By Keith Antonysen
We all want to believe that Earth will remain a safe place to live, it has in the main provided a stable climate since man has inhabited Earth. Yet, now, deniers do agree that the climate is changing, ten years ago that was not the case. They now pick reasons for the change in climate that scientists have already considered and found not to be the case. They deny the impact of greenhouse gases on climate. There has been talk of setting up a colony on Mars, could human exist there without any technological ways of creating an atmosphere in shelters? Clearly, the answer is a resounding no. We are able to survive on Earth as greenhouse gases allow for temperature to be moderated to allow for human, and flora and fauna survival.
Greenhouse gases do not have an impact on climate
Climate science began through Fourier in the 1820s. Later, Foote and Tyndall experimented with various gases and found that CO2 retains warmth. Much more sophisticated experiments have upheld their findings since. A 1912 short article in a New Zealand paper discussed what impact coal would have on climate.
Scientists working for ExxonMobil in the 1970s, found that fossil fuels do impact on climate, as have scientists contracted by the American Petroleum Institute prior to denial becoming a thriving Industry from the late 1980s.
The Climate has always changed
Here we have a statement that we all know is true. The fact is that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere change over, time as a percentage of the atmosphere. CO2 takes a huge number of decades to break down. The “great dying” 252 million years ago is an example of greenhouse gases being created through coal seams being ignited. Unsurprisingly, artefacts are created through such a process. Dr Benjamin Burger acknowledges prior studies, and through breaking down samples shows chemical and mineral artefacts consistent with coal burning and the creation of greenhouse gases. Dr Burger suggests that his study provides an analog for what is beginning to happen currently.
Information provided by deniers is often distorted
Dr James Hansen has been fraudulently misquoted in relation to paradigms he set out in the 1980s where two of his paradigms were very close to the mark, and the other two are the ones deniers use. Deniers often do not understand nuances climate scientists state, they cherry pick statements from Reports they believe fit their pseudo science. For example, a study might clearly establish that anthropogenic climate change is happening, yet comments from deniers use the Reports anyway. Astro-Physics being an example where this has happened.
Climate scientists distort temperature
Deniers complain that temperature readings are homogenised, they would apparently prefer inaccurate records to be made. Weather stations are influenced by what is around them, if trees, asphalt, or buildings are placed; or taken away from the vicinity of a weather station, then readings change. Environments do change after more than one hundred years. The US has placed weather stations in areas where change is extremely unlikely to happen as datum points so menaces such as Anthony Watts from WUWT are silenced. They have found their homogenisation of temperature readings have been accurate. No longer do deniers use 1997 as a datum point for their arguments, they would be laughed at if they did. Temperature has increased since the El Nino year of 1997, even in years since when El Nino was not a factor.
Climate scientists make a fortune
Climate scientists do seek funds to allow for research; as do other scientists in a myriad of other disciplines. However, their salaries are what can be expected in any Professional position. The message is put out to shift the focus off the Fossil Fuel Corporations making huge profits at the expense of a liveable environment.
Any commentary provided by deniers needs to be checked against what science says. I would hope that anybody reading these comments checks what I have written against science, not blogs.
Some Myths Presented by Climate Change Deniers, Part 2
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
Locally the loudest denialist Peter Campion, ersatz father in law to the Barnyard Joke is afforded a platform by Murdoch regional rags The Tablelander, and The Cairns Post. He has a letter to the editor published every week, sometimes in both. Factoids cribbed from dodgy websites adorn his creations. Many good people have made the effort to write in and systematically debunk his claims to little effect except to provoke an ad hominin attack Any man who dismisses an overwhelming scientific consensus will remain unconvinced by any laymans argument and often seems happy to act as a man of straw in order to distract attention from a genuine attempt to raise awareness of the existential threat we face. Whether from ignorance, cowardice or malign intent is debatable.
It is the emotional investment that a climate change denialist has in their fantasy that is hardest to rationally counter.
Yes Global Warming is a socialist scam, tell the millions of people in Melbourne about it they have just had their hottest day ever at 46.6 degrees, and A lot of the rest of the country has suffered too. We must enact laws to stop farmers and developers clearing the land of trees, there is a reason rain forests are rain forests. The absence of trees brings drought to “all” of us.
We need a reafforestation effort in Australia, along with renewable energy like the proposed Burdekin Hydroelectricity power station on Queensland’s most reliable dam.
Since it is topic relevant, I would encourage fellow commenter David Bruce to repeat his previously expressed opinions on the follies of climate science regarding ‘so called “global warming”‘ (apparently it’s nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions and all to do with sunspots and glacial cycles), especially his authoritative citation of Miles “pi = 4” Mathis.
The six stages of climate change denial
CO2 is not actually increasing.
Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.
Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.
Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.
Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth’s climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.
Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it’s too late to do anything about it, and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it.
Denialist tactics
Allegations that scientific consensus involves conspiring to fake data or suppress the truth: a global warming conspiracy theory.
Fake experts, or individuals with views at odds with established knowledge, at the same time marginalising or denigrating published topic experts. Like the manufactured doubt over smoking and health, a few contrarian scientists oppose the climate consensus, some of them the same individuals.
Selectivity, such as cherry picking atypical or even obsolete papers, in the same way that the MMR vaccine controversy was based on one paper: examples include discredited ideas of the medieval warm period.
Unworkable demands of research, claiming that any uncertainty invalidates the field or exaggerating uncertainty while rejecting probabilities and mathematical models.
Logical fallacies.
Alan
I’m very aware of those who maintain a view regardless of proper information. Often people are confused when a well written non-science piece is written. It is those readers who are my target. It is very noticeable that nearly 100% of AIMN readers believe anthropogenic climate change is happening. So my aim is to hopefully provide useful information which might be used in a discussion with somebody unsure about the science, or mildly hold a denier viewpoint. Kaye Lee has written much about Craig Kelly; he is an extreme denier, but it is still worth making comments on his Face Book page to inform casual readers. Respond to the comments of deniers and they often provide replies readers hopefully will pick up as being silly, or without foundation. When challenging them for evidence, invariably they do not reply. In science an opinion is either worthless, or is the beginning of a hypothesis.
Crikey Weekender is doing a series.
“What makes climate denialism possible? Or the anti-vaccination movement? How do theories that in previous decades would have been ignored by the mainstream gain steam? Our new short series, In Denial, takes apart the Australian wings of these outliers and the political and media machinations that make their message possible. Stay tuned next week for the final part, on how one think tank changed everything about the climate change wars in this country.”
Will they force us to take legal action to expose them and make them do what we must do?
How much damage can Matt Canavan do before he is ousted from the Ministry?
there’s a hole in the dam, the water is escaping, let’s chuck a couple of rocks at the hole, she’ll be right. Oops the water level is still going down, she’ll be right, it’s going to rain soon all’s good. Christ the rivers are drying up, she’ll be right, it’s going to rain. Allowing massive syphoning off of waters from headwaters, floodplains and the like to grow cotton, bugger the downstream folks, she’ll be right it’s going to rain..Clear massive areas of forestation to grow palms,coffee,vanilla and the like, she’ll be right the countries need the money.
Christ, i’m fearfull for the future, nightmares are going to become reality.
Good to see that global warming/climate change is again brought to the fore when heat records are tumbling on almost a daily basis and across the continent. Congratulations Keith.
Also worth a read. And with interesting graphics.
https://medium.com/@CarbonNegative/the-new-energy-paradigm-and-beating-climate-change-in-1-page-b51f8c7589eb
PS, not sure ‘paradigm’ above is used correctly. Paradigmatic shifts only happen over time and are a revolution in thinking but Hansen didn’t outline 4 in one year. One was enough for him. Scenarios, projections, … etc Yes. But not paradigms.
A chronic alcoholic would rather hear about the beneficial antioxidants contained in wine than confront the cumulative harmful effects of ethanol on the liver and brain, and habitual smokers tend to focus on the nicotine high rather than the carcinogenic toxicity of the smoke they are inhaling.
Similarly, the ease of lifestyle made possible by our consumption of fossil fuels tends to encourage dubious rationalisations to justify continuing a patently destructive societal addiction.
This provides a pre-primed audience for the merchants of doubt and denial.
Predictably, Craig Kelly, rather than commenting on the heatwave or bushfires or fish kills etc, has latched onto the load-shedding that occurred in Victoria yesterday.
“CLUELESS. COMPLETELY CLUELESS
Labor in Victoria tripled the royalties on coal, and cheered as Hazlewood Power station closed down.
Hazlewood could have supplied at least 1200Mw on demand.
Meanwhile Victoria built 1740 MW capacity of subsidised wind power – but this afternoon, when it was needed most, wind power in Victoria was only operating at bewteen 20% to 35% capacity.
Today’s blackouts in Victoria can only be blamed upon the ideology stupidity of people like Lily – who have ignored the science, the engineering, the economics and the maths.”
For starters, Hazelwood was due for closure in 2005. Privatisation squeezed a few more years out of it but eventually it was closed because it was so old and inefficient that it simply became too expensive to maintain, let alone operate. It needed a $400 million investment just to make it safe and efficient.
Secondly, three electricity generation units at coal-fired power plants in the Latrobe Valley were out of action (two due to unexpected outages, one due to planned maintenance) which reduced the amount of available power. To make matters worse, the hot weather reduced the efficiency of the coal-fired power stations that remained online, further reducing the available supply of electricity. These problems removed about 1,800 megawatts of electricity from the grid.
For this failed furniture salesman, who is paid by the fossil fuel lobby, to accuse others of ignoring the science is gobsmacking.
Regarding Exxon Mobil (formerly Standard Oil and till recently Rockefeller foundations were still shareholders), they have been experts (or in the background) in denial, equivocation, deflection, astro turfing and green washing (of Nativism):
‘ExxonMobil’s alleged role in spreading misinformation about climate change will be scrutinised by the European Union for the first time, in a move welcomed by campaigners.
The world’s biggest international oil company has been investigated in the US over allegations that it knew about the dangers of global warming for decades but deceived the public over the risks, a charge the firm has rejected’
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/17/meps-to-scrutinise-exxonmobil-alleged-role-in-climate-change-misinformation
That damn intrusive supranational body the EU ruining the lives of citizens….
Exxon was dictating to the Bush administration not only policy inaction but demanding that certain people be sacked and replaced with climate change deniers like Christy and Lindzen.
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/Exxon%20Lobbyist%27s%20Memo%20to%20the%20White%20House%20%282001%29.pdf
Let’s assume that global warming and climate change is a socialist scam and that we embark, nonetheless, on an exciting program of harnessing renewable energy to power the planet.
What’s the worst that can happen ?
We end up with a cleaner and healthier environment and we cease polluting the oceans and the air we breath and we realize one of humankinds greatest ambitions : clean, non-polluting cheap energy.
AND if we stop digging up and exporting fossil fuels the good folk in the major cities of the world can go outdoors without having to don breathing apparatus.
Common strand including Exxon, Chevron and other oil companies, as a result of trust busting a century ago to split Rockefeller founded Standard Oil, had been (till 2017) ongoing Rockefeller related investments and influence.
As important, while Koch’s are more the present public focus re. ‘Dark Money’ funding and/or influencing politics and media, there has been the longstanding PR infrastructure of influence originally developed by Rockies etc., according to Jane Mayer et al.
Examples would be alternative environmental groups bassed upon Club of Rome constructs (plus Nativist groups in or round the White House) of sustainability, limits to growth, carrying capacity (common to Morrison and Bob Carr) etc. with focus, not upon fossil fuel production and related use or impacts.
By clever use of PR techniques, or promotion by inversion, of corporatism and Nativism through negative sounding proxy issues e.g. ‘population growth’, immigration, refugees, ‘walls’ or borders, avoid trade agreements, bypass environmental regulation, promote ‘national sovereignty’ etc. (promoted as good for citizens e.g. Brexit or Trump, but more useful for global corporate and/or fossil fuel players and Nativists too)
Probably just coincidental….
Yep, the very idea of sustainability, and the notion that there should be some limits to population growth and resource consumption within our finite planetary environment/resource base, it’s all just a false flag conspiracy, an artificial front for the club of Rome et al to implement a genocidal racist agenda.
I think population will be self-limiting. All the signs are heading that way.
Consumption and dealing with waste is a different matter. We MUST get better at using less and at reusing and recycling. We must stop designed obsolescence. Manufacturers must be responsible for the full cycle of their product from ethical supplies right through to collection and reuse or disposal of waste. As we saw with carbon pricing, businesses will invest in sustainability if it becomes too expensive for them not to.
When it comes to coincidences, it’s a shame that what was predicted by scientists half a century ago as being the first indicator of climate change (extreme weather events) is happening at just the time the valiant deniers are trying to argue their contrary views.
I also note that the former “there is no global warming taking place” brigade have gone quiet and merged with the “there is warming but it’s natural” sect.
As for the recent fish kills, those 100-year-old Cod managed to survive a century of droughts but were somehow caught out by this one.
Kaye lee,
I agree that limitation and eventual decline in human population will occur, although whether this will be voluntary or as a result of a catastrophic collapse of our biospheric habitat remains to be seen.
I fully agree that an efficiency audit on the ‘life cycle’ of products (including repairability), with subsequent subsidies granted or levees imposed, would be one step towards scaling back our gratuitous squandering of the precious and irreplacable.
Matters Not
Thanks for checking.
I had a problem finding the right word and used “paradigm” instead of “projections”.
Also, Dr Hansen presented 3 projections, not 4 as stated … I was wrong there also. Though right about Dr Hansen being purposefully misrepresented by McIntrye and Michaels. What I had written was from memory rather than researching each point.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/25/30-years-later-deniers-are-still-lying-about-hansens-amazing-global-warming-prediction
There are things to look forward to, apart from clean air water, sustainable populations … stuff that lasts!
Electronics that are repairable,
Computers with replaceable hardware keeping up with technical advances,
Small scale business suited to local communities,
End of global profit motivated monopolies
There’s more, but still recuperating from heatwave … not Melbourne’s hottest day ever, that was February 2009, but Adelaide set new record.
It was understood from data that global population would peak out generations ago as fertility rates had stabilised and/or been falling, with population numbers to follow later this century (ex. Sub Saharan Africa). Most population growth is a result of lower infant mortality, better health/education and smaller family units; backgrounded now by ageing populations and cumulative statistical effect. Good example is the royal family, with members promoting low population growth, are now four generations, which will become common in the developed world.
Regarding cyclical and/or recycling approach by or need for corporates to adopt, has been taught in management, engineering etc. for some years under the guise of CSR, ethics and ‘sustainability’, but known as ‘cradle to cradle’ manufacturing.
However, in my opinion it’s more about efficient production lines and cost savings in production promoted as ‘green’, but does little to address broader issues of resources and environmental behaviour impacts, by consumers. For example, efficient cradle to cradle in automotive is fine but does little to restrict vehicle usage, pollution, congestion and future income streams….
The evidence oft quoted is that climate scientists have formed a ‘consensus opinion’ that the climate change that is obviously occurring is largely man made.
But scientists are in fact not employed to have opinions – their role is to provide absolute proof.
I am in fact agnostic in regard to whether man is the cause of what planet earth is going through right now, and whether or not anything be done about it.
I look forward to being informed by proven scientific facts, not opinions.
One proven scientific fact I have some regard for is the Earth for many millions of years has gone through a 140,000 year ice age cycle, and that on that basis we are around 10,000 years from the next ice age. That would really be a noticeable climate change with the northern hemisphere under several kilometres of ice.
Another is that historically sea levels do change around at around 1 metre each 1000 years. 20,000 years ago our indigenous Australians could have walked from Circular Quay to Manly along the bottom of Sydney Harbour (which was 20 metres shallower than it is now).
Keep up the interesting dialogue.
Andrew Smith
Perhaps the coalition’s denigration and ultimate closure of our auto industry was an environmental strategy !
terence mills
Hasn’t and won’t stop cars nor automotive and related industries (who can import equivalents), along with various public subsidies, incentives, infrastructure etc. worn by us 🙂
terence mcdonald
You might start here.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
And for links to scientific evidence and peer reviewed papers on any of the arguments you may have about ice ages or sea levels or volcanoes or any of the other commonly proffered views, look here for what interests you.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
This is one about ice ages
https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm
Andrew Smith: “For example, efficient cradle to cradle in automotive is fine but does little to restrict vehicle usage, pollution, congestion and future income streams….”
There is a plethora of other ways in which to do those things.
Why focus on a solitary mechanism to provide solutions to every aspect of life?
Multiple methods for solving multitudinous problems, frequently in conjunction and overlapping, is surely the way forward – as it has been in the past.
That said, the simple elimination of fossil fuel burning, in one form or another, – to be replaced by a large variety of alternative methods of generating, storing and transporting the energy needed for human society to exist – is a singular action which can reduce significantly the dangerous climate disruption which is presently in progress.
On the bright side, population projections predict that human numbers will plateau at around 11.5 billion near the end of this century.
On the downside, the demands of less than 8 billion of us have already caused massive biospheric degradation and increasingly manifest climate instability to the point that accelerative negative feedback loops are already occurring, and, despite the increasingly gloomy urgency of the messages coming from the relevant scientific authorities, global co2 emissions continue to rise on a yearly basis.
I could add that the graphs for global human population and co2 levels share an eerily similar ‘hockey stick’ shape, but that’s probably just another coincidence.
ICE AGES, CO2 and TEMPERATURE.
Professor of Geosciences, Jeff Severinghaus interestingly brings the 3 key variables together when he postulates:
“The fundamental reason that CO2 and global surface temperature are so highly
correlated during comings and going of the the ice ages is that the orbits cause the temperature change, and then the resulting heating of the ocean causes it to outgas some CO2 to the atmosphere. This extra CO2 then goes on to amplify the temperature increase slightly, in what scientists call a “feedback”.”
Terence McDonald
I have already almost completed Part 2, and scientific consensus is covered. Something I have not covered in that section is that Powell et al studied the work of 69,000+ authors whom had work published over a two year period, they stated that only a handful of those scientists were climate scientists skeptical of anthropogenic climate change.
Terence, what I have written is based upon science I have read over the years. When deniers dain to provide a reference I check it against the science. Mostly when writing something I provide references to support the comments made, here there would be too many references.
Please provide references. It would be good if you could particularly, provide references which debunk the consensus views of climate scientists. Remember, I stated “climate scientists”. Though a number of other science disciplines provide consilience.
RE:
Ain’t going to happen. Ever. That’s not how scientists operate.
Science (in many ways) is all about doubt. Don’t like doubt – then try religion because with religion there’s never any doubt.
Drake N You misunderstood, they are not my ideas.
These types of constructs have been turning up in academic literature and content for sometime, especially social sciences, more particularly management.
May surprise many that according to Jane Mayer et al., Kochs and related targeted social sciences years ago, preferably at best universities.
terence,
You only quoted a small part of what Severinghaus said. This explains more fully what you mentioned.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/coldcomfort.html
Terence McDonald
Also, could you please provide a proper reference to Professor Jeff Severinghaus.
Shaun Newman said: “…tell the millions of people in Melbourne about it they have just had their hottest day ever at 46.6 degrees,…”
Whilst it WAS hot in Melbourne and elsewhere, it was dear little Adelaide that copped the record temperature of 46.6C.
What many don’t seem to realise – particularly the media – is that whatever weather Melbourne has today (and which makes the news), Adelaide had that same weather the day before (when it wasn’t newsworthy). The current heatwave is an exception, due to the record temperatures being experienced, but in otherwise “normal” weather, it is certainly the case.
Makes me think that 26 January should be re-badged as “Eastern Australia Day”.
Terence,
Professor Severinghaus’ postulation seems to be that orbital fluctuations can raise temperatures, which releases stored (mainly oceanic) carbon into the atmosphere, causing further warming.
Currently prevalent climate theory is that human activity (mainly digging up and burning compressed carbon) has raised temperatures, releasing more stored carbon (+) into the atmosphere, causing further warming.
The only significant difference seems to be the initialising mechanisms.
Terence
In 2014 Professor Severinghaus was taking a anthropogenic attitude to climate change.
Qoute:
“As the debate over climate change continues, he makes it clear that his realm is science, not politics. But as a father, he looks forward to solutions.
“Speaking as a citizen, I hope that society will figure out a way to get this problem under control so that my grandchildren can have a decent planet to live on,” Severinghaus said. “It’s definitely worth working on it really hard. It’s definitely still possible to turn it around.””
From
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sdut-environment-climate-change-ice-core-ancient-air-2014apr19-story.html
Craig Kelly is seriously deluded.
“for those radicalised into the climate cult, facts and statistics are of no value because their belief is a religious one, their minds closed to rational thoughts, reason and logic. They will march into the polling booths like mindless drones and vote for parties that want to copy this madness we see in South Australia and take it nationwide.”
Though it does look like he is already conceding defeat which is something I suppose. I hope the Liberals there boot him out. He is dumb as a post.
Interesting read and thank you for the comments…
The second-largest volcanic eruption of this century, and by far the largest eruption to affect a densely populated area, occurred at Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines on June 15, 1991. The eruption produced high-speed avalanches of hot ash and gas, giant mudflows, and a cloud of volcanic ash hundreds of miles across. The impacts of the eruption continue to this day.
Nearly 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide were injected into the stratosphere in Pinatubo’s 1991 eruptions, and dispersal of this gas cloud around the world caused global temperatures to drop temporarily (1991 through 1993) by about 1°F (0.5°C).
As you probably know, sulphur dioxide is a greenhouse gas, also produced from burning fossil fuels, such as coal.
Low sulphur anthracite is one of the components of steel making, so I wonder when steel making will cease too?
I would be interested to hear explanations for the temporary global temperature drop of 1 degree F. Did it form sulphuric acid and fall as cooling acid rain, or did the clouds block out the sun to cool the planet?
Currently there are 9 active volcanoes inside the Pacific Rim, 2 of which are in Vanuatu. (see Smartraveller)
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs113-97/
I have so many questions. Adjustments to GPS, about adjustments to our Time, about the effects of the Jovian planets? When I ask these questions of research scientists, they change the subject.
David
There is an answer to your question in relation to the impact of volcanoes below. The most significant references are Greta Thunberg’s plea at Davos, the temperature of Oceans, and the USA Report.
A poignant plea from the young person Greta Thunberg responsible for the world wide strikes talking at Davos:
Oceans warming more quickly than expected:
Graph displaying what various factors have on climate, including volcanoes:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Major Report produced by USA post the IPCC Report:
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov
Study of 3% of studies skeptical of anthropogenicpogenic climate change:
https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/?fbclid=IwAR0rveQNDbU_huToQ5jQkJeKOZq6X96imPtLfBCc0MGLoWRXlUylR9SSKlg
I also have references to Antarctica ice sheets disappearing quickly, and also the melting rate of Greenland increasing. Please provide data if you disagree with any of these references.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/
The frightening opinions of those living in denial
David Bruce,
Sulphur dioxide is classified as a secondary/lesser greenhouse gas in terms of surface warming and it’s effect as such is still somewhat uncertain, but are regarded as being relatively short term and somewhat localised and transient.
It’s effect in terms of cooling is better known.
As a gaseous particulate it readily bonds with vapourous particles to form supherous aerosols, which directly block incoming solar rays, thus causing a localised cooling (or ‘dimming’).
As these supherous aerosols condense they become (acidic) liquid precipitates.
Of course, how long the supherous aerosols linger and how strongly acidic the rain they form is dependent upon the concentrations of sulphur dioxide and the amount of liquid evaporates available.
From the world economic forum at Davos….
“It is deeply disturbing that, as the world tinkers on the brink of a climate catastrophe, avoiding further temperature rise is not at the very centre of all of the meetings of CEOs and world leaders. The solutions are in front of them and they need to prioritise solving this crisis, join the youth who are leading the way forward and thus be on the right side of history.
Yesterday there were 32,000 school strike students on the streets of Belgium and today children are taking to the streets of Berlin clamouring for an early coal phase-out. The youth are demanding to be heard, the question is, why isn’t the Davos elite responding with the scale and pace required? Short-term business interests and making a greater profit, whatever the cost to others, clearly remains the Davos elites priority. We have no time to waste.”
Terence
You wrote in relation to climate scientists that … “their role is to provide absolute proof.”
Yet, you quote a fragment that does not meet your standard.
The other factor is that we accept the theories of gravity and relativity, yet, there is still research being carried out in these fields. Does this mean that we cannot accept those theories as being absolutely true? It is my way of saying you provide standards impossible to meet, your own fragment of a reference does not meet your criteria!
The way you provided your part reference displays the denier trick of making a reference difficult to follow up.
The other factor deniers often display is to try to displace comments; and then, not answer any challenges made.
Keith,
The snippet comes from a conversation in the comments section on a Real Climate article called “Why correlations of CO2 and Temperature over ice age cycles don’t define climate sensitivity”
“The fundamental reason that CO2 and global surface temperature are so highly correlated during comings and going of the the ice ages is that the orbits cause the temperature change, and then the resulting heating of the ocean causes it to outgas some CO2 to the atmosphere. This extra CO2 then goes on to amplify the temperature increase slightly, in what scientists call a “feedback”.
So the observed slope of the correlation between CO2 and temperature tells us mostly about how sensitive CO2 is to temperature, not the other way around. To get an actual example of how CO2 directly impacts temperature, from the past, we have to go back 56 million years to the so-called “PETM”, a time when fossil CO2 was put directly into the atmosphere by an extraordinary epsiode of volcanism beneath a massive oil field as the North Atlantic ocean rifted open.
In this example, CO2 quadrupled and global temperature warmed about 6 degrees C. This gives a climate sensitivity of about 3 degrees for a doubling, consistent with the widely used “Charney sensitivity”.
To sum up, the ice ages give us information about how CO2 responds to temperature increases but not, unfortunately, information about how much warming CO2 causes.
[Response: Jeff, thanks for dropping by. Just a clarification (I know you know this, but not all our readers will!): the fact that the ocean was colder during glacial periods by itself explains only about 10% of the CO2 change. Dynamical, biological and chemical changes that go along with the temperature change are required to explain the bulk of the changes in CO2. –eric]
Thank you Kaye for your last comment.
It illustrates beautifully how the work of climate scientists can be misconstrued!
Notice the so called climate skeptics do a lot of “hand waving”, ie “what about volcanoes, cosmic rays, ice ages, orbital tilt changes” etc etc.
They will never truly engage and provide credible or peer-reviewed science links to support their dubious claims, most of which is based on cherry-picking.
I think the majority trawl media sites and hide behind plausible-sounding names as they post and try to give the impression that there is much more support for what they have to “contribute” than there actually is. They are part of an organised, paid troll factory that exists to mislead and defer concerted action on climate for selfish reasons.
Harry agree, much seems to be both informal, but too much is formal PR and astro turfing, appearing to be genuine or grass roots.
Harry
The hand waving climate deniers really try to muddy the waters (so to speak) with their cries of what about volcanoes, cosmic rays, ice ages, orbital tilt changes … and so on, missing the point (deliberately?) these events are a part of the natural background cycle of events, are also taken into consideration by scientists. The addition of CO2 from human enterprise is what is tipping the balance.
Now if they were banging on about asteroids colliding with Earth …
It’s the same when these CD’s point out the climate has changed in the past – yes, in fact it is previous climatic conditions which aids scientists in evaluating and modelling future climate scenarios.
Sheesh
Am so fed up arguing with these nut jobs, they never present evidence from credible scientific publications and I have to wonder why they would not want a cleaner environment and a sustainable future.
(As an aside) RE:
There the legal drinking age is 16 (which means something above 14) so alcohol consumption by school students is very, very common and with some beers at 14 to 16% strength school student marches in places like Bruges are a sight to behold. But the law against smoking (18 years) is enforced. (Be careful where you drink on Friday afternoon.)
Perhaps if we lowered the drinking age in Australia, school student marches might be better attended? LOL
Diannaart,
This may be obvious to all but I did a quick analysis based on published data and found that since 1900 there was a 92% correlation between average global temperature and population growth.
Food for thought?
Show us the data to support that
Actually I found a paper that found a statistical correlation between temperature and fertility, suggesting that increasing temperatures may account for declining fertility – but it is 16 years old and I find its conclusions somewhat questionable. Other forces have made a much bigger difference.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/831d/6d5ae4700609b49fb75b213f4145866da976.pdf
Kaye Lee
I extracted info from published data charts: I.E.
“Annual Global Average Temperature”, Japan Meteoroigical Agency and
“World Population Growth 1750 to 2100 “, Our World in Data.
I then used the Correl function in Excel.
Oh ok. So you didn’t take into account any externalities that may have influenced that data. I am not sure what we are meant to infer from that. I guess we could say as population has increased, more greenhouse gases have been emitted. Did you look into fossil fuel use during that time? Or livestock herd sizes? Or deforestation?
Terence McDonald
Have you presented your findings for scientific review?
Diannaart
I don’t think a paper from a forensic accountant (albeit one with a two undergraduate degrees and two masters degrees) would be acceptable to the climate science industry.
My analysis is probably just too simple and is very reproducible.
I just tried to look at a bigger picture.
I am sure that someone has already done this.
Terence
Then what is your point?
As Kaye Lee noted, there are many external mitigating factors converging to increase or even decrease the impact of human waste on the environment.
Why make something up?
Do your research at credible scientific institutions, then present links to the results of your investigation. Not rocket surgery 😋😋😋 even for forensic accountants.
My background is only in applied science, landscape architecture and that’s about as sciency as I get, but I am good at looking at patterns, correlating, envisioning the long term. Most people can do this.
Diannaart.m
Thanks for the feed back.
“Goodbye and thanks for all the fish”
Terence
You suggest population increase provides “food for thought”.
You also stated you wanted absolute proof in relation to Climate Change Science, science doesn’t work in that manner.
You have not provided any proof through apparently trying to divert commentary.
How do you account for what has happened in the past when no humans existed?
I have written about the end of the Permian period when discussing the “great dying”in the article I wrote. Actual artefacts, that is, objective items and processes have been found to have occurred with extra greenhouse gases being created.
It is my understanding that Dr Hansen refers to the Eemian period as an analog, population definitely wasn’t a problem then.
Terence you provide a half baked reference to Professor Severinghaus, he happens to acknowledge anthropogenic climate change.
How do you think we would fair without greenhouse gases? Please respond to that question.
Coal and other fossil fuels have been sequestered over millions of years, we have exploited these since the Industrial Revolution, an extremely short time frame in comparison to the length of time it took to create these sequestered materials.
The aim of HELE type coal fired power stations is to try and sequester CO2 back into the ground, mimicking past geological processes I suppose. The big problem is though, that the technology has hardly been developed to do so.
If I have a tooth ache I go to a Dentist, if I have problems with my feet I go to a Podiatrist; I do not go to an Accountant to learn about Physics and Chemistry.
Keith,
I cannot understand why you choose, as a seeker of truth, to totally discard a highly correlated relationship between recent global temperature rise and population increase. It seems to me to beg the intelligent question “why”?
I do not see the need to provide proof as I am a forensic observer seeking information. I leave proof (which apparently is unattainable) to the more clever scientific people.
As for co2, I couldn’t do without it. I would not be able to blow up balloons and my strawberries would not grow.
Something else I am sure you will find controversial – Some researchers believe that planet earth is a self regulating system and that there is current published evidence that as global temperature increases, global cloud density decreases, thereby allowing more heat to escape from the planet.
In summary, I am still a climate change agnostic, and my participation here has not helped me at all. You have however, succeeded in shutting me down, and I will not be returning to this myopic (in parts) discussion.
Terence
I cannot see why you would come to a political blog to learn about the causes of global warming. You need to read what experts have to say.
There is a danger that if human population continues to increase we will experience food and water shortages along with the increasing impacts of a changing climate brought about by burning previously sequestered carbon in the form of coal, oil and gas.
Here is a link to get you started.
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/climate/
You obviously can access the Internet, therefore you can access NASA, our own BOM, you will find other links within the article I have graciously provided, seeing as you are having so much difficulty yourself.
That’s what I love about closet deniers. You can show them an avalanche of proof. You can link them to absolute libraries full of peer reviewed scientific research. And they still say there is no proof. I guess if you don’t read it then you have no proof because that is the ONLY way you could still call yourself an “agnostic”. It’s a bit like you don’t have a cholesterol problem if you don’t have the test.
If you want to read the scientific evidence about clouds and global warming, here is a link (which I know you won’t read)
https://skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback-intermediate.htm
You are just running through the favourites – that one is Spencer and Lindzen.
As for CO2 levels, we had a carbon cycle that was in equilibrium. It has changed over time but usually very slowly allowing systems to adapt. Any rapid change has been caused by a catastrophe and this time we are it. And our catastrophe isn’t some short term thing like a volcanic eruption. We can measure the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and we can tell from the isotopes that the rapid increase comes from burning fossil fuels. Deforestation exacerbates the problem, further throwing the system out of whack. If you have ever done a titration you will understand that the reaction starts to happen when you reach saturation level. It is the last drop that kicks it off….so the excuse that our emissions are comparatively small is a cop out.
I deny that you are a closet. You are just a chest of drawers with delusions of grandeur.
Kaye Lee
I have wasted hours, days, maybe even years carefully finding the best, most reliable science based websites. At least since I first logged on in 1996. Before that I think I got into arguments in pubs outside uni.
I have extracted pertinent sections for the CD to read according to whatever question they have raised. As a result I have learned a great deal about our planet, climate, ecosystems small and large which is a good thing. However I will not get back the hours spent on someone who does not want to know, can’t be arsed reading even when served in digestible paragraphs and often engages in personal insult at worst or sarcasm at best after I stupidly provide a potted history on human pollution and its impact.
I mean, if I want to be insulted I can manage that just by debating other lefties!
I do not know how I manage to continue to be civil to these people who come to a politically progressive discussion site and proclaim the science does not support anthropogenic climate change wah, wah, wah.
Terence
People living in poorer countries consume far less energy than those living in richer countries, they comprise by far the greatest number of Earth’s residents. Professor Kevin Anderson makes this point. Professor Anderson refuses to fly to various engagements through the emission foot print created. Deforestation, breakdown of soils, and warming Oceans have an impact on increasing temperature. Cool water acts as more of a sink for CO2 than warming water.
Transport is a major contributor to CO2 emissions, unavailable basically to poorer people.
Other sources suggest that should 100 of the highest consuming Corporations stop emitting their greenhouse gases, then a significant amount of emissions would not be voided; providing a better avenue to ward off the worst of climate change.
The Amazon has in the past been viewed as the lungs of the world, drought has been recorded a few times in the last decade with the result that more CO2 was expelled than taken up.
So while population increase may have some impact on climate change, it is one factor of a number; but, is not the major one. It is more complicated than hanging off one point.
Greenhouse gases happen to moderate atmosphere temperature; without them Earth would be an uninhabited icy orb. Clearly, more greenhouse gases act like adding extra blankets on a bed.
Now, I’ve always had my doubts about the existence of Time…
I mean, I only believe in things that I can verify with my five senses. So far nobody has been able to offer me any proof on the existence of Time… apart from some airy-fairy nonsense produced by academics in the hope of being given funding.
I think it would be fair to call me “agnostic” because I only listen to things that I’ve worked out for myself and any evidence is probably manufactured like the moon landing and the existence of diseases that can be prevented by vaccinations.
I notice that nobody has managed to refute my previous comment about Time.
You may argue that you had no time, but surely that backs up my point!
To quote Ford Prefect, “Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.”
Rossleigh
Time can be very tricky. It depends where you are and how fast you are going.
The pilot of a jet experiences a slightly different time than people on the ground.
Also time does not exist at the event horizon of a black hole.
Time can also be space in some situations.
People looking at earth from vast distances away can actually see into the future on earth.
I share your concern re time.
Quantum physics is even more complicated than ACC.
Keith
Thank for your learned and considerate contribution.
Terence,
“(From Corvus boreus (variens nonsarcasticas),
I honestly applaud your attempt to bring the quantity of human population into the discussion of climate change (mainly heating) from co2 with an algorithm which, although simple (no externalities covered),seemed basically sound.
I have no tertiary quals beyond the trade, and tend to do maths in kernels and cobs, so I would have chosen graphs by way of illustration.
To the unmentioned externalities, I have little doubt that figures or graphs showing scale of industry, fossil fuel/ mineral extraction, water pollution, soil erosion, water pollution, deforestation, biodiversity decline, and, yes, the numbers of cows, pigs and chickens in pens and cages.
I reckon all would show variational similarities on the same recent upward X to the Y.
For the rest It seems that I am less agnostic upon human influence than thee upon the idea that recent human activities have drastically impinged upon wider climatic cycles.
Then again, I also work outdoors.
Like terence, I won’t be returning to this discussion owing to people not accepting what I say without adding their opinion.
That’s because you’re all myopic.
I don’t like short-sighted people!
That was my last comment!
No, really, it was!
Of course there would be a connection between population increase and global warming. But there would also be a correlation between population increase and the number of blue cars manufactured. It kind of needs something else so we can understand the conclusion.
No, people looking at Earth from vast distances away actually see our past.
Somebody looking, say, from 2 billion light years away (with a damn fine telescope) might – at a guess – catch the Battle of Culloden (I just had to mention something Scottish), whilst somebody – at the very same moment – looking at Earth from 4 billion light years away might see Columbus sailing on his way to the New World.
Somebody closer could even catch my century at Lords 40 years ago.
Terence, regarding population growth and changes in temperature have you looked at the trends after the Industrial Revolution?
Damn, that would make a great PhD thesis. Anybody?
Rossleigh, ‘time’ is the one thing I can’t get my head around. In particular, where did it start, or will it ever end?
I like the way Aborigines think of time. They say that to the white fella it is linear – it travels like a spear. To them it is circular – it travels like a boomerang.
Now I’m even more confused.
Kaye Lee ,
I understand your agnostic skepticism about the correlation between the increase in the manufacture of blue cars (and the subsequent fossil-fuel-fed usage thereof) and the increase in market population for aforementioned blue cars (presumably humans since the rest of the biosphere doesn’t seem to buy or drive blue cars).
That would be like suggesting that more blue cars being made and driven might exacerbate the current (possibly coincidental) rise in GHGs and increasing climate destabilization with a majorative warming trend.
Ps, Yes, that was ‘variens sarcasticas’.
Pps And yes I do acknowledge that some national-regional populations and societal demographics most certainly punch above their weight in terms in terms of individual contributions to all of the above categories (China wins gross, USA wins per capita, 1% wins overall,
Ppps, Anyways, I reckon most trees are pretty cool.
.
Too funny, y’all.
Time is a flat circle – a little bit of Nietszche according to the “The True Detective”
“Somebody looking, say, from 2 billion light years away (with a damn fine telescope) might – at a guess – catch the Battle of Culloden (I just had to mention something Scottish), whilst somebody – at the very same moment – looking at Earth from 4 billion light years away might see Columbus sailing on his way to the New World.”
Not correct, the telescope can’t see faster than light so anything they see is from 2 billion years in our past. For a being to see the Battle of Culloden their world (using our time scale and dates) would have to be 273 light years from Earth to witness the battle on a space based telescope of a power that we can’t imagine. It would have to be in orbit because of atmospheric interference, and the chances of having the telescope focussed on Earth at that exact time and location would be (groan, no pun intended) astronomical. Other problems would also come into play for starters, how do you find a single planet at such a distance, what’s in the way of the telescope, etc. The logistics of such an undertaking is quite literally mind boggling.
Blast! Missed editing my post by that much (holds up thumb and forefinger close together) to include to recommend a couple of books for anyone who is interested:
Stephen Hawking – “A Brief History of Time” and the later version by Hawking with Leonard Mlodinow – “A Briefer History of Time: The Science Classic Made More Accessible.”
Corus Boreus
Humans generate heat energy, averaging around 100 watts each hour (840 kwh each per year). Aircon contractors use variations of this in their design calculations.
By my calc, the extra human heat energy generated into the atmosphere by 3 billion extra people
would add around 17% to all coal and gas currently generated electrical energy in the world each year.
It’s not much relatively, but it’s a contribution.
Add to this the 3 Billion peoples’ additional heating, cooking, cooling, transport and other energy per capita needs and it could be quite a considerable total contribution to GW from the increased population.
Australians currently use around 9,000 kwh of electrical energy per capita each year. This would be less in developing countries.
Someone smarter than me should do the total calc (and please check me).
You are correct, Kronomex, I forgot one small detail: the observer would have had to have flown to those distant destinations faster than the speed of light before turning the telescope towards Earth.
But – and this is where it gets confusing to me – some of the stars we see at night may no longer exist. One might have blown up a million years ago and we are still seeing its light from when it was still living. We are looking at its past, so to speak.
Terrence,
A single human could probably generate a lot more than 100 watts of heat per hour if they were wielding a chainsaw, let seated in the cab of a D9 dozer.
How is this for stretching the imagination in that case –
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/01/23/black-holes-discovered-early-universe-13-billion-years-ago/2659492002/
And if you want to be really confused about time watch the astonishing 2016 SF movie “Arrival”. It’s in my top five Science Fiction films of the year.
Michael, is Rossleigh alright? It seems decidedly unusual for him to go off the deep end like he did earlier.
Kronomex, Rossleigh went mad years ago. 😜
Rossleigh knows how to make a point from an entirely different direction and always with humour.
I studied astronomy at uni the year Haley’s fizzer came. It was a fantastic course but what blew me away was my lecturer, after everything we had learned, admitted he was a creationist. That still does my head in.
Kaye Lee
Crikey.
With hindsight were there clues? Hints? I mean how …
Crickets …
None. I was full time teaching and was doing the course externally through Macquarie Uni (to help my husband finish his degree) so just had to go in during my holidays for two lots of an intensive two weeks as well as a few weekends here and there so it was pretty full on listening and not much time to get to know him (most of the course was done at home – reading and assignments and tapes to listen to). But I stayed back after the lecture he said that and asked him to explain. It’s so long ago and I don’t really remember what he said (I am still shaking my head) but it was something along the lines of “the big bang is just a theory”.
One great thing was getting to use the really big telescopes. Haley’s fizzer was a nothing but the other things we could see were amazing.
One of my favourite memories at RMIT, was one of the geology lecturers, took a few of us up to the roof where a mighty big telescope revealed with incredible clarity and detail the mountains of the moon… wonderful
Well, your lecturer was right the Big Bang is a theory … but not really understanding much of the art of science though was he? How could he be teaching … how could he look at the cosmos and think some god made it all, but this “superior being” remains totally fixated on the behaviour of some primates on a single planet in a solar system on the far flung arm of a galaxy amid countless other galaxies.
I bet you were glad to finish that subject.
I loved it. Luckily he said it at the end so it didn’t trouble me throughout the course. And let’s face it….we often learn in spite of our teachers.
Absolutely.
Yes, often such a conundrum will open our thinking and test our values. Doors of perception and all that.
🙂
Having recently watched the movie “VICE” I was reminded that we used to use the phrase “Global Warming” to describe what is now called “Climate Change” – I hadn’t heard before but I suspect the claim in the movie is factually correct when it was asserted that Dick Cheney and his friends in the Fossil Fuel industry were keen to recast the problem in a softer light that would be less troubling for all us punters.
About time we went back to using “Global Warming”!
David Bruce, concerning the role of volcanoes, they would need to emit 30 times what they do in order to achieve the warming now happening (Tony Eggleton, 20130) Mentions Pinatubo.
Remember the moment in Al Gore’s pop-science movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ when, in an attempt to reduce abstract scientific complexities into a simple, easily digested visual, he superimposed graphs of CO2 levels and surface temperatures, then posed the rhetorical question ‘do you think the 2 are related?’.
https://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/2018NCA_TempCO2_UPDATED_900_506_s_c1_c_c.jpg
Here is a graph of levels and sources of global CO2 emissions.
https://ourworldindata.org/exports/co2-emissions-by-source-million-tonnes_v3_850x600.svg
Here is a graph of Human populations (including numbers, growth rates and realistic future projections)
https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/population-growth.png
Do you think the 2 are related?
Corvus boreus
Thank you for showing the high correlation between temperature and population.
The growth rate curve on the population is curve is irrevelant.
If the temperature curve had a growth rate curve added it would look similar.to the Temperatur growth rate curve.
Also cattle emit 11 times more body heat than humans and their population is estimated to have increased
By one billion since 1900 . They also emit. a substantial amount of methane which is 25 times more powerful than co2 as a greenhouse gas.
There was a climate conference in Europe in around 2009 called “the Population Denial” and its
Proceedings are very relevant.
Terence,
The number of domesticated bovines numbers has notably increased in recent decades, but not quite with the same rapidity as human populations (from < 1 billion in 1960 to nearly 1.4 billion in 2010).
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/highlights14_worldlivestock.PNG
This would be one significant forcing factor upon the observed rise in levels of atmospheric methane, which have risen at approximately the same comparative rates as atmospheric CO2.
https://www.methanelevels.org/img/graph_grid.png
In terms of the relatively concentrated greenhouse effect of gaseous methane, more disturbing than the growth in bovine herds is the accelerated venting of methane due to surprisingly abrupt thawing of permafrost, particularly around Siberia (a feedback loop).
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-boost-of-methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost/
In extremis, we can always conduct a mass-slaughter of cattle to reduce their impact, but I don’t think anyone has developed an easy way to refreeze tundra.
Corus boreus
The thawing permafrost in the northern hemisphere is indeed scary.
https://www.vox.com/2017/9/6/16062174/permafrost-melting.
90% of the earths population reside in the northern hemisphere.
Terence,
Meanwhile, on this very site, shite like this slips straight through to the keeper;
David Attenborough is a tool of the racist eugenicist Rockefeller conspiracy!!!
Environmental sustainability is nothing but a PR construct of the fossil fuel industry!!!!
http://www.green-agenda.com/ a link helpfully provided by Andrew Smith, linked to it’s sibling site; http://www.watchmanspost.com/watchman/4thseal.html
Given that the same folk here who will gleefully attack you for offering a sound if simple sum of population-temperature increase rise also allow repetitions of such patent crap to go completely unchallenged, I really couldn’t be phuqqed contributing any further info on human influences of global climatic/biospheric degradation to these pages, and shall instead concentrate all my focus upon implementing on-the-ground works/actions aimed at staunching the worst of the gaping environmental wounds being regularly inflicted at a local/regional level.
I have enjoyed our brief informational exchange, and hope that it has helped to persuade you of the escalating seriousness of the increasingly untenable and blatantly unsustainable situation that we, as a species, have creatively inflicted upon not only ourselves but all our planetary co-inhabitants.
Corvus out..
CB, good, there is green and there is green, however if you could ask a question you may understand the relevance of the website (and the referenced direct quotations or primary data of sorts http://green-agenda.com/quoterefs.html ), i.e. the direct quotes from various ‘environmentalists’.
Parts of the environmental movement have been wilfully compromised to lessen the impact upon (mostly fossil fuel and related) corporate interests by nobbling environmental legislation and promote old ideas….. (not unlike LNP’s, and lesser extent Labor’s, ideas on the environment…)
Question, what is the commonality amongst many quotes, and several in particular, i.e. from Rockefeller (Standard Oil/Exxon Mobil etc.), Paul ‘Sea Shepherd’ Watson, Paul ‘Population Bomb’ Ehrlich and Club of Rome (sponsored/hosted by Fiat, Audi and Rockefellers)?
Firstly, ZPG Zero Population Growth supported by Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie Foundations, with board including Ehrlich and Watson using Club of Rome constructs; where is the other guy promoting needs of the ‘environment’?
The ‘other guy’ is John Tanton, another ‘environmentalist’, also on ZPG, described as the most influential unknown person in America by the NYT, proponent of ‘passive eugenics’, admirer of the white Australia policy, friends with Sustainable Australia and described by SPLC as the ‘….architect’ of the modern anti-immigration movement (using environmental arguments against supposed fertility and/or immigration induced ‘population growth’).
‘The Social Contract Press (TSCP) routinely publishes race-baiting articles penned by white nationalists. The press is a program of U.S. Inc, the foundation created by John Tanton, the racist founder and principal ideologue of the modern nativist movement. TSCP puts an academic veneer of legitimacy over what are essentially racist arguments about the inferiority of today’s immigrants.’
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/social-contract-press
‘In the US ‘Climate and Capitalism’ has tracked these people for years:
‘Climate Activists Confront Anti-Immigrant Fake Greens. …..false solutions to climate change and expose groups like PFIR and FAIR that are using environmental concerns to push an anti-immigrant agenda. The founder of FAIR, John Tanton, his colleagues, advisory board members and staff members have a long history of supporting and working closely with well-known white nationalist leaders and organizations across the nation.’
Andrew Smith,
Cheers for yet another repetition of the same spurious drivel..
I am really not interested in another rehash of your ‘nativist’ conspiracy crap.
As a genuinely involved and informed environmentalist, I follow the science, add my own observations, and form my opinions accordingly.
I wonder if the fact that I posted a few graphs showing a clear correlation between growth in population levels, GHG emissions and temperature increase means that I, too, should be regarded by AIMN readership as a ‘closet climate denier’.
Maybe it means that I am secretly part of an international network of white supremacists and racist eugenicists, and that my passion for Antipodean biodiversity is just an indicator of affiliation with ‘political nativism’.
Or perhaps I’m just mindlessly parroting the carefully crafted PR constructs of a vast Rockefeller conspiracy, after all, apparently even Sir David Attenborough just is a shilling puppet paid to peddle astro-turf.
cb,
Perhaps your graphs may have helped convince terence because none of the other proof of AGW swayed him from his “agnosticism”.
Dumbest tweet of the century:
KL,
Personally, I did not object to Terrence’s contributions, which I viewed as a form of devil’s advocacy.
For instance, his selected quotation from Pr Severinghaus acknowledged the heating role of increases in atmospheric CO2, whilst also acknowledging that, dependent on other driving factors, this can either lead to or follow on from other heating influences.
Other factors (eg orbital fluctuations, sunspot activity) can, and often do play significant roles in the complexities of climate, with the burning question being whether human activities (esp fossil fuel burning, but also deforestation, pollution of oceans with poly-carbonates etc) are currently the dominating factor in currently observed climate shift.
Personally, I find the evidence provided to support the case for anthropogenic influence to be not just convincing but compelling (both intellectually and viscerally), beyond the point of agnosticism, but understand that others are more skeptical, believing that climate scientists may be overlooking or underestimating the influence of other factors.
What I have far less tolerance for is the constant repetitious intrusion into discussions of serious environmental issues by broad-brush conspiracy theories repetitiously regurgitated ad-nauseum.
corvus boreus
Sorry to have caused you trouble.
I now do believe in significant humanity forced atmospheric warming.
I applied the ‘find the underlying cause’ technique (i.e. to ask ‘why’ 5 times) and from my simple analysis
I formed the opinion that spaceship Earth has taken too many passengers on board and is about to take on a lot more.
Until we address the underlying cause (or mother earth does it for us) I can’t see how playing around the edges will help us much.
I agree that there are natural forcings that do have an influence on climate but our rapid infusion of GHG has overwhelmed a system that was more or less in equilibrium with changes happening very slowly with time to adapt. There is no question that population increase is a significant factor in that as is the way we live our lives – our transport, our diet, our air-conditioning, our industries like aluminium smelting.
As for the conspiracy theories, I can’t even be bothered answering them.
CB Simply presenting graphs of data supposedly proving a correlation between global warming and (highlighting or blaming) population growth is at best cherry picking academic research process, or presenting a general binary e.g. sun rising in the east correlates with global warming too.
No phenomenon, even the simplest, can be explored or researched as relationship between two factors, it’s always multiple factors that may correlate; but even if true not causation.
There are too many opinions, beliefs, cases of corporate self interest and bias confirmation; Australia’s isolation, culturally specific political classes and hollowed out media are prone to supporting beliefs versus good science or analysis.
Seldom post academic articles as generally too dry (vs. those presented in media), from US biomedical science journal describing the history of the population control and elements of the conservation movement:
‘How a network of conservationists and population control activists created the contemporary US anti-immigration movement.
Normandin S, et al. Endeavour. 2015.
Abstract
Continuing historical narratives of the early twentieth century nexus of conservationism, eugenics, and nativism (exemplified by Madison Grant), this paper traces the history of the contemporary US anti-immigration movement’s roots in environmentalism and global population control activism, through an exploration of the thoughts and activities of the activist, John Tanton, who has been called “the most influential unknown man in America.” We explore the “neo-Malthusian” ideas that sparked a seminal moment for population control advocacy in the late 1960s and early 1970s, leading to the creation of Zero Population Growth (ZPG).
After rising to the presidency of ZPG, Tanton, and ZPG spun off the Federation for American Immigration Reform*. After leaving ZPG’s leadership, Tanton created additional anti-immigration advocacy groups and built up connections with existing organizations such as the Pioneer Fund. We trace Tanton’s increasingly radical conservative network of anti-immigration advocates, conservationists, and population control activists to the present day.
Tanton’s archived papers illustrate, among other things, his interactions with collaborators such as ecologist Garrett Hardin (author of the famous “Tragedy of the Commons”) and his documented interest in reviving eugenics. We contend that this history of Tanton’s network provides key insights into understanding how there came to be an overlap between the ideologies and activist communities of immigration restrictionism, population control, conservationism and eugenics.’
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26026333/?i=6&from=/8594275/related
FAIR and related have been advising Trump’s White House, Fox News and previously, less so now, mainstream news media.
Kaye, speaking of conspiracy theories …
Some months ago Carol put a delightful photo on Facebook of the view from our backyard. In the distant skies a jet stream was visible.
Someone wanted to know why she posted a photo of chem-trails.
Hence the reason Carol hardly bothers posting on Facebook.
AS,
Yes, you obviously have a major case of ants in your breeches regarding John Tanton and the US ‘nativist’ movement..
That, however, has sweet FA to do with my own environmental views, nor the blatant correlation between population growth, increases in GHG emissions and rising temperatures.
Do not bother to address me again, you are irritatingly repetitious, repetitious, repetitious, and offer nothing of informational relevance.
Thanks for the ad hominen CB and you feel able to address whoever you want in any manner you want?
Seems obsessive shooting of the messenger….. interesting how conservatives of left and right, nativists and flat-earth types have a strong need for avoidance of empirical science, demand attention, and also that others do as they say, not as they do. Authoritarianism anyone?
Andrew Smith,
As I said, your obsessive fixation on Tranton-ZPG-CoR-Rockefeller etc has nothing to do with my environmental beliefs and actions.
Funny to be called a ‘flat-earth type’ by someone who single-mindedly and repetitiously peddles a narrow line of conspiracy theory.
Ps, I am unashamedly a ‘nativist’ in the sense that I both conduct and participate in activities aimed at protecting and preserving Australia’s native biodiversity, both as chosen employment and also in a volunteer capacity..
Andrew Smith
Will we be saved by capitalism?
A recent engineering study concluded that politicians (of all ilks) should just ‘get out of the way’ so that market forces can achieve the required emission targets in Australia.
Why – It is now more profitable to invest in alternate energy than in fossil energy so the market will naturally choose the most profitable investments.
Logical since fossil fuels (and related) who ‘own’ the LNP govt., IPA etc. have used ‘socialism’ or market intervention with various sticks and carrots to preserve or entrench a fossil fuel legacy, while renewable energy must have the free market ‘sink of swim’ approach, applied by the govt..
Recall over the years, occasional article in e.g. Fairfax, (shock news) Australia may have potential for solar …..
Even for flat earth warming deniers, what harm would there be in developing renewable energy, transport etc. for profit and maybe even clean air, win win?
Andrew
Don’t watch this unless you can recall high school algebra.
And try not to let ad hominem logic get in the way.
Hello Terence, For anyone tempted to know the contents of the video it’s scraping the bottom of the barrel, dredging up Tony Abbott’s climate sceptic mate Lord Monckton….. now unsubscribing.