So said environmental activists who abandoned the UN climate conference in Warsaw as one man. The host country is accused of turning the conference into a lobby for the coal industry, the Australians have become skeptical and the Japanese will increase emissions instead of reducing them.
Environmental activists walked out en masse from the UN climate conference in Warsaw, claiming that they feel that progress cannot be achieved in any field. This is what the BBC website reports today.
The website also reports that British climate minister Ed Davey told reporters that he expected moderate progress. The talks began two weeks ago against the backdrop of the Typhoon Haiyan disaster in the Philippines. The head of the Philippine delegation, Yves Sano, said that the madness must be stopped, but according to the environmental activists present in the hall, his words fell on deaf ears.
Japan has announced that instead of cutting carbon emissions by a quarter relative to 1990 levels, it will increase them by 3%. Australia under the rule of Tony Abbott also shows signs of skepticism in the approach to climate issues. Others argued that the Polish government did everything to turn the conference into a lobby for the coal industry.
Commentary - the money speaks / Avi Blizovsky
In recent years, the gods of oil, coal and other bodies responsible for humanity's carbon emissions have launched a targeted attack on the government institutions in every country. Wherever possible, they funded candidates for the presidency of states, and provided the funding with a withdrawal from commitments to prevent climate emissions. In my opinion, this is the feeding of the political system to achieve a short-term goal and the greed of the rich who have fled the middle class all over the world in recent years, and are dictating to the rest how to live.
The disaster in the Philippines - which was the strongest hurricane/typhoon to hit any land is due to climate change - washed up words for "global warming". Those rich in Japan and even in cold Poland prefer their environment to warm up and damn the billion poor people from Africa to Indonesia whose environments are becoming uninhabitable.
The Koch brothers won, the planet and the future generations of us all lost.
For the full report on the BBC
On the same topic on the science website:
38 תגובות
Miracles, all you have is a correlation, two processes happening at the same time.
How can you differentiate between a reality that is a coincidence and a reality that has a causal relationship?
How do you know that the warming corresponds to this increase (considering the fact that there were many models - with a large gap from each other? -
Avi Blizovsky
Let's not get into politics and straw men please.
Propaganda of the socialist wing of the Democratic Party is also not relevant here.
There are enough scientists who have detailed alternative theories for a large percentage of the warming the world is experiencing.
There are enough problems with the IPCC models.
Geep if you don't get it - it deserves attention. - Science is also a debate and not just a repetition of the paradigm.
It is precisely because large parts of the climate scientific establishment, and in many magazines, have decided to treat agw skeptics as "deniers" that many people are losing faith in them. When a professor says that the theories of Shaviv and his friends only confuse the public from making the right decisions - I lose every trace of trust I could have placed in him.
Science is the search for truth - not saving the world. And a scientist who doesn't care about researching the truth is not a scientist.
I'm not ruling out the possibility that there is an awg, I'm just saying it's doubtful - everything in science is doubtful, that's how science goes.
Another one, only science is absorbed here, not propaganda. And as for your hatred of regulation, in the absence of regulation one lives with the other, but if examples from the environment where factories prefer to pollute and kill their neighbors in the absence of regulation, and also do not pay taxes to compensate for that do not move you, maybe the problem in the US since Reagan declared war on The regulation - all the small businesses of mom and dad stores went out of business, and today the people who can, instead of being members of the middle class - be minimum wage workers at Walmart who stole their livelihood.
another one
My knowledge is not a representative sample... ? What percentage of scientists do you think should be asked for it to be a representative sample?
Confirmation - it's simple: (1) The theory says that CO2 emissions should increase the absorption of electromagnetic energy by the atmosphere. (2) Experiments confirm the theory. From the measurements we know that (3) there is an increase in the percentage of CO4, (5) there is a warming that broadly corresponds to this increase and (XNUMX) we know how much of the COXNUMX is the result of human activity.
Next, what do we have left? Ah, interests. Let's assume that 30% of the scientists on each side are not just self-interested, they are downright lying. Still, we remain a vast majority who support AGW.
Did we close the issue? :)
Miracles, I already answered but it was not received.
Science is not a democracy and your knowledge is not a representative sample.
What do you even define as confirmation, for AWG?
I did not claim that the opponents are followers of the nations of the world,
I claimed that there are interests on your side as well.
Miracles, I have already answered all these questions.
Your knowledge is not a representative sample and in any case science is not a democracy.
—–
What do you think is considered confirmation of AGW?
What is the difference between warming that is related to the FDH - and warming that is not related to the FDH - how can you tell the difference?
---
At no point did I claim that there were no interests or ideologies on my side of the debate either - I simply claimed on your side as well - and therefore one should refer to the facts and not claim that all or most of my side are people paid by the others Koch and all of your side are objective scientists and followers of the nations of the world.
---
another one
I'm not sure what your position is. I know far more people who doubt evolution than I do AGW.
Why do you actually think AGW doesn't have enough confirmations?
Why do you think (as I understand it) that the motives of the AGW supporters are political while the opponents are followers of the nations of the world?
Why doesn't he receive my response?
First.
"The absence of the seal indicates its pulp"
Second thing - the question was in the context of big money in the industry, you claimed that there is none because you have not seen a divorce from the green industry. So I asked you if the green blog that you consider a mouthpiece for the non-green industry does receive money.
Therefore, any quality you attribute to your articles is irrelevant here.
What is relevant is the effectiveness of the arguments. which is difficult to measure. Anyway, my point was that the fact that you don't get paid for being in favor of agw does not mean that there is no money in the green industry or that there are no interests to promote the theory.
I'm not talking about quantity but quality. My articles are of much higher quality and are based on peer-reviewed studies and not on a third or fourth copy of some right-wing ideologue.
1. When do I get a forecast? I have no prediction. I didn't understand your flotilla.
Are you talking about the first year they start measuring the last decade and a half in which the warming slowed down? - It doesn't really matter.
2. It is true that scientific awards are a little more serious than the unreliable ones - but they are still given by human beings who have their own opinions and their own internal politics. Is there a climate scientist who even received a Nobel Prize for Physics on the subject? (I'm really asking, because I don't know).
3. Please define an experiment that can confirm or disprove this theory. In my opinion, the inability to get a uniform forecast for the average climate in recent years, is an example that the theory is not good enough. - but tell me what is your criterion for testing the theory.
4. Yes, but they publish many more articles than you on the subject - because they are much more focused than the science site.
That's what this blog does - a critique against blind environmentalism. While your site also publishes articles in many fields that are not at all related to environmentalism.
By and large, in terms of the number of articles that deal with the subject per week on average - they have much more publications than this site.
5.a) - You don't need research proof here - the fact that the American right - and the whole world began to doubt AGW is completely true - and it is completely logical that it would be reflected in a right wing station - your claim is that it is due to payments from the oil companies - and would not have happened alone due to the ideology The economic liberalism of the right that simply denies government regulation and denies ideological environments.
---------
5.b) Again, the fact that there is a correlation and there is even a good scientific explanation - this still does not mean that the theory is confirmed - because there can always be coincidence, reverse circumstance and other scientific explanations.
1. Measurements are the facts the theory makes predictions. Your prediction which is below the overwhelming majority of the models depends on a starting year whose choice is not random and it was already explained to you in the IPCC report only you don't want to hear.
2. The Nobel Prize in Science is an indication. Hello, literature and economics do not count.
3. The warming theory has not failed, and no alternative theory explains everything and also takes physics into account.
4. I don't know what the green blog does for a living but they certainly don't work 24/XNUMX like me.
5. Both correlations are correct, for the first time there is research proof (if you want I will look for the link to the source that talked about Fox's latest pro-science article). And also regarding the warming in a hundred years and industrialization - because this has confirmation from the measurements and the physics of the greenhouse gases, but it seems that I am repeating myself, those who like to hear only anti-scientific opinions are welcome to read the green blog.
1) Measurements are the facts in science, theories are just a model made up of them that should provide a good forecast for some occurrence - if the forecast is not good, then the model is not good. There is no good model that predicts the climate in the near future. There are many different models that make significantly different predictions from each other - and reality behaved in its own way, and below the overwhelming majority of the models.
2) Since when is a Nobel Prize an indication of something, to remind you that Yasser Arafat also received a Nobel Prize?
3) There is no such thing as proof in science, a theory is disproved when it is put to the test and fails. There is no need to give an alternative theory, and in any case as I have already mentioned - there are alternative explanations and Nir Shabiv investigates such an explanation.
4. The big money is in the industries themselves - this does not mean that you will necessarily receive a share of it just as the chances are that the green blog that is much more focused than you in this debate (and does not publish many articles in unrelated fields) probably does not receive a worn penny from industries that will be harmed due to a green regulation which it [ The Green Blog] is misleading.
5) The correlation I was talking about was the correlation between the "big money" and the change in right-wing public opinion regarding anthropogenic warming that you mentioned earlier, not the correlation between the warming in the last hundred+ years and human industrialization.
Although here too it is an important point.
There are many steps to show that what is true in the micro is also true in the macro. And there are many other factors that are involved in the process besides FDF.
1. Indeed there is no room for belief, but when tens of thousands of measurements are made every few minutes and over many years, then it is probably not a matter of belief but of fact.
2. There are scientists who challenge her, but they could not tattoo her because otherwise they would have received a Nobel Prize.
3. We must give an alternative explanation for the facts, otherwise this is just a grievance against the theories and not a proof against them (A.B. creationists).
4. If there was big money in the green industries where is it? To this day I have not received a penny from any green company, and believe me the site's marketing manager has tried quite a bit.
5. This is not just a correlation but a correlation backed by the laws of physics as I explained in a previous response.
Avi Blizovsky
1) Science is not faith, there is no place for faith in science. Never. Everything is speculation, theories, and hypotheses, always. Whoever believes in the correctness of his theory without a doubt has stopped being a scientist.
2) Earlier you said that the theory is undisputed, but now you admit that there are scientists who do challenge it.
3) Nir Shabiv (and not only him) actually provide an alternative theory, and there is even a reference to it on this site, I am not clear how you decide what is acceptable and what is not?
And in any case, one should not propose an alternative theory to disprove an existing theory.
4) Don't you think there is no big money in the green industries? Subsidy money for corn for biofuel - don't you think it's a lot of money? All kinds of subsidies for green startups - isn't that a lot of money? - All the salaries and research grants for all these climate researchers - isn't that a lot of money? All kinds of salaries for new officials on green issues - isn't that a lot of money?
5) Correlation is not circumstantial - and correlation is often not sufficient proof anywhere.
The Japanese could reduce carbon emissions if they had reliable nuclear energy. The way to effectively deal with an energy shortage is atomic energy. Solar panels go out of use after 10-20 years, and they need to be recycled, otherwise they will create an ecological problem.
For miracles, think about Mars and its weak magnetic force. And how this affects the climate on Mars. The Earth's magnetic force weakens and the climate changes. What I am claiming is just a hypothesis, and it is just another opinion.
Asaf
And it could be because the Voyager spacecraft left the solar system…..
The problem of the hole in the ozone has not stopped, only slowed down. There's a difference.
It could be that the rise in temperature is the result of the reversal of the earth's magnetic pole. A process that will last 500 years. There used to be a problem with holes in the ozone, and that stopped. In any case, less air pollution, more life.
I wish all religions were as data backed as what you call the anthropogenic warming religion.
The number of scientists who have a different opinion is zero at sixty, and it is true that one would be right to disprove the whole theory, but neither I nor anyone else has heard from them a plausible alternative proposal that would explain all the findings, including Nir Shabib who is an astrophysicist, and he can express himself in his field . In other areas he is like any other person.
And as for the end of your words, it was the same with the cigarettes. And so with the warming. Note that before the money started pouring in, Fox also published an article worried about warming, so I have proof that it was the Koch brothers' sick campaign that caused the smoke screen (and not just the same publicists who fought cigarette regulation were hired).
another one
There is a negligible percentage of scientists who claim that there is no warming due to human activities. Nir Shabib is in this negligible percentage. Please explain to me why I should accept his opinion, let alone the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the experts in the field?
I'm not asking why you believe him, it doesn't interest me at all. Why should I believe him?
Avi Blizovsky
I understand that you are not an atheist - because you believe in anthropogenic warming.
I understand that you happen to all scientists who have a different opinion than you scientists in the pay of the oil moguls.
Do you have evidence for this statement?
For example, is Nir Shabiv - in your opinion, part of the spin? Do you think he is on the Koch brothers' payroll? So that he would lie for them?
Because this is actually what you claim, that a significant number of scientists lie for a fee in order to mislead the population.
Is that really your claim?
And one more thing, if someone lied to me once, they will likely do it again, especially with their livelihood. And since I know these are not your original ideas and I have even followed their evolution, allow me to be skeptical.
It's a shame you use the name of atheists in vain. A true atheist does not believe in anything, certainly not in spins.
It is enough for me that the climate experts claim the opposite, see the articles of Prof. Yoav Yair from the Open University. You are confusing weather forecasting which is a problematic factor and understanding the entire climate which is a much simpler system.
The claim that carbon dioxide is a minor factor is incorrect. A small amount of it is indeed enough to cause changes, but it is quite a large factor in the atmospheric energy equation. Indeed, if you mentioned CO2 emissions from the oceans, this is also a system that has feedback. Warming due to terrestrial CO2 will result in additional CO2 emissions from the oceans and the ice sheet in North Shipshire (where there is also methane which is a worse greenhouse gas). And so the warming will increase itself and get out of control. Although it is called positive feedback, it is a very negative phenomenon in terms of its effect on humans.
The comparison between cancer in humans who are a small system and the earth which is a huge system is extremely problematic. There are so many variables in the climate system, that it is currently impossible to test the effect of a relatively small factor, such as greenhouse gas emissions, on the climate. The effect of large factors such as the sun and currents in the oceans can be predicted quite well, but not the effect of small factors. For some reason, I have never seen a reference to La Chetelier's law regarding the connection between global warming and an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. La Chatelier's law says that an increase in temperature will cause CO2 to be emitted from the oceans. This principle is also the cause of scale in the kettle.
As for the argument that basic science isn't so basic, that's what the legions of techie lobbyists want you to think. These are the same people (Heartland Institute) who obscured the effects of smoking with thick smoke while the scientific community formulated its unequivocal position.
Avi Blizovsky
Reluctance to buy expensive solar electricity, this is not a bureaucratic barrier, there is no reason in the world for the electricity company to buy more expensive electricity than it can produce. - It then simply costs everyone - including the poor who cannot afford solar panels - more.
You can't say about something that isn't open to appeal - if there are appealers, here I am now appealing your statement.
And there are scientists with many years of research who also appeal, so there is an appeal.
The fiscal property of carbon dioxide cannot be directly translated into a huge global system where there are many more variables than in the laboratory. - otherwise it would have been much easier to predict the temperature and the rise in temperature, and they didn't really succeed, right?
So this basic science is not so basic.
Another one, what bureaucratic hurdles? I myself spoke with someone who, during his time as head of the Electricity Directorate, advocated the ideology of the green blog and hindered any alternative energy project. You stick your people in positions where they can stick sticks in wheels and then you wonder.
There is no disputing the physics of greenhouse gases, it is known that these gases absorb the sunlight in visible light but do not reflect it in infrared and therefore this radiation gets stuck in the atmosphere and heats it. This defense of the energy gods has led you to deny the most basic science, and that is what is upsetting here. Besides, it's about the present and the future of all of us that goes to waste to please them.
To my father
Sorry for the last response, I was not in such a "sane" state.
to one another. It's hard for me to see biomass as a realistic alternative, especially in light of the fact that if we want this planet to be able to sustain other forms of life besides us, every acre of agricultural work is one less acre of habitat for the bee and millions of acres are being plowed for biodiesel around the world. However, it is possible in the future when technologies such as efficient and cheap energy storage technologies mature (which already constitute the main barrier to the transition to electric vehicles and to real competition of renewable energy with fossil fuels) and fuel cell technology and turbine engines for vehicles, then the place of biomass will be significantly smaller than the place of fossil fuel today, but It will still be particularly relevant if it is produced mostly from by-products of agriculture and human waste or if it is produced in areas that are less relevant in terms of damage to the biological system (deserts for example)
Abi, refugees and labor migrants often come for political or economic reasons.
Please do not generalize everyone as if they left their country due to climate, because in most cases this is not true.
Regarding "doing not making a mistake" - this is good and beautiful - but, whoever makes a mistake and does not follow up on why he made a mistake, will continue to make mistakes.
And those who are wrong should not necessarily be allowed to try to do something again,
Secondly, what bureaucratic obstacles? What are you talking about?
Third thing: physics is ambiguous, science is ambiguous, and there is still a debate on this issue. , just because you don't count anyone who disagrees with your opinion as someone who deserves to be a party to the debate, doesn't mean there isn't a debate.
And I heard about bio mass - as far as I understood it produces much more pollution for energy than other energy sources,
What's good about it?
SO WHAT? Flooding of coastal cities is SO WHAT.? Drought in the desert areas where tens of millions of people live, some of whom come to us or drown on the way to Europe SO WHAT?
Go outside and see the effects of warming everywhere.
To my father
First of all we want proof that there are more natural disasters than before. If it heats up so what? There are areas of frozen land so wide that one can move to live there in such a case, so it is appropriate to also prove a connection between the warming and severe tropical storms, for example. Baside that. What do you mean who doesn't do is not wrong? In this area you sound so determined that there is no room for mistakes. The fact that you and an atheist don't share the same agenda can perhaps teach about the way of thinking you came from. It seems to you that you are the truth and there is nothing wrong with it, but in fact you are simply a primate who thinks in understandable patterns as he was instructed to think
Regarding 1. He who does not do is not wrong. Today, the direction is to go for biomass, that is, for energy production from the inedible parts of the plant, which is 90% of it. As for the second part, it's because of bureaucratic obstacles that the anti-greens put up to make it smell like they were right. As for 3, the physics in this matter is unequivocal, there is no debate that the warming is due to the greenhouse gases and not just any greenhouse gases but those that man emits in his activity.
post Scriptum. What does this have to do with atheism? I am also an atheist and that is precisely why I believe scientists and not those who use pseudo-scientific arguments.
The greens caused a sharp increase in food prices due to the use of biodiesel. And as for the use of solar energy, there is still not a single country that uses more than 20 percent of its energy consumption from solar energy. There is still no unequivocal proof that global warming is due to greenhouse gases.
When are we here?
The electric company has a deficit of 75 billion shekels that we all pay for and it subsidizes renewable energy in the billions. If indeed the warnings of the followers of global warming are true, then it seems that this ship has sailed, maybe it is better to take all the money from the subsidies for green energy and invest in education and training so that our children will be smart enough to solve the problems that will arise from climate change in the future
But they are not worried. that's a fact. Regardless of what you think "deserves".
A certain branch of academia, especially in the western world, has a certain paradigm. But that doesn't mean that those who don't live in the western world necessarily have a reason to accept it. They don't care about the damage they cause to other countries, and they even have something to gain from warming if it really happens. And regarding natural disasters - there is no indication that there are more natural disasters due to the process.
Regarding green fuel, the fuel produced from corn is not greener, it is less efficient than normal fuel and therefore more polluting. And it raises food prices.
Just because you say he shouldn't raise food prices, doesn't mean it won't happen anyway.
It's simply the laws of the market - and if there is a requirement due to government regulation to use fuel produced from corn as a certain percentage of the fuel sold - then this will increase the demand for corn - which will increase its price.
You will be surprised, but people who disagree with you are not necessarily "stupid". And it is a very narrow-minded view to think so.
It is appropriate and true that the leaders of "cold countries" should be concerned,
Because the warming causes extreme and offensive phenomena "in them" as well.
Lack of regard and concern stems from...myopia that borders on...stupidity.
to another-
As for "green lobbyists" who promote the use of green fuel...
You should read things that are published here (on the knowledge site)
and that explain the need to grow and use green fuel
without harming the natural environment and without harming food production,
Because "end of response in understanding what is read (and the subject)".
Instead of talking about the countries of the western world, talk about the former second world countries, which as far as I know did not even try to reduce, what about cold Russia and global warming? For them, there is only profit.
Indeed - they don't necessarily care about the poor in hot areas, just like the poor in the hot areas - don't care about them.
- and on that occasion, leaders are supposed to represent the good of their people, their citizens - why would someone who lives in a cold country like Russia or Poland - care about global warming?
--------
Regarding your accusation of lobbyism - your side also has lobbyism, there are many green lobbyists on the left who promote their agenda and the green industry.
There is a lot of money in the agricultural subsidy for the biodiesel which does not help in the fight against FAD but is harmful to the world in other ways.