Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by johneeG »

ClimateGate:
Image
Mike’s Nature trick

by Jean S on November 20th, 2009

So far one of the most circulated e-mails from the CRU hack is the following from Phil Jones to the original hockey stick authors – Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes.
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
The e-mail is about WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 1999 -report, or more specifically, about its cover image.

Image

Back in December 2004 John Finn asked about “the divergence” in Myth vs. Fact Regarding the “Hockey Stick” -thread of RealClimate.org.
Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record – as I believe was done in the case of the ‘hockey stick’ – is dubious to say the least.
mike’s response speaks for itself.
No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.
But there is an interesting twist here: grafting the thermometer onto a reconstruction is not actually the original “Mike’s Nature trick”! Mann did not fully graft the thermometer on a reconstruction, but he stopped the smoothed series in their end years. The trick is more sophisticated, and was uncovered by UC over here. (Note: Try not to click this link now, CA is overloaded. Can’t even get to it myself to mirror it. -A)

When smoothing these time series, the Team had a problem: actual reconstructions “diverge” from the instrumental series in the last part of 20th century. For instance, in the original hockey stick (ending 1980) the last 30-40 years of data points slightly downwards. In order to smooth those time series one needs to “pad” the series beyond the end time, and no matter what method one uses, this leads to a smoothed graph pointing downwards in the end whereas the smoothed instrumental series is pointing upwards — a divergence. So Mann’s solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the smoothed series to point upwards as clearly seen in UC’s figure (violet original, green without “Mike’s Nature trick”).
Image

TGIF-magazine has already asked Jones about the e-mail, and he denied misleading anyone but did remember grafting.
“No, that’s completely wrong. In the sense that they’re talking about two different things here. They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered – but they’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.”
Jones told TGIF he had no idea what me meant by using the words “hide the decline”.
“That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?”
Maybe it helps Dr. Jones’s recollection of the exact context, if he inspects UC’s figure carefully. We here at CA are more than pleased to be able to help such nice persons in these matters.
Link
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by johneeG »

Glenn Beck ClimateGate 2 the global warming hoax

Link
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8261
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Climate Change: Propoganda VS Reality.

Post by disha »

JohneeG, can you please get off your Viking donkey? Viking growing barley for a single season (or two) at 70th parallel does not mean that the entire ocean/global warming data is thrown out.

You are very smart and all the data scientists, the scientists, climatologists and researchers are just a bunch of idiots.

Fact is, the viking data is just useless.

If you think it is useful, please engage on a Q & A basis.
Last edited by disha on 21 Nov 2015 05:33, edited 1 time in total.
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8261
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by disha »

Glenn beck is RACIST also believes in the intelligent design and rejects evolution completely.

Quoting Glenn beck makes a mockery of a serious issue.

Read this up https://web.archive.org/web/20090907211 ... 0909040030
Last edited by disha on 21 Nov 2015 05:32, edited 1 time in total.
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8261
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by disha »

johneeG wrote:Glenn Beck ClimateGate 2 the global warming hoax
#AakThoo for posting Glenn Beck.

We now have to believe that the idiot Glenn Beck is an authority on earth sciences. BTW Glenn Beck also believes the following:

1. Intelligent Design and No evolution
2. Glenn Beck is RACIST
3. Believes that FEMA is building detention camps
...

JohneeG, please do not post CTs and Garbage here.

Mods: Request to lock this thread up and throw it in garbage where it belongs. All sort of pseudo science is spouted here.
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by johneeG »

Disha,
you are reacting like blasphemy committed against your faith. Thats the problem with faiths not based on facts.

Anyway, calmly read the following points:
- This discussion or debate is not about Glenn Beck or Disha or JohneeG. Whether they are intelligent or idiots is irrelevant. If I post NDTV report on 2G scam, it does not mean that I agree with Barkha Dutt on all issues. It just means that I found a report summarizing the whole issue and I posted it. I could have posted other videos but I thought this video summarized all the points, so I posted this one. I don't know about Glenn Beck and I don't care. I generally don't have high opinion on any media, corporate or govt owned.
- ClimateGate exposed the so-called climatalogists and their working. How they were trying to 'trick' people 'to hide the decline'. Thats straight from horse's mouth. The actual temperature data shows that the temperature has not been raising from 1998. And temperature fell from 1940 to 1975. The climate gate is done to hide the decline of temperature. Don't believe me or anyone else on this. Go and do your own finding out about climategate and what the emails contain. If thats still not enough proof, then nothing can convince you because you don't want to be convinced.
- Vikings and their settlements are well-documented and well-known. Greenland is called Greenland for a reason. Today, it is covered in ice. That means the temperature in Viking age was hotter than today. And it has nothing to do with industries. Yet, you are thrashing about like Bible thumper when lack of evidence of Jesus existence is pointed out.
- Carbon Di Oxide is good for forestation. It is a very minor green house gas. So, increasing it will have not much impact on temperatures.
- Increase in global temperatures is not a bad thing.
- This scam is going to benefit the oil companies and hurt the coal companies. India has cheap coal.
- This whole scam is just to tax the developing countries like India and China. And make their development more costly.
panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3781
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by panduranghari »

disha wrote:
JohneeG, please do not post CTs and Garbage here.
.
Prove that it is CT and Garbage. Then perhaps the mods will accede to your request.
Saral
BRFite
Posts: 1663
Joined: 16 Jan 2005 14:05

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by Saral »

If I recall correctly, there was a lot more climate alarmism some years ago (used to be called global warming). These days its not even newsworthy any more except for token news reports whenever there are floods, hurricanes, droughts etc. No doubt deforestation and pollution (land and sea) are serious issues but getting into a tizzy over 400 ppm co2 is something that is deeply puzzling (In geologic eras co2 has been as high as 8000 ppm which is unhealthy? and 60000 ppm will create human extinction says google). IMHO, the catastrophic risk of nuclear winter (apparently it takes far fewer nukes than believed earlier) is far greater than what 400 or 450 ppm co2 can do. Where is the evidence that sea levels and global temps are rising precipitiously? One can admit there are good reasons to switch to renewables in the long term but why cast c02 as some poison that needs to be avoided in the short term? Human beings, well before industrialization, had changed the earth surface in major ways. No going back to some pristine state. Maybe in a 100 years there will be a lot less cattle and less land used for agriculture, cleaner rivers and seas. Not sure how focusing on co2 levels is that relevant in that time frame.

A lot of sense on Islam and, later, GW here: http://www.infowars.com/lord-monckton-t ... onference/
panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3781
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by panduranghari »

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.
Paris climate talks: Through the smog, coal-hungry India sees ‘carbon imperialism’ in the West
Either way, Mr Kerry’s "challenge" comment was received with fury in New Delhi. Officials here are quick to point out that it still burns less coal than the US or China - and besides, the West has been profiting from pumping out carbon for decades.

“Kerry’s comment is unwarranted and unfair. The attitude of some of the developed countries is the challenge for the Paris conclusion,” said Prakash Javadekar, India’s environment minister. India is "not in the habit of taking any pressure from anybody", he added.

“This smacks of a ‘carbon imperialism’,” wrote Arvind Subramanian, the Indian government’s chief economic advisor. “And such imperialism on the part of advanced nations could spell disaster for India and other developing countries.”
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8261
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by disha »

panduranghari wrote:The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.
Data point of 3 is used to argue against data point of thousands over several years.

Who or what is "Homewood". We do not know. A swathe of other S. American weather stations around the original three - great - how big a swathe? The actual weather stations? Missing.

Basically another FUD.
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8261
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by disha »

panduranghari wrote:
Prove that it is CT and Garbage. Then perhaps the mods will accede to your request.
Glenn Beck is pure and unadulterated Garbage. He is foremost a RACIST. If you want to be a fanboy of Glenn Beck since you believe in CT., it is your choice.

As for proofs., I already gave an URL which you might want to follow through.
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8261
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by disha »

Saral wrote:If I recall correctly, there was a lot more climate alarmism some years ago (used to be called global warming).
Just because there is a debate on what the beast should be called (climate change? Global warming? Ocean warming?) does not mean that the beast is unreal.
but getting into a tizzy over 400 ppm co2 is something that is deeply puzzling (In geologic eras co2 has been as high as 8000 ppm which is unhealthy? and 60000 ppm will create human extinction says google).
During that geologic era., humans did not exist and neither human civilization and the continents were shaped differently and the weather patterns were different.

Point is, we can go back to that era - will we be able to go back to that era with the human civilization intact? That is the core issue wrought on by climate change., which is in very much a human created catastrophe and in our control.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by RoyG »

Climate change is def happening. As far as Greenland example, I think global temperatures were balanced. It got warmer in some places but colder in others. There was no overall temperature increase. Now the overall temp of the Earth is getting warmer even with pockets of cold. Regardless of whether it is man made or not, there is pressure for concessions which will hurt our growth. If the West wants to be fair, they should do more to reduce emissions on their end. Our per capita emissions is already so low. There is no way we can go lower without jeopardizing this very critical period requiring industrialization.

The West has the capital, technology, land, manufacturing base, right population size, etc. to pull it off. I wish them the best. If it makes the air cleaner and reduces overall demand for fossil fuels I'm all for it.
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by johneeG »

RoyG wrote:Climate change is def happening. As far as Greenland example, I think global temperatures were balanced. It got warmer in some places but colder in others. There was no overall temperature increase. Now the overall temp of the Earth is getting warmer even with pockets of cold. Regardless of whether it is man made or not, there is pressure for concessions which will hurt our growth. If the West wants to be fair, they should do more to reduce emissions on their end. Our per capita emissions is already so low. There is no way we can go lower without jeopardizing this very critical period requiring industrialization.

The West has the capital, technology, land, manufacturing base, right population size, etc. to pull it off. I wish them the best. If it makes the air cleaner and reduces overall demand for fossil fuels I'm all for it.
Saar,
- its not clear whether the temperatures are increasing or decreasing or stable because there seems to be fudging with the basic numbers itself and accusations from all camps. And the 'climate-gate' emails talk about 'hiding a decline'.
- man-made climate change theory is just non-sense because of the much warmer Viking age. Viking age has been a big stumbling block for this whole global warming theory. The same was being discussed on climate-gate emails also.
- The focus is only on 'carbon-emissions'. They are not even focusing on all industrial emissions. No, just carbon Di Oxide which is actually quite a clean emission because plants use it. The focus on carbon will throttle the coal which is the major competitor of oil. And carbon Di Oxide is not a major greenhouse gas at all. Its effect on temperatures is negligible.
- If there is global warming, it is not a bad thing at all. Temperate temperatures support life more.
member_27991
BRFite
Posts: 181
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by member_27991 »

johneeG wrote:Disha,
you are reacting like blasphemy committed against your faith. Thats the problem with faiths not based on facts.

Anyway, calmly read the following points:
- This discussion or debate is not about Glenn Beck or Disha or JohneeG. Whether they are intelligent or idiots is irrelevant. If I post NDTV report on 2G scam, it does not mean that I agree with Barkha Dutt on all issues. It just means that I found a report summarizing the whole issue and I posted it. I could have posted other videos but I thought this video summarized all the points, so I posted this one. I don't know about Glenn Beck and I don't care. I generally don't have high opinion on any media, corporate or govt owned.
- ClimateGate exposed the so-called climatalogists and their working. How they were trying to 'trick' people 'to hide the decline'. Thats straight from horse's mouth. The actual temperature data shows that the temperature has not been raising from 1998. And temperature fell from 1940 to 1975. The climate gate is done to hide the decline of temperature. Don't believe me or anyone else on this. Go and do your own finding out about climategate and what the emails contain. If thats still not enough proof, then nothing can convince you because you don't want to be convinced.
- Vikings and their settlements are well-documented and well-known. Greenland is called Greenland for a reason. Today, it is covered in ice. That means the temperature in Viking age was hotter than today. And it has nothing to do with industries. Yet, you are thrashing about like Bible thumper when lack of evidence of Jesus existence is pointed out.
- Carbon Di Oxide is good for forestation. It is a very minor green house gas. So, increasing it will have not much impact on temperatures.
- Increase in global temperatures is not a bad thing.
- This scam is going to benefit the oil companies and hurt the coal companies. India has cheap coal.
- This whole scam is just to tax the developing countries like India and China. And make their development more costly.
^^ 0.01 $ % agree on that one. Not every aspect of climate change may be a hoax but Global warming is definitely one. Its now become a tool for the capitalists to control the developing economies and their growth. The problem looks to be made to appear much bigger than what it actually is. Anyways one of the primary greenhouse effect gasses is the methane released by all organic matter from bacteria to Gobar. US, France et al. imposing emission sanctions on BRICS is like case of Sau chuhe maarke billi chali hajj ko. [The cat is going on Hajj pilgrimage after killing a hundred mice]
member_27991
BRFite
Posts: 181
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by member_27991 »

Its ironical how the push for reducing CO2 emissions is much bigger than the push for alternate fuel sources to replace petroleum. Something fishy in that definitely. The basic construction of the IC engine has not changed in the last hundred years from the Ford T to the Bugatti Veyron, makes me wonder where all the research is going. Electric cars are still a distant dream for the masses as not much has been researched in to the electric cell as it should have been in the last century. No change in petroleum driven technology + Less development in alternate drive techs - looks like an Oil mafia controlled outcome
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10395
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by Yagnasri »

If anyone says that the entire idea of Climate Change created and propogated purely on scientific evidence then we are all being naive. The biggest icons of this movement themselves appears to be cheats. The net result is the discrediting of the very idea.

Whether we agree or not, the present level of material consumption can not be sustained for long. All kinds of pollution is also a serious problem. Nations like India will be better served by adopting a more sustainable development model. We are doing a lot in this direction. Many fold improvement in public transport is urgently needed by which the need for privaste transport is large made unnecessary. We are already doing a lot in solor power area.

Adoption a sustainable model as a policy is acceptable to all in the world including India. But not the target based approach of gora nations.
mohanty
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 02 Jan 2006 23:26

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by mohanty »

Excellent discussion fellas. Nice to get back to the forum after so many years. Hope everyone is doing fine.

I agree with those saying man made climate change is fraud. It is a giant hoax. Climate has always changed even when humans were not around. Mr. Obama jets around the world spewing plenty CO2 but when he goes to Africa he is scared what will happen to the "planet" when all Africans aspire for air-conditioning.

The global carbon tax plan must be resisted.

Any kind of low level universal tax always affects the poor the most. Rich don't care if petrol is at Rs 30 or Rs120. But the peon or the school teacher do care.

Modi govt. isn't going all in on restricting progress yet as they still plan to raise coal output and understand it will be out main power source but he is still becoming the poster child of the "climate brigade". So one has to watch out what happens next.

There are plenty of scientists saying this is a fraud but this has been hyped so much that any dissenting voice is disregarded by paid media channels as lunatic voices.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by RoyG »

johneeG wrote:
RoyG wrote:Climate change is def happening. As far as Greenland example, I think global temperatures were balanced. It got warmer in some places but colder in others. There was no overall temperature increase. Now the overall temp of the Earth is getting warmer even with pockets of cold. Regardless of whether it is man made or not, there is pressure for concessions which will hurt our growth. If the West wants to be fair, they should do more to reduce emissions on their end. Our per capita emissions is already so low. There is no way we can go lower without jeopardizing this very critical period requiring industrialization.

The West has the capital, technology, land, manufacturing base, right population size, etc. to pull it off. I wish them the best. If it makes the air cleaner and reduces overall demand for fossil fuels I'm all for it.
Saar,
- its not clear whether the temperatures are increasing or decreasing or stable because there seems to be fudging with the basic numbers itself and accusations from all camps. And the 'climate-gate' emails talk about 'hiding a decline'.
- man-made climate change theory is just non-sense because of the much warmer Viking age. Viking age has been a big stumbling block for this whole global warming theory. The same was being discussed on climate-gate emails also.
- The focus is only on 'carbon-emissions'. They are not even focusing on all industrial emissions. No, just carbon Di Oxide which is actually quite a clean emission because plants use it. The focus on carbon will throttle the coal which is the major competitor of oil. And carbon Di Oxide is not a major greenhouse gas at all. Its effect on temperatures is negligible.
- If there is global warming, it is not a bad thing at all. Temperate temperatures support life more.
Found this link:

Reinforces what I've said earlier. The warming was balanced by cooler weather. The globe on a whole wasn't warming. It is warming now however. Whether this is man made or not won't make any difference to our energy policy. We have to industrialize and any cuts made will have to come primarily from the West.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenl ... -green.htm
Raghz
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 12 Aug 2002 11:31

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by Raghz »

I was helping my daughter with her Science lesson "Matter". There is a section in which they teach the basic science principle "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed". The lesson asks, if you burn a pile of paper, what will happen? The weight of ash is less than that of paper. Does all the energy gets destroyed? It goes on to answer that if we burn the paper in a controlled environment, and are able to collect all the gases, the weight of them would be equal to the original weight of the paper + oxygen consumed.

I am no scientist, but this was a light bulb moment for me. Every single day, we are burning up so much of fuel (various kinds). If Energy cannot be destroyed and is being converted to heat energy, where is it going? Is it escaping earth's atmosphere? If not, is it not increasing the temperature?

Like I said, I do not understand all the technical jargon, but historically and logically it seems to me that we humans are experts in screwing up the fine balance maintained by nature. I am certain that all measures taken to reduce our consumption is futile. We are driven by our Ego to consume more.

Working from my cozy environment in Bangalore, I shudder to think what my life would be if I were an average farmer. All the knowledge of monsoon cycles, crop cycles, etc, are useless in the face of unpredictable weather. Being a farmer itself is a high risk occupation on top of it we have vagaries of weather.

I have no clue what is going to happen in the future. However, I teach my privileged kids, two things. Consume less and brace for hardships. It could be food scarcity, water scarcity, pollution or anything. Just trying to prepare them mentally.
panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3781
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by panduranghari »

>>>>Adoption a sustainable model as a policy is acceptable to all in the world including India.

What exactly is a sustainable model? Isn't being vegetarian ahimsa vaadi being sustainable? If that is not, then what is? And if it is, why is the west not learning from us?

The reason why Paris will fail, is the same reason why Jo'burg, Kyoto and Doha failed. They failed to listen to India.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by TSJones »

Raghz wrote:I was helping my daughter with her Science lesson "Matter". There is a section in which they teach the basic science principle "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed". The lesson asks, if you burn a pile of paper, what will happen? The weight of ash is less than that of paper. Does all the energy gets destroyed? It goes on to answer that if we burn the paper in a controlled environment, and are able to collect all the gases, the weight of them would be equal to the original weight of the paper + oxygen consumed.

I am no scientist, but this was a light bulb moment for me. Every single day, we are burning up so much of fuel (various kinds). If Energy cannot be destroyed and is being converted to heat energy, where is it going? Is it escaping earth's atmosphere? If not, is it not increasing the temperature?

Like I said, I do not understand all the technical jargon, but historically and logically it seems to me that we humans are experts in screwing up the fine balance maintained by nature. I am certain that all measures taken to reduce our consumption is futile. We are driven by our Ego to consume more.

Working from my cozy environment in Bangalore, I shudder to think what my life would be if I were an average farmer. All the knowledge of monsoon cycles, crop cycles, etc, are useless in the face of unpredictable weather. Being a farmer itself is a high risk occupation on top of it we have vagaries of weather.

I have no clue what is going to happen in the future. However, I teach my privileged kids, two things. Consume less and brace for hardships. It could be food scarcity, water scarcity, pollution or anything. Just trying to prepare them mentally.
Hi Raghz, thanks to you for a very nice comment.

The problem is not necessarily the energy being released. it is the constituent gasses.

The earth receives vast quantities of energy from the sun. More energy than our power is to create it, that is for sure.

The earth receives enormous sums of energy through plate tectonics both gradual and sudden.

There is a radioactive core that keeps the plates moving and over time flipping the earth's magnetic field.

Also vast amounts of wind atmospheric energy are created by temperature variation pumping of the atmosphere.

Where does all of this energy go?

Green plant production for one and oceanic plant and animal matter for another.

But a huge amount is reflected back out into space.

So far it has served life well on this planet.

But the carbon cycle may not be very stable over time and we are not sure as to what effect we are going to receive by our releasing mass volumes of gases. Can the plants re-absorb it? We are just not sure.

One thing is for sure is that the skies have darkened over the last 120 years. Tests by the USDA (water evaporation timing) have globally documented it. We're not sure what effect that will have either.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12113
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by A_Gupta »

NYTimes Editorial: What Narendra Modi can do in Paris
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/opini ... paris.html
What Modi said in Paris (full text):
http://www.firstpost.com/world/full-tex ... 27862.html

What the NYT Editorial board heard Modi say:
Speaking in Paris on Monday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi blamed “the prosperity and progress of an industrial age powered by fossil fuel” for the climate change crisis, and noted that “we in India face its consequences today.”
What Modi said:
Over the next few days, we will decide the fate of this planet. We do so when the consequences of the industrial age powered by fossil fuel are evident, especially on the lives of the poor.

The prosperous still have a strong carbon footprint. And, the world's billions at the bottom of the development ladder are seeking space to grow.
a. What else other than the industrial age powered by fossil fuel is responsible for the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

b. India doesn't have a billion poor; Modi here is talking about all the world's poor, not just "we in India".

What the NYT Editorial board heard:
In framing the Paris climate talks in terms of historical responsibility, India could be setting itself up for playing the role of the spoiler for a climate change agreement that, for all its shortcomings, does something important: acknowledge a collective responsibility among nations to avert a global catastrophe.
What Modi said (some emphasis added):
Democratic India must grow rapidly to meet the aspirations of 1.25 billion people, 300 million of whom are without access to energy.

We are determined to do so, guided by our ancient belief that people and planet are inseparable; that human well being and Nature are indivisible.

So, we have set ambitious targets. By 2030, we will reduce emissions by 33 to 35% per cent of 2005 levels, and 40 per cent of our installed capacity will be from our non- fossil fuels.

We will achieve it by expanding renewable energy - for, example, by adding 175 Gigawatts of renewable generation by 2022. We will enlarge our forest cover to absorb at least 2.5 billion tonnes worth of carbon dioxide.

We are reducing dependence on fossil fuel through levies and reduction in subsidies; switching sources of fuel where possible; and, transforming cities and public transportation.

We hope advanced nations will assume ambitious targets and pursue them sincerely. It is not just a question of historical responsibility. They also have the most room to make the cuts and make the strongest impact.
I.e., India accepts collective responsibility - human well-being is inseparable from Nature, and Nature does not respect national boundaries. India will try to alleviate the impact of its growth necessary to remove poverty with cleaner technology. But just as robbers target banks because that is where the money is, carbon footprint cuts should go after where the largest carbon dioxide emissions are. It is not just a question of historical responsibility, it is where one can make the quickest strong impact.
Last edited by A_Gupta on 02 Dec 2015 23:27, edited 1 time in total.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by RoyG »

A_Guptaji,

I have my doubts. Sounds like sweet nothings to me. Modi's #1 priority is industrialization and for that you need a high level of base load power which is relatively inexpensive and can be utilized quickly. I just don't see renewable energy or nuclear really making its way to 40% of the mix until maybe 2050 unless there is some big advances in the field.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12113
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by A_Gupta »

^^^
Solar power is already cost-competitive with coal power; and yes, advances are in the works. The energy-intensity of industrialization has also been falling.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by RoyG »

Unless graphene and other materials begin replacing the rare earths in solar panels large scale implementation is impossible.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32387
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by chetak »

Chitra Subramaniam ‏@chitraSD 2h2 hours ago
Chitra Subramaniam Retweeted Abhijit Majumder
He did likewise in #Copenhagen. He was our minister then. @franklinapfel Chitra Subramaniam added,


Abhijit Majumder @abhijitmajumder
Seriously, Jairam seems to be doing the bidding against India, undermining our position at #COP21 https://twitter.com/amishra77/status/672060663796072448
123 retweets 46 likes




Akhilesh Mishra
‏@amishra77
Point to note about this NYT piece is the insidious way Jairam Ramesh has played domestic politics: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/world ... share&_r=0 … || 1/5 #COP21

RETWEETS 119 Likes 36
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8261
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by disha »

Excellent!?

This is thread is just a khichdi of science, belief and politics. And the victim here is science.
mohanty
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 02 Jan 2006 23:26

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by mohanty »

The khichdi perfectly reflects how the propaganda is being shoved down by the masters of the universe.

I suggest to cool the planet, all the Govt officials, ministers/MPS/MLAs and all Govt. employees be mandated to use only bicycles and travel in economy/second class for next 5 years to set an example for private citizens.

Same goes for the international NGOs, UN etc and such that crying for global warming.
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by Bade »

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by johneeG »

The beauty of a vague word like 'climate change' is that everything and anything can be spun as a sign of climate change. Hot, cold, flood, famine, ..etc can all be seen as signs of imminent great climate change. And of course, the solution is to pay more taxes. :rotfl:
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by Bade »

Well one can order another cloud burst or many more wherever you live to convince you perhaps of climate change. :rotfl:
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by Bade »

But serious students of climate change do not bother with arguments by wordsmiths. They look at data, and not just one set but several to see any convergence....There is no evangelism here to whine about...you can make your own decisions based on studies if you cannot do that yourself.

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by johneeG »

Bade wrote:Well one can order another cloud burst or many more wherever you live to convince you perhaps of climate change. :rotfl:
You mean to say that cloud bursts happen because of global warming only. I am actually convinced that climate changes all the time. I am not convinced of human actions have any major impact. Ok, I am even willing to concede on that point. For example, occupying natural river beds or lake beds will cause more severe flooding. De-forestation leads to soil erosion. Air pollution can cause severe smog and related issues. I am not convinced that carbon di oxide can have major impact on climate. And I am not convinced that carbon di oxide is a 'pollutant'.

Oh, btw, climate-gate row was all about allegations that data is being hidden or distorted to give misleading picture.
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by Bade »

You should perhaps talk to Chemical Oceanographers if you are serious to learn something. There are many in India. Please talk to people in NIO, Goa or even NPOL, Kochi to begin with...unless you want to call them all frauds too.

One is free to believe in anything, but that is the propaganda part, reality is where data is needed. Which side you want to bet on is again your choice. If I see interesting pointers/articles on the reality side of debate, will post here if deemed right, but I am not here to educate you or other non-believers.
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by Bade »

Coral Reef bleaching can be another proxy for climate change...very independent measurement if any to many such things. One can begin here for data on CO2's effects and signals for them and where to look.

http://coralreef.noaa.gov/threats/climate/
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by johneeG »

Bade wrote:You should perhaps talk to Chemical Oceanographers if you are serious to learn something. There are many in India. Please talk to people in NIO, Goa or even NPOL, Kochi to begin with...unless you want to call them all frauds too.

One is free to believe in anything, but that is the propaganda part, reality is where data is needed. Which side you want to bet on is again your choice. If I see interesting pointers/articles on the reality side of debate, will post here if deemed right, but I am not here to educate you or other non-believers.
Are you implying that chemical oceanographers have the data to prove that global warming is being caused by human carbon emissions? Then, please post the relevant data to substantiate that. Otherwise, don't expect people to share your faith just because of some fancy labels.

the points you would have to prove by relevant data are:
a) there is a trend of sustained global warming
b) this global warming is mainly caused by carbon di oxide
c) this carbon di oxide is mainly due to human actions
d) this can be reversed by carbon tax

Oh, I almost forgot the most important point: you will also have to prove that global warming is a bad thing assuming it happens. People in cold regions, would welcome a warm climate.

----
Ok, heres the thing: lets assume that everything said by global warming theorists is right. Fine. Then, why not ban the air-flights if climate change is really as serious as they are saying. Aeroplanes consume huge amount of oil and produce lot of CO2.
Issue Briefing: Impacts of Airplane Pollution on Climate Change and Health

Viewed from the ground, airplanes appear clean and efficient. They fly at fantastic speeds with no apparent effort, leaving behind only thin streams of puffy white clouds.

In reality, airplanes accomplish the miraculous feat of hurling hundreds of thousands of pounds of people, baggage, and aluminum thousands of miles at high speeds by consuming huge amounts of fossil fuels. In the process, airlines dump massive amounts of dangerous pollutants over our homes and into our atmosphere every day. This great but largely invisible harm will continue to grow at an accelerating rate in the years to come.

Airplanes have three major problems: they are inefficient, they are big, and they run on toxic fuels. A fully laden A380, according to its’ engine maker Rolls Royce, uses as much energy as 3,500 family cars, equivalent to six cars for each passenger. 1 Long haul flights produce on average twice as much emissions per mile traveled per passenger than cars and short haul flights produce three times as much.

Unlike cars, however, people do not use airplanes for a few minutes each day to travel just around the corner for groceries or into the office. People fly hundreds or thousands of miles on each flight and airplanes spend many hours each day aloft. A single round trip flight from New York to Europe or San Francisco produces two to three tons of carbon dioxide per person. 2 To put this in perspective, the average American generates 19 tons of carbon dioxide and the average European produces ten over an entire year. A few flights, in other words, can completely overwhelm any attempts to reduce your personal contribution to global warming.

Airplanes achieve such extraordinary levels of energy consumption and carbon emissions by burning large quantities of toxic jet fuel. This fuel produces, in addition to carbon dioxide, NOx, sulphates, and particulate matter, all of which amplify the impact of aviation on global warming. Airplanes emit all of these pollutants directly into the atmosphere, compounding the pollutants’ warming impact. Even those innocuous-looking contrails trap heat on the Earth’s surface. The combined effect of all of these pollutants multiplies the global warming impact of aviation, making aviation currently responsible for an estimated 5% of global climate pollution.

The burning of incredible quantities of toxic fuel has impacts that extend beyond the climate. As soon as airplanes leave the gate, they begin to produce phenomenal amounts of nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and cancer-causing toxics such as benzene and formaldehyde. 3 This pollution travels miles downwind, contributing to asthma, lung and heart disease, and a large number of cancers.

The emissions from taxiing and take-off of aircraft help make airports some of the largest sources of these pollutants and major public health hazards. For example, Los Angeles Airport is the largest source of NOx, a key cause of the region’s copious smog, in California and the third largest source of carbon monoxide. 4 Logan Airport in Boston, MA produces twice as much benzene as the next largest source in Massachusetts. 5 Scientists have found that even small increases in taxi time at airports in Southern California contribute to significant increases in asthma, respiratory ailments, and heart disease in surrounding communities. 6 Scientists also believe that particulate matter emissions from airplanes, along with ships and trains, contribute to 1,800 early deaths per year in the United Kingdom alone. 7 These health impacts also translate into large economic costs for society.

All of these climate, health, and economic impacts will escalate enormously in the future as more and more people around the world fly. Analysts expect the global aviation industry to grow by 5% per year for the next two decades. 8 At this rate, the size of the industry will double in 15 years and triple in 23. Scientists expect aviation carbon dioxide emissions to double by 2030, bringing with them more toxic pollution. 9 Airplanes have become more efficient and less polluting over time. But these small gains have and will continue to be overwhelmed by the gross inefficiency of the activity and the rapid growth of the industry.

Despite their shiny chrome exterior, an airplane, just like a power plant or an oil refinery, is dirty. Worse still, it is an industry on the move, growing in size and pollution in leaps and bounds. The governments of the world have the opportunity to dramatically cut airplane pollution, and help the climate. But until United Airlines and other airlines clean up their operations and support common sense, low-cost emissions reduction policies, aviation pollution will just keep growing, hurting local communities and the global climate.

1 Economist. “Aircraft Emissions. The Sky’s the Limit.” June 8, 2006.

2 Elizabeth Rosenthal. “Your Biggest Carbon Sin May Be Air Travel.” New York Times. January 26, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/sunda ... nthal&_r=0

3 Center for Clean Air Policy and Northeastern States for Coordinated Air Use Management. “Controlling Airport-Related Air Pollution.” June 2003. http://www.areco.org/NESCAUM%20report%206.03.pdf

4 Wolfram Schlenker and W. Redd Walter. “Airports, Air Pollution, and Conptemporaneous Health.” National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 17684. 2011. http://www.nber.org/papers/w17684

5 Center for Clean Air Policy and Northeastern States for Coordinated Air Use Management. “Controlling Airport-Related Air Pollution.” June 2003. http://www.areco.org/NESCAUM%20report%206.03.pdf

6 Wolfram Schlenker and W. Redd Walter. “Airports, Air Pollution, and Conptemporaneous Health.” National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 17684. 2011. http://www.nber.org/papers/w17684

7 Steve Yim and Steven Barrett. “Public health Impacts of Combustion Emissions in the United Kingdom.” Environmental Science and Technology. 2012. 46.8. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es2040416

8 Boeing. “Current Market Outlook 2012-2031”. 2012. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo/pd ... k_2012.pdf

9 Nicholas Lutsey, Prioritizing Climate Change Mitigation Alternatives: Comparing Transportation Technologies to Options in Other Sectors (UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies, June 2008), 81; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Working Group III: Mitigation, 2001, http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/. Artur Runge-Metzger, “Aviation and Emissions Trading: ICAO Council Briefing,” September 29, 2010, available at http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/tran ... cao_en.pdf. Percent change relative to a 2006 baseline.
Link

Ban or tax aeroplanes until they use alternative clean energy if the govts are really serious about global warming thing. Will any govt do it? No. They would much rather go after cheap coal. Que bono?

If someone goes around jetting the world in their private planes to talk about global warming, then its hypocrisy at best and scam at worst.
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by Bade »

I do not have to prove anything to you. I am calling out your efforts as propaganda. :-) Show me your data to prove there is no global warming or climate change.
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by johneeG »

Bade wrote:I do not have to prove anything to you. I am calling out your efforts as propaganda. :-) Show me your data to prove there is no global warming or climate change.
You mean you can't prove anything! Why am I not surprised... :lol:

Ok, here is some basic science:
- carbon di oxide is a minor green house gas.
- carbon di oxide is a small part of atmosphere.
- carbon di oxide is absorbed by the plants.
- human beings emit very small percentage of carbon di oxide compared to natural emissions.

As for the data to prove that there is no global warming, please go through my posts in the past few pages of this thread.
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Post by Bade »

All those posts are worthless, till you show me the data. The premise of this thread is there is no global warming. If you support that view, show the data. Not some e-mail scandal as proof. :lol: :lol: :rotfl:
Post Reply