It's hard to know who to believe.

[Carlton Banks]

so, you're saying that I misunderstood the carbon credit scheme


but your outline of the scheme is essentially identical to what I stated

• credits are created
• big polluters sell the credits they do not need

that's more or less exactly what I said.

what makes you think these highly dubious characters with bad reputations for corruption will not game that system? By adhering to this nonsense without due diligence (instead you believe the information you are given from known bad actors), you are doing the job of the energy industry to force it on everyone.

we won't need to buy any credits? well, possibly that promise will exist when the scheme begins. how reliable do you think that promise will be



but it's all moot when the science has been distorted (not wrong, distorted), and the data which motivated the whole field cannot withstand basic peer review.


there is a whole group of climate scientists that have done published studies that contradicts the basis of anthropogenic climate change. why would you ignore this, and just repeat 1 side of a 2 sided story over an over again? do you want to believe in an "end of the world" scenario? it is said that no-one ever went out of business selling stories that predict the end of the world

but hey, don't listen to me. just pay your exhalation (i.e. breathing) taxes!!! have fun with that

[paxmao]

...

RE climate, just take a look at the very abundant public data. There is no "planet B"

[Jet Cash]

I scanned some of the reports mentioned here, and I tried to find a reference to water vapour, and I couldn't see any. Water vapour ( clouds etc. ) is the single largest creator of the "greenhouse effect", but it is excluded from almost all of the public reports. This is why I believe there is a political agenda behind the global  warming industry. A Carbon Dioxide famine is one of the factors that increase water vapour in the atmosphere. The effect of Carbon Dioxide is negligible, and is still within the bounds of historic records.

[Carlton Banks]

^^^ someone get some old British war movies out to keep Jet Cash quiet, he's repeating himself again

[SaltySpitoon]

I think that there is a problem where its hard to know who to believe, but more so because everyone has a platform to let others know of their revolutionary ideas, even if they are outright wrong. People seem to love the idea of "us" versus authority, when in a lot of cases, authority just means the best at their topic. What you consider common sense doesn't make it right.

Fractional reserve banking is actually brilliant, the stability and flexibility it brings to the table is vast compared to any other monetary system that we've ever had in the past. A reserve system sounds like it'd be monetarily sound, but do you know how many thousands of times they've failed in the past? Fiat and how it works is completely separate from Bitcoin and thats just lovely. Who would possibly be against more choices in their financial systems? I've spoken to research scientists on a daily basis for the past few years and not a single one has ever denied climate change. They are just a bunch of nerds arguing over who's model is 0.0017% more accurate based on data excluded from Silurian period in another model. Climate change "natzis" are likely just another wing of people who don't know what they are talking about.

Factual and well researched objective reports are what I'd say are common place. You are absolutely correct that every so often, studies are bought off or commercial interests are put ahead of safety. The reason why its such a big deal when it does occur is because its not usual. There are millions of studies going on every day over whether berries will make you immortal or you can knock over goats with your mind. They'll yield some sort of result if the procedures are done and reported properly. Then they get peer reviewed and torn apart.

Become an authority in your own field and believe yourself.

[Carlton Banks]

I've spoken to research scientists on a daily basis for the past few years and not a single one has ever denied climate change. They are just a bunch of nerds arguing over who's model is 0.0017% more accurate based on data excluded from Silurian period in another model.

scientists who refute the IPCC consensus don't "deny climate change" either (you appear to be putting words in their mouth)


those scientists agree with the basic science (almost all are former adherents of the IPCC consensus), but that the methodology for the temperature trends the IPCC people present is bad, and that their conclusions are biased towards the disaster-ist position as a result.

• Greenhouse effect is real
• and so then must be greenhouse gases
• CO₂ is a greenhouse gas
• CO₂ increased as a proportion of the constitution of the atmosphere since the industrial age, by 0.01%

all of the above is empirically factual or systemically demonstrable


but to say that we must all join a CO₂ death cult/middle ages sinners absolution based on the above is not at all clear. casually saying we should all do it because of an anecdote about some scientists someone met isn't even slightly meaningful, I'm sure they all had a favorite sandwich too, but I'm not going to start taking dietary advice from them either

[SaltySpitoon]

scientists who refute the IPCC consensus don't "deny climate change" either (you appear to be putting words in their mouth)


those scientists agree with the basic science (almost all are former adherents of the IPCC consensus), but that the methodology for the temperature trends the IPCC people present is bad, and that their conclusions are biased towards the disaster-ist position as a result.

• Greenhouse effect is real
• and so then must be greenhouse gases
• CO₂ is a greenhouse gas
• CO₂ increased as a proportion of the constitution of the atmosphere since the industrial age, by 0.01%

all of the above is empirically factual or systemically demonstrable


but to say that we must all join a CO₂ death cult/middle ages sinners absolution based on the above is not at all clear. casually saying we should all do it because of an anecdote about some scientists someone met isn't even slightly meaningful, I'm sure they all had a favorite sandwich too, but I'm not going to start taking dietary advice from them either

Fine, let me specify that to, I've never heard the immediate disastrous belief from anyone that I've spoken to. My conversations with people that you dont know and for all you know may not exist aren't supposed to sway your opinion one way or another, my statement was more a cautionary rant about who you listen to. People discard opinions by the guy who has spent 30 years researching a narrow topic because they once got paid from someone with a vested interest that lies somewhere, so instead we listen to a guy on twitter who spreads incorrect information.

As a side note, why do you think that atmospheric concentration of CO2 has gone up by 0.01% since the industrial age? I've worked briefly on aerosol studies with relation to weather mapping and satellite imaging and can probably say that atmospheric CO2 concentration has gone up by over 0.01% over the past month. I say probably, as that wasn't an individual variable that we had accounted for, but there was a factor of atmospheric change which some other department put together which accounted for "greenhouse gases" and other particulate matter as a whole.

*edit* That wasn't a pitch as to why you should believe me, that was my reason for being curious where you were getting that idea from.

[Carlton Banks]

As a side note, why do you think that atmospheric concentration of CO2 has gone up by 0.01% since the industrial age?

that's the non-controversial part that (apparently nearly everyone) agrees on; 0.03% CO₂ pre 1900, 0.04% CO₂ at the beginning of C21st. It's frankly surprising that you claim never to have heard this, it is an often repeated pair of data points


if your friends are correct, then the alarmist perspective is also correct.

assuming a linear trend (which would be a conservative assumption seeing as energy production and vehicle use are in an upward trend), that's a 0.12% increase per year, in 50 years a 6% increase. That really would change the strength of the greenhouse effect, although the full effects are subject to decades of lag.


something tells me that the IPCC people would be screaming with blue faces about such a thing if that were really the case though.


Or, are you simply stating that CO₂ measurements oscillates by up to 0.01% in a given month? i.e. it increases or decreases by 0.01% about a longer term trend?

[SaltySpitoon]

that's the non-controversial part that (apparently nearly everyone) agrees on; 0.03% CO₂ pre 1900, 0.04% CO₂ at the beginning of C21st. It's frankly surprising that you claim never to have heard this, it is an often repeated pair of data points


if your friends are correct, then the alarmist perspective is also correct.

assuming a linear trend (which would be a conservative assumption seeing as energy production and vehicle use are in an upward trend), that's a 0.12% increase per year, in 50 years a 6% increase. That really would change the strength of the greenhouse effect, although the full effects are subject to decades of lag.


something tells me that the IPCC people would be screaming with blue faces about such a thing if that were really the case though.


Or, are you simply stating that CO₂ measurements oscillates by up to 0.01% in a given month? i.e. it increases or decreases by 0.01% about a longer term trend?

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding with the language. When you are talking about % CO2, do you mean as a percentage of the entire atmosphere, or increase of CO2 by some % in parts per million?


source: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

shows an ~ 8% increase in the past 14 years. I haven't looked over the data personally so I'm not going to defend this chart to the death, but the data is available for review.

[Carlton Banks]

Perhaps there was a misunderstanding with the language. When you are talking about % CO2, do you mean as a percentage of the entire atmosphere, or increase of CO2 by some % in parts per million?

I was quite explicit.

If I meant % rate of increase, I would have said that. I didn't. You meant that, but are using ambiguous language to muddy the waters. If not, you're just really bad at expressing yourself clearly, and so have no business picking my words apart.


You know what I said, but still chose to go for the "oh I'm so confused, maybe you mean this alarming sounding statistic?" approach

[SaltySpitoon]

please forgive my reading comprehension 

I was talking about concentration in parts per million. Concentration as a % of the atmosphere isn't a very useful metric, there are a million factors not at all related to CO2 that would affect it. For example, you could continuously increase the CO2 in the atmosphere but also, lets say add argon, and the concentration as a % of the atmosphere of CO2 would decrease. It'd take all day to list all of the reasons why concentration of CO2 in parts per million should be the primary metric used when trying to understand the addition or removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

[Carlton Banks]

I was talking about concentration in parts per million. Concentration as a % of the atmosphere isn't a very useful metric, there are a million factors not at all related to CO2 that would affect it.

increases in the proportion of other atmospheric gases also affect parts per million measurements of any other atmospheric gas


I also don't understand why you want to talk about an issue on which all sides agree



instead of presenting easily misinterpreted statistics, why not use a simple criteria using the same type of measurement:


CO₂ as a proportion of the atmosphere increased from 300 parts per million pre-industry to 400 parts per million in 2020. Which is a 0.01% increase, if you're using parts per million.

how strange, that's the exact figure I posted to begin with, so specifying the units as a proportion of the whole instead of a proportion without stating the measurement unit makes essentially no difference.


Unless you're trying to find a number that is as high as possible, to support the alarmist view, which you appear to be doing.

Why stop with 8% percentage change in the change of absolute percentage change? You could have used the figure for the rate at which the rate has increased since C19th, the most alarming figure possible!!! What would it be, 400% increase in the rate of change, maybe? At least then casual observers might wonder how on earth that's possible, until they sat back and thought about what the statistic really means.

And sitting back and thinking "what does an 8% increase in the percentage proportion really mean?" is exactly what any responsible person will do. And an irresponsible one will casually throw that statistic into a conversation that's about a completely different measure.

[SaltySpitoon]

I'm not sure what type of math you are doing, but an increase from 300 parts per million, parts per billion, parts per trillion to 400 parts per million etc is a 33% increase. I'm not really interested in talking with you because you are immediately on the attack about nonsense alarmist or whatever. An 8% increase over a 15 year period when compared against similar periods means that something is putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Its not possible that these rapid increases over short periods of time have happened in the past, otherwise the natural cycles that the earth has gone through would have been far more rapid. We see changes occur over a 20 year span that happened without human action over 300 million years. That tends to point to human action being related. We figured out what happened over those 300 million years as a result, and we conclude the same thing will occur again at a much faster rate.

So what does that mean for humanity? I don't know nor do I care, I just know that you need to factor in the change each year when you are scanning the earth otherwise your images get a little blurry.

*edit* We are actually off track here, so I'll just close with an on topic conclusion. The people who are actually capable of interpreting data and coming to useful conclusions are completely isolated for those that aren't. People who google some info to become experts and find third party information from someone making incorrect assumptions or doing a half ass job are louder than those that are quietly plugging away at problems with their colleagues. As a result, the people who debate topics like these are the ignorant and the ignorant. I don't know enough about the matter of CO2 to be working on it to tell you point by point where you have made errors in your assumptions. As a result, if I try, you can pick apart points that I make due to my own lack of knowledge. We can't trust the teams that have a combined 300 years of research on the matter, because they are the paid off corrupt authorities, so I guess we go back to listening to idiots with blogs. You can call it throwing in the towel if it'd make you feel better, but I'm going to call it preventing perpetuating incorrect information exchange.

[amishmanish]

so, you're saying that I misunderstood the carbon credit scheme


but your outline of the scheme is essentially identical to what I stated

• credits are created
• big polluters sell the credits they do not need

that's more or less exactly what I said.

I don't think we are saying the same things..You are not looking at the Carbon credits scheme as a solution to incentivize emission-reduction. Although we agree on this, yet you also need to view it without the lens of " all polluters are powerful, evil industries". It is a global issue that required coordination between countries too. Why should a country like India or Nigeria accept the same levels of reduction as the historic polluters? (Even though India has stupidly done this since 2014 and have seen the economy struggle since then).

Viewing it all as an economic conspiracy cannot make the real problem go away. I keep asking, What is the solution on your side of the belief for the problem??

I think that there is a problem where its hard to know who to believe, but more so because everyone has a platform to let others know of their revolutionary ideas, even if they are outright wrong. People seem to love the idea of "us" versus authority, when in a lot of cases, authority just means the best at their topic. What you consider common sense doesn't make it right.
--SNIP--

Become an authority in your own field and believe yourself.

The love of "Us vs Authority" is also visible in the way a large section of early bitcoin supporters no longer see eye to eye with the Core Devs.  This is also something that was so visible at the forum with Newbies and the Older members. A lot of the loud-mouths just do it to spite authority.
Ohh and "Google effect" like you said in the last post.. There was a time before the internet revolution when forming an opinion on a matter needed in-depth study, a few library visits or at least, having read a few books on topic. Today, I can comment on Banking, Climate change, Artificial Intelligence, Pop culture, Music..All at the same time..

Earlier we all agreed on what each one of us knew. Now it often becomes a competition on who first googled the slam-dunk argument...lol..It can lend a very disrupting tone to discussion at times.

[Carlton Banks]

I'm not sure what type of math you are doing, but an increase from 300 parts per million, parts per billion, parts per trillion to 400 parts per million etc is a 33% increase.

again, you're choosing a more alarming statistic.

Why would you want to make it sound scarier than it really is? you don't need to be any kind of expert to present all the relevant figures that cna be calculated from the raw data, anyone who knows basic mathematics can do it (you seem to be saying the opposite, that only sufficiently esteemed climate researchers are permitted to present simple deductions, that anything you or I would say is inherently invalid, yet we should listen to you and not to me. completely contradicting yourself, in other words)



so, here a simple peasant will clarify, where you choose to make things opaque:


parts per million means "how many parts within 1 million parts", i.e. a proportion of a whole (and no different to a simple percentage figure)

• 300 parts as a percentage of 1 million is: 300 / 1,000,000 * 100 = oh, whaddya know, 0.03%
• 400 parts as a percentage of 1 million is: 400 / 1,000,000 * 100 = oh, whaddya know, 0.04%
• the difference between 0.03% and 0.04% is: 0.04 - 0.03 = no way, it's 0.01
• 0.01 as a percentage of 0.03 is, as you say: 0.01 / 0.03 * 100 = 33%

I amply illustrate above that there are 2 relevant ways of measuring change in CO₂, absolute change (100 parts per million, equivalent to 0.01%), or the percentage rate of change (the proportion of 100 parts per million of increase in relation to a 300 parts per million baseline)


it's impossible to calculate the rate of change at all (which you are saying is the only statistic which you permit to exist) without first calculating the absolute difference.

yet when I say "the absolute difference is 0.01%", you can keep a straight face while replying "don't know what kind of math you're using"



tl;dr you're saying my math doesn't exist, and yet it's impossible to calculate your figure without first doing my supposedly non-existent math

@SalySpitoon your argument is cherry picking, manipulative nonsense. and anyone with a basic grasp of mathematics can see it plainly

[SaltySpitoon]

33%, that isn't "scary" it is what it is? If I say we have 3 puppies and now we have 4, thats a 33% increase. If I say we have 300 millionths of a puppy and now we have 400 millionths of a puppy, you might be scared of cloning, but it is what it is. If you are scared of a percent, that means you are scared of a conclusion drawn from that. Its beyond ridiculous to accuse someone a fear mongering because you think they should present the number in a different manner.


The data I found and posted above says theres been an increase of about 8% in the past 15 years, I can keep a straight face and tell you thats about 2% per year on average between the years 2005 and 2019. If thats spooky to you for some reason that sucks I guess? It doesn't mean much to me except that the index of refraction of the atmosphere is changing and the lenses need to be re-angled occasionally to get a proper scan of the earth.

[Carlton Banks]

you're hiding the 0.01% component of the calculation in the expression you're using....

4.e^-4 - 3.e^-4 = 0.0001 x 100 = 0.01% (adjustment to a percentage needs to be multiplied by 100)

there's the math you said didn't exist, you d/hid it yourself. it's inconceivable that you can continue to pretend that the absolute change is not 0.01%, and that this (very basic) math is entirely correct


and 33% of what?


a very very small proportion (0.03%, which you have finally conceded, despite stating I was using non-existent math to obtain the difference change in the same figure)


but do keep hand waving, and overcomplicating the issue, by all means

[SaltySpitoon]

you're hiding the 0.01% component of the calculation in the expression you're using....

4.e^-4 - 3.e^-4 = 0.0001 x 100 = 0.01% (adjustment to a percentage needs to be multiplied by 100)

there's the math you said didn't exist, you d/hid it yourself. it's inconceivable that you can continue to pretend that the absolute change is not 0.01%, and that this (very basic) math is entirely correct


and 33% of what?


a very very small proportion (0.03%, which you have finally conceded, despite stating I was using non-existent math to obtain the difference change in the same figure)


but do keep hand waving, and overcomplicating the issue, by all means

I apologize, I didn't account for you not knowing middle school level math. Going from 1 to 2 is a 100% change. Going from 10 to 20 is a 100% change, going from 100 to 200 is a 100% change. The order of magnitude doesn't fundamentally change how percents are calculated, you are missing the step where you divide by the initial value.

[(final - initial)/ initial] x 100

[(4e^-4 - 3e^-4) / 3e^-4 ] x 100.

here you go. https://www.skillsyouneed.com/num/percent-change.html

*edit* Sorry I'm being a jerk at this point but just gonna leave this here

@SalySpitoon your argument is cherry picking, manipulative nonsense. and anyone with a basic grasp of mathematics can see it plainly

A change of 0.01% would be 300ppm (3x10^-4) * 1.0001  for a total of 300.03ppm or (3.0003x10^-4)
A change of 33.33% would be 300ppm (3x10^-4) * 1.3333 for a total of 399.99ppm or ~ (4x10^-4)

[amishmanish]

Oh My God. Climate researchers always find it hard to clarify that "The Science is settled". Is it going to be Mathematics too now?  It is one thing  believing what I want to believe. It is an entirely different thing proposing Alternate-Mathematics.

If I had 300 Satoshis and I get a 33.33% return everyday.
I'll have an additional (33.33% x 300= 100 Sats) the next day.
Second day total would be 400 Sats.

The percentages wouldn't change if i said that i have 0.000003BTC instead?

[Carlton Banks]

it's so simple, yet you seem to want to make it complicated

• the year 1800: 0.03% CO₂
• the year 2020: 0.04% CO₂

that's an easy to understand difference of 0.01%. or an increase of 100 parts per million, if you prefer.

I think anyone who followed the math at this point can see who wants to bamboozle, and who's trying to make it easy to understand.


Why would anyone want to make it hard to understand, or start to throw insults around?