the set target, there is the possibility of either trading certificates with other car manufacturers who managed to exceed the target, or else be fined £15,000 per car.
- There are separate targets for CO2 emissions in order to help in regulating non-ZEVs.

At present people are able to allowed to make their own decisions about what type of vehicle is best for them. — Moliere

Yes, at present. But in future years the rules are getting stricter.

I'm going to propose a rate -- suppose we waited to do anything about climate change until after your life. That way you can choose whatever vehicle you want, but the next generation will have to tighten their belt. — Moliere

Many people, including me, can't afford to buy an EV. Will you give me one for free? My current gasoline car, which is 14 years old, will probably last me until I die.

In fact I'd like to suggest that this is what we are presently choosing: To let our children's children to deal with the problem so we can have the freedom of individual choice in the market and everything feels normal. — Moliere

Won't our children's children be more capable of solving the problem than us? Will our children's children be intelligent or stupid? Won't technology become better with time?

I think almost any climate scientist would be more qualified to speak on climate science than Kelly. If you need a plumber, don't consult an electrician, or a plasterer. — unenlightened

I repeat again, he was formerly the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Department for Communities and Local Government.

In 2010 Kelly was named by the Royal Society and the University of East Anglia to an independent scientific assessment panel to investigate "Climategate" (the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) email controversy).

Why do you think he was chosen to do an independent scientific assessment of "climategate"?

Investigating "climategate" must have given him a lot of insight into the world of climate models and how reliable or unreliable they are.

Climate models primarily use physics, chemistry, and fluid dynamics to represent the Earth's climate system through mathematical equations, essentially applying the fundamental laws of these sciences to simulate how energy and matter interact within the atmosphere, oceans, and land surfaces.

Professor Kelly is a physicist.

And the icing on the cake, Professor Kelly has engineering skills which no climate scientist has. If you need an engineer, don't consult with a climate scientist.

Is this pretty much what your position is that you're advocating for? — Moliere

Yes

Like, in linking CO2 to prosperity, and in talking about the dangers of EV's and the intelligence of people who like them — Moliere

I don't think that I have ever said that the people who like EV's are not intelligent. In certain circumstances they are a good thing. But many people don't live in circumstances where an EV works well. People should be allowed to make their own decision about what type of vehicle is best for them. Many governments are trying to force people into EV's using mandates or effective mandates. Doing this is not intelligent.

you're thesis is "We shouldn't change too quickly because they're useful, and there are many risks associated with too fast a rate of change" — Moliere

Yes, that more or less is my thesis. There are many areas where gasoline vehicles are currently better than EV's. Some examples of problems with moving to EV's too quickly are:
- power grid capacity
- need to upgrade power infrastructure
- need to have more EV charging stations (owning EV charging stations is not a very profitable business)
- lithium battery fires
- many EV's have poor performance in real world conditions (e.g. range, using the heater, length of time to charge, queuing at charging stations, slower changing in cold weather)
- EV batteries have poor performance when too hot or too cold
- can be a problem in emergencies (e.g. getting away from wildfires)
- traditional automakers being closed down (the loss of many jobs, not just direct jobs but also many third party businesses)
-
There are many other problems but that is enough for now.

But several times, in passing, he claims without giving any detail or evidence that climate models are unreliable, and are overestimating the disruption and rate of change. — unenlightened

You might be interested in some of the highlights of Professor Michael Kelly's career.

- He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1993 and won its Hughes Medal in 2006

- He was formerly the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Department for Communities and Local Government

- He was elected in 1998 as a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering

- In 2010 Kelly was named by the Royal Society and the University of East Anglia to an independent scientific assessment panel to investigate "Climategate" (the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) email controversy). The panel concluded that there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."

Professor Michael Kelly FRS FREng FIET is highly qualified in science and engineering.

FRS = Fellow of the Royal Society
FREng = Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering
FIET = Fellow of the Institution of Engineering and Technology

How many climate scientists are as qualified as Professor Michael Kelly?

Thus he solves the insoluble problem by denying its existence, and implying as you always do, that climate scientists are pretending in order to further their careers. This is done of course to further his own career — unenlightened

According to Wikipedia:

Professor Michael Kelly FRS FREng FIET
Prince Philip Professor of Technology, University of Cambridge
He is 75 YEARS OLD

I don't think that he is very interested in "furthering his own career".

You have jumped to another incorrect conclusion. :scream:

Here is a really good argument. Climate science is wrong because we cannot stop it. — unenlightened

Sometimes I wonder what your comprehension level is. As usual you have totally misrepresented this video.

The person talking in this video is Michael Kelly, professor emeritus of technology at the University of Cambridge. Kelly was a government scientist when the Climate Change Act launched in 2008, and has been researching the reduction of carbon in Britain since then.

Nowhere in the entire video does he say that climate science is wrong.

He talks about how we don't have the money, the workforce, or the materials, to achieve Net Zero.

Why don't you watch the video before jumping to incorrect conclusions?

As far as the threads go— I created it years ago, and it basically devolved into a receptacle for denialist spam. So since I created it, I can also change it — Mikie

Mikie. That thread has been in existence for 4 years and contains 3.9K posts. Hundreds of people have posted on this thread knowing that the thread title was "Climate change (general discussion)". You are disrespecting all of the people who have posted on this thread by changing the title to "Science denial".

What you have done is dishonest and unethical and a form of censorship.

Just because you created a thread doesn't mean that you own it. Once created the thread belongs to The Philosophy Forum.

I think that the MODS should look at what you are doing !!!

Your attempt of bait-rhetorics won't work. — Christoffer

So you ARE a science denier.

I presented you with scientific evidence and you dismissed it as bait-rhetorics.

Why didn't you comment on the evidence rather than try to hide?

Where people can debate whether the sky is blue. — Mikie

Mikie. Do you remember the first post that you made after creating this thread.

You seem to be inviting "blue sky deniers" to post on the thread. :rofl:

A random sample quote from you:

What proof do you have that the current temperature is not just a "normal" temperature for an interglacial?
— Agree-to-Disagree

That's not something someone who agrees with the science would say. — Christoffer

It is interesting that you took that quote from me out of context. The whole quote says:

The earth seems to have 2 states, glacial and interglacial, and it regularly moves between the 2 states. We are currently in an interglacial and the current temperature is lower than the previous 3 interglacials. The current very high CO2 level has not increased the temperature above the temperature of a "normal" interglacial.

What proof do you have that the current temperature is not just a "normal" temperature for an interglacial? — Agree-to-Disagree

Are YOU being a science denier? Do you deny these scientific facts:

- The earth seems to have 2 states, glacial and interglacial
- it regularly moves between the 2 states
- We are currently in an interglacial
- the current temperature is lower than the previous 3 interglacials
- The current very high CO2 level has not increased the temperature above the temperature of a "normal" interglacial

Do you admit that you are a science denier?

Here is the evidence that I posted in a separate post to support my statements. It is from a scientific source.

@Mikie

You are basically only on this forum to spread disinformation about climate science. — Christoffer

You are an evangelist if you think that there is no disagreement about anything to do with climate change. I don't deny that climate change is happening. A lot of my posts are about whether the proposed solutions to climate change will work.

Are you saying many mods are climate science deniers and effectively won't ban evangelists of climate science denial because of this? I sincerely hope not. — Christoffer

I think that the mods can see that I am not denying climate change. Mikie is getting the titles of threads changed to suit his agenda. This is a dishonest thing to do. I will be creating a new thread to discuss whether changing the titles of threads is dishonest and unethical and a form of censorship.