• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

CO2 Alarmism

Mock Turtle

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
KW said:
I work in the steel industry.

Irrelevant.

Typical leftist tactic. Attack the messenger.

Deal with cold hard facts:

What the Stations Say
Click to expand...
Hardly attacking, given that one might be rather bold to put one's own opinion, even if somewhat knowledgeable, against those of the vast majority of relevant scientists. But then perhaps I have more sense than you - that is attacking. :oops:

And what has politics to do with it - apart from apparently informing your beliefs. :D
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
KW said:
What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.

Richard Lindzen -MIT
Click to expand...
The guy is 82. Almost nobody in the relevant field agrees with him. That ship has sailed, long since.
 
ChristineM

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
KW said:
No one claims that.

Straw dogs are a waste of time. Why bother?
Click to expand...


Facts

in 1995, he [Richard Lindzen] charged “oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services,”

His trip to testify before Senate in 1991 was paid for by Western Fuels.

His speech “Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus” was underwritten by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.
 
PureX

PureX

Veteran Member
From wiki ...

"The Guardian reported in June 2016 that Lindzen has been a beneficiary of Peabody Energy, a coal company that has funded multiple groups contesting the climate consensus."

"Lindzen has been called a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues. Lindzen's graduate students describe him as "fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak."

The characterization of Lindzen as a contrarian has been reinforced by reports that he claims that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking.[87][88] When asked about this during an interview as part of an Australian Broadcasting Corporation documentary, Lindzen said that while "the case for second-hand tobacco is not very good ... the World Health Organization also said that” (referencing a 1998 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), on the other hand "With first-hand smoke it's a more interesting issue ... The case for lung cancer is very good but it also ignores the fact that there are differences in people's susceptibilities which the Japanese studies have pointed to." Again, when asked to clarify his position by a climate skeptic blogger, Lindzen wrote, "there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order ... the much, much weaker case against second hand smoke [is] also being treated as dogma."
​
I have a long time friend who is a well known and "fiercely intelligent" life-long "contrarian". And he has had his moments of brilliant observations over the years, but within a long history being mostly an annoying crank. He is unable to tell the difference between these because he is driven by a very deep-seated psychological need for a "hidden" reality from which we are all being fooled, and/or are fooling ourselves, and that only he is able to recognize.

He suffered a peculiar form of child abuse that comprised a lot of subtle intellectual "gaslighting" by his professor father and his catastrophizing mother that he has never been able to get over, or get past. I love the guy, and he has his moments of insight, but mostly he's just an annoying crank. And mostly he's just wrong about these hidden realities.
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
PureX said:
From wiki ...

"The Guardian reported in June 2016 that Lindzen has been a beneficiary of Peabody Energy, a coal company that has funded multiple groups contesting the climate consensus."

"Lindzen has been called a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues. Lindzen's graduate students describe him as "fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak."

The characterization of Lindzen as a contrarian has been reinforced by reports that he claims that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking.[87][88] When asked about this during an interview as part of an Australian Broadcasting Corporation documentary, Lindzen said that while "the case for second-hand tobacco is not very good ... the World Health Organization also said that” (referencing a 1998 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), on the other hand "With first-hand smoke it's a more interesting issue ... The case for lung cancer is very good but it also ignores the fact that there are differences in people's susceptibilities which the Japanese studies have pointed to." Again, when asked to clarify his position by a climate skeptic blogger, Lindzen wrote, "there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order ... the much, much weaker case against second hand smoke [is] also being treated as dogma."
​
I have a long time friend who is a well known and life-long "contrarian". And he has had his moments of brilliant observation over the years, but within a long history being mostly an annoying crank. He has been unable to tell the difference between these because he is driven by a very deep-seated psychological need for a "hidden" reality from which we are all being fooled, and/or are fooling ourselves, and that only he is able to recognize this.

He suffered a peculiar form of child abuse that comprised a lot of subtle intellectual "gaslighting" by his professor father and his catastrophizing mother that he has never been able to get over, or get past. I love the guy, and he has his moments of insight, but mostly he's just an annoying crank. And mostly he's just wrong about these hidden realities.
Click to expand...
Yes I think this is insightful. Contrarians are useful, as they can challenge groupthink and sharpen sloppy arguments. But more than not they are wrong.

In the case of climate change science, this has been challenged more vigorously than just about any theory of science, because of the uncomfortable implications it has for the way we live and the vested interests in showing it to be false. So we don't really need this octogenarian's opinion much.
 
W

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
exchemist said:
Yes I think this is insightful. Contrarians are useful, as they can challenge groupthink and sharpen sloppy arguments. But more than not they are wrong.

In the case of climate change science, this has been challenged more vigorously than just about any theory of science, because of the uncomfortable implications it has for the way we live and the vested interests in showing it to be false. So we don't really need this octogenarian's opinion much.
Click to expand...

The main problem with the science of climate change is connected to manmade climate change. Even if we assume this was true, this is a singular event in the history of the earth. At no other time have humans caused this problem. In essence it very similar to one science team creating cold fusion in the lab. We are supposed to take their word, without a second verifying example, to show this type of event is even possible. Science is ignoring its own philosophy. One unique event is not sufficient to satisfy the philosophy of science.

On the other hand, geological evidence can show that the earth itself can cause climate change. This mechanism has more than one singular event. It fully satisfies the philosophy of science, yet this is being played down by science, in favor of that odd ball singular manmade event that has not been proven, as possible, by a second and maybe even third manmade event. Science is cheating its own philosophy. Why the loophole?
 
Guitar's Cry

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
wellwisher said:
The main problem with the science of climate change is connected to manmade climate change. Even if we assume this was true, this is a singular event in the history of the earth. At no other time have humans caused this problem. In essence it very similar to one science team creating cold fusion in the lab. We are supposed to take their word, without a second verifying example, to show this type of event is even possible. Science is ignoring its own philosophy. One unique event is not sufficient to satisfy the philosophy of science.

On the other hand, geological evidence can show that the earth itself can cause climate change. This mechanism has more than one singular event. It fully satisfies the philosophy of science, yet this is being played down by science, in favor of that odd ball singular manmade event that has not been proven, as possible, by a second and maybe even third manmade event. Science is cheating its own philosophy. Why the loophole?
Click to expand...

There's no loophole. We understand the mechanisms behind fossil fuel pollution and the greenhouse effect, as well as other human activity like deforestation and urbanization.
 
Yazata

Yazata

Active Member
KW said:
What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.

Richard Lindzen -MIT
Click to expand...

I have no way of knowing the future, but I suspect that's probably true.

What might in better circumstances have been an intelligent scientific issue has somehow been co-opted into being a political and moral cause. It's become apocalyptic, intolerant of any sort of disagreement, skepticism or doubt, and serves as the rhetorical engine for driving the kind of utopian social change that until around 1990 were supposedly justified by Marxism.

I'm exceedingly skeptical about the whole thing.
 
Last edited:
Kooky

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
@KW Don't worry, thanks to the ceaseless lobbying efforts of the fossil fuel industry, nobody will do anything substantial to combat climate change anyway!
 
W

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
KW said:
Yes it does with regard to historical temperature changes. This also means that at the end of each trend CO2 was rising while temperatures fell. Look at the charts.
Click to expand...

This makes sense since as the it gets colder, plants are not able to fix CO2 at the same rate. Instead, there will be more plant rot via soil bacteria breaking down the plant material to CO2; composting.
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
KW said:
Yes it does with regard to historical temperature changes. This also means that at the end of each trend CO2 was rising while temperatures fell. Look at the charts.
Click to expand...
This is irrelevant.

As the attached article points out, the fact that a house can heat up when the central heating is off does not mean that the central heating does not work.

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming | New Scientist

You are propagating a myth here that is an old chestnut. People that follow the science of climate change can see you coming a mile off. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top