mhaze

Take a look at Figure 9, though I doubt whether you can comprehend it.

A non- ambiguous comment from Shell Report.
Quote:

"Following the storms, a coalition of environmental NGOs brings a class-action suit against the US government and fossil-fuel companies on the grounds of neglecting what scientists (including their own) have been saying for years: that something must be done. A social reaction to the use of fossil fuels grows, and individuals become 'vigilante environmentalists' in the same way, a generation earlier, they had become fiercely anti-tobacco. Direct-action campaigns against companies escalate. Young consumers, especially, demand action …"

Do you understand in relation to scientists .. “( including their own”) means.

Lego

Funny how the science that I’ve provided suddenly becomes neo-marxism.

In the past when I was much younger, Liberals were telling us that there were “reds under the bed “, I’ve been looking since and have not found any! From memory that was the era when Malcolm Fraser led the Liberal Party.

I don’t happen to be a paid up member of a political Party, and have in the past been very suspicious of Socialist Parties. Supposition and prejudice on your part are a foul mix. Supposition and prejudice are not found in people with insight.

The discussion previously had been about science; now farcical comments about ideology.

You clearly do not understand how science works.

As stated a few times, when abuse and obfuscation are hurled about, it is a clear indication of nothing in the way of evidence is being promoted. Funny how no references have been provided when requested rebutting anthropogenic climate change. What has been pushed though are conspiracy theories.

According to ant, an increase on CO2 levels from 380 to 409ppm has no effect on temperatures ie ant disagrees with the notion that CO2 has an effect on climate....or something. He's wound himself into so many knots trying to avoiding admitting he doesn't/didn't understand the report that he's now asserting totally contradictory things.

Table 4, ant always remember Table 4 when you make the mistake of thinking you know what you're talking about.

Did you work out yet (or did you lecture friend - giggle - explain) why you were wrong to think that the report says " temperature is expected to be 1.25C over pre-Industrial times in 2030".

Your first contradiction was to sneer that HIGW sceptics represent the right side of politics, and then you blustered when I remind you that HIGW is one of the fav causes of the loony left. Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, Lee Rhiannon, and the watermelons in the Green Party will be congratulating themselves on what a great job they have done turning you into a HIGW advocating Manchurian Candidate. I'll bet you advocate for the three "R's" too. You know, Refugees, Reconciliation, and Republic. Sign the "sorry book", did you?

Now I know you have a carefully crafted pose as the unbiased observer of a neutral science, and I can't stop you from maintaining the pretence. It probably works a treat on younger opponents, but it won't work on me.

I will reiterate where the HIGW controversy is at the moment. After thirty years of totally stupid predictions which the public can see are laughably inaccurate, belief in this HIGW hoax is slowly eroding. Polls indicate that people everywhere are putting it at around 19th position in a list of suggested problems facing this world. Now that is quite extraordinary. Thirty years of a largely left wing media constantly sprouting HIGW propaganda in the publics face and discussing it like it was holy writ, and people are starting to turn away from it.

There is nothing like a state wide electricity blackout caused by a leftist governments rejoicing at blowing up a coal fired power station to focus the mind of the public on how stupid the socialist governments are that they have elected.

In general, leftism and it's potty causes are increasingly on the nose with western populations. The first indication that people are waking up was Trump's election, an event I'll bet caused you and your chardonnay sucking mates to drown your sorrows in the nearest wine bar. Brexit, yellow vests, and anti immigration parties on the rise all over Europe.

Time to jump ship, Ant. The left is the new conservative Establishment defending a failed status quo ante', and the right is the new punk.

Onya Mhaze.

To Ant.

OK, let's try a bit of logic. You say that scientists working for the oil companies 40-50 years ago predicted that there would be a 1.25 degree rise in global temperatures in about 60 years time. Around 50 years have passed, and by a the simple process of reasoned logic, it should now be around one degree warmer if their prediction was right.

But has not been any rise in global temperatures. A fact so embarrassing to those climate scientists riding the taxpayer gravy train that the "scientists" in the East Anglia Climatic Research Institute got caught discussing among themselves how to hide this inconvenient truth from the public. The "scientists" in the ABS tried to help out by fiddling the historical data in Australia.

Surely this is yet another wild prediction proven to be wrong, which any fool can see. How come you can't see it? Is there something wrong with your critical analysis circuits? Or are you just another unfortunate person with an Absolutist personality like runner and Ozspen, and to hell with logic, all you need to do is BELIEVE.

You say that science is not ideological. I agree it is not supposed to be. But because the public hold it in such high esteem, Science is replacing the moral authority of the scandal ridden church in this secular age. And is also attracting the mantle of infallibility. As such, it is a logic target for take over and infiltration by those who hold Absolutist views, and who wish to impose those absolutist beliefs on entire populations. Think that is potty? Just look at how the USSR made certain that Soviet science towed the Party line.

I am not saying that all scientists are ideological. But people need to eat. Those that choose science as a career often find that job security is definitely an issue. And if you think that people will not tell a few fibs to protect their jobs, especially if they can make out that their particular job is really important, then you are naïve of human nature.

Thanks mhaze and Lego, you have just proven my point to any casual readers.
Critical thinking does not rely on supposition.
Despite many requests for references nothing of note has been supplied.
Lego, you have been misinterpretation the speed of climate change; in Geological thinking, the speed is fast when thinking in terms of thousands of years.

A reference has been provided above:

In 1968 E. Robinson, & R.C. Robbins provided a report to the American Petroleum Institute, they provided stark warmings in their report. The report was written prior to the denier industry having been created.
"They reserved their starkest warnings to industry leaders for carbon dioxide. Robinson observed that, among the pollutants reviewed, carbon dioxide "is the only air pollutant which has been proven to be global importance to man's environment on the basis of a long period of scientific investigation."

The Shell Report has some interesting points as well, published in 1988.

The Shell Report acknowledges that "... models predicting potential warming of 3.5 degrees celsius." Being created by a combination of CO2 and other greenhouse gases."

Also:
"Such relatively fast and dramatic changes would impact on the human environment, future living standards and food supplies, and could have major social, economic and political consequences."

The Report says it would be tempting to wait until the effects of greenhouse gases are experienced, though the implications for not acting are very large (Page 6).

Table 4 ant, Table 4.