Are We Being Told the Truth About Climate Change?

Of course he's often called "founder of Greenpeace" which is untrue. For years (maybe 30) he's generally been on the "other side" of arguments from Greenpeace.

www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/

I haven't heard the extinction rebellion episode but I did listen to this one. It was interesting but in a very shallow way his tone made me uneasy.

It’s about time we all got up to speed on Climate Change, the worlds Governments are waiting for some miracle invention to come along and sort it all out, without us having to do a thing about it NOW.
Wake up people! Climate Change is real and is happening right in front of our eyes and no amount of talking about it will actually sort it out.
I’m proud that my DD is part of Extinction Rebellion and is trying to get the message across in a peaceful way, they might be disruptive but they are predominately peaceful.
And for all of those who say it’s a cyclical thing that happens every thousand years or so, well that doesn’t help for now does it?
Rant over and trying to climb down from my high horse……….

Yes we are it is happening but it is not all of a sudden it’s a slow process over the passage of time. The tipping points of no return in our climate system such as thinning ozone layer and ice melting in the Antarctic are not exaggerations of nature.

We have been so busy developing our world economically we have not considered the cost to the earth and its impact on the atmosphere. There is more knowledge now so we can hope the future generations can make necessary changes to lessen the damage.

Not future generations. US.
It isn’t a slow process is it? heat domes over Canada and the USA, floods in Europe, extreme weather conditions. All are sudden extreme events which will become more common.
It’s our GCs futures not ‘future generations’.

We are in climate change. It is happening now.

Social media v science. Who sees furthest?

There is no truth, just speculation, nobody knows, probably the global CO2 emissions will increase for the next 50 yrs, all we can do as individuals is live as economically as we can. Some of us will, most will continue as we are now, there are so many lies about green this or carbon neutral that, don’t believe them.

The climate is getting warmer and we have no idea if our efforts are making any difference at all.

For the facts on just what is happening re climate, the best we can do is to rely on the records which have been directly kept for hundreds of years, and on the evidence preserved in deep bores, sedimentary rocks and so on. More recently, masses of data has been accumulating by researchers specifically looking for evidence of climate change and the influence of human activity. The majority of those interpreting all this data have concluded that since the industrial revolution and the population explosion that made possible, we have caused faster changes in the conditions which influence the average temperature of the globe than anything which has occurred in human recorded history - or in the history recorded in the sedimentary layers and so on that have studied.

There were enormous changes in the climate of the very young earth, but they took vastly longer to come about than the current activity, and also it was before there were humans and higher animals on earth who had to try to survive them. Of the creatures which did then exist, very many could not adapt to the new conditions so their species died out. Humans are just one more species of animal. We are blessed with the ability to apply abstract thought to the data we acquire, which ought to give us an edge in survival - if we bother to use that ability and work out how to get round the very high possibility that our environment is going to get less and less welcoming, not only for plants and animals, but also for us.

Efforts with green this and carbon neutral are like Disney sticking plasters on a broken leg. They may cheer up the patient and make the nurse feel that they have done something useful, but they don't do much to heal the damage. That takes serious intervention by a team of experts with various skills, working together and keeping the patient informed of what they are doing and advising and why, and what the patient can do to assist in the healing process and avoid repeating whatever caused the problem.

Efforts with green this and carbon neutral are like Disney sticking plasters on a broken leg. They may cheer up the patient and make the nurse feel that they have done something useful, but they don't do much to heal the damage. That takes serious intervention by a team of experts with various skills, working together and keeping the patient informed of what they are doing and advising and why, and what the patient can do to assist in the healing process and avoid repeating whatever caused the problem.

Don't know why that posted twice.

As a child I remember my grandfather taking outside temperatures in Sussex. I recall many mornings walking down the garden with him when there was a hard frost and the cobwebs were beautiful. Primroses weren’t out until April and the trees didn’t come into leaf until later. As the years have gone by, Spring has come earlier and now in the NE the trees are breaking out leaves in February.

Climate change was already being discussed in the 1970s and at this time many scientists were poo pooing the notion. We’ve know about this for years and still we are taking very little action.

The world governments should be acting now. In my opinion it may already be too late and I find it very depressing. We continually mis-use our resources and think that someone else will do something.

I do my very small part being as economic as possible with water, energy, clothes (re-use, re-cycle) etc. It needs a concerted effort NOW!

I suspect algorithms are being used to predict the future but the weather doesn’t seem to be taking any notice and we are burying our heads in the sand.

It's all so complicated to organise.
China has 23 of the top 25 environmentally sensitive hot spots.
We buy from China so why would they change?
The research (geological, ice cores etc.) Seems valid.
But are the computer models?
Wealthier countries have agreed to fund climate change industries in poorer countries, but have yet to convince their own populations to pay for it.
So nothing yet had been achieved.

Interesting podcast. This guy made a lot of sense although didn't talk directly about climate change directly. Producing more CO2 is beneficial to nature and therefore to man. I would think the starving millions will be pleased to hear our food production is increasing. Certainly we should look after our planet and Patrick Moore has dedicated his life to this problem. Looks like through his life experience he has gained wisdom in this respect. Intrigued by his take on albatrosses feeding plastic to their young.
Regarding climate change I am not convinced our models of the behaviour of the sun or geo thermal heating due to changes in atmospheric refractivity are accurate enough to determine the impact caused by the relatively miniscule increase of CO2.
I suspect 'green energy' became popular politically as it has the potential to make the west independant of oil from the middle east. In fact saw a recent YouTube video of some 'environmentalist' claiming current so-called green energy solutions use a significant amount of CO2 (mainly in manufacturing and recycling) to make them no better than fossil fuels. His solution is de-population of the planet. He didn't give a figure. Any volunterers?
Personaly I think the world has bigger problems such as poverty, famine, disease and human suffering.

Dare I say I don’t believe this is a problem. We have cycles of weather which occur naturally. There’s a thread running about the heatwave in 1976. A poster there mentioned one in the 1940’s. I remember watching a documentary years ago, which talked about the 11 year cycles of the sun.

I think it’s more about scaring people, and wanting to be in control. The link you gave Baggs was interesting and much more believable in my opinion.

So almost the entirety of the scientists working on Climate Change have proven it over and over again, the idea that its a natural cyclical occurrence is disproved by the rate at which things are changing, and nobody with any real grasp of the science thinks its not man made.

But somebody remembers it was hot in the 1940s so it can't possibly be true, can it? There is no bigger threat to humanity than climate change, anybody who says otherwise either doesn't understand the issue or is hiding their head in the sand.

If the first graph on this webpage doesn't scare you, I don't know what will.

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Oh dear!

" more about scaring people, and wanting to be in control"
So who is in control of the climate?

Alegrias1

If the first graph on this webpage doesn't scare you, I don't know what will.

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Looked at that. Why is it extremely likely or 99%probability to be the result of human activity? Who decided this? We can’t see CO2 so how do we know?

I had never heard of Dr. Patrick Moore before so I went onto Amazon and looked at an extract from his book “ Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom.” It made very interesting reading. He says “most people have no way of determining the truth of these claims. Instead they must rely on the activists, the media, the politicians and the scientists- all of whom have a very large financial and/or political stake in the subject - to tell them the truth.”

He then gives examples where it is not the truth. Why are scientists who disagree kicked out on their ear?

Who do you think all those scientists are trying to control? the ones who collected and analysed the data from sample cores into deposits going back thousands and tens of thousands of years? What benefit do they get from telling us unwelcome news? To be disbelieved and told they are making it up to control us?

How about the mathematicians who collated the many natural cycles that control the variations in a dozen different measurements (it isn't all about CO2) and combined them to see what our position should be right now in relation to all those cycles? (turns out we should be getting colder not hotter) I know a few mathematicians. They are more concerned with getting the figures right than with their power over others.

Then there are the ones who told us how the various greenhouse gases behave and how much CO2 can be reabsorbed from the air and used and stored (mostly by those trees we keep cutting down to grow more food for the exploding population) , and how much is flying free and rising up into the atmosphere to form a cosy duvet keeping in the sun's heat, which penetrates down through it as sunbeams but not upwards as rising hot air from the baking ground. What control do you believe they get from describing a true process?

Do you reckon those photos from space of the vanishing polar icecaps were all photoshopped, to con us? Why bother? And why is it important? Have you ever wondered what happens to the water from the melting ice caps? It runs as currents across the oceans. It is not just that it adds more water, also that it is warmer than it should be, so the air above it is warmer and damper, and water vapour rises into the atmosphere, adding extra insulation to the duvet over the oceans. Meanwhile, the sun's rays over the icecaps don't strike shiny ice and bounce back up, as they should, but heat up the bare ground, and add more to the earth's temperature. Normally the polar ice cap alternately expands and contracts again, with the seasons, but lately it hasn't been expanding back to where it was each year.

. All these variations have happened before, when the earth was young, before it settled into the climatic patterns that we know, but then it was over tens of thousands of years for each change of pattern. The recent changes have been recorded over tens of years. Unless we alter how WE use the earth, the changes will be so great and so fast that we will be unable to adapt to them. What will we be in control of then?.

25Avalon

Alegrias1

If the first graph on this webpage doesn't scare you, I don't know what will.

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Looked at that. Why is it extremely likely or 99%probability to be the result of human activity? Who decided this? We can’t see CO2 so how do we know?

I had never heard of Dr. Patrick Moore before so I went onto Amazon and looked at an extract from his book “ Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom.” It made very interesting reading. He says “most people have no way of determining the truth of these claims. Instead they must rely on the activists, the media, the politicians and the scientists- all of whom have a very large financial and/or political stake in the subject - to tell them the truth.”

He then gives examples where it is not the truth. Why are scientists who disagree kicked out on their ear?

Its actually 97% probability 25Avalon. You can read about it here:
climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

We know by measuring the CO2 content of ice cores, tree rings, even rocks. We do scientific analysis of their content and can measure how high the concentration of COI2 was at a given point in history.

Patrick Moore is a maverick; I listened to the first 15 minutes of the video but it was egregiously wrong, the things he was saying do not make sense.

Here is Greenpeace's statement on Moore: www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/

Scientists who disagree are listened to. Scientists who make false claims about their credentials and are paid money to advocate for polluting industries aren't generally seen as unbiased sources.

25Avalon

Alegrias1

If the first graph on this webpage doesn't scare you, I don't know what will.

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Looked at that. Why is it extremely likely or 99%probability to be the result of human activity? Who decided this? We can’t see CO2 so how do we know?

I had never heard of Dr. Patrick Moore before so I went onto Amazon and looked at an extract from his book “ Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom.” It made very interesting reading. He says “most people have no way of determining the truth of these claims. Instead they must rely on the activists, the media, the politicians and the scientists- all of whom have a very large financial and/or political stake in the subject - to tell them the truth.”

He then gives examples where it is not the truth. Why are scientists who disagree kicked out on their ear?

I expected a backlash. It doesn’t change my mind. Avalon, very true. If you disagree with ‘ the sheep ‘who believe anything, then there’s something wrong with you. You’re not even allowed an opinion. There are plenty of scientists who disagree, my husband is one of them.