One of the more common tropes of climate change deniers is that climate change activism is driven by the large amount of money that can be made in research grants, subsidies, etc.
This doesn't surprise me at all. People who say there is no human-caused global warming don't pass the smell test. Like anti-vax activists, or the supporters of incel rights. This hasn't really changed over time; back in the day, you could tell Stalinists, members of the John Birch society and voters of George Wallace ten yards against the wind.
What I'd like to know however is how much substance there is to the belief that German (anti-nuclear) Greens have been financed by the petro-industrial complex, in particular by Russia's.
I guess that for you is very consensual that 0.04% of the atmosphere (the CO2 percentage) is responsible for everything? For me that "consensus", is strange and intriguing, to say the least.
The concept of climate deniers is also hilarious. A nice "way" for people that don't have arguments, to call others with different ideas and explanations. Anything that we don't like is an "anti-" something.
The idea that a system so complex as the Earth is influenced by only CO2 is very simplistic, to say the least! I guess the various ice age that ended in the past, was also because of humans!
Nothing about underwater volcanos? Sun radiation (our energy provider)? Water vapor (the biggest contributor for the greenhouse effect)? I guess the smell test didn't go so far.
Like the vaccines, these complex themes should be discussed without pre-conditions or the usual "anti-" attached to it.
Science is hard and most definitely, not consensual. That's the only way to get breakthroughs.
As someone who worked for three years on disentangling the effect the sun has on climate change vs. human greenhouse gas emissions I can assure you that climate scientists have debunked your talking points thoroughly some 25 years ago. Underwater volcanoes do absolutely nothing to change the climate. Past ice ages and warm periods have indeed been triggered by changes in solar irradiation driven by solar cycles that are tens of thousands of years long. But these solar cycles are currently near a low point, not a high point. Based on these solar cycles we should be living in a cold period right now similar to what we have seen in the 1950s and 1960s. Yet, since then temperatures have risen by a lot and there is no reasonable doubt that human greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change.
Stating that human greenhouse gas emissions (of which CO2 is the most prominent but other gases like methane are more potent) do not cause climate change is at the same level as stating that vaccines cause autism. There simply is no evidence for it and these views are the result of online misinformation and lies.
You say 'science is hard and most definitely not consensual'. That is true and false at the same time. Yes, there is a lot of debate all the time because that is how science progresses. But as a trained scientist, I can assure you there is an awful lot of consensus in science. Once a scientific result has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, science moves on and tackles new problems. that is why we tend to leave our houses by the front door rather than the second floor window to paraphrase Tim Minchin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIWj3tI-DXg
Solar is on a low point indeed. Do you think this works like a heater at home? It takes time to see effects of that. The Earth don't "cool off" in a couple of days. The shear mass of the planet is enough to understand that.
CO2 is not the most prominent for sure, water vapor (H2O) is. H2O absorbs way more radiation than CO2 in the complete spectrum of wavelengths. Only in the 700um wavelength the CO2 absorbs more. The data is there.
Yes, temperatures are going up and concentration of CO2 as well. Nobody ever denied that, at all. The question is: if CO2 triggered temperatures or vice-versa? There are no proofs of any of the scenarios, because unfortunately, as a civilization, we don't have enough data collected. 100 years compared to millions of years of the Earth existence, is nothing. And proxies, are subject to data "corruption" as the climate gate showed.
There are plenty of recognized scientist (with more experience than you or me) that are skeptical of the CO2 explanation for everything. Steve Koonin, Richard Lindzen, William Happer, John Clauser (nobel prize with a nice take on the cloud issue).. But hey, what these guys know, right? Are they correct? I don't know. Does it make sense when they explain their point of view? Yes, for sure.
And to finish this nice discussion. I never denied anything. I have an open mind, but I'm skeptical that the CO2 is the "answer" for everything and I definitely don't believe in the climate apocalypse.
Money follow the policies dictated by politicians. That's not new and it will continue to be the same in the future. It's not lobby's only, it's subsidies that were given to renewables.
In Germany for example, how much money they spent in renewables/net zero ideology? And now they are burning COAL! Again, COAL... Don't tell that this was done by climate deniers lobbying!
It's perverse that a) fossil fuel companies are still being subsidised by taxpayers, b) fossil fuel companies are using government subsidies for lobbying creating a vicious circle of omnicide and ecocide.
This doesn't surprise me at all. People who say there is no human-caused global warming don't pass the smell test. Like anti-vax activists, or the supporters of incel rights. This hasn't really changed over time; back in the day, you could tell Stalinists, members of the John Birch society and voters of George Wallace ten yards against the wind.
What I'd like to know however is how much substance there is to the belief that German (anti-nuclear) Greens have been financed by the petro-industrial complex, in particular by Russia's.
I guess that for you is very consensual that 0.04% of the atmosphere (the CO2 percentage) is responsible for everything? For me that "consensus", is strange and intriguing, to say the least.
The concept of climate deniers is also hilarious. A nice "way" for people that don't have arguments, to call others with different ideas and explanations. Anything that we don't like is an "anti-" something.
The idea that a system so complex as the Earth is influenced by only CO2 is very simplistic, to say the least! I guess the various ice age that ended in the past, was also because of humans!
Nothing about underwater volcanos? Sun radiation (our energy provider)? Water vapor (the biggest contributor for the greenhouse effect)? I guess the smell test didn't go so far.
Like the vaccines, these complex themes should be discussed without pre-conditions or the usual "anti-" attached to it.
Science is hard and most definitely, not consensual. That's the only way to get breakthroughs.
As someone who worked for three years on disentangling the effect the sun has on climate change vs. human greenhouse gas emissions I can assure you that climate scientists have debunked your talking points thoroughly some 25 years ago. Underwater volcanoes do absolutely nothing to change the climate. Past ice ages and warm periods have indeed been triggered by changes in solar irradiation driven by solar cycles that are tens of thousands of years long. But these solar cycles are currently near a low point, not a high point. Based on these solar cycles we should be living in a cold period right now similar to what we have seen in the 1950s and 1960s. Yet, since then temperatures have risen by a lot and there is no reasonable doubt that human greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change.
Stating that human greenhouse gas emissions (of which CO2 is the most prominent but other gases like methane are more potent) do not cause climate change is at the same level as stating that vaccines cause autism. There simply is no evidence for it and these views are the result of online misinformation and lies.
You say 'science is hard and most definitely not consensual'. That is true and false at the same time. Yes, there is a lot of debate all the time because that is how science progresses. But as a trained scientist, I can assure you there is an awful lot of consensus in science. Once a scientific result has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, science moves on and tackles new problems. that is why we tend to leave our houses by the front door rather than the second floor window to paraphrase Tim Minchin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIWj3tI-DXg
Solar is on a low point indeed. Do you think this works like a heater at home? It takes time to see effects of that. The Earth don't "cool off" in a couple of days. The shear mass of the planet is enough to understand that.
CO2 is not the most prominent for sure, water vapor (H2O) is. H2O absorbs way more radiation than CO2 in the complete spectrum of wavelengths. Only in the 700um wavelength the CO2 absorbs more. The data is there.
Yes, temperatures are going up and concentration of CO2 as well. Nobody ever denied that, at all. The question is: if CO2 triggered temperatures or vice-versa? There are no proofs of any of the scenarios, because unfortunately, as a civilization, we don't have enough data collected. 100 years compared to millions of years of the Earth existence, is nothing. And proxies, are subject to data "corruption" as the climate gate showed.
There are plenty of recognized scientist (with more experience than you or me) that are skeptical of the CO2 explanation for everything. Steve Koonin, Richard Lindzen, William Happer, John Clauser (nobel prize with a nice take on the cloud issue).. But hey, what these guys know, right? Are they correct? I don't know. Does it make sense when they explain their point of view? Yes, for sure.
And to finish this nice discussion. I never denied anything. I have an open mind, but I'm skeptical that the CO2 is the "answer" for everything and I definitely don't believe in the climate apocalypse.
Thanks for your answer. I do enjoy your posts.
Cheers.
Money follow the policies dictated by politicians. That's not new and it will continue to be the same in the future. It's not lobby's only, it's subsidies that were given to renewables.
In Germany for example, how much money they spent in renewables/net zero ideology? And now they are burning COAL! Again, COAL... Don't tell that this was done by climate deniers lobbying!
Big institutions want money! that axiomatic.
The top two charts suggest the tables had turned somewhat though with pro-climate lobbying beating anti-climate, or at least a draw.
Yes, indeed. More recently, the pro-climate lobbyists won out and spent more on lobbying than the anti-climate lobbyists.
It's perverse that a) fossil fuel companies are still being subsidised by taxpayers, b) fossil fuel companies are using government subsidies for lobbying creating a vicious circle of omnicide and ecocide.