How does one converse with a denier of human-induced climate change?

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by ecodharmamark, Mar 19, 2010.

  1. Dreamie

    Dreamie Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is a huge difference between 1 and 2.
    Point 2 is what the CSIRO and all the peer reviewed scientist believe is the major driver of climate change. They believe that CO2 emissions have driven the warming we are seeing and that the effects of nature and other influences of man are minor. They believe that if we cut CO2 then all the warming will stop and reverse. They are not claiming that mans activities are destroying the earth they are claiming that mans CO2 emissions are destroying the world. There is a major difference between point 1 and 2.

    The difference between a believer and a sceptic is one believes mans CO2 is the problem while the sceptic believes man is the problem irrelevant of the CO2 produced.

    Why would I disagree with you, you obviously didn’t read my post. Society in its current structure is unsustainable and solutions need to be created to deal with this problem. The issue is if you believe what the CSIRO, The BOM, Al Gore and the peer reviewed scientists tell us we only need to stop CO2 to stop the warming. Nothing else will mean anything we could undertake as much permaculture as we like but if our CO2 emissions still stay high we will destroy the earth.

    Point 1 means we need to change our lives and become sustainable in what we do, it means reducing our use of resources and looking at ways to live a better life.

    Point 2 enables us to stay consumers we can keep our current lives, we just need to become consumers of a new commodity, the carbon offset and the consumer of an ETS.

    Under point 2 we could plant millions of acres of trees to offset our carbon emission from the city, we could turn deserts into ethanol farms and pump huge amounts of water to them by the use of wind farms. We can keep consuming as all we need to do is consume a couple of carbon offsets to make us neutral.

    There is a huge difference between points 1 and 2. To believe is point 1 and believe that we need to save the earth from what man is doing but not to believe CO2 is the issue you are called a denier or a sceptic. But if believe only point 2 and feel that carbon offset will save the world you are a believer.
     
  2. Dreamie, i would recomend you read the book The Climate Caper by Garth Paltridge. (Atmospheric physicist and former Cheif research scientist at CSIRO) things are not all that Al Gore and flunkys are telling you. My own experience debating Blair Trewin, although a minor issue, showed up the so-called scientific process employed to be serverly lacking in credibility - if i were to have followed Al Gores thinking that "deniers" arnt allowed to question scientists then i would not have been able to show up the faulty claims.
    Note, peer review does NOT mean that something is correct.


    Thinking further on the Al Gore flunkys post, methinks he is trying to run away, got himself in over his head and has nothing but abuse to offer.... :D

    I still havnt been answered - When i were sceptical of the climate change ice age scare of the 60/70s were i a denier then ?

    ...........:)






    .
     
  3. Grahame

    Grahame Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    OK let me get this right, so that I don't seem like a complete ignoramus, because I am having trouble understanding many of these posts...

    Are these the things we are talking about? and the label that fits me if they best represent my view?

    1. There is no climate change, in which case I am a denialist?

    2. There is climate change but it is normal variation, in which case I am a denialist?

    3. There is climate change and it is anthropogenic but it is not due to CO2, in which case I am a sceptic?

    4. There is climate change and it is anthropogenic and it is due to CO2 emissions, in which case I have no label?

    5. There is climate change and it is anthropogenic and it is possibly due to CO2 emissions, but more likely due to a combination of factors, in which case I am sceptical?

    6. I believe any one of the above may be true, but I know one thing for sure, someone is going to try and make some money out of it. In which case I am a realist?

    For me I think this is more apt..

    7. There seems to be some sort of climate change, I find it hard to believe that humans are not in some way contributing to it - given how much we have altered the face of the planet. It doesn't seem to matter whom or what is causing it, because mostly the postulated causes seem to have other deleterious effects on the planet anyway. Someone is probably going to try to make money out of it. I care about the planet, the quality of life on the planet and the sort of place we are going to leave for our children. I believe even if you take the question of climate change out of the equation that permaculture is one way for us to move forward, to adapt and to build resilient communities, and leave the planet worth living on for future generations of people, plants and animals. In which case I am delusional?
     
  4. Dreamie

    Dreamie Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Deniers / Sceptics believe any of the following

    Believers believe only the following.

    The whole debate is about wether CO2 is causing the warming or not, it is not if man is causing the warming or if nature is causing the warming. It is a pretty clear line where being a believer and being a sceptic is. Believers believe that reducing emissions will solve all our problems.

    I think you fit more into the denier or sceptic basket because you believe that we need to change things to fix the world rather than just trade carbon emissions and introduce an ETS. Yes people will try and make money out of the change. The big question is who stands to make more money the believers or the sceptics.

    There is more money to be made from selling the brand new consumer good that is an intangible, invisible, and unaccountable commodity such as carbon offsets than there is from people reducing their consumption.
     
  5. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    'Round and round the mulberry bush, pop goes the weasel...'

    For a fuller discussion on Paltridge's sycophantic ramblings, see: Map shows Earth's hotter future (post #10). Incidentally, this post was in response to the same claims made then by one, 'Flying Binghi' (with an 'i'), five months ago!

    'You keep me spinning right round, right round, like a record...'

    Generally, for my research, the discussion on 'how one converses with a denier of human-induced climate change' has been most productive. But I really do have other important work to consider, so I must depart from the conversation at this point.

    Finally, I want to take this last opportunity to once again thank you all for participating. May you all find peace in whatever it is you believe in.

    Cheerio, Markus.
     
  6. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    'Round and round the mulberry bush, pop goes the weasel...'

    For a fuller discussion on Paltridge's sycophantic ramblings, see: Map shows Earth's hotter future (post #10). Incidentally, this post was in response to the same claims made then by one, 'Flying Binghi' (with an 'i'), five months ago!

    'You keep me spinning right round, right round, like a record...'

    Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

    Generally, for my research, the discussion on 'how one converses with a denier of human-induced climate change' has been most productive. But I really do have other important work to consider, so I must depart from the conversation at this point.

    Finally, I want to take this last opportunity to once again thank you all for participating. May you all find peace in whatever it is you believe in.

    Cheerio, Markus.

    Note: Mods, could you please delete the previous post, and perhaps consider giving at least 30-mins to edit? Thanks, M.
     
  7. PHP:
    7. There seems to be some sort of climate changeI find it hard to believe that humans are not in some way contributing to it given how much we have altered the face of the planetIt doesn't seem to matter whom or what is causing it, because mostly the postulated causes seem to have other deleterious effects on the planet anyway. Someone is probably going to try to make money out of it. I care about the planet, the quality of life on the planet and the sort of place we are going to leave for our children. I believe even if you take the question of climate change out of the equation that permaculture is one way for us to move forward, to adapt and to build resilient communities, and leave the planet worth living on for future generations of people, plants and animals. [B]In which case I am delusional?[/B] 
    Aparently your only delusional if you disagree with Al Gore and flunkys... :D






    .
     
  8. Dang, got caught out by the ten minute thingy meself ... :)


    Yep, there is climate change - the medieval warm period (thats when it were warmer then today) is a perfect example.

    Do humans have an efect on climate/weather - yep, best i can see nobody claims otherwise (ignoring the strawman posters on some of the AlGorian flunky blogs) Some examples are, Urban heat island effect and glacier melt on Kilimanjaro. Re CO2; via Garth Paltridge he says if we double atmosphere CO2 ignoring all feedbacks we will get about a one degree Celsius increase in average global temperature - even WUWT and Climate Audit do not say CO2 by itself dont het up.


    LOL, apparently your only delusional if you disagree with Al Gore and flunkys... :D





    .
     
  9. Good reference that thread "Map shows Earth's hotter future" ... :)

    So, whata we got - Roger Revelle being called senile by Al Gore and flunkys. Reid Bryson saying ya can spit and have more effect then doubling CO2, Garth Paltridge being attacked by Al Gores flunky because Paltridge dared to point out how the money has corrupted science research. Thats just for starters...

    Heres an overveiw of just what the rent seekers are onto -


    In recent years research organisations in Australia have been busy setting up research centres
    or large projects aimed at tapping into government money available for climate change
    research. It is estimated that governments in Australia will spend at least $800 million this
    financial year on climate change research... https://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ntain_of_gravy/









    .





    .
     
  10. Who is James Lovelock ?

    LOL, ah might keep Al Gores flunky spinning, tho ah think he were well spun-out long before we met...:D

    ...anyway, ol flunky has a new 'denier' to attack, one James Lovelock - "There is one sceptic that everyone should read and that is Garth Paltridge. He's written a book called the Climate Caper. It is a devastating, critical book. It is so good. This impresses me a lot..." cont - https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock





    .
     
  11. Lets keep ol Gores flunky spinning... :D


    Gaia guru Professor James Lovelock explains why warmist scientists are so prone to fury when questioned:

    The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet....

    We do need scepticism about the predictions about what will happen to the climate in 50 years, or whatever. It’s almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it’s wrong to do it.

    https://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun...ts/lovelock_warmists_know_their_case_is_weak/






    .
     
  12. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think people have given up with you FB
    It is like trying to convert a door knocking christian to satanism.

    Yes there are many unknowns in the future.
    At the moment it is hard to deny that the world is warming.
     
  13. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    https://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/default.htm
     

  14. Michaelangelica, the world has been warming since we came out of the last mini ice age in the mid 1800's ...thats the mini ice age we got after the warmer then today medieval warm period... thats the medieval warm period we got after the preceding mini ice age which we got after the warmer then today Roman warm period which..... ah think ya might get the idea.

    Take note that Climategate came about partly because of the corrupt attempt via the hocky stick graph to remove the warmer then today medieval warm period from the climate record.

    Why the need to remove the medieval warm period ? ...one reason is computor models, thats the computor models which are pretty well now the entire basis of the IPCC so-called AGW science.

    Interesting comments about computor models from the man from Gaia - "...I remember when the Americans sent up a satellite to measure ozone and it started saying that a hole was developing over the South Pole. But the damn fool scientists were so mad on the models that they said the satellite must have a fault. We tend to now get carried away by our giant computer models. But they're not complete models..."


    ...... :)




    .
     
  15. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks, Michael. Brilliant! Pity the drones of the denialist industry have closed their minds to the simple reality: 'climate is changing, it's due to us, and we need to worry' (Reece, 2010: from the above link).

    Of course, I can understand why this is, and I really don't blame the drones - they are just the poor, ignorant pawns being used in the game of Big Business. Fossil fuel extraction and processing still accounts for 85% of the world's total energy requirement (Chughtai & Shannon, no date). And on the other side of the fence, alternative Big Business is ready to cash in on the carbon market (see, for example: ICIS, 2010). Is it any wonder that the average person is confused? However, ignorance is no excuse in an affluent society, where (practically) all have access to simple, definitive, and conclusive good science (such as provided by your link, above).

    No doubt the battle for the ignorant mind will prevail for quite some time to come. Our pathetic system of governance ensures that the status quo is maintained, and for the greater part, Big Business takes care of the rest through dumbing down society via the appeal of mass consumption.

    In sum, all I can offer as a cure to the root cause of the problem - as opposed to just tinkering at the edges with symptomatic responses - is for society to totally re-organise itself along communitarian lines, rather than persist with the current individualistic paradigm. Permaculture is just one of many sets of principles that can guide us on this journey. My own chosen path, which blends very nicely with the principles of permaculture, is social ecology.

    I'll leave you with a few words from Brian Tokar:

    In these often cynical times, with ever-increasing disparities in wealth and media-drenched cultures of conspicuous consumption in the North, together with increased dislocation and looming climate crises in the South, it is sometimes difficult to imagine what a genuinely transformative movement would look like. In the US, right wing demagogues appear to be far more effective than progressive forces in channeling the resentments that have emerged from the continuing economic meltdown toward serving their narrow political agendas. But it is clear that when people have the opportunity to act on their deepest aspirations for a stronger sense of community, for the health of their families and neighbors, and for a more hopeful future, people’s better instincts often triumph over parochial interests. This is a reliable feature of daily life, and one that also illuminates the entire history of popular social movements. It offers an important kernel of hope for the kind of movement that can perhaps reinvigorate the long-range reconstructive potential of a social ecological outlook.

    Source: Tokar, B. (2009) Movements for Climate Action: Towards Utopia or Apocalypse?

    Cheerio all, Marko.
     
  16. Greenshirts join Nazi party... Al Gore is happy

    "...The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.

    If you’re one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let’s talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.

    If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

    We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

    And we be many, but you be few..."


    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/03/climate-craziness-of-the-week-greenpeace-posts-threats/






    .
     
  17. Dreamie

    Dreamie Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hold on ecodharmamark it is much harder to stand against the push that CO2 is the driver of the changing climate than it is to become an environmental drone. How is someone a drone when they disagree with the majority? A drone is someone who follows the crowd and that fits the believer mentality perfectly. Maybe it is the believers who should be called drones as the go about following the great queen bees such as Al Gore etc.

    The discussion is about, what that man has done is causing the changing climate. Is it the CO2 (believer) that we are making or is it everything else (denier)? The believers hold the faith that the only thing that is causing the changing climate is CO2 nothing else matters. Fixing CO2 emissions will stop the world from warming.

    This is what the discussion is about, no one can argue with the fact we have created heat islands, no one can argue that the amount of water per person has reduced, no one can argue that the destruction of rural land from intensive farming is bad, however the argument is wether CO2 is the driver of the change in the climate.

    You keep pushing the fine line on the difference between a denier and a believer. You keep bringing up the discussion about wether man has had an impact on the changing climate, you see a denier as someone who says nothing man does makes any difference when in fact this is not what a denier is. The difference between a believer and a denier is wether CO2 is the driver.

    We are about to see the biggest new business ever created and that is the business of carbon trading, it is the future big business that is driving this new dumbing down. The problem is if you are a believer then you can simply stay a consumer drone, you just need to consume carbon offsets, green energy and ethanol fuels. We are starting to see the new big business where huge amounts of money are going to be made by selling an invisible, intangible consumer good. Our society follows the queen bees of the media and the queen bees tell us that we need to stop CO2 emissions so that is what the drones are going to do even though this will have no impact on reducing the changes we are seeing in the climate.
     
  18. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'day Dreamie

    The purpose of this thread, for me, has well passed it use-by date. However, in the interests of 'practicing what I preach' - i.e. fostering the development of a communitarian existence where everyone has an opportunity to share their views - I offer you the following simplification of my beliefs to the matter in question:

    1) I believe that the climate is changing due to both naturally-occurring and human-induced factors.

    2) Of the latter, I believe that the emission of CO2 is one of many factors.

    3) Finally, and once again with regard to the latter, I believe that anyone who refutes this scientific reality is a denier of human-induced climate change.

    If you have any specific questions/comments that you would like to put forward to the above three points, I would be more than happy to respond.

    Kind regards, Marko.
     
  19. springtide

    springtide Junior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Messages:
    359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mr EcoD check out this https://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/dealing-in-doubt.pdf
    Go by the opening quotes and don't try preaching to the perverted....


    ‘Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' [linking
    smoking with disease] that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of
    establishing a controversy...’
    Tobacco company Brown and Williamson internal document, 19691
    ‘Scepticism is not believing what someone tells you, investigating all the information before
    coming to a conclusion. Scepticism is a good thing. Global warming scepticism is not that.
    It’s the complete opposite of that. It’s coming to a preconceived conclusion and cherrypicking
    the information that backs up your opinion. Global warming scepticism isn’t
    scepticism at all.’
    - John Cook of Skepticalscience.com2
     

Share This Page

-->