Belligerent Savant » Mon Apr 01, 2024 6:12 pm wrote:DrEvil » Sun Mar 31, 2024 10:17 am wrote:Also, can I just point out the irony of you writing this:
... for the last ~couple decades is the tripe about human-generated CO2 having a significant impact on 'climate change' (up until recently it was called 'global warming', though that canard can no longer sustain itself).
... immediately followed by a table from the IPCC report saying the opposite. You can't even stay consistent for twelve hours.
Here, again, you show your dishonesty in debate tactics, or are otherwise too obtuse to see the flaws in your counters.
I shared the IPCC charts because it indicates, in essence, that
climate-based austerity measures will not resolve weather fluctuations, because the IPCC
does not observe [in their reporting] human-caused factors -- beyond natural variability -- in most types of extreme weather events.
THIS is the primary issue. The IPCC isn't the only entity making such claims, and in any event
no single source is infallible.
Did you look at the full report that I linked (fair warning, it's a 2000+ page pdf), or read the excerpts I posted? And the IPCC isn't a single source, it's all the (scientific) sources bundled up into one. That's the whole point of it: look at all the current science and summarize it. They don't do any science themselves. A single source would be a Tweet by Pielke.
I fully understand the IPCC has a different view on CO2. As I mentioned in my prior post above, I don't rely on a single source for my info. I appreciate that my take is not the position held by many of the oft-cited regulatory bodies and/or governments, for a variety of reasons. I understand my current position -- that human-based CO2 is NOT a significant factor in 'global warming' -- is not a popular take right now.
Yes, because it goes against basic science. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we release about
35 billion tons of the stuff every year. There's nothing else that can explain the warming observed. Maybe one day we will discover that it was some completely unknown natural driver all along, but as of right now we haven't found it. What we have found is that as atmospheric CO2 (and various other things in smaller quantities, like methane) goes up, so does temperature.
I also observe that the general midwit response is to simply scoff at this position with proclamations that only those fooled by the 'oil industry' can subscribe to such notions.
That's fine -- this is anticipated and expected.
I would like to point out the reason I keep saying that (and why I keep getting so exasperated) is that over the last twenty+ years I've seen pretty much every oil-funded denier talking point brought up and shot down repeatedly, and over the last couple of years you've been speed-running the whole thing. I don't doubt that you genuinely believe what you're saying, but I'm pretty sure you didn't just spontaneously arrive at your beliefs overnight, they were informed and shaped by information you encountered, and what I'm saying is a lot of that information is bullshit, originally cooked up by people funded by oil, then spread, mutated and assimilated by contrarians and skeptics all over the place until it took on a life of its own, which was the point all along. You can now find plenty of skepticism with no obvious oily fingerprints on it, but if you start tracing it backwards you almost always end up at the same handful of think tanks and large fossil fuel companies.
If nothing else you have to agree that it's in the oil industry's interest (as in trillions of dollars worth of interest) to delay the phasing out of fossil fuels for as long as possible?
Tl;dr: I think you severely underestimate the scope of the disinformation campaign they've engaged in for the last fifty years.
(It should also be noted that many of you that currently subscribe fully to the 'human-based CO2 is the PRIMARY driver of global warming' narratives are also largely the same persons that fully subscribed to much of the narratives Re: covid, and perhaps to some degree, continue to subscribe to portions of these lies/faulty 'science'. You were deeply fooled/misled, in other words. Consider that you are also being fooled/misled about the role of human-based CO2. I am willing to accept that my position may turn out to be wrong, at least in part. Are you willing or able to entertain the same? I anticipate not. Ardent believers are rarely capable of such things.)
I would absolutely love for my position to be wrong. There is literally nothing I want to be wrong about more than this, but all the evidence tells me otherwise, and I have yet to see any compelling argument or information to the contrary. At best you have pointed out the occasional individual piece of the puzzle where our information could be better, but the overall picture the puzzle creates stays the same, and it's not pretty. We're very obviously fucking up every other aspect of our world, with loss of bio-diversity, emptying the oceans, logging, toxins and chemicals left and right, so why is it so hard to consider we might be doing the same to our atmosphere?
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave