Why I don't believe "climate change" experts

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: amazing
My problem is this.

If we don't believe the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations and associations on Climate change/Global Warming, then why should we believe them on vaccinations, evolution, gravity, Astronomy, general medical care, biology etc. Can we really cherry pick what we believe?

Probably because each one of those things are different issues, evaluated by different disciplines, supported by different levels of evidence, and studied by different people and groups.



"Science" is not a monolith.

It is a tool though, a method, in which the basic procedures are the same regardless of the topic or field.

Not when it comes to Climate change. All of those tools and methods are thrown out the window. They make it up to fit their beliefs. That's not science.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: nomadone407

originally posted by: amazing
My problem is this.

If we don't believe the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations and associations on Climate change/Global Warming, then why should we believe them on vaccinations, evolution, gravity, Astronomy, general medical care, biology etc. Can we really cherry pick what we believe?

All of those other things are real and provable. Where as "climate change" is made up and not provable. Everything that the whack job warming alarmist have put out have been proven lies. All of them.

The majority of the "vast majority" of scientists start out with the answer they are being paid to "prove" and then make up what ever it takes to come to the answer. To get that big grant or check or house or what ever.

Climate change is a scam it's a lie, it's not happening.

If the Government is screaming Warming then we should all be buying Parka's.

I have to disagree. There is a ton of stuff that has been proven regarding climate change/global warming. I don't think you're reading enough. We know that those denying global warming are being paid by fossil fuel/energy companies. That should be a red flag right there that they are lying to us at the bidding of their corporate overlords. Follow the money.

You should follow your own suggestion. Follow the money. The perpetrators of the hoax are being paid too.

originally posted by: nomadone407
Not when it comes to Climate change. All of those tools and methods are thrown out the window. They make it up to fit their beliefs. That's not science.

You're confusing science with religion methinks.....and you're cherry picking which science to accept depending on you're own beliefs.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: nomadone407
Not when it comes to Climate change. All of those tools and methods are thrown out the window. They make it up to fit their beliefs. That's not science.

You're confusing science with religion methinks.....and you're cherry picking which science to accept depending on you're own beliefs.

lol No, but that is exactly what the hoax believes are doing.

originally posted by: nomadone407

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: nomadone407

originally posted by: amazing
My problem is this.

If we don't believe the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations and associations on Climate change/Global Warming, then why should we believe them on vaccinations, evolution, gravity, Astronomy, general medical care, biology etc. Can we really cherry pick what we believe?

All of those other things are real and provable. Where as "climate change" is made up and not provable. Everything that the whack job warming alarmist have put out have been proven lies. All of them.

The majority of the "vast majority" of scientists start out with the answer they are being paid to "prove" and then make up what ever it takes to come to the answer. To get that big grant or check or house or what ever.

Climate change is a scam it's a lie, it's not happening.

If the Government is screaming Warming then we should all be buying Parka's.

I have to disagree. There is a ton of stuff that has been proven regarding climate change/global warming. I don't think you're reading enough. We know that those denying global warming are being paid by fossil fuel/energy companies. That should be a red flag right there that they are lying to us at the bidding of their corporate overlords. Follow the money.

You should follow your own suggestion. Follow the money. The perpetrators of the hoax are being paid too.

So true,
for example John Kerry
he has made millions fostering the idea that humans caused global warming and humans can fix it

and I believe he is one who is trumpeting carbon tax and carbon credits, hmmmmm, whose going to get rich off that one? Certainly won't benefit anyone in need or help the poor or create jobs or do anything but enrich the pockets of the carbon credit exchangers, John Kerry's fellow .000001%ers. It did help the wealthy who got money to start solar ventures from the Obama administration and not long after taking the money and starting the company, it mysteriously failed.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: CyberGarp

In a nutshell you are saying Global Warming is a natural not man made phenomenon?

No I never said that.

Climate change is natural and man made, they are not exclusive. The current trend of global warming has very strong evidence that it is man-made. There are other factors, that induce climate change that are not man-made. However, the current primary driver is carbon build up in the atmosphere, produced by man. There have been natural carbon build ups in the past, which led to extinction events. (en.wikipedia.org...). If the record of the geological past is any indicator, what we can expect is a huge warm-up followed by an ice-age with a large number of species going extinct. Historically, those events took place over 100,000's of years.

I will say this, the *science* is very clear--the planet is warming and the principal culprit is carbon release by man. Don't take my word for it, go pull the data, go pull the journals. Read the articles yourself--in respected science journals. It's really quite clear. 97.5% of climate scientists agree with this position.

The problem is the distortion of this into a political arena. That 97.5% sudden became, "97% believe in impending catastrophe", which is not what they were asked in the study. The original question was "do you believe global warming is caused by man?" How did this become, 97% believe in the immediate apocalypse? The answer, is politics.

People don't trust science. Politicians are taking extreme positions, fear mongering, name calling, spreading uncertainty, doubt in all directions. There are those that stand to profit by whatever direction is picked. There is no rational dialogue on the topic, and I present this thread as my evidence.

However, the stakes are quite high. Let's say they're all wrong, and the theory is bunk. If we don't reduce our carbon output, life continues on the same path. If we do reduce our carbon footprint, and go solar, there is reduced economic expansion--but we get cleaner air, a nice side benefit. Now let's say the theory is right, and we're headed into a major warming event. If we take action, we reduce the warming trend, and we get cleaner air--once again at the expense of economic growth. However, if we take no action, and the science is correct, then we rush headlong without planning into warming the planet. Problem is the feedback loop is about 100 years long, and actions today take about a 100 years to settle into their new equilibrium. Maybe life is just fine at this new set point, and we get to all live in a tropical climate. Maybe it's devastating for life on this planet, and mass starvation and warfare break out across the planet.

So, the benefits of listening to the science and taking action are in general better, than ignoring it--even if the science is wrong. For example, renewable solar, would put the hurt on the oil producing companies, and reduce funding for terrorism. There is a potential devastating consequence from ignoring it, a possible extinction event is within the realm of possibilities. However, the data in that regard is far less certain. However, the possible risks are quite high.

Nature is what happens, even when you don't believe it.

a reply to: pexx421

Wow that's a pretty stern line in the sand you've drawn... I"ll have you know that I am ALL about stopping the real pollution. Industrial waste, river pollution, land fills, etc...

Saying you SUV driver, we're going to tax you into hell because AGW... that is NOT about stopping pollution...

Jaden

a reply to: CyberGarp

You don't know what the hell you're talking about... regurgitate spoon fed talking points much??

LOL...

Jaden

originally posted by: nomadone407

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: nomadone407

originally posted by: amazing
My problem is this.

If we don't believe the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations and associations on Climate change/Global Warming, then why should we believe them on vaccinations, evolution, gravity, Astronomy, general medical care, biology etc. Can we really cherry pick what we believe?

All of those other things are real and provable. Where as "climate change" is made up and not provable. Everything that the whack job warming alarmist have put out have been proven lies. All of them.

The majority of the "vast majority" of scientists start out with the answer they are being paid to "prove" and then make up what ever it takes to come to the answer. To get that big grant or check or house or what ever.

Climate change is a scam it's a lie, it's not happening.

If the Government is screaming Warming then we should all be buying Parka's.

I have to disagree. There is a ton of stuff that has been proven regarding climate change/global warming. I don't think you're reading enough. We know that those denying global warming are being paid by fossil fuel/energy companies. That should be a red flag right there that they are lying to us at the bidding of their corporate overlords. Follow the money.

You should follow your own suggestion. Follow the money. The perpetrators of the hoax are being paid too.

But the proponents are not all getting paid. They're not all in it for the money. On the other side most of the denyers can trace their funding to fossil fuel or conservative PACs and such. That should tell you something. I think you followed the wrong trail!

a reply to: grandmakdw

Then how, if you believe whole-heartedly that examination and re-examination are so important in science, do you reconcile your thought process with the overwhelming amount of peer-reviewed information pointing to man-made climate change? How do you deny the ice core samples that show higher CO2 levels correlating to higher surface temperatures?

Do you deny, yes or no, that the planet is warming?

If you don't deny that the planet is warming, what evidence do you have that says it is not the increased emissions from industrial sources?

I keep seeing posts exclaiming the greater danger of H2O in the atmosphere. There's no doubt about that. H2O is a potent greenhouse gas. How does water get into the atmosphere? By warming up. How does this warming occur? Through other greenhouse gasses like methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons trapping heat.

How do you, or anyone else, deny that this is happening? How do you deny that we're the cause? Is it because you just want to be different? Because you feel the need to go against the grain?

Again, I think you're confusing things. Are you talking about John Kerry or Al Gore?

Think this satellite may have more answers than Moans Loa site seeing as it scans most of the planet for a variety of factors. You can see from the imagery that CO2 is NOT mixed well as the higher concentrations hover over the northern hemisphere. However this is just a snapshot of the data collected thus far for the may 13. And below is the graph for Moana Loa. Its interesting that a majority of the Hotspots are over China and not the US. The site has links to other trend maps which show CO and fires and plant growth and water vapor.

ARIS



OCO2
More recent data graph.
Food for thought, lots of good information and links to climate related measurements and data.

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt

Its interesting that a majority of the Hotspots are over China and not the US.

I don't see any "hotspots" in China. China looks like it's more or less in the middle of that graph range, as is the US, but if anything China has lower levels than the US according to that.

The low concentration is off the coast of central west Africa and the highest concentration is in Central Europe or maybe the southern tip of Greenland, but the difference between the lowest and highest concentration seems rather small (402-391)/396 = 11/396.5 which is about 2.8% which means the variation from midpoint is only about plus or minus 1.4%. That's not a huge variation, right? It's not like it's plus or minus 10%, or 20%.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt

Its interesting that a majority of the Hotspots are over China and not the US.

I don't see any "hotspots" in China. China looks like it's more or less in the middle of that graph range, as is the US, but if anything China has lower levels than the US according to that so I wonder if you understand it.

The low concentration is off the coast of central west Africa and the highest concentration is in Central Europe or maybe the southern tip of Greenland, but the difference between the lowest and highest concentration seems rather small (402-391)/396 = 11/396.5 which is about 2.8% which means the variation from midpoint is only about plus or minus 1.4%. That's not a huge variation, right? It's not like it's plus or minus 10%, or 20%.

Sorry that pic was the older data from 2013 the most recent pic is above.

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt
Sorry that pic was the older data from 2013 the most recent pic is above.

Ah that makes more sense, thanks for the clarification.

But the different maps being different might also suggest that the differences aren't so persistent? Is OCO-2 the source for both maps?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt
Sorry that pic was the older data from 2013 the most recent pic is above.

Ah that makes more sense, thanks for the clarification.

But the different maps being different might also suggest that the differences aren't so persistent? Is OCO-2 the source for both maps?

The OCO2 satellite replace the ARIS this year and measures a more accurate range using updated IR technology...Basically that's a difference of about 18 months between the two ARIS and OCO2..btw on my phone which complicates things greatly

I made a mistake in an earlier post.

I said John Kerry

when I meant to say Al Gore.

Sorry about that.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Sorry, but that's untrue. CFCs caused the Ozone hole. Its formation was not natural at all. Here.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: mbkennel

That's impossible. There is NO WAY in HELL that the CO2 accumulation in the stratosphere could have one iota of an impact on surface temperature. NONE.

The difference in temperatures in the layers between the surface and the stratosphere, means that there's no way for trapped radiative heat in the stratosphere to affect the temperatures in the lower atmosphere.

You're wrong because you don't know how the physics works. It's unfortunate you make absolutist statements which are wrong and the materials to educate yourself are so widely available.

The natural greenhouse effect (mostly water and CO2) and its physics has been accepted by scientists for many decades and verified by extensive experimental data.

It's not like a physical greenhouse for farmers: the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere re-radiate in infrared, in all directions, energy which they mostly absorbed from infrared going up. The net effect is that the atmosphere shines more in the infrared than it would otherwise and the surface temperature is higher than otherwise.

Why are nights in the high desert so cold compared to warm humid areas? There is less water vapor in the atmosphere re-radiating back down the infrared emitted from the ground.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
The funny thing is, a hydrogen-based engine would create more warming, because it's exhaust would be H20, and water vapor (the kind put into the air from evaporating oceans) is a much, MUCH more potent greenhouse gas than is CO2.

This not true.

a) Water is not a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
b) Water emitted by combustion is quantitatively irrelevant to the water balance in the atmosphere any more than the heat emitted by car exhaust is significant.

The water in the atmosphere has about a 2 week timescale of turnover interacting between ocean and air: if the atmosphere were totally dessicated or totally saturated by fiat then in about 2 weeks you'd end up back with about the typical conditions. The transfer of humidity in the atmosphere is weather.

By contrast, greenhouse gases have a typical residence time of decades (CH4) to hundreds & thousands of years (CO2).

The water in the atmosphere responds on weather timescales and that amount is determined very significantly by the temperature of atmosphere and ocean and wind patterns.

originally posted by: CyberGarp
People don't trust science.

I would submit that it is the scientists that people don't trust, not science in general--at least the retional-thinking skeptics.

However, the stakes are quite high. Let's say they're all wrong, and the theory is bunk. If we don't reduce our carbon output, life continues on the same path. If we do reduce our carbon footprint, and go solar, there is reduced economic expansion--but we get cleaner air, a nice side benefit. Now let's say the theory is right, and we're headed into a major warming event. If we take action, we reduce the warming trend, and we get cleaner air--once again at the expense of economic growth. However, if we take no action, and the science is correct, then we rush headlong without planning into warming the planet. Problem is the feedback loop is about 100 years long, and actions today take about a 100 years to settle into their new equilibrium. Maybe life is just fine at this new set point, and we get to all live in a tropical climate. Maybe it's devastating for life on this planet, and mass starvation and warfare break out across the planet.

But you forgot the third and, in my opinion, most probable outcome--that we are in the midst of a natural warming cycle, and that our effects on the climate (which haven't even been long enough in the grand scheme of things to call it a "trend") are so minimally invasive that the effects will be hardly noticeable.

The problem is that when you base a(n expensive) course of action on an assumption that all/most of the current warming is because of our direct affects on the climate (well...weather), you run the risk of trying to overcompensate for the "damages" that have been done and disrupting the natural cycle in the opposite direction. I don't know about your research, but history tells us that a colder climate makes life much more difficult, whereas a warmer climate allows life to thrive (obviously only up to a certain point). The true fact of the matter is that, as you imply, nobody truly knows for sure, and for my money and children's lives, and after reviewing many different hypotheses on the global warming (or not-really-warming, as the current case may be) issue and much more data than one mind can even remember, I can't subscribe to the AGW alarmism that goes around because we just. don't. truly. know. And there is plenty of substantiated, peer-reviewed science that supports my conclusion that any effect humans have on the environment is minimal in the grand scheme of the natural cycle.

There is a potential devastating consequence from ignoring it, a possible extinction event is within the realm of possibilities. However, the data in that regard is far less certain. However, the possible risks are quite high.

I appreciate that you're presenting that there is uncertainty and that this claim is only a possible risk, but this is still the alarmism that I discuss, and it's still, at its base, an appeal to emotion that has a very, VERY small basis in factuality.