- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Michael, I shouldn’t think he’s lying about that, but he is being deceptive because it isn’t really relevant. I had a look at his website and there’s further deception there too.
What I suggest you do is look at other historical examples – tobacco smoking and asbestos come to mind; the scientific deceptions about smoking probably have more written about them. When smoking was found to cause most lung cancers the tobacco industry hired public relations companies, who in turn promoted ‘contrarian’ scientists, to cast doubt on the mainstream research. It was eventually exposed, and there are books about it:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_doubt
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubt_is_their_Product
– “Doubt is our product,” Michaels quotes a cigarette executive as saying, “since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” Michaels argues that, for decades, cigarette manufacturers knew that their product was hazardous to people’s health, but hired mercenary scientists who “manufactured uncertainty by questioning every study, dissecting every method, and disputing every conclusion”. In doing so the tobacco industry waged a campaign that “successfully delayed regulation and victim compensation for decades”.
There’s a trick I should alert you to; a certain agreement within academia. Any academic has to be accurate only within their own field. So if Dengler were misleading within physics, his fellow physicists would drum him out of the Brownies, but in climate science he can get away with it because it isn’t his field, so he has freedom of speech like everyone else.
Also there is commercial confidentiality. Private companies don’t have to reveal anything except their accounts; everything else is their private data. So internally, they can discuss the best ways to mislead politicians and the public, but they can keep it all secret, and they do. They put non-disclosure clauses into the contracts under which they hire scientists, so that scientific findings that are unfavourable to the company can be suppressed by threatening to sue. The pharmaceutical companies do a great deal of this. Sometimes this gets revealed, usually years later, when a court of law orders a company to open its records. The books Bad Science and Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre document many examples. Bad Science is one of the most entertaining and informative books I have ever read; a real hoot.
Clark,
so as the Sahara greens, as Ethiopia greens, as Australia greens, as India Greens, as China greens,
as Siberia greens, as Canada greens, we should not rejoice?Indeed, we shouldn’t, because harmful effects will far outweigh the greening. In fact, they already are.
Please, look at the recent historical record of distortion and confusion of scientific findings by private sector corporate interests. This is nothing new; it has been done many times, regarding many different issues. Do you not remember when the UK government tried to make seat belts mandatory? “But people may be trapped in burning cars!” Anti-lock braking systems? Compensation for asbestos workers?
If emissions stopped right now the “global average temperature”, i.e. the total thermal energy in the biosphere, would continue to rise. How far it would rise is a matter of ongoing scientific investigation, and I can assure you that predicting it is extremely hard, there are so many things to try to take into account. James Hansen says it could be as much as ten degrees.
Soon, I would guess within a decade or two, we will see “Solar Radiation Management”, which will probably be done by Stratospheric Aerosol Injection – which is spraying sulphate aerosols into the upper atmosphere to cause water droplets to form, to reflect away more sunlight. It’s a desperate and dangerous emergency measure to keep the temperature down. The Labour Party have just accepted their biggest donation ever, £4 million, from Quadrature, a hedge fund based in a tax haven, who have invested £40 million in solar geoengineering; see the second section, “Starmer: now a fan of climate engineering by default”, at the following link:
http://www.thecanary.co/trending/2024/09/19/labour-4m-offshore-donor
Michael, this £40 million investment puts paid to the deceptions promoted by fossil fuel PR companies. The elites know that global heating and its consequent climate change are true, and they know the effects will be catastrophic. That’s also why billionaires have been buying estates in New Zealand, where the effects of global heating are predicted to be the least bad. They are getting ready, while paying for lies to be told to us ordinary folk.
Michael, the original investigation into the biggest ever donation to Labour is here:
Vary carefully timed donation!
(I hope you have noticed that I don’t care which political party I criticise. All the big ones are as bad as each other, because they’re all beholden to Big Money.)
Michael, which other balances that nature has established do you think would be improved by industry’s waste products?
Despite the increased greening seen by satellite observation the CO2 atmospheric concentration continues to rise as measurements attest. The heat trapping effects of increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere still occur at the same time as that increased CO2 level leads to more photosynthesis. The increased greening will help slow the warming, it’s an example of the balancing mechanisms in nature. Currently it isn’t reversing CO2 levels as in they are not falling.
The same NASA that you quote regarding greening also has a lot on climate change and global warming.
“There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.”Michael, you appear to be making the case that because of the observed greening and it’s implied increase in the carbon dioxide sink we need not worry about doing anything about the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. The people who chelated the satellite data and point out the greening (ie. NASA) don’t agree with that assessment.
Clark, perhaps the biggest volume/mass of life on our planet is living in our seas.
Most fish live in the photic zone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photic_zone
They live in this zone because of photosynthesis.Clark, perhaps one of the most important changes our world could adopt, would be changing land use to improve our top soils.
Apparently, there is more Carbon stored both as dead and alive in the soils than in all the plants and animals that grow or walk upon the Earth.
You need large animals to roam the land, they then urinate/defecate/shed tissue on to the surface. This then gets absorbed by life in the top soils. Just putting chemicals on the top soil, does not regenerate that soil or make that soil absorb Carbon. Moving animals in to sheds and using their droppings to make biofuel, will not return the soils to health.ET
apparently the New labour Government are going to blow up the last Coal electricity plant in the United Kingdom.
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=cC7FpzNyRfY
The U.K. will be the first G7 nation to stop burning Coal to make Electricity.
I think we are doing more than our bit it the U.K. to slow down Global Warming.
ET, what I was trying to focus on, is the life of our planet is compensating, without us helping.
So, that is positive.
I am not claiming that burning Coal has not increased Carbon in the atmosphere.
Ask the Chinese: I expect they know burning Coal puts Carbon in the atmosphere. That’s why they are de-carbonising – very fast. People are trying to help and the planet is also helping.
I don’t think the end of the world is just around the corner because of Global warming.
It might be the end if World War Three kicks off.ET
Joachim Dengler seems to be suggesting that an equilibrium will be reached in 50-100 years.
I guess Joachim means that extra green leaf growth as well as the work that people are undertaking to use less Carbon will level out.
He may be right but him and I will be dead, so we will never know.
Pity, I would have liked to know.Michael, you’ve changed the subject again. You do this nearly every time, instead of responding to questions you’ve been asked. It seems to be a technique you use to avoid giving answers that might weaken the case you’re promoting. It’s a type of dishonesty which I call it meta-dishonesty because it’s beyond simple dishonesty; it disguises its own dishonesty. Similarly, industry deploys meta-secrecy; the non-disclosure clauses in employment contracts that I mentioned earlier stipulate that any employee revealing the non-disclosure clauses will also be punished by lawsuit, so the secrecy itself is secret.
Conversely, intellectual honesty and full disclosure are at the very heart of the sciences, including the science which you work so hard to discredit in public.
Clark,
“Michael, I shouldn’t think he’s lying about that, but he is being deceptive because it isn’t really relevant. I had a look at his website and there’s further deception there too.What I suggest you do is look at other historical examples – tobacco smoking and asbestos come to mind; the scientific deceptions about smoking probably have more written about them. When smoking was found to cause most lung cancers the tobacco industry hired public relations companies, who in turn promoted ‘contrarian’ scientists, to cast doubt on the mainstream research. It was eventually exposed, and there are books about it:”
Clark you are employing whataboutery.
Smoking has little to do with Global Warming.
Asbestos has little to do with Global warming.Yes, I do believe that increased Green Leaf Cover is significant.
How could it not be significant?I will not be frightened in to agreeing that Global Warming will be the end of life for the human race.
Yes, there will be lots of difficulties, yes we will have to adjust.None of this will matter if World War Three starts.
Do you think that the people in Ukraine or Russia or Iran or Syria or Israel or Jordan or Lebanon or Gaza or Sudan or Yemen spend their days worrying about Global Warming?
They are worried that they will get blown up in a war. They are worried because they can’t make a living because off war.
They are worried they might be made stateless by war.
They are worried they might starve because of war.Michael, as I already wrote, the connection between asbestos, smoking, and emissions is that vested interests have paid huge sums to mislead people by corrupting their impressions of scientific findings. You, apparently, are one such person. Hypocritically and with extreme irony, you lap up the commercial distortions while insinuating that those who argue against them do so because they are gullible and weak minded, manipulated by elites.
The issues you keep raising have all been considered, in great detail, by large, dedicated, teams of people extensively educated in the fields from which they contribute. Yet you proclaim yourself to know better. You could learn about those investigations on this forum, but instead you choose to obstruct debate and help the propaganda efforts of vested interests.
If you want to prevent war, prevent liquid fuels, because (1) all those machines of death are dependent upon them, and (2) because liquid fuel reserves are the resource that most wars are launched for.
I believe that you pay no attention to other contributors’ comments, and that you ignore the links they post for your benefit. For instance, you have just written:
– I think we are doing more than our bit it the U.K. to slow down Global Warming.”
I had already answered that point, here on the previous page. Britain is also party to the US wars for oil and its domination of the Middle East via its proxy Israel.
Clark, I do not know why you seem to want to lead me down this almost unrelated path.
I have never smoked, I have never thought it was a good idea.
I have spent 50 years as a serious caver, no longer going, as probably too old. Most cavers do not smoke because there is much more Carbon dioxide in most caves, than in the atmosphere. lack of good air can be dangerous, being able to breath freely and move modestly, so as to not over consume the Oxygen are important. Hardly anybody I now know, still smokes.
Yes, I have been made aware that tobacco manufactures have lied to the public and lied to the American government, to make their filthy profit.
I am sure we could both agree this was unforgivable, leading to the early deaths of millions of people.
It has also involved slavery.
There is a connection with Global warming. The fields that are used to grow tobacco, could be planted with much more useful, nut or fruit trees. Food for people and some extra Carbon would be taken in.
Yes, I unfortunately know a little of asbestos.
My daughter is a doctor and has told me, when she has worked in Southampton and Portsmouth, they saw a higher incidence of asbestosis because of people working for the military and the docks and the vessels.
I had a favorite woman relative who died of asbestosis, she worked in a huge garage in Cornwall. When the quarry vehicles came in they used to use compressed air to blow off the Kaolin, and to blow out the huge brake linings, the air was always clouded in that vast workshop. My father’s girlfriend died of asbestosis, she had worked as a tobacconist. I worked in hospitals, they were / are swamped with asbestos, both as loose fill insulation between the roof joists, also hospitals have miles of tunnels that carry the pipes.
Some of these pipes are steam and they were wet wrapped with asbestos lagging.
Our council house I was brought up in had masses of asbestos, even the kitchen was made of asbestos.
As asbestos is a rock, (the old Greeks used to use it, apparently)
there must be an element of returning Carbon to the atmosphere as you mine and process asbestos.Clark, I have accepted that there is now more Carbon in the atmosphere than there was in the recent past.
I accept that industries that are currently employed or used to be employed have caused Carbon in the atmosphere to increase.
I think I have written that I have accepted that the world is about 1.4 C warmer than it was in 1800.
I think I have written that I accept that the seas have risen by eight inches, caused mostly by thermal expansion .
I am happy that we are deploying pumped hydro, photovoltaic, wind, ground source heating and other renewable methods.
I am very unsure about nuclear.
I am very unhappy about the Equatorial forests being clear cut to grasp at Copper/Tin/Nickel/Gold/Silver and so on.
I am very unhappy we have moved to an agricultural system, that essentially kills most life in the top soils. A massive consequence being those soil take in and hold much less Carbon than they could.
I do not like factory farming where animals are mostly kept indoors.
I am not a scientist. I have my own mind which I use to think with.
I am not going to be pressured into thinking that Global Warming will be the end of the world for humanity.
I am more concerned, at present that we will be engulfed in nuclear war.There are almost four thousand Coal mines in China.
How many left in the U.K.?Do you think it makes a jot of difference that Britain decimates its heavy industry to save the world, from Global Warming if China and India keep expanding?
it seems to be the definition of lunacy.
How will killing off the physical jobs in the U.K. save the world from a fire pit?
There will be nothing left before the inferno really kicks off.
This way madness lies.
