Are all Climate crisis deniers conspiracy theorists?

[Benson]

To save everyone perhaps looking for the original post and my attempt to fix any problem I may have created.
Alex

All I'm saying is, the earth does go through a cycle of cooling and warming. I'm not aware of any scientist that denies that. The current theory is, the earth is in it's warming mode and man is speeding this process up by overly contributing with emissions.

Now, between the posts above and now, I found an interesting video on Carbon Dioxide

I'm not a climate science guy so someone here might want to explain parts per million co2, as in, what ppm of co2 we're currently in compared to ppm co2 history as outlined in the video.

 

[billvon]

And at that time there were Labour politicians scarring pensioners that their homes would be flooded by sea level rise.

If they live within a foot of the sea, that may well be true. Who was the politician speaking to?

I don't recall any sensible qualification but I do recall BS scare tactics.

Do you consider the stark, alarmist warnings on the side of cigarettes "BS scare tactics?"

 

[Quantum Quack]

Ask yourself. All that I have done is to note that Greta has indeed mental problems and that this is nothing but a well-known fact. And that those who claim manipulations do this based on arguments about her parents and connected organizations which are also public domain.

So, both things are in no way conspiracy theories. If those guys who use these points in their own argumentation really have a point or not is a very different question, as well as what is their point. Given that I'm not interested in ad hominem arguments at all, I will not even take a look at such arguments.

All I can tell you is that I have seen some Russians and Germans writing similar things, their main point is simply the "you are played by professionals" point which iceaura likes to use to defame me. So, it is, by its nature, an ad hominem: Those who support this movement play dirty polit-technological tricks. Even if true, the aims of the movement could nonetheless be correct.


Your supposition shows that you are unable or unwilling to interpret my texts in a reasonable way.

And this seems to be a quite common feature here.

1.) I do not speculate about the mental problems of other people, because this would be cheap ad hominem. All I have done was to correct your error - you were obviously not aware that Greta really has some mental problems.

2.) I do not support any argumentation based on those mental problems, given that they would be only ad hominem.

(Aside: All that I do is to look with some technological interest at how this movement is organized. The basic techniques are well known and worked out in detail, we have seen many applications of these techniques in all those color revolutions. So the well-organized mass media hype is standard. But there may appear something new, unexpected, like in this case the use of a child with mental problems as the leader.)


Ok, once you want to name them conspiracy theorists, feel free to do it.

And this is what has impressed the people in her speech? Not the purely emotional "How dare you!" and "We will not let you get away with this"?

What you don't understand about my point is that Greta's alleged mental problems or manipulators are not relevant to the message she delivered. She could be getting a billion Euros for all I care, her point made is all that counts. To bring up health issues etc is merely a transparent attempt to dishonestly discredit her point.

You either find value in it or you don't.
And true, we will not get away with it...our complacency has and will come with a huge cost.
The reality beckons for us all regardless of billions of Euros or mental health problems...

So argue the case and not the person....

 

[Quantum Quack]

All I'm saying is, the earth does go through a cycle of cooling and warming. I'm not aware of any scientist that denies that. The current theory is, the earth is in it's warming mode and man is speeding this process up by overly contributing with emissions.

Now, between the posts above and now, I found an interesting video on Carbon Dioxide

I'm not a climate science guy so someone here might want to explain parts per million co2, as in, what ppm of co2 we're currently in compared to ppm co2 history as outlined in the video.

Firstly, that video was published to You Tube in 2014 from a WSJ article published in 2013. The actual date of the video's creation is harder to determine. It is now 2019.
Secondly, there are literally thousands of climate scientists including NASA that would say other wise and prove it using science.

see: https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/
If you google Global co2 levels you will find that in 2018 there was an average of 407.4 +/- 0.1 ppm according to NOAH.
So both the graph from NASA and the info from NOAH are very close regarding recent measurement data of CO2.

 

[iceaura]

If they live within a foot of the sea, that may well be true.

Four feet, maybe eight.
Some extreme events are predicted to change by squares and cubes with the change in the averages.

 

[Seattle]

But I did not buy it. It was a gift from a stranger who found out that I had helped a friend of hers with free legal advice.

You clearly miss my point in all of this. Think of it this way. You find your household is spending too much money ...you know you need to find a better paying job but in the mean time you review your budget and seek ways to reduce expenditure....the way you wriggle to avoid such a simple realisation that wastfulness is a good place to start baffles me.

Your effort to trivialize waste baffles me.
You want to reduce ommissions


but think addressing the un necessary use of energy is irrelevant?
OK keep drilling holes in the boat.

At last some recognition ..thank you.

You want to reduce ommissions and so do I, I see wasteful use of energy which I regard as part of the problem and being part of the problem think it would be a sensible approach to address this aspect...why would addressing waste be any less important than getting rid of incandescent light bulbs.
Think of it along the lines of a water problem...you know you need another water tank because the old one does not hold enough for your needs...while waiting for your new tank it could be a good idea to sweep the path rather than hose it down.
I am baffled to understand why given the desire and need to reduce ommissions why addressing issues that will save energy that is wasted for no good reason is not important.

Well of course it is relevant.
You simply can not act inconsistent with your publically expressed position and you can say that is not so if that is what you believe but hypocracy has brought many folk down...
And look at the responses here to my concerns...And I am the highly concerned side, .....any observation or criticism is jumped on...so how do you expect to win folk over who don't believe you...I know tell them they are fools, that their concerns are stupid and Al can drive a V 12 if he wants..
Again nice hearing your responses and I hope your country can realise as it created the problem it should lead the world to a solution.
But perhaps do something about Law Vegas or at least understand why it causes the rest of the world to think the US is a joke when it comes to doing anything about climate change.
Alex

You seem to be easily "baffled". I'm not for waste. We all waste sometimes and we all act to reduce it in most cases. Reducing waste is as important as replacing incandescent bulbs.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I don't represent the U.S. or Vegas. There is either a man made global climate change problem here or there's not. The rest is just a rant about how you don't like the approach of the global climate change movement.

I'm not trying to tell anyone what they should like or whether they should be offended or not. That's your call.

If someone gave you a RV, in someone's view it could still be seen as a waste. Maybe Al Gore's father gave him a big house and a jet airplane. Maybe your RV and telescopes is seen by someone as waste and greed and therefore they see you as hypocritical and is offended and wishes you would act differently and speak differently.

That would all be beside the point of course as global climate change still exists whether anyone is baffled or angry or greedy, wasteful and hypocritical, wouldn't you agree?

The U.S. contributes to the issue more than Australia only in the sense that we have 10 times the population and a stronger economy. You have the Gold Coast, we have Las Vegas.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If they live within a foot of the sea, that may well be true. Who was the politician speaking to?

The speeches I refer to were made (more than once) to folk living in the Woy Woy and Etalong regions, referred to as part of the central coast which is an hour's drive North of Sydney...some years ago now.
The areas the pollies said would go under were about a half a klm from the water. The speeches got coverage because there were old people worried and ringing radio stations. It was absolute pre programmed BS and did a lot of harm to the credibility of anyone presenting a case for, then, global warming.
But Al Gore was in everyone's lips and the move was on to get incandescent lights side lined and Sydney was being presented with buying a water desalinators because with global warming a desalinators was the only thing that would save us...well the desalinator sits there unused and we pay some extrodinary amount to keep it maintained. It was around that time some foundation came out with an Australian wide map showing the placement for NP plants.. also the only hope to head off global warming. So perhaps you can understand why credibility of folk like Al Gore to some degree, went out the window. But now I think water desalinators are a great idea as apparently one of my nephews is head engineer or such putting them in....

Do you consider the stark, alarmist warnings on the side of cigarettes "BS scare tactics?"

Absolutely. Only because I suspect there is a little panel of fat cats sitting back in their office drawing their wages thinking of neat graphics they can do in photo shop to scare folk when the reality is smoking is an addiction that is near impossible to beat and for damn sure no one is going to pick up a packet long at the fort set of stuffed lungs and say "oh I had no idea I will give up immediately" ... And so there is a good case for calling the warnings BS...
And as to the speeches to the old folk that was BS because they were on higher ground than old mate who purchased the water front which I think was also around that time...I am not sure but when his purchase was discussed down the pub in the locality of his purchase all would recall the BS scaring of the pensioners.
I remember someone saying at the time...well you wouldn't follow Ghandi if you found he went home and beat his wife.
I see the problem but I also see the BS people get emotional which is understandable but I think it's folly to think the BS builds credibility.

When people lie to you, clearly the case with the speeches, (it was always about selling a desalinator to Sydney) guess what you lose trust..Al Gore lost trust because he advocated one thing and did another...heck you either see it or chose not to see it...

I never talk to folk these days about the problem because they just think you are another BSer. I do my bit to erase my carbon foot print and keep quiet generally. And look at my reception here...unbelievable...just imagine how most of you appear to someone who is not convinced.

Anyways great chap and as always enjoy your input...and don't think I don't notice your subtle little ploys to make me look stupid without being direct..I do the same and get silent satisfaction..but realise I am a mug so pulling it off really is not a challenge.
I hope you have given up the bike.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

You seem to be easily "baffled".

We have a saying ..if you can't convince them with facts baffle them with BS...so yes even when you know that is happening the sheer weight of BS can overwhelm one.

Reducing waste is as important as replacing incandescent bulbs.

Thank you.

The rest is just a rant about how you don't like the approach of the global climate change movement.

No ..it's about pointing out relevant stuff that no one wants to hear...look at your response..you don't want to hear any of what I have to say and had to be dragged kicking and screaming and my effort to obtain such a small concession should not have required a "rant" but I thank you as there is something about having a rant that helps. Please you have one while I take a break.

I'm not trying to tell anyone what they should like or whether they should be offended or not.

Look I like you and always have.

If someone gave you a RV, in someone's view it could still be seen as a waste.

I know clearly it should have been used in a smash up derby.

Maybe your RV and telescopes is seen by someone as waste and greed and therefore they see you as hypocritical and is offended and wishes you would act differently and speak differently.

You are probably correct.

That would all be beside the point of course as global climate change still exists whether anyone is baffled or angry or greedy, wasteful and hypocritical, wouldn't you agree?

Not entirely but given you have been somewhat receptive I will go along with you on that.

The U.S. contributes to the issue more than Australia only in the sense that we have 10 times the population and a stronger economy. You have the Gold Coast, we have Las Vegas.

Sure. You have a great day ... Nice chatting.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

And please note my phone is being powered by a solar panel..as is my very small fridge and 15 watt light.
Even the astronomy rig is solar powered.
The only thing I need is the electric car...
Have a great day members and thank you all for your kindness.
Alex

 

[billvon]

The speeches I refer to were made (more than once) to folk living in the Woy Woy and Etalong regions, referred to as part of the central coast which is an hour's drive North of Sydney...some years ago now.
The areas the pollies said would go under were about a half a klm from the water. The speeches got coverage because there were old people worried and ringing radio stations. It was absolute pre programmed BS and did a lot of harm to the credibility of anyone presenting a case for, then, global warming.

So I took a look at Woy Woy on the Australia flooding simulator (http://www.coastalrisk.com.au/viewer) and it looks like by 2100 the area will lose several hundred houses to sea level rise. Doesn't sound like BS. Even West Gosford, which is even more inland, stands to lose quite a few structures. (Mostly industrial from the looks of it.)

But Al Gore was in everyone's lips and the move was on to get incandescent lights side lined and Sydney was being presented with buying a water desalinators because with global warming a desalinators was the only thing that would save us...well the desalinator sits there unused and we pay some extrodinary amount to keep it maintained.

Uh - OK. We built a desalinator - and we've really needed it, because with climate change, we get less melt from the mountains near here, and it ends sooner. If you have more water than we do, great.

I see the problem but I also see the BS people get emotional which is understandable but I think it's folly to think the BS builds credibility.

I agree. But all too often, people label things BS because they don't want to believe them - it's too expensive, or too worrisome, or too hard, or it makes their favorite politicians look bad, or it makes them feel guilty. I am sure you know the local guy who has been smoking three packs a day for 40 years and claims that there's no health risks from smoking. That's _real_ BS.

Anyways great chap and as always enjoy your input...and don't think I don't notice your subtle little ploys to make me look stupid without being direct..

Sorry, wasn't trying to make you look stupid.

I hope you have given up the bike.
Alex

??

 

[Seattle]

We have a saying ..if you can't convince them with facts baffle them with BS...so yes even when you know that is happening the sheer weight of BS can overwhelm one.

Thank you.

No ..it's about pointing out relevant stuff that no one wants to hear...look at your response..you don't want to hear any of what I have to say and had to be dragged kicking and screaming and my effort to obtain such a small concession should not have required a "rant" but I thank you as there is something about having a rant that helps. Please you have one while I take a break.

Look I like you and always have.

I know clearly it should have been used in a smash up derby.

You are probably correct.

Not entirely but given you have been somewhat receptive I will go along with you on that.

Sure. You have a great day ... Nice chatting.
Alex

The fact of the matter is that it seems to me that you are the only "emotional" one here regarding this subject. You haven't had to drag anyone into acknowledging that waste and greed are bad concepts. It's a rant though in that you seem to set yourself up as the judge and also assume that everyone else is for greed and waste.

Greed is not really for me to be the judge of. It's not really related to the subject at hand. Waste is relative. It's important. No one has been arguing for waste however.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

So I took a look at Woy Woy on the Australia flooding simulator (http://www.coastalrisk.com.au/viewer) and it looks like by 2100 the area will lose several hundred houses to sea level rise. Doesn't sound like BS. Even West Gosford, which is even more inland, stands to lose quite a few structures. (Mostly industrial from the looks of it.)

Uh - OK. We built a desalinator - and we've really needed it, because with climate change, we get less melt from the mountains near here, and it ends sooner. If you have more water than we do, great.

I agree. But all too often, people label things BS because they don't want to believe them - it's too expensive, or too worrisome, or too hard, or it makes their favorite politicians look bad, or it makes them feel guilty. I am sure you know the local guy who has been smoking three packs a day for 40 years and claims that there's no health risks from smoking. That's _real_ BS.

Sorry, wasn't trying to make you look stupid.

??

Sorry to be brief I am in a rush installing piers for the two scopes...in a non wasteful manner.
I can't get that simulator but I will look.
But 2100 .... Surely that tells us the speech to pensioners was BS. Matey on the river should be worried however...mmm no not him either.
But thanks I will try to find a simulator later.

I am sure you know the local guy who has been smoking three packs a day for 40 years and claims that there's no health risks from smoking. That's _real_ BS.

Sure but I think you miss my point...It's the little BS group putting photo shop scare stuff on packs and making a nice little earn that gets me...anyways please factor in I may just be a grumpy old man.

Sorry, wasn't trying to make you look stupid.

In that case I am disappointed...you were not as subtle as I thought..I could show you how it's done if you like.
Anyways the reality is a fool needs no assistance and if folk find me stupid I would think I have given them good reason.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

The fact of the matter is that it seems to me that you are the only "emotional" one here regarding this subject.

Are you saying that I care? Well thank you.

It's a rant though in that you seem to set yourself up as the judge and also assume that everyone else is for greed and waste.

Who better than me to judge?

It's not really related to the subject at hand.

I respect your opinion....so I will ask again...what do we need to do?
Ignoring wasteful energy consumption ...mmm wasn't the idea behind a carbon tax along the lines of making folk more efficient by imposing a financial penalty...and don't say that the big end would be the ones to pay...pass it on and all that ... Could not help myself sorry..but what do you think can be done as I would like to hear your opinion
Alex

 

[Seattle]

Are you saying that I care? Well thank you.

Who better than me to judge?

I respect your opinion....so I will ask again...what do we need to do?
Ignoring wasteful energy consumption ...mmm wasn't the idea behind a carbon tax along the lines of making folk more efficient by imposing a financial penalty...and don't say that the big end would be the ones to pay...pass it on and all that ... Could not help myself sorry..but what do you think can be done as I would like to hear your opinion
Alex

The subject was those denying climate change caused by man. I'm no expert on what to do. Everyone has their personal responsibility and the bigger issues generally have to be addressed by the government. Having Trump as President doesn't help in that regard.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Having Trump as President doesn't help in that regard.

Reverse phycology would work.

A campaigne... crying out that Donald Trump is the only one that can do anything about climate change..he is the only one that has the ability to manage such a huge undertaking... Now I suspect that he would act to prove that he is as magnificent as the campaigne presents him to be...how's that for a plan.

Yes the OP...
I understand... My input should have been limited to the observation that calling people fools rarely will get them on side.

And I agree that the government is the entity needed to actually get something done but when folk called for a wall someone took notice and thought...now thats a good way to get votes..or maybe it was Trump's original idea...in any event do you see what I am driving at... the wall got built..it did get built didn't it?..if enough people get specific you could think some Polly will speak the words...

The electric car is a big step forward and indicative of the way we need to approach the issue...no one seemed interested in the concept until they found out the tesla could out drag the top line BMW.
People won't come on board for our reason but they get on board for their reasons.
Thank for everything.
Alex

 

[Schmelzer]

What you don't understand about my point is that Greta's alleged mental problems or manipulators are not relevant to the message she delivered.

I understand this very well, that's why I name those arguments ad hominem - directed against the messenger, not against the content of the message.

But there is a subtlety, namely what is the content of her message. Without being a child genius, she can only repeat points made by adults, copypasting them (and probably even the copypasting is done by adults around her) instead of making new points, or giving new arguments supporting some particular position. Her contribution, the point where she is superior to adults, is not some content about the problems with climate change, it is emotion. And if these emotions are the result of manipulation by adults who are unable to create similar emotions among the masses in combination with an organized media hype is quite important, it makes a difference. The emotional part of her message is indeed directly discredited by showing a manipulation behind it.

So argue the case and not the person....

The case is, in this case, the content of your defamation as conspiracy theorists of those who made arguments with reference to her mental health issues and showing the manipulation behind her. The person is you. I do not discuss your person but have corrected the errors in your defamation.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

That is an aspect of large scale polluting interests shifting the blame off legislation and onto personal responsibility. In other words, don't blame the fossil fuel industry for 100 years of political corruption and science denial, blame the consumer for their buying choices.

Sorry I missed your post.
I understand where you are coming from.
All I suggest is to address areas that could help reach targets and save consumers money at the same time.
Yesterday I was in the shopping centre and noted that there were just so many lights which I expect would cause very little downgrade if 20% were not used. That approach could not do anything other than help you could think.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Particularly the six either side of a huge skylight..
Alex

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I did the most effective thing I could with regard to global warming, albeit inadvertently. I never had kids.

 

[spidergoat]

Sorry I missed your post.
I understand where you are coming from.
All I suggest is to address areas that could help reach targets and save consumers money at the same time.
Yesterday I was in the shopping centre and noted that there were just so many lights which I expect would cause very little downgrade if 20% were not used. That approach could not do anything other than help you could think.
Alex

LEDs are very efficient now, while gas companies are flaring off more methane in a hour than you would use in a lifetime. We need a sense of perspective.