4 ms·

No thanks. https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-06272215121.pdf https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-0...

matsemann 3y ago
I like how this promotes on top that it's signed by "NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR IVAR GIAEVER", trying to give it some weight. He's head of Klimarealistene in Norway, aka "climate realists". And they have time and time again shown that they can't even comprehend the simplests of graphs. For instance they still use this graph on the left: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ERzEmzxWoAAedrS?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ERzEmzxWoAAedrS?format=jpg&name=... It shows the change of ice each year (aka the derivative of amount of ice). They however keep using it saying "the amount of ice is actually increasing since 2012". While of course anyone can see that each year the graph is below 0, the ice is melting. Shown in the graph on the right. So what the graph is showing is that the rate of ice melting is a bit down, it's still melting a lot each year... So he's either clueless, and not worth listening to. Or he's intentionally misleading, and therefore still not worth listening to. And looking at the list of other signatories from Norway, they are almost all connected to our petroleum industry. How unremarkable. While I'm normally not trying to go after a person (I'd rather go after their arguments), the whole list is meant as one big "appeal to authority" by showcasing some doctors and others signing. Then I think it's only fair pointing this out.
- throwxhxhx 3y ago
  I have a legitimate question here. Isn't 40 years quite literally nothing in terms of human life on Earth, let alone climate on Earth? Shouldn't we discussing a graph/timeline of at least 100k years? Is it because we don't have any data going back? Weren't there periods with much more variability, such as ice ages and the little ice age during the last millennium? Reminds me of people discussing astronomic events. It could be any day now. "Any day" being today or 10 million years from now.
  - yrro 3y ago
    Here's a timeline that goes back 20k years: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ There's no better explanation for the abrupt increase in temperatures since 1900 other than emissions from burning fossil fuels.
  - matsemann 3y ago
    I don't think your question is legitimate, given that your only other post here is conspiratory. And what do you suggest we do? Nothing, and hope for the best? I'd rather we try, based on our best knowledge so far.
    - throwxhxhx 3y ago
      It is legitimate. As far as the other post goes, there's nothing conspiratory about it. Politicians and bureaucrats use excuses or disingenuous arguments to lobby their ideas all the time. Maybe some of them geniunely believe it.
  - inkcapmushroom 3y ago
    I'll try. Here's two graphs which can illustrate the historical data. https://i0.wp.com/eos.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/figure-1-ipcc.png?resize=780%2C434&ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/eos.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/figure-... [1] This first one is still a short timescale geologically, but shows pretty clearly how fast the change in global temperature is. https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_620_original_image/public/graph-from-scott-wing-620px.png?itok=Jgi659bn https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_widt... [2] This second one puts that change in a geological context. The Earth has been hotter than it is now, but for example, during some of those previous time periods you had crocodile-like ancestors living in the Canadian arctic regions. [2] These graphs show why the 40 year timescale is relevant. On geological timescales that's not even a blink, but that's how fast the climate is changing right now. That's what makes it so scary, and why we need to act in an equally fast manner. [1] https://eos.org/articles/what-five-graphs-from-the-u-n-climate-report-reveal-about-our-path-to-halting-climate-change https://eos.org/articles/what-five-graphs-from-the-u-n-clima... [2] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte...
- isodev 3y ago
  I wouldn't even try to go deep into the logic of climate deniers. They are either bots or real humans paid a lot of money to spread misinformation for someone's benefit.
  - throwxhxhx 3y ago
    I'm not paid at all, and I found the wording extremely weird. What the hell does "climate denier" even mean? I'm not denying the concept of climate. When it comes to climate change, define the change. The climate has changed for millions of years and there were eras on Earth that were extremely more hostile to human life than now. There's something very "off" to this conversation.
  - artificialLimbs 3y ago
    If you know where I can get paid for posting this, please let me know.
throwxhxhx 3y ago
This is the only valid answer. Unfortunately, the EU will use the "think of the climate", "think of the children" and "think of the terrorists" excuses for everything.
- yrro 3y ago
  A web site with a suspicious lack of disclosure regarding who is funding their organization... I'll believe the scientific consensus in favour of a PDF from a sketchy organzation signed by people with job titles such as "Advisor in Innovation Processes", "Technical Director Eon NRG", "urologist", "Bachelor of Arts degree, Bachelor of Laws degree, retired", "Founder and Leader of the Institute for Private Enterprise", "Nuclear Physicist", "MSc Information Technology specialising in computer modelling, prediction, optimisation and advanced AI, Author of Trigger Warming, Everything You Wanted To Know About Global Warming But Were Afraid To Ask" and so on. Anyone can collect a list of thousands of unqualified cranks. For anyone else who is reading this, consider that: > Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change.[4][5] Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,[2] and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.[3] The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus often cannot be replicated or contain errors.[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climat...

matsemann 3y ago

I like how this promotes on top that it's signed by "NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR IVAR GIAEVER", trying to give it some weight. He's head of Klimarealistene in Norway, aka "climate realists". And they have time and time again shown that they can't even comprehend the simplests of graphs. For instance they still use this graph on the left: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ERzEmzxWoAAedrS?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ERzEmzxWoAAedrS?format=jpg&name=... It shows the change of ice each year (aka the derivative of amount of ice). They however keep using it saying "the amount of ice is actually increasing since 2012". While of course anyone can see that each year the graph is below 0, the ice is melting. Shown in the graph on the right. So what the graph is showing is that the rate of ice melting is a bit down, it's still melting a lot each year... So he's either clueless, and not worth listening to. Or he's intentionally misleading, and therefore still not worth listening to. And looking at the list of other signatories from Norway, they are almost all connected to our petroleum industry. How unremarkable. While I'm normally not trying to go after a person (I'd rather go after their arguments), the whole list is meant as one big "appeal to authority" by showcasing some doctors and others signing. Then I think it's only fair pointing this out.

throwxhxhx 3y ago
I have a legitimate question here. Isn't 40 years quite literally nothing in terms of human life on Earth, let alone climate on Earth? Shouldn't we discussing a graph/timeline of at least 100k years? Is it because we don't have any data going back? Weren't there periods with much more variability, such as ice ages and the little ice age during the last millennium? Reminds me of people discussing astronomic events. It could be any day now. "Any day" being today or 10 million years from now.
- yrro 3y ago
  Here's a timeline that goes back 20k years: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ There's no better explanation for the abrupt increase in temperatures since 1900 other than emissions from burning fossil fuels.
- matsemann 3y ago
  I don't think your question is legitimate, given that your only other post here is conspiratory. And what do you suggest we do? Nothing, and hope for the best? I'd rather we try, based on our best knowledge so far.
  - throwxhxhx 3y ago
    It is legitimate. As far as the other post goes, there's nothing conspiratory about it. Politicians and bureaucrats use excuses or disingenuous arguments to lobby their ideas all the time. Maybe some of them geniunely believe it.
- inkcapmushroom 3y ago
  I'll try. Here's two graphs which can illustrate the historical data. https://i0.wp.com/eos.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/figure-1-ipcc.png?resize=780%2C434&ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/eos.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/figure-... [1] This first one is still a short timescale geologically, but shows pretty clearly how fast the change in global temperature is. https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_620_original_image/public/graph-from-scott-wing-620px.png?itok=Jgi659bn https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_widt... [2] This second one puts that change in a geological context. The Earth has been hotter than it is now, but for example, during some of those previous time periods you had crocodile-like ancestors living in the Canadian arctic regions. [2] These graphs show why the 40 year timescale is relevant. On geological timescales that's not even a blink, but that's how fast the climate is changing right now. That's what makes it so scary, and why we need to act in an equally fast manner. [1] https://eos.org/articles/what-five-graphs-from-the-u-n-climate-report-reveal-about-our-path-to-halting-climate-change https://eos.org/articles/what-five-graphs-from-the-u-n-clima... [2] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte...
isodev 3y ago
I wouldn't even try to go deep into the logic of climate deniers. They are either bots or real humans paid a lot of money to spread misinformation for someone's benefit.
- throwxhxhx 3y ago
  I'm not paid at all, and I found the wording extremely weird. What the hell does "climate denier" even mean? I'm not denying the concept of climate. When it comes to climate change, define the change. The climate has changed for millions of years and there were eras on Earth that were extremely more hostile to human life than now. There's something very "off" to this conversation.
- artificialLimbs 3y ago
  If you know where I can get paid for posting this, please let me know.

throwxhxhx 3y ago

This is the only valid answer. Unfortunately, the EU will use the "think of the climate", "think of the children" and "think of the terrorists" excuses for everything.

yrro 3y ago
A web site with a suspicious lack of disclosure regarding who is funding their organization... I'll believe the scientific consensus in favour of a PDF from a sketchy organzation signed by people with job titles such as "Advisor in Innovation Processes", "Technical Director Eon NRG", "urologist", "Bachelor of Arts degree, Bachelor of Laws degree, retired", "Founder and Leader of the Institute for Private Enterprise", "Nuclear Physicist", "MSc Information Technology specialising in computer modelling, prediction, optimisation and advanced AI, Author of Trigger Warming, Everything You Wanted To Know About Global Warming But Were Afraid To Ask" and so on. Anyone can collect a list of thousands of unqualified cranks. For anyone else who is reading this, consider that: > Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change.[4][5] Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,[2] and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.[3] The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus often cannot be replicated or contain errors.[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climat...