Climate change policy

[ey_tony]

all you get is the sound of babbling buffoons listening to each other and repeating what they pick up!

That's exactly the impression I get about many of the people who liberally use the word 'deniers'! Most are just regurgitating what they've been told or picked up from other alarmists!
....and no, before you label me a denier, I'm not remotely a denier, on the contrary I've spent the past 30-odd years looking at the subject of GW since I graduated in Geology/Geophysics back in the late 80s so I just tend to come from a position of being better informed than the average person, especially the clueless crusaders.

What is clearly wrong is that we have Greta Thunberg a high school dropout with no credentials, who can't even answer any questions and reads from a script, getting effectively 24/7 media coverage while such as respected climatologists like Dr. Judith Curry and author of many books and peer reviewed papers gets none and is marginalised by those with vested political interests rather than truth.

You might want to educate yourself by viewing the following links and actually digesting their content rather than simply regurgitating what you've heard and read...

 

[Chris152]

She's doing rather well out of it, rather more money than she was making as an academic, I'd imagine.

'Climatologist Judith Curry has already billed the state around $30,000 for a report filed in the case Held v. State of Montana, according to the deposition she made in December to an attorney for the 16 young Montanans suing the state. Curry also claimed that she charged $400 an hour for her consulting work, although she did not disclose the full amount Montana will pay her for appearing in court.

Julia Olson, the lawyer who took Curry’s deposition, has described her as “the number one climate skeptic scientist that the Republicans go to for testimony in Congress, that the fossil fuel industry goes to.” Olson is the executive director of the nonprofit law firm Our Children’s Trust, which has spearheaded youth climate change lawsuits across the United States.
[...]
Trenberth stated that Curry’s shift towards climate contrarianism “coincided with her career moving away from original research and peer-reviewed publishing in academia toward private weather and climate forecasting for companies through her business CFAN, including those in the fossil fuel energy industry.”'
https://www.climateinthecourts.com/...r-to-give-expert-testimony-in-upcoming-trial/

 

[woodieallen]

She's doing rather well out of it, rather more money than she was making as an academic, I'd imagine.

'Climatologist Judith Curry has already billed the state around $30,000 for a report filed in the case Held v. State of Montana, according to the deposition she made in December to an attorney for the 16 young Montanans suing the state. Curry also claimed that she charged $400 an hour for her consulting work, although she did not disclose the full amount Montana will pay her for appearing in court.

Julia Olson, the lawyer who took Curry’s deposition, has described her as “the number one climate skeptic scientist that the Republicans go to for testimony in Congress, that the fossil fuel industry goes to.” Olson is the executive director of the nonprofit law firm Our Children’s Trust, which has spearheaded youth climate change lawsuits across the United States.
[...]
Trenberth stated that Curry’s shift towards climate contrarianism “coincided with her career moving away from original research and peer-reviewed publishing in academia toward private weather and climate forecasting for companies through her business CFAN, including those in the fossil fuel energy industry.”'
https://www.climateinthecourts.com/...r-to-give-expert-testimony-in-upcoming-trial/

Still doesn’t detract from her expertise …especially compared to that ugly little jumped-up pig-ignorant little troll Thunberg.

 

[Chris152]

Still doesn’t detract from her expertise

It's a question of how/ to what ends she's using her expertise. As for the second part of your sentence, not sure what on earth that's about.

 

[ey_tony]

It's a question of how/ to what ends she's using her expertise. As for the second part of your sentence, not sure what on earth that's about.

I would have thought the ends are patently obvious, she doesn't agree with the mainstream political views not the scientific views on GW nor is she a climate sceptic or denier as the muppets would label her, she simply doesn't subscribe to the politicisation of climate variability which has been the norm this past three decades with the alarmists.

 

[DrPhill]

Personally, I can’t understand people who ‘don’t trust the experts’ who then pick one expert to believe, even when the views of that expert are in disagreement with the majority. It seems they cherry pick the expert whose views they like.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...scientific_organizations_about_climate_change

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01928-2

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/

 

[Chris152]

she simply doesn't subscribe to the politicisation of climate variability which has been the norm this past three decades with the alarmists.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

Beat me to it Dr Phil

eta - ps She clearly doesn't have a problem with the monetisation of climate variability.

 

[DrPhill]

Still doesn’t detract from her expertise …especially compared to that ugly little jumped-up pig-ignorant little troll Thunberg.

I find this kind of ad-hominem attack offensive.

I would hope that we could be more adult in our debates

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

....and no, before you label me a denier, I'm not remotely a denier, on the contrary I've spent the past 30-odd years looking at the subject of GW since I graduated

Yes, you actually are - don't begin to even deny that you're a denier - on more than one occasion you have mirrored some of the classic denier tropes. Let's be clear - this is not *me* labelling you as a denier - this is the label that is recognised from the following traits (chopped from my linked film):

You might want to educate yourself by viewing the following links and actually digesting their content rather than simply regurgitating what you've heard and read...

LOL - "educate myself" - that actually made me chuckle.

You are using the work of a denialist to say that you are not a denier - that's just funny.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I find this kind of ad-hominem attack offensive.

I would hope that we could be more adult in our debates

Calling people names isn't "Ad Hominem" to some people - to some people the very fact that somebody is "jumped up" or "ugly" or a "little troll" is the very nature of their disagreement - particularly the "jumped up" part - because, as you already know, some people take offense when they think that they are being made to look intellectually inferior - even when they aren't being made to look that way (it's in their imagination) - and they instinctively reel against whatever an ugly little troll might say - just because, in their view, they're a little ugly troll. It doesn't matter whether the information that the jumped up little ugly troll provides is truth or lie - the other individual instinctively adopts the opposing view. So strongly do they adopt the opposing view, that they almost always dig their heels in, immovably so, even when it becomes apparent that the information that the little ugly troll brings is irrefutably factually correct.
That often then signals their attempts to justify their original view by seeking out material that they can use to bolster their original view. Often using other dubious sources of information. They enter the rabbit hole. It becomes a cult. Their position is thus further bitterly fixed and cemented - and the discussion transitions to one of:

"I'm the iconoclast - using my common sense to buck the trend - and oppose the incorrect mainstream view. I know that I am in a minority - but it is my minority that has discovered the truth and everybody else needs to EDUCATE THEMSELVES because everybody else in the whole world is wrong, and me and my fellow minority members are right - and no, I'm absolutely not a "denier", I just understand the situation from my meagre research and self-education better than the jumped up scientists who have devoted many years of their lives becoming fake experts whom we just cannot trust."

Have I covered most of the bases there?

 

[Jacob]

What is the climate change denier position on other environmental issues, as raised from a long way back before climate change became top of the agenda, by Rachel Carson for example?
Do they simply deny it all?
A quick google brought up the answer! A sponsored site top of the page. A right wing American "think tank" devoted to reducing taxes and public spending, under the guise of protecting freedom. https://www.cato.org/books/silent-spring-50-false-crises-rachel-carson
Should be called a "stop people thinking tank"
What I was actually looking for was this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring
I think the battle is lost and we are all going to hell in a hand cart.

 

[Chris152]

View attachment 194585

I don't tend to try to follow either the science or the opposition to it, but that distinction between Old Denial and New Denial is interesting.

So Judith Curry is not an old manmade climate denier, in that she doesn't simply state that it doesn't exist; instead, she creates doubt for those who want it, muddies the water and so on.

And of course, for large companies facing civil actions, and those that would increase profits by sidestepping the vast majority of scientific consensus, the possibility of 'reasonable doubt' is priceless.

You can't be seen to deny, it's clearly ridiculous; so you create doubt, confusion. It's a strategy politicians and big business have been using for a long time.

 

[Jacob]

.....

You can't be seen to deny, it's clearly ridiculous; so you create doubt, confusion. It's a strategy politicians and big business have been using for a long time.

Worse - they make the right noises and talk of carbon capture, crank up sales of EVs, make policy proposals, all hopelessly inadequate against the scale of the problem. Feeble gestures and too late anyway.
Punishments for climate change protestors are getting more severe, are they expecting more Greta Thunbergs, Luigi Mangiones?
Not much time left, fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a rough ride!

 

[ey_tony]

Personally, I can’t understand people who ‘don’t trust the experts’ who then pick one expert to believe, even when the views of that expert are in disagreement with the majority. It seems they cherry pick the expert whose views they like.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...scientific_organizations_about_climate_change

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01928-2

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/

Perhaps they choose certain expert's opinions because they themselves are better educated on the natter than the rank and file who pretend they know more about it than they do!

 

[Chris152]

the rank and file who pretend they know more about it than they do!

That's the whole point - we know that we don't know, and therefore we exercise judgement as to who is most likely right. The odd thing is those who think the little they know gives them sufficient information to challenge the vast scientific consensus. Again, we saw this repeatedly with covid. It's just silly.

 

[Sean33]

I've stopped trying to convince climate deniers of climate problems, instead I point out pollution problems. I may not be able to prove that the scientists are right about CO2 levels etc but it is easy to prove that if you have 10 million cars each with 4 wheels that start off with 8mm of tread and after ~2years they have 1.6mm of tread, all of that man made material from 40million tyres has been worn off and become dust which washes into streams and blows in the wind into gardens and lungs, and then all of those 40million tyres need to be disposed off somewhere, they don't just vanish. It's easy to prove that fertilizer run off causes algal blooms. It's easy to see plastic wrappers in hedgerows. It's easy to question whether they want to return to lead pipes for water supplies and if they say no, ask how do they know the scientists are right with the risks of lead poisoning if they aren't trusted to be right with climate change.

Climate change is a result of our horrendous treatment of the earth, even if climate change does not exist and/or is not a problem it does not in any way diminish the fact we are trashing everything and polluting every part of the world.

Excuse my ignorance but I don’t get this, you are still going to have the same degradation if not more so if all the cars are EV’s ?

 

[DrPhill]

Perhaps they choose certain expert's opinions because they themselves are better educated on the natter than the rank and file who pretend they know more about it than they do!

I find it hard to believe that someone who is not an expert in the field feels sufficiently knowledgeable to know that 99.9% of the experts are wrong and that one lone voice (who in this case does not even disagree about human caused climate change) is right.
The position appears either profoundly unrealistic or even deliberately disingenuous.

 

[ey_tony]

I don't tend to try to follow either the science or the opposition to it, but that distinction between Old Denial and New Denial is interesting.

So Judith Curry is not an old manmade climate denier, in that she doesn't simply state that it doesn't exist; instead, she creates doubt for those who want it, muddies the water and so on.

And of course, for large companies facing civil actions, and those that would increase profits by sidestepping the vast majority of scientific consensus, the possibility of 'reasonable doubt' is priceless.

You can't be seen to deny, it's clearly ridiculous; so you create doubt, confusion. It's a strategy politicians and big business have been using for a long time.

There is plenty of doubt if you're willing to open your eyes and actually look instead of accepting all of the guff the politicians feed you without question.
It's the first time I've actually looked into her and her work and as far as I can see, she is reasoned and well read and not an alarmist climatologist. There is a huge difference
What we are seeing is alarmism on a massive and dysfunctional scale. No one including myself or her are denying that there is climatic fluctuation, but the science is being replaced by paranoia and politics.

As she alluded to it in the first video, some of the so-called important science is corrupt and is what we are basing our economic future on, a bit like dodgy dossier that took the UK to war with Iraq.

Anyway I won't try to argue with any of you guys on this as you've clearly got your minds made up based on what you have been fed while I actually understand the subject so it's pointless taking the debate further.

 

[ey_tony]

I find it hard to believe that someone who is not an expert in the field feels sufficiently knowledgeable to know that 99.9% of the experts are wrong and that one lone voice (who in this case does not even disagree about human caused climate change) is right.
The position appears either profoundly unrealistic or even deliberately disingenuous.

As I've said, I understand the subject in depth, clearly you don't so I'll not waste my time arguing with you.

 

[Chris152]

As I've said, I understand the subject in depth, clearly you don't so I'll not waste my time arguing with you.

Maybe you could point us toward some of your published research in the field instead?