Monthly Archives: January 2017
Two Years, A Paradigm Shift in Politics
A big change and paradigm shift ? or, will the reactionaries of neo-liberalism manage to spin the lie machine one more time to allow the bourgeoisie to deny their own mutually assured enslavement.
Two years later. The Green Party has been hijacked by a joint leadership which is acting as Neo-Liberal GateKeepers and agitating against the democratic will of both the British and US people. Quite frankly UKIP seem less extreme to me these days that the Green Party. Corbyn is under yet another attack from the neo-liberal wing of the Labour Party and remains between a rock and a hard place. The Lib Dems are as toxic as ever to my own tastes, just not trustworthy and of course neo-liberal by definition.
So the Tories, if they manage to take back the Tory party from the neo liberals, could easily cement their already dominant position demographically through the constituency border changes, by following Trumps common sense Charity begins at home policies. Now this used to be called One Nation Toryism and whilst as a democratic Socialist I prefer a more egalitarian and less patronising view of human nature it looks like the shift into the new paradigm belongs to those most able to shed old dogmas and embrace new potentials.
I watched Zizecks , The Perverts guide to ideology yesterday and it was a very good watch. It starts with a look at the late 1980´s budget film , They Live. With the mind control obedience subtexts in corporate media focused on consumerism. For me this past week, the first of President Trumps presidency is redolent of the Salem Witch trials .
So the Tories, if they manage to take back the Tory party from the neo liberals, could easily cement their already dominant position demographically through the constituency border changes, by following Trumps common sense Charity begins at home policies. Now this used to be called One Nation Toryism and whilst as a democratic Socialist I prefer a more egalitarian and less patronising view of human nature it looks like the shift into the new paradigm belongs to those most able to shed old dogmas and embrace new potentials.
I watched Zizecks , The Perverts guide to ideology yesterday and it was a very good watch. It starts with a look at the late 1980´s budget film , They Live. With the mind control obedience subtexts in corporate media focused on consumerism. For me this past week, the first of President Trumps presidency is redolent of the Salem Witch trials .
“A fire, a fire is burning! I hear the boot of Lucifer, I see his filthy face! And it is my face, and yours, Danforth! For them that quail to bring men out of ignorance, as I have quailed, and as you quail now when you know in all your black hearts that this be fraud – God damns our kind especially, and we will burn, we will burn together!”
― Arthur Miller, The Crucible
― Arthur Miller, The Crucible
facebook page for details and like it if you agree that Labour are just Tory Light and the Tories are out just for their own gain and that of their entitled spoilt privileged hangers on. End the bail outs for Tory Banker friends and City of London masters of the Labour Party. Do your self and your family a huge favour give the Greens the boost needed to carry them to Government with their honest democratic agenda. They have also promised an referendum on Europe if like me you agree with UKIP on the need to get out of Europe , or certainly to reform it extensively. The greens are very explicit also on the need to reform the EU which is hugely undemocratic. .http://rt.com/news/228223-podemos-mass-rally-spain/ A vote for the greens is better than a vote for UKIP if you are persuaded that UKIP have other agendas which are unattractive, Ask yourself would you trust a green more than Farage and his people who for me are really not engaged sufficiently well with the need for a new politics and approach to Economics. Simply I like Nigel Farage but he is Old fashioned and just a little too smug in a charming sort of way and operating on to many assumptions which are incorrect or put another way not designed for the challenges faced by normal folk in the advanced stages of Financialised Capitalism. I think Nigel cares but does not have the tools to adapt to the 21st century, I think Cameron and Milliband are equally redundant in their thinking although hopelessly not of the people and The Clegg fellow is for me without any redeeming qualities. Go Green in 2015!!!!
the the un democratic stance of the GP leadership on Brexit and the debacle in Richmond we can look forward to relegation As a serious political force so wave goodbye to 2020 and enjoy the student union accolades.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxDnwRr2qAc I am highly skeptical of Neo Liberal Think Tanks and Avaaz and other clicktavist activism sites which are part of the Neo Liberal Thought collective for all its ´´Progressive´´pretentions. This current outpouring of bile against Trump I welcome only in that people are becoming engaged politically , I am absolutely confident that the longer folk remain engaged the more obvious the lies and sub texts of Neo Liberalism will become clear to them and celebrate an awakening of human consciousness.
I understand why President Trump puts people’s backs up, it is impossible to achieve anything in politics without listening to and talking with the other side.
It also help0s to put together all of your facts as assuming people are daft just because they do not agree with us is a very rookie mistake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxDnwRr2qAc I am highly skeptical of Neo Liberal Think Tanks and Avaaz and other clicktavist activism sites which are part of the Neo Liberal Thought collective for all its ´´Progressive´´pretentions. This current outpouring of bile against Trump I welcome only in that people are becoming engaged politically , I am absolutely confident that the longer folk remain engaged the more obvious the lies and sub texts of Neo Liberalism will become clear to them and celebrate an awakening of human consciousness.
I understand why President Trump puts people’s backs up, it is impossible to achieve anything in politics without listening to and talking with the other side.
It also help0s to put together all of your facts as assuming people are daft just because they do not agree with us is a very rookie mistake.
Red Lines, Settled Science, The end of History and entitled Facts. If Truth were subject to Patent Law.
If Truth were subject to Patent Law.
Red Lines, Settled Science, The end of History and entitled Facts.
I did a blog about Boris Johnson at the United Nations General Assembly on the last occasion of the periodic scolding of both the truth and of Bashar Assad, (http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2016/09/syria-cui-bono-incitatus-boris-johnson.html )
Since then the catechism of fake news has developed into a higher art form and as such I have been musing over the idea that, how would Claims made in newspapers or television media look if they were subject to the same rigors as claiming a patent over an invention, or innovation, what would the patent clerk turned truth clerk make of it all when he looked at his in-tray (inbox) of the hopeful claimants to a unique claim to some previously unasserted or unknown truth. We are further asked to bow to expert opinion, what constitutes an expert these days? Further how much better is an experts opinion than any other opinion where the content is speculation even common sense.
´´if it were easy to set standards for judging judgment that would be honoured across the opinion spectrum and not glibly dismissed as another sneaky effort to seize the high ground for a favourite cause, someone would have patented the process long ago.´´
Tetlock, Philip E. (2005), Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?
´´If we want realistic odds on what will happen next, coupled to a willingness to admit mistakes, we are better off turning to experts who embody the intellectual traits of Isaiah Berlin’s prototypical fox—those who “know many little things,” draw from an eclectic array of traditions, and accept ambiguity and contradiction as inevitable features of life—than we are turning to Berlin’s hedgehogs—those who “know one big thing,” toil devotedly within one tradition, and reach for formulaic solutions to ill-defined problems.3´´
Kant contrasts “apodictic” with “problematic” and “assertoric” in the Critique of Pure Reason, on page A70/B95. . These matters are to do with what we know as truth in the world which is sometimes called reality. Some commentators have been arguing a ´Post Truth´ turn in the news this is a logical error in reasoning for as Frank harris says in England or Germany, p.144 ( https://archive.org/stream/englandorgerman01harrgoog/englandorgerman01harrgoog_djvu.txt)
´´Genius welcomes criticism; the more the
merrier, the higher the better. “Come look
what I’m doing´´, it cries fearlessly, knowing
that truth must help it and that in an open
struggle between truth and falsehood, truth has
nothing to fear. ´´
“Colorless green ideas sleep furiously” is a sentence composed by Noam Chomsky in his 1957 Syntactic Structures as an example of a sentence that is grammatically correct, but semantically nonsensical. The term was originally used in his 1955 thesis “Logical Structures of Linguistic Theory” much of what we consume in the establishment narratives served up by main stream news sources look and sound plausible on the surface and yet the reverse is true of what Maimonides says in a guide for the perplexed ´´a golden apple may be wrapped in Siver filigree.´´perhaps we could say a Golden Apple or a Turd may be wrapped in a tissue of golden newsprint.
In Patent applications, the abstract of the patent application puts an onus on the patent applicant to set out the state of the art in the field related to the application and to state what is novel or new regarding the application further it requires that the innovation or inventions distinction is also clearly defined. For a discourse on distinctness, I recommend C. S Peirce’s essay on How to make our ideas clear. ( http://www.peirce.org/writings/p119.html )
Patent law applies across the world and is, of course, honoured more in the breach than the observance in some if not most of the world. Another curious thing is that patents can also be regional and one can tick a menu box for the jurisdictions in which the Patent is to be applied for. This is a curious juxtaposition to how propaganda meant for export is not generally aired in Governments home markets, a frustration for domestic government propagandists. Have you ever had a digital rights management notice saying ´´Content Blocked in your territory´´, licensing of content and censorship of propaganda are part of the same apparatus of mass surveillance and Mass manipulation, Beware! For a practical discourse on this in real life see the Smith Mundt Act.
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith%E2%80%93Mundt_Act )
Section 501(a) of the Act (care of the Voice of America Web site) provides that
“information produced by VOA for audiences outside the United States shall not be disseminated within the United States … but, on request, shall be available in the English language at VOA, at all reasonable times following its release as information abroad, for examination only by representatives of United States press associations, newspapers, magazines, radio systems, and stations, and by research students and scholars, and, on request, shall be made available for examination only to Members of Congress.”
“This means that VOA is forbidden to broadcast within the United States.” In reality, of course, any American with a shortwave receiver or an Internet connection can listen to VOA. This is incidental, however. VOA cannot direct or intend its programs to be “for” Americans. This distinction is often lost on experts who see the letter of the law, but with no real understanding of the media. George W. Bush-era State Department official James K. Glassman has called for directing VOA at American audiences.
On Fake news, I propose a similar requirement regarding truth claims or claims of veracity made in patent applications, regarding matters of concern in current affairs of the day. To gain trust from readers it always was that a trusted journalist would be held accountable for their record and would seek the counter-arguments to any particular claim from the person or persons or organisation likely to be affected by such a statement. I think it is, What is generally understood to be as putting both sides of the story or offering the courtesy of the right to reply to criticism or charges of any sort. Even where there is universal agreement it seems prudent to see that devil´s advocate is played by some imaginary patent clerk of the truth, asking, ´what is the whole of the background to this universal truth claimed and where is it that we all in our collective wisdom may be wrong?´. In another way, we should state the boundary conditions in which our Claimed truths will hold true.
Setting out the other side or sides of a story, or to a claim about facts or, the different contexts in which the facts may be interpreted. Seems to be both good science, Good Journalism, good government and good democracy. Demonising those who look for the weaknesses in arguments made with certainty should not be met with a chorus of disapproval and tagging of Cassandra, chicken little or Traitor.
We all get things wrong, it is generally accepted that we ´´Learn from our mistakes´´. Knowing that mistakes are part of the whole process of getting things right sometimes. Why is it that we are meekly supposed to accept certainty levels opined by experts, which experts have so often reversed themselves on to countless a number of occasions in as many fields as you could possibly list.
A hunt for universals or one size fits all truths seems absurd and yet we consume a diet of such certitude and narrowness of criticism. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof but, common-place assumptions also require periodic testing. Times change and knowledge surrounding key concepts change the whole can end up altering the understanding of constituent parts as Heraclitus said Panta rhea, (Everything Flows).
From Wikipedia this on State of the art and prior art.
Arguments claiming prior art are used in defending and attacking patent validity. In one U.S. case on the issue, the court said:
“One attacking the validity of a patent must present clear and convincing evidence establishing facts that lead to the legal conclusion of invalidity. 35 U.S.C. § 282. To establish invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 103, certain factual predicates are required before the legal conclusion of obviousness or non-obviousness can be reached. The underlying factual determinations to be made are
(1) the scope and content of the prior art;
(2) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art;
(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and
(4) objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved need, failure of others, copying, and unexpected results.”
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).[4][5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art
Patent law[edit]
Main article: Prior art
In the context of European and Australian patent law, the term “state of the art” is a concept used in the process of assessing and asserting novelty and inventive step,[8] and is a synonym of the expression “prior art”.[9] In the European Patent Convention (EPC), “[the] state of the art shall be held to comprise everything made available to the public by means of a written or oral description, by use, or in any other way, before the date of filing of the European patent application” according to Article 54(2) EPC. Due account should be taken of Article 54(3) EPC as well, but merely for the examination of novelty.
The expression “background art” is also used in certain legal provisions, such as Rule 42(1)(b) and(c) EPC (previously Rule 27(1)(b) and (c) EPC 1973), and has the same meaning.[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art
In advertising, the phrase is often used to convey that a product is made with the best possible technology, but it has been noted that “the term ‘state of the art’ requires little proof on the part of advertisers”, as it is considered mere puffery.[1] The use of the term in patent law, by contrast, “does not connote even superiority, let alone the superlative quality the ad writers would have us ascribe to the term”.[2]
Executive Summaries and Abstracts.
At the beginning of a scientific paper or academic paper there are abstracts and in business studies or reports, executive summaries. They perform a task of distilling the import of the content detailed in the larger document, this is a slightly different process to defining the state of the art or Prior art in patent law although the three ideas could be seen as alternative degrees of setting out the different sides of a story which might not be the focus of the point of view which is being presented by any particular journalistic piece.
Criticisms[edit]Executive summaries.from Wikipedia.
´´It has been said that, by providing an easy digest of an often complex matter, an executive summary can lead policymakers and others to overlook important issues.[12] Prof. Amanda Sinclair of the University of Melbourne has argued that this is often an active rather than a passive process. In one study, centred on globalization, she found that policymakers face “pressures to adopt a simple reading of complex issues” and “to depoliticise and universalize all sorts of differences”. She claims that “all research was framed under pre-defined and generic headings, such as business case points. The partners’ reports were supposed to look the same. The standardization of research occurred via vehicles such as executive summaries: “executives only read the summaries” we were told”.[13] Similarly Colin Leys, writing in The Socialist Register, argues that executive summaries are used to present dumbed down arguments: “there is remarkably little adverse comment on the steep decline that has occurred since 1980 in the quality of government policy documents, whose level of argumentation and use of evidence is all too often inversely related to the quality of their presentation (in the style of corporate reports, complete with executive summaries and flashy graphics).”[14]
An academic abstract typically outlines four elements relevant to the completed work:
The research focus (i.e. statement of the problem(s)/research issue(s) addressed);
The research methods used (experimental research, case studies, questionnaires, etc.);
The results/findings of the research; and
The main conclusions and recommendations
IMRADOverview[edit]
Fig.1: Wineglass model for IMRaD structure. The above scheme schematically shows how to line up the information in IMRaD writing.
It has two characteristics, first one is “top-bottom symmetric shape”, second one is “change of width”, that means “the top is wide and it narrows towards the middle and then widens again as it goes down toward the bottom”. First one, “top-bottom symmetric shape” represents the symmetry of the story development. Second one, the change of the width of above diagram, represents the change of generality of the viewpoint.
Original research articles are typically structured in this basic order:[1] [2]
Introduction – Why was the study undertaken? What was the research question, the tested hypothesis or the purpose of the research?
Methods – When, where, and how was the study done? What materials were used or who was included in the study groups (patients, etc.)?
Results – What answer was found to the research question; what did the study find? Was the tested hypothesis true?
Discussion – What might the answer imply and why does it matter? How does it fit in with what other researchers have found? What are the perspectives for future research?
What is obvious/ Caveat Emptor ( believer(sic) beware)
This article gives a full consideration of the difficulties in tackling hindsight and the subjective nature of findings of fact in novel or newly minted ideas or inventions.
https://www.expertguides.com/articles/obviousness-a-vague-phantom/arhrudyz
Thus, the following emerges from the above experiments:
(a) Patent law faces a critical quandary. It is important for an invention to be non-obvious at the time of its invention for it to be granted a patent. Once the object to be achieved is obvious and pre-mediated, the path to reach the object is effortless. Determining whether an invention was non – obvious in the past raises daunting specter of hindsight.
(b) The above experiment showed that in a thick patent specification, if a particular compound or disclosure appears, it may be missed by the person of ordinary skills in the art. The question to ask is whether he would find it, not whether he could find it. It is this “likelihood” and “potentiality” which has to be seen. Sometimes, a person gets blind to the obvious.
Therefore, the maze experiment, the cake on the experiment and the pink stick experiment will lead one to the conclusion that obviousness, in patent law, denotes a subjective analysis of facts and law.
And so as we progress with our inquiry into fact checking for ´´The Real Truth´´ we get into questions about ´Honest Mistakes of plausible deniability, and weasel words designed to confound an honest enquiry into truth and obscuring of context. Here Shakespeare plays with that curious and awkward dance we often have with the ´Facts´and our presentation of and feelings about them.
From Henry Viii.
Archbishop Cranmer. [Kneeling]
I humbly thank your highness;
And am right glad to catch this good occasion 2915
Most throughly to be winnow’d, where my chaff
And corn shall fly asunder: for, I know,
There’s none stands under more calumnious tongues
Than I myself, poor man.
Henry VIII. Stand up, good Canterbury: 2920
Thy truth and thy integrity is rooted
In us, thy friend: give me thy hand, stand up:
Prithee, let’s walk. Now, by my holidame.
What manner of man are you? My lord, I look’d
You would have given me your petition, that 2925
I should have ta’en some pains to bring together
Yourself and your accusers; and to have heard you,
Without indurance, further.
Archbishop Cranmer. Most dread liege,
The good I stand on is my truth and honesty: 2930
If they shall fail, I, with mine enemies,
Will triumph o’er my person; which I weigh not,
Being of those virtues vacant. I fear nothing
What can be said against me.
Henry VIII. Know you not 2935
How your state stands i’ the world, with the whole world?
Your enemies are many, and not small; their practises
Must bear the same proportion; and not ever
The justice and the truth o’ the question carries
The due o’ the verdict with it: at what ease 2940
Might corrupt minds procure knaves as corrupt
To swear against you? such things have been done.
You are potently opposed; and with a malice
Of as great size. Ween you of better luck,
I mean, in perjured witness, than your master, 2945
Whose minister you are, whiles here he lived
Upon this naughty earth? Go to, go to;
You take a precipice for no leap of danger,
And woo your own destruction.
Archbishop Cranmer. God and your majesty 2950
Protect mine innocence, or I fall into
The trap is laid for me!
Honesty and truth conflated
https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4421004
(Original post by Akamega)
In the case of Trump et al, I don’t doubt they might be honestly articulating what they believe, but that’s not the same thing as being truthful. Trump, for example, is notorious for his false claims (check most fact-checking websites), and we saw a similar sort of falsehood when it came to Brexit campaigners in June. But right-wing voters are championing these people as bastions of truth and honour.
Trump et al supporters either:
1) Conflate honesty and truth, and are enamoured with Trump as a result.
2) Or, can distinguish between the two, and therefore realise that Trump’s claims were predicated mostly on lies and still supported him.
The first is really interesting. The latter is terrifying, immoral and vindictive.
see less
It’s interesting that you talk about truth and support for Trump, because there was a large swath of misinformation concerning Trump put forward by media and other sources. Quotes were taken well out of context, and blatant speculation was used to make his potential presidency seem apocalyptic.
I the problem is, once you start lying about very basic facts, viewers and readers lose faith in your authority on the truth. This is likely a reason why Trump was so successful.
Truth and Honesty
https://ia600501.us.archive.org/8/items/philosophicaless00whit/philosophicaless00whit.pdf
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!” ~ Sir Walter Scott (1771–1832), Marmion
Convention.
http://www.princeton.edu/~harman/Courses/PHI534-2012-13/Nov26/lewis-convention1.pdf
Yet, in the end, the theory of games is scaffolding. I can restate
my analysis of convention without it. The result is a theory along
the lines of Hume’s, in his discussion of the origin of justice and
property. Convention turns out to be
4 The Strateg), of Conflict
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960).
4
[ INTRODUCTION
a general sense of common.interest; which sense all the members
of the society express to one another, and which induces them
to regulate their conduct by certain rules. I observe that it will
be to my interest [e.g.] to leave another in the possession of his
goods, provided he will act in the same manner with regard
to me
Foucault. the episteme.
´´I would define the episteme retrospectively as the strategic apparatus which permits of separating out from among all the statements which are possible those that will be
acceptable within, I won’t say a scientific theory, but a field of scientificity, and which it is possible to say are true or false. The episteme is the ‘apparatus’ which makes possible the separation, not of the true from the false, but of what may from what may not be characterised as
scientific.”[1] Michel Foucault.
One final thought, perhaps propaganda is the passing off , of Ontology as Epistemology or, belief as knowledge.
The Trump and Brexit debate with the object substituted as a belief in God.
´´Manipulation, like the conquest whose objectives it serves, attempts to anaesthetize the people so they will not think. For if the people join to their presence in the historical process critical thinking about that process, the threat of their emergence materialises in revolution…One of the methods of manipulation is to inoculate individuals with the bourgeois appetite for personal success. This manipulation is sometimes carried out directly by the elites and sometimes indirectly, through populist leaders.”
― Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed
Confirmation Bias
is the enemy of objective enquiry and truth telling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
English philosopher and scientist Francis Bacon (1561–1626),[65] in the Novum Organum noted that biased assessment of evidence drove “all superstitions, whether in astrology, dreams, omens, divine judgments or the like”.[66] He wrote:
The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion … draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects or despises, or else by some distinction sets aside or rejects[.][66]
In his essay (1897) “What Is Art?”, Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy wrote,
I know that most men—not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever, and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic problems—can very seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as to oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty—conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives.[67]
Tolstoy, Leo. What is Art? p. 124 (1899). In The Kingdom of God Is Within You (1893), he similarly declared, “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” (ch. 3). Translated from the Russian by Constance Garnett, New York, 1894. Project Gutenberg edition released November 2002. Retrieved 2009-08-24.
A two-decade study of political pundits by Philip E. Tetlock found that, on the whole, their predictions were not much better than chance. Tetlock divided experts into “foxes” who maintained multiple hypotheses, and “hedgehogs” who were more dogmatic. In general, the hedgehogs were much less accurate. Tetlock blamed their failure on confirmation bias—specifically, their inability to make use of new information that contradicted their existing theories.[116]
Watching the watchers, Deniers denying denial doing as denial does? CLimate Catastrophe Porn! Not safe for snowflakes. #OccupyTheEuropeanSpring
Glyn Goodwin
Would Radicals switch on brains and Progressives please wake the f?#" Up. Progressives , shorthand for Brain Dead NWO Slaves.
This isn’t funny anymore:
WASHINGTON (AP) _ President Donald Trump on Friday intended to sign an executive action Friday temporarily halting the flow of refugees into the United Sates and stopping all entries from some majority-Muslim nations, his spokesman said.
WASHINGTON (AP) _ President Donald Trump on Friday intended to sign an executive action Friday temporarily halting the flow of refugees into the United Sates and stopping all entries from some majority-Muslim nations, his spokesman said.
A draft of the order obtained by The Associated Press also includes an indefinite ban on accepting Syrian refugees, and the pause in the broader refugee program extends for 120 days.
Climate Myths and The AGW Priesthood. Evidence can not interfere with Faith.
Climate Denial or Climate Science. Who polices the Witch Hunters?
On Climate heresies, Witchhunts and Civil Discourse.Donald Trumps Climate Beliefs?#MAGA Make science Great again.
On Climate heresies, Witchhunts and Civil Discourse.
“A fire, a fire is burning! I hear the boot of Lucifer, I see his filthy face! And it is my face, and yours, Danforth! For them that quail to bring men out of ignorance, as I have quailed, and as you quail now when you know in all your black hearts that this be fraud – God damns our kind especially, and we will burn, we will burn together!”
― Arthur Miller, The Crucible
Sighs… just 17% worse than you thought…
You read that right. The Earth is now going to help us kill ourselves. In a massive new study published Wednesday in the influential journal Nature, no less than 50…
DAILYKOS.COM
John Ferguson Couldn’t happen to a nicer species
Jon Scott most will be affected
Roger Lewis Phwoar!!! Climate Catastrophe Porn, can´t get enough of it. Climate science discovers the Carbon Cycle, perhaps in another ten years they will actually understand it! Misanthropic propaganda such as this is laughable, extremism and founded in massive i…See More
John Ferguson Mankind is causing global warming by destroying the environment. By chopping down the rain forests and filling the sea with toxins we are creating an unsustainable environment for our own existence let alone the other species on the planet.
Saying that the world is perfectly fine is absolutely delusional
Saying that the world is perfectly fine is absolutely delusional
Roger Lewis No one I am aware of says the world is fine or that humans do not have bad impacts and poorly managed systems for co-existing with nature.
What this article seeks to say is that CO2 is a forcer of Global Warming and that Human CO2 emissions are the biggest impact that Mankind is having.
CO2 is a natural chemical compound made of the King of Elements Carbon combined with two oxygen atoms. Plantlife and sea life use CO2 as their food in simple terms and breathe out the oxygen that we breathe. This article is a travesty of understanding of the Carbon Cycle and how all Carbon Based life forms both Plantlife and Mammals like humans would be in deep trouble without it, to a large extent we are Carbon.
The Carbon Cycle and the climate are related and The earth and its ecosystem and atmosphere are also part of a larger solar system climate as well.
Here is a very good pair of presentations on the carbon soil cycle.
What this article seeks to say is that CO2 is a forcer of Global Warming and that Human CO2 emissions are the biggest impact that Mankind is having.
CO2 is a natural chemical compound made of the King of Elements Carbon combined with two oxygen atoms. Plantlife and sea life use CO2 as their food in simple terms and breathe out the oxygen that we breathe. This article is a travesty of understanding of the Carbon Cycle and how all Carbon Based life forms both Plantlife and Mammals like humans would be in deep trouble without it, to a large extent we are Carbon.
The Carbon Cycle and the climate are related and The earth and its ecosystem and atmosphere are also part of a larger solar system climate as well.
Here is a very good pair of presentations on the carbon soil cycle.
Roger Lewis As a committed environmentalist, I find myself increasingly frustrated that a huge amount of political capital is wasted on the CO2 debate when the provable and winnable arguments regarding renewables instead of Nuclear of Fracking etc can be won empir…See More
CO2 uptake by the Earth surface of 13.6±3.4 PgC / year. New report #segalstad #Jaworowski#RealScience #Spencer
this study deals with the poorly understood flux of co2 exchange between the oceans and the atmosphere it finds a large underestimate as to the sequestration to oceans from the atmosphere of some 13.6PGC p.a
John Ferguson Oh thanks god ! For a second I thought we were doomed
Glyn Goodwin You do understand that we are adding 30-40 billion tons of CO2 to the system every year don’t you Roger? The way this is panning out we are heading for a Permian extinction event. Research has shown that the little ice age was stated by a decrease in co2 of only 17 billion tons. The oceans health is crucial to the planet, but the only way that can plausibly be helped long term is by reducing CO2 emissions.
Roger Lewis Glyn, the accumulation arguments regarding human emissions are being re-visited based upon empirical research as I linked to that report is a few weeks old. I understand the more dire claims based upon the modelling, I understand modelling on computers very well and expect the predictions to be scaled back and not dialled up as per the dire climate catastrophe porn which the OP article represents. The IPCC reports if you read them are actually measured and proportionate, the science is scientific and sober and does not make truth claims which can not be substantiated. If one engages in the full spectrum of the scientific fields encompassed within Climate Science one finds that there are many aspects of Climate change which are wholly more influential than CO2 let alone man’s emissions and contributions thereto. How long Anthropogenic CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere as so-called well-mixed greenhouse gases is a bit of a finger in the air effort I am afraid and I am persuaded by empirical data from Bomb test curves and the study I link to above and not by the early modelling hypothesis, and estimates adopted as starting assumptions for early modelling efforts. One has to start somewhere with ones assumptions and then tune parameters as empirical evidence is collected and appropriate time tables observed. So yes Glyn I have studied the science both in the IPCC reports and elsewhere and find the science bears little resemblance when you read it to the sensationalist porn in this linked-to article. From what I have learned about the science I personally see absolutely no objection to CO2 at 400PPM and getting the genie back in the bottle is frankly not within our gift . I think we should pursue alternative energy as so-called fossil fuels and nuclear energy as so very old fashioned and do not promote decentralised and autonomous community-based government. I find most so-called Climate Change policy coercive and poorly supported empirically and it seems to me to mask a push for a stronger more authoritarian centralised government. My arguments from a Political economy perspective are made above. A simple point of disagreement between us Glyn might be that you consider CO2 to be pollution and I categorically do not. I do think that the Hydro Carbons industry is a polluting industry and environmentally damaging but their crimes lie in other chemical compounds and despoilation not CO emissions. Monetising Carbon actually lets polluters off the hook how more people who claim to be environmentalists do not see this is beyond me.,
https://drive.google.com/…/0B6ZHfkDjveZzXzVnTll…/view…
DRIVE.GOOGLE.COM
Roger Lewis John Porter Peta grammes Carbon 1 petagram = gigatonne
John Ferguson Glyn glyn glyn… You are buying into the mass hysteria that science and reports are producing . Think for yourself dude … It’s all fine. Climate change is all in the mind man. Chill. Keep driving your 4×4! Keep drilling for oil and what ever you do don’t worry. It’s all just a big fat lie ….
😉
😉Roger Lewis John Ferguson CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the physics is quite clear so are water vapour and so is Methane. The question regarding Human emissions which make up a small part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere and how much difference they make is the real…See More
Earl Bramley-Howard Listen Roger… we all understand the carbon cycle… however the issue with co2 is the carbon which was sequestered by nature over millions of years and stored as coal or oil. That carbon has been removed from the carbon cycle. But when we dig it up a…See More
Earl Bramley-Howard I would like to remind members that climate change denial is treated as ‘trolling’ in this group #admin warning
Earl Bramley-Howard helps if you write [sarc] because as #admin I have to read hundreds of posts and when a thread is puring out ‘denial’ it’s hard to distinguish between the denial and the sarcasm.
John Ferguson Earl Bramley-Howard fair point . Apologies . I am genuinely concerned when I read posts such as these … Sorry for offence
Earl Bramley-Howard no worries… apologies for misinterpreting the sarcasm (it’s still early)
Roger Lewis Earl Bramley-Howard Earl, when Carbon is re-released from fossil fuel hydro carbons, it re-enters the cycle and goes through the process again, this process is one where differentiation becomes contentious. CO2 is a Green-house gas, C12 C13 and C14 as…See More
Earl Bramley-Howard oh please get real… it would *normally* take thousands or even millions of years for that coal deep underground to re-enter the carbon cycle (usually via volcanic erruptions).
At present we dump 800 years’ worth of ‘volcanic’ carbon into the atmosphe…See More
At present we dump 800 years’ worth of ‘volcanic’ carbon into the atmosphe…See More
Earl I watched the 2009 video, it very interesting , I would be interested to see how Richard would update his talk today based upon Svensmarks work and its confirmation in the Cern Cloud experiments. With respect to Richards intere…See More
Roger Lewis Earl your point about volcanic CO2, perhaps you missed the point volcanism leads to Cooling and the co2 aspects of volcanism has more to do with increased sequestration of co2 in oceans as cooler oceans sequester more co2. The ocean cycle is sequestration at the poles and Outgassing at the warmer equator. Although I expect you already knew that.
Paul Sousek Every day humanity burns about 90 million barrels of oil. I calculate that adds roughly 36 million tons of CO2 to the atmosphere – every single day. Plus coal, plus gas, some 30 billion tons each year. Of that almost half remains in the atmosphere whil…See More
Roger Lewis From Segelstadt a Norweigan geologist and former IPCC lead author who resigned . ´´The stable 13C/12C carbon isotopes in the air’s CO2 give us the only way to determine its anthropogenic fraction: ~4%. This fraction would account for less than 0.5 W/m2…See More
Dawn Tibble seeing as we are the most destructive animal on the earth…
Earl Bramley-Howard Roger Lewis… knock yourself out with facts. You clearly didn’t watch the Alley video because he addresses the Cosmic Ray theory. It’s one of the old perennial weeds of climate change denial… keeps coming back.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global…
https://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global…
SKEPTICALSCIENCE.COM
Roger Lewis Earl I did watch the whole thing why would I not have done. With respect to the cosmic ray thing the video was in 2009 the research of Svensmark has developed further and made some striking discoveries since.
The Cloud results of Svensmark were confir…See More
The Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment uses a special cloud chamber to…
HOME.CERN
Earl Bramley-Howard This is a straw man argument and typical of climate change denialism. Nothing here throws out the consensus on mankind’s pollution being responsible for the *extra* warming we see, nor does it disprove that co2 is the main forcing for the *extra* warming we see, due to the sheer scale of our emmissions. 30 billion tons dumped into the atmosphere every year. The maths of co2 heat absorbtion has been known for well over a hundred years… and is matched by real-world data.
If you continue to troll this group with cut n pasted ‘evidence’ for your straw man arguments, I will remove you from the group. #adminwarning
If you continue to troll this group with cut n pasted ‘evidence’ for your straw man arguments, I will remove you from the group. #adminwarning
Roger Lewis Earl,
Science is about looking at all the evidence and testing assumptions. Climate modelling is in its infancy empirical experiments such as the CLOUD experiment are seeking to assist in making climate models better. Seeking advances and progress in the field of climate science is not in denial of anything. Svensmark has been vindicated what he says does not even make any difference to the question about Anthropogenic CO2 and Natural CO2, No one has seriously questioned that CO2 is a factor in how the atmosphere is warmer than it would be without it as a component. People like Dr Glasman and Scientists such as Freeman Dyson point out that there are metrological( not to be confused with meteorological).challenges which have only started to be solvable since satellites became available,( in short some suspected or claimed phenomena are just not measurable or detectable with current instruments) in 1979 and even then the various dynamic properties and lapse rates of various phenomena due to air pressure and altitude and so on and so forth leave many educated guesses requiring confirmation, clarification and in many cases revision.
All clarifications will not inevitably lead towards a worsening of the prognosis, some will and some will not. I must say I do object to your characterization of the serious science I have linked to , much of it drawn from the IPCC itself as ´straw man arguments´ I think your warning is both unwarranted and excessive.
The OP is sensational and exaggerated climate alarmism, I call it Climate Catastrophe porn. I had hoped to find more climate science scholars in the green party than there appear to be, it is a shame as one would have hoped Green party activists would be in a position to provide more than slogans to concerned potential voters.
Science is about looking at all the evidence and testing assumptions. Climate modelling is in its infancy empirical experiments such as the CLOUD experiment are seeking to assist in making climate models better. Seeking advances and progress in the field of climate science is not in denial of anything. Svensmark has been vindicated what he says does not even make any difference to the question about Anthropogenic CO2 and Natural CO2, No one has seriously questioned that CO2 is a factor in how the atmosphere is warmer than it would be without it as a component. People like Dr Glasman and Scientists such as Freeman Dyson point out that there are metrological( not to be confused with meteorological).challenges which have only started to be solvable since satellites became available,( in short some suspected or claimed phenomena are just not measurable or detectable with current instruments) in 1979 and even then the various dynamic properties and lapse rates of various phenomena due to air pressure and altitude and so on and so forth leave many educated guesses requiring confirmation, clarification and in many cases revision.
All clarifications will not inevitably lead towards a worsening of the prognosis, some will and some will not. I must say I do object to your characterization of the serious science I have linked to , much of it drawn from the IPCC itself as ´straw man arguments´ I think your warning is both unwarranted and excessive.
The OP is sensational and exaggerated climate alarmism, I call it Climate Catastrophe porn. I had hoped to find more climate science scholars in the green party than there appear to be, it is a shame as one would have hoped Green party activists would be in a position to provide more than slogans to concerned potential voters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAx6j625iy4
A perennial favorite among climate denial myths is that the earth’s current warming is…
YOUTUBE.COM
Earl Bramley-Howard vulcanism leads to short term cooling because of the shorter term sulphates and particulates. These rain out as soot and acid rain. The long term effect is for the longer lived co2 to trap heat & to warm the atmosphere & oceans. When we burnt coal with…See More
Earl Bramley-Howard There is no ‘evidence’ that the oceans can increase their ‘sink’ and perhaps you could explain why we see more warming at the poles than anywhere else?
John Porter All these facts that co2 is not the problem as the water slowly laps at your legs. It will be waist high before the argument is won
Earl Bramley-Howard That’ll be the acidic water lapping at at your legs 
🙁
🙁Roger Lewis There is no ‘evidence’ that the oceans can increase their ‘sink’ and perhaps you could explain why we see more warming at the poles than anywhere else? http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2016-427/ This paper downloadable here, https://t.co/bKVcszuDsI Actually presents evidence that appears to show precisely that Earl. CO2 uptake by the Earth surface of 13.6±3.4 PgC / year. New report
´´5 2010). Our best data driven bottom-up global estimate of NCE is -6.07±3.38 PgC / year. That means, that our data suggests a
large net sink. However, the amount of C in the atmosphere is increasing by an estimated rate of 4.27±0.10 PgC / year.
Combining both estimates, we obtain a C imbalance of 10.34±3.38 PgC / year (=NCE-CGR). Potential reasons for this
mismatch are discussed Section 4.
Using the ensemble approach we obtain an uncertainty in NCE of ±3.38 PgC / year. With quadrature error accumulation“ Thats pause for thought surely?
BIOGEOSCIENCES-DISCUSS.NET
Earl Bramley-Howard That does nothing of the sort. You’ve already had your warning. This is your final one.
Earl, that is a serious scientific paper which makes a point that there are large apparent ocean sinks which they are looking to explain. What could possibly be Found in that to justify your posturing?
Earl, that is a serious scientific paper which makes a point that there are large apparent ocean sinks which they are looking to explain. What could possibly be Found in that to justify your posturing?Earl, that is a serious scientific paper which makes a point that there are large apparent ocean sinks which they are looking to explain. What could possibly be Found in that to justify your posturing? There are other papers demonstrating considerable greening of forest and High Arctic Fen http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/7/1101/2010/bgd-7-1101-2010-print.pdf , when research is engaged in , scientists find evidence that refutes previously supported conjectures, your insistence on the infallibility of all aspects of the carbon cycle in oceans which is not well understood is pretty disturbing and not at all scientific. On the Paper I have just attached or the one previously attached I suspect you have either misunderstood what it says or simply not read it. The researchers are clearly surprised by their own results it was not what they had assumed according to the existing assumptions in models, they will be looking to clarify and if no errors are found they will no doubt double-check, Science is about falsification at the end of the day not about sainted dogmas. Earl your characterisation of what I have posted here as Trolling is plainly not supported by the evidence. CERN is a highly regarded International Scientific collaboration their experiments on cosmic rays reference Sevnsmaerks work. The Biogeosciences papers are also climate science research papers from various climate research groups funded by the EU , NASA and many others supportive of the AGW hypothesis, any honest research science will encounter and publish results which do not support their own hypothesis. You are seeking to trivialise sound and important science that is clarifying the many areas of the AGW hypothesis that the IPCC itself categorises as being less than certain. If you can not engage with the evidence or wish to ignore it then do so but do not make unsupported claims that the existence of the papers has to be straw man argument or that By stating a view that the bottom end of IPCC predictions of Climate change is likely not to be exceeded as some sort of denial of 1. The fact of Climate change and 2. That CO2 is a (Greenhouse) ( would be better described as a quilt) Gas.
Earl Bramley-Howard You are posting links from climate change denial websites and cutting and pasting from stuff which does NOT refute the scientific consensus on climate change, nor does it claim to. You’re using an endless stream of straw man arguments as if that’s supposed to prove anything. It’s called Trolling Roger and it gets you booted from this group if you do it anymore.
Roger Lewis Earl your characterisation of what I have posted here as Trolling is plainly not supported by the evidence. CERN is a highly regarded International Scientific collaboration their experiments on cosmic rays reference Sevnsmaerks work. The Biogeosciences papers are also climate science research papers from various climate research groups funded by the EU , NASA and many others supportive of the AGW hypothesis, any honest research science will encounter and publish results which do not support their own hypothesis. You are seeking to trivialise sound and important science that is clarifying the many areas of the AGW hypothesis that the IPCC itself categorises as being less than certain. If you can not engage with the evidence or wish to ignore it then do so but do not make un-supported claims that the existence of the papers has to be straw man argument or that By stating a view that the bottom end of IPCC predictions of Climate change are likely not to be exceeded as some sort of denial of 1. The fact of Climate change and 2. That CO2 is a (Greenhouse) ( would be better described as a quilt) Gas.
Paul Sousek Every day humanity burns about 90 million barrels of oil. I calculate that adds roughly 36 million tons of CO2 to the atmosphere – every single day. Plus coal, plus gas, some 30 billion tons each year. Of that almost half remains in the atmosphere while just over half is absorbed by the oceans, acidifying them in the process.
The atmospheric CO2 forms in the lower part of the atmosphere, where it traps suns energy and thus contributes to the warming of the planet. This further enhanced by several positive feedback loops, including the gradual loss of the ice albedo effect and methane release from melting permafrost.
Here is an excellent source of further information:
http://www.ucsusa.org/…/science/global-warming-faq.html…
The atmospheric CO2 forms in the lower part of the atmosphere, where it traps suns energy and thus contributes to the warming of the planet. This further enhanced by several positive feedback loops, including the gradual loss of the ice albedo effect and methane release from melting permafrost.
Here is an excellent source of further information:
http://www.ucsusa.org/…/science/global-warming-faq.html…
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/1322193297840524/?comment_id=1323276034398917¬if_t=like¬if_id=1481311546752334#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · 9 hrs · Edited
Roger Lewis From Segelstadt a Norweigan geologist and former IPCC lead author who resigned . ´´The stable 13C/12C carbon isotopes in the air’s CO2 give us the only way to determine its anthropogenic fraction: ~4%. This fraction would account for less than 0.5 W/m2, less than 0.1% of the Greenhouse Effect, or ~0.1°C. Clouds have far more temperature regulating power than atmospheric CO2. ~96% of the air CO2 comes from non-fossil-fuel sources, i.e. natural marine and volcanic degassing.
Isotopic mass balance finds an air CO2 lifetime (halflife) ~5 years, like many other studies with other methods. ~18% of air CO2 is exchanged annually in nature, almost 20 times more than added anthropogenically. The ocean’s upper 200 m has enough calcium to bind ALL remaining fossil fuel CO2 as calcium carbonate, which will not dissolve in the ocean. Henry’s Law dictates that anthropogenic doubling of the global air CO2 is impossible. The ocean pH varies considerably in surface water due to temperature. The pH buffers in the ocean constitute an almost infinite buffer capacity, hence the assertion on anthropogenic acidification of the ocean, and dissolution of lime there, is not realistic.´´
http://www.co2web.info/ There are other eminent scientists of the same view as segelstad the term ocean acidification could be construed as misleading it actually refers to a reduction in Alkalinity Wikipedia explains it thus. ´´Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth’s oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.[2] Seawater is slightly basic (meaning pH > 7), and the process in question is a shift towards pH-neutral conditions rather than a transition to acidic conditions (pH < 7).[3] Ocean alkalinity is not changed by the process or, may increase over long time periods due to carbonate dissolution.[4] An estimated 30–40% of the carbon dioxide from human activity released into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes.[5][6] To achieve chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these extra carbonic acid molecules react with a water molecule to give a bicarbonate ion and a hydronium ion, thus increasing ocean acidity (H+ ion concentration). Between 1751 and 1996 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[7]´´
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification Clearly we should be concerned about husbandry of the world’s oceans. I live in Sweden, for many years Sweden has tried to stop US factory Pig farms in Poland from discharging Pig Slurry into the Baltic which is affecting the Baltic seas bio-diversity. The process by which the ocean sequesters and out-gasses CO2 is endlessly fascinating and one can do worse than read Jarawoski or Segelstad on the subject, I am persuaded by the hypothesis of Jeffrey A Glassman PHD who wrote the paper the Acquittal of Co 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification the link is to the Gavin Schmidt (NASA) critiique of Glassmans paper, which was not peer reviewed, as a retired Rocket Scientist Dr Glassman I am sure has no need for publishing his work to satisfy Faculty requirements in the competitive world of academia. Glassmans is a concise and well presented review of the arguments and serves as a good introduction to the physics of CO2 and the bandwidths at which it absorbs Radiation and in the Forcing account of its greenhouse gassness has it re emmitting at other frequencies back to the surface. That is the past of the CO2 question which is probably the hardest to grasp for those without a good grounding in Physics. It is generally agreed amongst Physicists that Greenhouse ios perhaps not the best metaphor for the Way that CO2 acts in the atmosphere to retain energy from the Suns radiation and the Surface reflection of that energy, sadly it has stuck but Glass man does a good job I think.http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/…/gavin_schmidt…. I offer Glassmans web site merely for the curious who wish to find a good summary of criticisms of the gaps in our climate knowledge.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/1322193297840524/?comment_id=1323276034398917¬if_t=like¬if_id=1481311546752334#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 7 hrs · Edited
Write a reply…
Dawn Tibble seeing as we are the most destructive animal on the earth…
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/1322193297840524/?comment_id=1323276034398917¬if_t=like¬if_id=1481311546752334#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · 7 hrs
Earl Bramley-Howard Roger Lewis… knock yourself out with facts. You clearly didn’t watch the Alley video because he addresses the Cosmic Ray theory. It’s one of the old perennial weeds of climate change denial… keeps coming back.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global…
https://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global…
SKEPTICALSCIENCE.COM
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/1322193297840524/?comment_id=1323276034398917¬if_t=like¬if_id=1481311546752334#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Roger Lewis Earl I did watch the whole thing why would I not have done. With respect to the cosmic ray thing the video was in 2009 the research of Svensmark has developed further and made some striking discoveries since.
The Cloud results of Svensmark were confir…See More
The Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment uses a special cloud chamber to…
HOME.CERN
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/1322193297840524/?comment_id=1323276034398917¬if_t=like¬if_id=1481311546752334#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 1 hr
Earl Bramley-Howard This is a straw man argument and typical of climate change denialism. Nothing here throws out the consensus on mankind’s pollution being responsible for the *extra* warming we see, nor does it disprove that co2 is the main forcing for the *extra* warming we see, due to the sheer scale of our emmissions. 30 billion tons dumped into the atmosphere every year. The maths of co2 heat absorbtion has been known for well over a hundred years… and is matched by real-world data.
If you continue to troll this group with cut n pasted ‘evidence’ for your straw man arguments, I will remove you from the group. #adminwarning
If you continue to troll this group with cut n pasted ‘evidence’ for your straw man arguments, I will remove you from the group. #adminwarning
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/1322193297840524/?comment_id=1323276034398917¬if_t=like¬if_id=1481311546752334#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 hr
Roger Lewis Earl,
Science is about looking at all the evidence and testing assumptions. Climate modelling is in its infancy empirical experiments such as the CLOUD experiment are seeking to assist in making climate models better. Seeking advances and progress in the field of climate science is not in denial of anything. Svensmark has been vindicated what he says does not even make any difference to the question about Anthropogenic CO2 and Natural CO2, No one has seriously questioned that CO2 is a factor in how the atmosphere is warmer than it would be without it as a component. People like Dr Glasman and Scientists such as Freeman Dyson point out that there are metrological( not to be confused with meteorological).challenges which have only started to be solvable since satellites became available,( in short some suspected or claimed phenomena are just not measurable or detectable with current instruments) in 1979 and even then the various dynamic properties and lapse rates of various phenomena due to air pressure and altitude and so on and so forth leave many educated guesses requiring confirmation, clarification and in many cases revision.
All clarifications will not inevitably lead towards a worsening of the prognosis, some will and some will not. I must say I do object to your characterization of the serious science I have linked to , much of it drawn from the IPCC itself as ´straw man arguments´ I think your warning is both unwarranted and excessive.
The OP is sensational and exaggerated climate alarmism, I call it Climate Catastrophe porn. I had hoped to find more climate science scholars in the green party than there appear to be, it is a shame as one would have hoped Green party activists would be in a position to provide more than slogans to concerned potential voters.
Science is about looking at all the evidence and testing assumptions. Climate modelling is in its infancy empirical experiments such as the CLOUD experiment are seeking to assist in making climate models better. Seeking advances and progress in the field of climate science is not in denial of anything. Svensmark has been vindicated what he says does not even make any difference to the question about Anthropogenic CO2 and Natural CO2, No one has seriously questioned that CO2 is a factor in how the atmosphere is warmer than it would be without it as a component. People like Dr Glasman and Scientists such as Freeman Dyson point out that there are metrological( not to be confused with meteorological).challenges which have only started to be solvable since satellites became available,( in short some suspected or claimed phenomena are just not measurable or detectable with current instruments) in 1979 and even then the various dynamic properties and lapse rates of various phenomena due to air pressure and altitude and so on and so forth leave many educated guesses requiring confirmation, clarification and in many cases revision.
All clarifications will not inevitably lead towards a worsening of the prognosis, some will and some will not. I must say I do object to your characterization of the serious science I have linked to , much of it drawn from the IPCC itself as ´straw man arguments´ I think your warning is both unwarranted and excessive.
The OP is sensational and exaggerated climate alarmism, I call it Climate Catastrophe porn. I had hoped to find more climate science scholars in the green party than there appear to be, it is a shame as one would have hoped Green party activists would be in a position to provide more than slogans to concerned potential voters.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/1322193297840524/?comment_id=1323276034398917¬if_t=like¬if_id=1481311546752334#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 hr
Write a reply…
Earl Bramley-Howard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAx6j625iy4
A perennial favorite among climate denial myths is that the earth’s current warming is…
YOUTUBE.COM
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/1322193297840524/?comment_id=1323276034398917¬if_t=like¬if_id=1481311546752334#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Earl Bramley-Howard vulcanism leads to short term cooling because of the shorter term sulphates and particulates. These rain out as soot and acid rain. The long term effect is for the longer lived co2 to trap heat & to warm the atmosphere & oceans. When we burnt coal without ‘scrubbers’ we had sulfuric acid rain (but the long term effect of the co2 was being masked). When we put sulphate scrubbers in coal power stations we improved air quality and fixed the acid rain destruction of forests (and continued to do it by logging and farming palm oil or soya and cattle etc), but we didn’t address the carbon in the pollution (because the only way to address that is to stop burning the stuff). The carbon mixes with ocean water to make it acidic (carbonic acid).
At the end of the Permian age it was the Siberian Traps which erupted for several thousand years. That took the global temps up 4-5 degrees and warmed the oceans. That warming of the oceans, led to the sudden release (tipping point) of methane Hydrates and Methane Clathrates in the deep oceans… and that event raised the temps another 5 degrees and was the closest ‘Life’ has come to being wiped out completely.
Mankind is emitting 800x more carbon into the atmosphere than all the volcanoes on Earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n4jau44_do
At the end of the Permian age it was the Siberian Traps which erupted for several thousand years. That took the global temps up 4-5 degrees and warmed the oceans. That warming of the oceans, led to the sudden release (tipping point) of methane Hydrates and Methane Clathrates in the deep oceans… and that event raised the temps another 5 degrees and was the closest ‘Life’ has come to being wiped out completely.
Mankind is emitting 800x more carbon into the atmosphere than all the volcanoes on Earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n4jau44_do
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/1322193297840524/?comment_id=1323276034398917¬if_t=like¬if_id=1481311546752334#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 hr · Edited
Earl Bramley-Howard There is no ‘evidence’ that the oceans can increase their ‘sink’ and perhaps you could explain why we see more warming at the poles than anywhere else?
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/1322193297840524/?comment_id=1323276034398917¬if_t=like¬if_id=1481311546752334#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 2 hrs
John Porter All these facts that co2 is not the problem as the water slowly laps at your legs. It will be waist high before the argument is won
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/1322193297840524/?comment_id=1323276034398917¬if_t=like¬if_id=1481311546752334#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr · Edited
Earl Bramley-Howard That’ll be the acidic water lapping at at your legs 🙁
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cqCvcX7buo
🙁https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cqCvcX7buo
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/1322193297840524/?comment_id=1323276034398917¬if_t=like¬if_id=1481311546752334#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 hr
Roger Lewis There is no ‘evidence’ that the oceans can increase their ‘sink’ and perhaps you could explain why we see more warming at the poles than anywhere else? http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2016-427/ This paper downloadable here, https://t.co/bKVcszuDsI Actually presents evidence that appears to show precisely that Earl. CO2 uptake by the Earth surface of 13.6±3.4 PgC / year. New report
´´5 2010). Our best data driven bottom-up global estimate of NCE is -6.07±3.38 PgC / year. That means, that our data suggests a
large net sink. However, the amount of C in the atmosphere is increasing by an estimated rate of 4.27±0.10 PgC / year.
Combining both estimates, we obtain a C imbalance of 10.34±3.38 PgC / year (=NCE-CGR). Potential reasons for this
mismatch are discussed Section 4.
Using the ensemble approach we obtain an uncertainty in NCE of ±3.38 PgC / year. With quadrature error accumulation“ Thats pause for thought surely?
BIOGEOSCIENCES-DISCUSS.NET
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/1322193297840524/?comment_id=1323276034398917¬if_t=like¬if_id=1481311546752334#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 57 mins
Earl Bramley-Howard That does nothing of the sort. You’ve already had your warning. This is your final one.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/1322193297840524/?comment_id=1323276034398917¬if_t=like¬if_id=1481311546752334#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 49 mins
Roger Lewis Earl, that is a serious scientific paper which makes a point that there are large apparent ocean sinks which they are looking to explain. What could possibly be Found in that to justify your posturing? There are other papers demonstrating considerable greening of forest and High Arctic Fenhttp://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/…/bgd-7-1101-2010… , when research is engaged in , scientists find evidence that refutes previously supported conjectures, your insistence on the infallibility of all aspects of the carbon cycle in oceans which is not well understood is pretty disturbing and not at all scientific. On the Paper I have just attached or the one previously attached I suspect you have either mis understood what it says or simply not read it. The researchers are clearly surprised by their own results it was not what they had assumed according to the existing assumptions in models, they will be looking to clarify and if no errors are found they will no doubt double check, Science is about falsification at the end of the day not about sainted dogmas.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/1322193297840524/?comment_id=1323276034398917¬if_t=like¬if_id=1481311546752334#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · 33 mins
Earl Bramley-Howard You are posting links from climate change denial websites and cutting and pasting from stuff which does NOT refute the scientific consensus on climate change, nor does it claim to. You’re using an endless stream of straw man arguments as if that’s supposed to prove anything. It’s called Trolling Roger and it gets you booted from this group if you do it anymore.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/1322193297840524/?comment_id=1323276034398917¬if_t=like¬if_id=1481311546752334#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 21 mins · Edited
Roger Lewis Earl your characterisation of what I have posted here as Trolling is plainly not supported by the evidence. CERN is a highly regarded International Scientific collaboration their experiments on cosmic rays reference Sevnsmaerks work. The Biogeosciences papers are also climate science research papers from various climate research groups funded by the EU , NASA and many others supportive of the AGW hypothesis, any honest research science will encounter and publish results which do not support their own hypothesis. You are seeking to trivialise sound and important science that is clarifying the many areas of the AGW hypothesis that the IPCC itself categorises as being less than certain. If you can not engage with the evidence or wish to ignore it then do so but do not make un-supported claims that the existence of the papers has to be straw man argument or that By stating a view that the bottom end of IPCC predictions of Climate change are likely not to be exceeded as some sort of denial of 1. The fact of Climate change and 2. That CO2 is a (Greenhouse) ( would be better described as a quilt) Gas.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/1322193297840524/?comment_id=1323276034398917¬if_t=like¬if_id=1481311546752334#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 10 mins
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1322193297840524/?comment_id=1323280444398476¬if_t=group_comment_follow¬if_id=1481280527085925#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 26 mins
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1322193297840524/?comment_id=1323280444398476¬if_t=group_comment_follow¬if_id=1481280527085925#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 26 mins
Roger Lewis These last two links answer the Sceptical Science article which is not up to date. I often read Skeptical Science and find it very good, my main source of information on Climate Science has been Science of Doom which is for my own tastes better that Skeptical Science for more intermediate to advanced enquiry. The past couple of years I have mainly read the published scientific literature and IPCC directly. I do not get any of my information from News Papers or Magazines although I do watch lectures on You Tube .https://scienceofdoom.com/about/
What’s the blog about? Climate science. Who’s it for? People interested in the science behind the climate…
SCIENCEOFDOOM.COM
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1322193297840524/?comment_id=1323280444398476¬if_t=group_comment_follow¬if_id=1481280527085925#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 21 mins
Probably a good idea to save stuff like this… before the new Fossil Fools ‘Administration’ deletes it…
Models that account only for the effects of natural processes are not able to explain the warming observed over the past century. Models that also account…
EPA.GOV
Comments
Glyn Goodwin The bureau of alternative facts…
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1364845156908671&reply_comment_id=1365386673521186¬if_t=group_comment¬if_id=1485184641194476#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · 19 hrs
Roger Lewis http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdfThe scientific literature is I think quite safe, the alarm industry is perhaps another question.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_comment_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1364845156908671&reply_comment_id=1365386673521186¬if_t=group_comment¬if_id=1485184641194476#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 17 hrs
Martin Dwyer or looking at it another way, CO2 really has been quite stable for a long time and suddenly isn’t! It’s known that doubling CO2 (from 280 to 560ppm say) results in an energy imbalance or ‘radiative forcing’ of 4W per square metre. That’s plenty enou…See More
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1364845156908671&reply_comment_id=1365386673521186¬if_t=group_comment¬if_id=1485184641194476#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 15 hrs
Roger Lewis Martin Dwyerhttp://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/…/summary-of-non… There are other views regarding Radiative forcing and the maths is actually coming out in favour of fundamental flaws in the modelling assumptions. I know Lord Monkton is a pariah in these parts but the 4 errors highlighted in these slides are easily checkable. He also quotes Happer on one of the 4 errors he cites. I model sound so the fourier transform is meat and drink for me others have a bit of a learning curve to see what Monkton is on about in what he calls official error 4.https://chemtrailsplanet.files.wordpress.com/…/slides…
Also see. https://wattsupwiththat.com/…/leading-climate…/
Also see. https://wattsupwiththat.com/…/leading-climate…/
CLAESJOHNSON.BLOGSPOT.COM
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1364845156908671&reply_comment_id=1365386673521186¬if_t=group_comment¬if_id=1485184641194476#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 15 hrs · Edited
Martin Dwyer “Lord” Monckton very rightly is a pariah. As for the Engineer’s critique you posted above, I’m sad to see it contains some really basic errors. An engineer ought to know better. Shame on him
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1364845156908671&reply_comment_id=1365386673521186¬if_t=group_comment¬if_id=1485184641194476#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · 15 hrs
Roger Lewis Martin Dwyer Martin Please could you set out what you believe the basic errors to be Gavin Schmidt was corrected by Dr Glassman if you look at the rebuttal and Glassmans response.http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/…/gavin_schmidt…
ROCKETSCIENTISTSJOURNAL.COM
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1364845156908671&reply_comment_id=1365386673521186¬if_t=group_comment¬if_id=1485184641194476#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 15 hrs
Martin Dwyer well for a start the silly graph claiming that 3.4% of CO2 is caused by human activity. This is false and based upon an inability to understand the difference between carbon flux, and accumulated carbon. A bit like the difference between fuel consumption and the amount of petrol in a car’s fuel tank. This is a serious shortcoming for someone claiming to be an engineer
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1364845156908671&reply_comment_id=1365386673521186¬if_t=group_comment¬if_id=1485184641194476#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · 15 hrs · Edited
Roger Lewis MArtin I think Glassman is perfectly aware of Carbon Flux, what he challenges is that the Carbon sinks distinguish between Anthropogenic and Natural Carbon outgassing. This recent paper on Carbon Fluxes tends to suggest that Segalstad, Glassman, Jarrowski etc are actually correct following Henrys Law and the IPPC has got its understanding of carbon sink processes in a muddle.http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2016-427/
BIOGEOSCIENCES-DISCUSS.NET
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1364845156908671&reply_comment_id=1365386673521186¬if_t=group_comment¬if_id=1485184641194476#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 15 hrs
Martin Dwyer It’s immaterial. Atmospheric CO2 is what it is .. 400+ppm and that has consequences. If it wasn’t for the the fact that more than half the CO2 we emit gets reabsorbed by plants/soil or by oceans (where it causes acidification) then it would already b…See More
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1364845156908671&reply_comment_id=1365386673521186¬if_t=group_comment¬if_id=1485184641194476#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 1 · 14 hrs · Edited
Roger Lewis Martin what you claim to be settled with a high degree of certainty , simply does not hold up to scrutiny. The idea of well-mixed CO2 being stagnant in the atmosphere is an absurd notion and Henrys law shows that the oceans have almost unlimited absorption capacity for CO2 and the Process by which CO2 is absorbed means that the Oceans will become slightly less alkaline which is not the same as Acidification in the sense that they become Acid. The use of language that way is exaggeration and sensationalisation seeking to stoke a climate of fear. The Rocket Science journal comp+rises 4 not overly long papers that falsify the AGW theory. This series of Articles written with a no dog in the fight balanced approach should put some scientific skepticism into the belly of anything other than the more ardent Climate Catastrophe fundamentalists. Climatism is not scientific.
http://www.free-the-memes.net/…/warming3/ClimateGate3.html
http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher…/article10973.htm
http://www.free-the-memes.net/…/warming2/hottest_year.html
http://www.free-the-memes.net/writings/warming/warming.html
Finally, if you have the stomach for it here is a PDF with a 101 regarding all sides to the argument, Denier, Warmist, Luke Warmist and Alarmist.
https://drive.google.com/…/0B6ZHfkDjveZzYXU3UHh…/view…
Some of the CO stuff
https://drive.google.com/…/0B6ZHfkDjveZzYmtqUVB…/view…
And some Sea Ice extent Stuff.
https://drive.google.com/…/0B6ZHfkDjveZzXzVnTll…/view…
On November 19, 2009, a 61 megabyte file called “FOI2009.zip” started to circulate on the…
FREE-THE-MEMES.NET
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1364845156908671&reply_comment_id=1365386673521186¬if_t=group_comment¬if_id=1485184641194476#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 12 hrs · Edited
Martin Dwyer Roger, why on Earth are you peddling this ludicrous nonsense in here? .. wouldn’t you feel more at home in a UKIP appreciation group? Well-mixed greenhouse gases are called that because they are well-mixed, ie fairly uniform concentrations in the atmosphere.. are you suggesting that CO2 concentration varies considerably somehow because it doesn’t? Why on Earth do you suppose that CO2 is now 400+ppm, while before the industrial era accompanied by substantial population growth it was 280ppm for a long time? What else has happened on the planet that could conceivably have caused such a rise? Hint: it isn’t volcanoes
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1364845156908671&reply_comment_id=1365386673521186¬if_t=group_comment¬if_id=1485184641194476#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 8 hrs
Roger Lewis Martin, calling something ludicrous does not make it so Martin. Everything posted here is supported by the data and explained by known science tested by experimentation. The data itself falsifies the Climate models. Catastrophist Alarmism around the field of Climate Change is the nonsense that is pedalled in this field Martin. Serious scientists when mathematical errors and misapplication of principles amend their findings in accordance with the clarifications. Only those with something to hide or defend throw their Toys out of the pram. CO2 does vary in concentration across the globe, this is because the outgassing that occurs naturally and the Sinks are not evenly distributed, man’s emissions are very small compared to the whole, Climate change is also regional different parts of the system have different effects in different locations, regions etc, Think Micro Climate to get the idea, there are lots of famous micro Climates, holiday resorts and health spas demonstrate their enduring presence over climate timescales.Climate and environment science is not a political football for me Martin, I have studied the science and read all sides of the scientific argument, the gaps in the data and scope of interpretation is not settled, not even as settled as any field really can be. AGW is a theory, what’s more it is a theory that has been falsified by the data , the models are getting better, but whilst they have been excellent for learning about climate they are not a good predictive tool.
The hysteria will die down in due course and those given to hysteria will find something else to get excited about. Extremist views on CLimatism and climate politics are as with all zealotry counter productive to democratic institutions the Green Party should not espouse extremist views in promulgating climate alarmism that is what they are doing.
The hysteria will die down in due course and those given to hysteria will find something else to get excited about. Extremist views on CLimatism and climate politics are as with all zealotry counter productive to democratic institutions the Green Party should not espouse extremist views in promulgating climate alarmism that is what they are doing.
“}” data-testid=”ufi_reply_like_link” href=”https://www.facebook.com/groups/discussthegreenparty/permalink/1364709613588892/?comment_id=1364845156908671&reply_comment_id=1365386673521186¬if_t=group_comment¬if_id=1485184641194476#” role=”button” style=”color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;” title=”Like this comment”>Like · Reply · 29 mins
—
0046702273052
skype: rogerglewis
Skype telephone number +46406931188
Portfolio of on line Profiles( Go on be Nosy ) CLICK HERE PLEASE
#ConquestofDough
0046702273052
skype: rogerglewis
Skype telephone number +46406931188
Portfolio of on line Profiles( Go on be Nosy ) CLICK HERE PLEASE
#ConquestofDough
Climate debate Know your CO2. Pseudo progressive bullshit. SJW´s Value Signalling useful idiots for Neo Liberalism.
A Face Book Discussion. Know your Atmospheric and ocean Chemistry.
I have become frustrated at the unthinking repetition of parrot fashion dogma. For people who wish to implement radical policy changes based on empirical and proveable data then make sure the data supports your argument. Where one is acting on Faith then say so. My contention is that the CO2 belief dogma of climatism and AGW Climate Change Alarmism is damaging the environmental movement. The Green Party will, as the data increasingly shows AGW CO2 conjecture to be unsupported, be lead into disrepute by its political leadership being exposed as indulging in Dog Whistle hysteria. This reputational damage will actually damage the valid arguments against extraction damage. The problem is not the CO2 already this is clearly shown by data now, there are many porblems with Tar sands and Fracking also Oil spills and the like. The CO2 alarmism opens the question as to how trustworthy or knowledgeable are so called experts on those other issues, with CO2 being so comprehensively discredited who will be iopen to looking at valid evidence on environmental damage?
This discussion I think proves the point it applies very well to the EMO type teenaged angst that seems to have lived into middle age in many politicians and agit/prop operatives for ´´Pseudo Environmentalism´´.
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy, from the Wikipedia article of Confirmation Bias.
