Why I don't believe "climate change" experts

a reply to: CranialSponge

Unless you plan on living about 50,000 years, you're good.
The CO2 we've already added to the atmosphere has caused a delay in the cooling game.

a reply to: Phage

Well thank gawd for that !

Now I can go back to watching Honey Boo boo in my flaming orange speedos with socks and sandals.

The egg came first.

Something that wasn't a chicken, laid an egg that was a chicken.

AGW has no proof. Only assertions and associations.

Not enough time has passed with accurate data for proof to be possible.

And even if it is true, there is no proof that its net effect will be harmful.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Nice theory.

AGW is a hoax,as the proponents of climate change realize they are losing the PR battle they are getting more and more strident and hysterical.I have been called every name in the book and threatened physically because I don`t go along with the program.I have only one question..Why?

I already know the answer,Global Warming has become a religion and anyone who disbelieves is a heretic.Those who belttle and deprecate theistic religions have to believe in something and that something is a fantasy called science and global warming.

Humans do affect the planet period. How much of an effect we do not know really. If the loss due to our involvement comes out to lets say 100 species a big deal, to the earth not really, but to us ,yes it can be a big deal. The earth is warming right now, there is no doubt about it. Are we to blame, somewhat....

The real crime is Al Gore's over sensationalism global warming, carbon credit scheme.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: Phage

Well thank gawd for that !

Now I can go back to watching Honey Boo boo in my flaming orange speedos with socks and sandals.

Pictures or it didn't happen....

originally posted by: pexx421
Ok. So what you are saying is that the us, which has the 6% of the world's scientists that disagree with man-made climate change, is involved in a conspiracy to make people buy into said climate change, while at the same time being the only nation in the world to deny it exists, to refuse to strict reductions, while simultaneously profiting grandly from business practices that continue to pollute and contribute to said climate change. How shockingly clever of them.

Judith Curry, a climatologist, says that the 'consensus' just isn't true, the 'reporter' who wrote the original article 'sexed it up' as the Brits say, there is no consensus.

I have issues with all bore, the huge house he lives in, the private jet to get him to other airports, the fleet of limoe's to take him to the seminars, the look he has of 'living off the fat of the land' (he is fat), his constant preaching of 'do as I say, not as I do' .

I find the whole global warming thing to be closer to religion than science. It can't be proved here and now, but if you have FAITH, it will be down the road.

Now, don't get me wrong. I believe in the fact of climate change, and that the climate is NOT stoic and unchanging...of course it changes...that's what climate does outside of a modern home. Also, I don't think it's OK to stay the course on current pollution levels on this planet. Indeed something needs to be done about that. Just not in the carbon tax BS political way. Governments, and citizens alike, need to stop accosting people for consuming, essentially trash, in a consumer world...when the corporations which are the ones who choose to produce the trash in the first place are paid top dollar for it, while everyone is left dividing their trash with a 75% chance of it just being moved to a landfill! Its insanity on a whole new level!

REDUCE, REUSE...THEN recycle, if needed. Seems to me it is indeed the other way around. Not that I'm surprised about any of this though.This is capitalism/ monetary economics after all.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
How can people in this day and age not realize that for all the destruction that mankind has done to this planet that it is a major cause for Global climate change.


You put enough chemicals in the air....over time it will effect the climate.

Look at the weather changes..more extreme weather , drastic changes in temps..etc.

For instance..it went from minus 30 to 0 over-nite where I live...used to take days or weeks for that kind of temp change but over-nite.

The planet I feel is living organism..like everything..it gets sick and then it sends out antibodies to destroy that which is causing it's illness...that would be us.

I feel the planet is in the process of repairing itself...at the expense of us.

Extreme weather changes? New?

I clearly remember, well over 30 years ago a Halloween where we were setting up a Haunted House.
We began the day in shorts and t-shirts it was so warm
by the end of the day it snowed with a one foot accumulation

a reply to: pikestaff how about this interesting read? www.informationclearinghouse.info...


"Why is the United States first in climate complacency? According to leading climate scientist James Hansen, there is in this country “a huge gap between the public’s understanding of the situation and the scientific understanding.”4 But why does this gap exist in America?

Physicist Joe Romm, who started the website Climate Progress, has written that, although “our scientific understanding of business-as-usual projections for global warming has changed dramatically,” the U.S. public largely “remain in the dark about just how dire the situation is. Why? Because the U.S. media is largely ignoring the story,” which Romm called “the story of the century, if not the millennium.”5

Romm is far from the only person to give this assessment. Eric Pooley, one of America’s leading journalists, offered a parable:


“Suppose our leading scientists discovered that a meteor, hurtling toward the earth, was set to strike later this century; the governments of the world had less than ten years to divert or destroy it. How would news organizations cover this story? Even in an era of financial distress, they would throw teams of reporters at it and give them the resources needed to follow it in extraordinary depth and detail. After all, the race to stop the meteor would be the story of the century.”

In Pooley’s parable, carbon-using humanity is the meteor, which is threatening to destroy civilization. This threat is, Pooley said, the “great story, of our time. But news organizations have not been treating it that way.”6

Likewise, Hartmann said: “The mainstream media is failing us when it comes to covering the story of the century.” Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ross Gelbspan said that the climate crisis is “undoubtedly the biggest story of this millennium.”And in her inimitable way, Rebecca Solnit wrote that people a century from now “will think the newspapers should have had a gigantic black box above the fold of the front page every day saying “Here are some stories about other things, BUT CLIMATE IS STILL THE BIGGEST STORY OF ALL.”7

However, granted that the U.S. media have not done a good job, is it fair to blame them for the fact that America has more climate denialists, and less concern about climate change, than other wealthy countries? After all, fossil-fuel companies, especially ExxonMobil and Koch Industries, have spent tens of millions of dollars to fund dozens of organizations, including the Tea Party, to make climate denialism appear to have arisen spontaneously from concerned citizens.

However, according to journalist Mark Hertsgaard, the responsibility of the fossil-fuel companies does not lessen that of the media. “As a journalist,” he wrote, “it shames me that the [carbon] lobby could never have succeeded without the assistance of the media.”8

2. How the Mainstream Media Have Failed

A central reason for the media’s failure involves the journalistic norm of “balanced” reporting. As one discussion put it: “Balance aims for neutrality. It requires that reporters present the views of legitimate spokespersons of the conflicting sides in any significant dispute, and provide both sides with roughly equal attention.”9

False Balance

In a study entitled “Balance as Bias,” Maxwell Boykoff and Jules Boykoff said:


“[B]alanced reporting can actually be a form of informational bias. Despite the highly regarded IPCC’s [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s] consistent assertions . . . , balanced reporting has allowed a small group of global warming skeptics to have their views amplified.”10

In explaining how balance can be bias, the Boykoffs quoted Gelbspan, who wrote:


“The professional canon of journalistic fairness requires reporters who write about a controversy to present competing points of view. When the issue is of a political or social nature, fairness – presenting the most compelling arguments of both sides with equal weight – is a fundamental check on biased reporting. But this canon causes problems when it is applied to issues of science. It seems to demand that journalists present competing points of views on a scientific question as though they had equal scientific weight, when actually they do not.”11

With regard to the idea of giving equal weight to “both sides,” Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, authors of the great book Merchants of Doubt, said:


“[O]nce a scientific issue is closed, there’s only one ‘side.’ Imagine providing a ‘balance’ to the issue of whether the Earth orbits the Sun, whether continents move, or whether DNA carries genetic information. These matters were long ago settled in scientists’ minds. Nobody can publish an article in a scientific journal claiming the Sun orbits the Earth.”12

Disputing this issue, Washington Post denialist Charles Krauthammer wrote: “There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge.”13

However, although “science” is never settled, because new facts are continually found, some of which require new theories, this does not mean that there are no settled facts. Although plate tectonics was once fiercely debated, it no longer is. Climate science is still evolving, with many remaining questions (such as “climate sensitivity”). But central issues have been settled, including the fact that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is raising the planet’s average temperature and that this global warming is causing climate disruption.

Not only is this a consensus today, with over 97 percent of the world’s active climate scientists agreeing, consensus has existed for a long time. As early as 1997, the Washington Post published a story entitled “Consensus Emerges Earth Is Warming – Now What?”14

Recently, however, the media have largely ignored the distinction between disputed opinion and settled fact. As a result, the media have produced bias. Having studied the stories about global warming in the U.S. “prestige press” (the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal) between 1988 and 2002, Boykoff and Boykoff reported that a majority of the stories were “balanced” in this sense:


“[T]hese accounts gave ‘roughly equal attention’ to the view that humans were contributing to global warming, and the other view that exclusively natural fluctuations could explain the earth’s temperature increase.”

For stories to be truly balanced, they should give only as much attention to the views of contrarian scientists as their numbers represent. In 2014, English comedian John Oliver, on his faux TV news show, “Last Week Tonight,” humorously demonstrated what true balance would be. Having described the typical TV debate between a climate scientist and a climate denier, he pointed out that the debate should really be statistically representative of the two positions. So after having two more people join the denier, Oliver brought in 96 more to join the scientist.15" I would suggest reading the whole article. But yes, surprising isn't it, that the US is the one nation in the world where a large percentage of citizens happens to doubt man made climate change, and at the same time its the nation that profits the most from the things considered destructive to climate.

I agree with you OP.

I also have memories in school about the horror of hole in the ozone layer and how it was going to kill us all. Then later we find the hole is completely normal. LOL

I also remember the horrors of human pollution causing acid rain. It terrified us as kids. Guess how much acid rain there is now? LOL

a reply to: jjkenobi

Guess how much acid rain there is now? LOL

Guess why there is much less than there was.
Hint: it has to do with regulation.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: jjkenobi

Guess how much acid rain there is now? LOL

Guess why there is much less than there was.
Hint: it has to do with regulation.

It has to do with technology.

Scrubbers and more efficient burning, which would have happened anyway.

You can refuse to believe climate change experts all you want, as long as you understand that climate change is a real thing. That's quite obvious unless you choose to deny the various periods of the Earth warming and cooling.

As for what impact our actions have on the matter, it's way too early to know. However, if there is even a small chance there is something we can do as humans to avoid exacerbation of the process, would it not be prudent, even logical, to take whatever preventative measures we have available?

What's the worst that can happen? A cottage industry grows, providing employment to people needing work. Is that so terrible? Is the continues development of alternate forms of energy a bad thing? Is taking steps to keep our water, soil, and air as clean as possible a stupid idea?

Like I said, maybe none of the above have any measurable impact on climate change. Maybe. The real results of this research won't be viable for hundreds of years down the line, most likely long after we are all dead. But what if we do nothing, and it all pans out that we could have made a difference, but ignored and even denied change? Who gets hurt by us being proactive regarding that possibility? Certainly not you. Not me. Where is the harm?

originally posted by: pexx421
Let's be honest here, what is the real issue? On one side you have businesses which want to be free to pollute and destroy to their hearts content. On the other side you have people who want a world still around for our children. Guess what side you are on? One side stands to gain massive amounts of money from their argument.....the other....just wants a future where they are able to still breathe, eat, and not be subject to flooding of coastal areas due to melting ice caps. What is the evidence? Dying animals everywhere, massive decreases in sea life due to rising acidity of oceans from higher air co2 levels. Dying aborigines from cancer and pollution. Dying coral reefs. The obvious effect of increasing co2 production while cutting down massive rainforests and woodlands. Companies points of vview? They Should never have to clean up any mess they make no matter who or what it kills. The eco whackos point? We are responsible for this world that we borrow from future generations. Clean up your sh@t. Which side makes sense? Which side is responsible? Which side requires more work? Which side is destructive? Instant gratification? Killing people right now?

Lets try this on your terms. On one side, we have the government that is addicted to money, power and control stating that there is "Global Warming" and then after that doesn't work, "Climate Change". Many scientists support the government's version of needing to turn control of processes that affect the environment to them. They will undoubtedly tax and control to "make the world a better place". The scientists, probably liberal or easily bought or controlled jump on the band wagon to support a proven liar and addict...our government. The same one who has taken control of the internet for no reason, taken control of YOUR health care for no good reason, etc.

Then you have the businesses you mention. The businesses owned by, run by and worked by human beings who also have children and lives to live. You talk about business like it is some kind of evil monster that is out to destroy humans without recognizing that the business IS humans. So these stupid business people, who are so greedy that they are willing to destroy their children's and grandchildren's lives want to ignore the "fact" of man-made global warming...climate change...whatever.

You see...the reason WHY us "idiots" don't simply lie down, bend over and accept this is because of who is presenting it. A government built entirely upon lies. Now we all know that when someone says politicians, someone else in the room says liars. They are synonyms. And when someone says Obama or this administration, anyone smart KNOWS that lying is the master game plan. They see us as "idiots" who need them to understand how to live. Well...considering the questionability of the source, their track record and history, their willingness to buy or force people to lie to get what they want...many of us say "they are crying wolf again". And justifiably so. Then...we have the "whistle-blower" scientists saying...."hold on...not true". These are people that the government then attacks and demonizes. All the while, the "whistle-blowers" have no reason to lie. But the government does.

There ya go...the reasoning at least from my side, but I would guess many others also.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: jjkenobi

Guess how much acid rain there is now? LOL

Guess why there is much less than there was.
Hint: it has to do with regulation.

It has to do with technology.

Scrubbers and more efficient burning, which would have happened anyway.

Why do you say it would have happened anyway? When has business chosen to do the right thing over profit? It doesn't. The bottom line is more efficient burning and scrubbers are a direct result of regulation. To assume business would have moved towards those solutions on their own is foolish thought at best.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
How can people in this day and age not realize that for all the destruction that mankind has done to this planet that it is a major cause for Global climate change.


You put enough chemicals in the air....over time it will effect the climate.

Look at the weather changes..more extreme weather , drastic changes in temps..etc.

For instance..it went from minus 30 to 0 over-nite where I live...used to take days or weeks for that kind of temp change but over-nite.

The planet I feel is living organism..like everything..it gets sick and then it sends out antibodies to destroy that which is causing it's illness...that would be us.

I feel the planet is in the process of repairing itself...at the expense of us.

Extreme weather changes? New?

I clearly remember, well over 30 years ago a Halloween where we were setting up a Haunted House.
We began the day in shorts and t-shirts it was so warm
by the end of the day it snowed with a one foot accumulation

To both of you. One weather event in one specific location is not indicative of anything. These types of posts (Ex: "It was 78 degrees in Fort Worth on 6/12/2014 so take that global warming hoax!") display a gross misunderstanding of the term "global".

originally posted by: pexx421
Ok. So what you are saying is that the us, which has the 6% of the world's scientists that disagree with man-made climate change, is involved in a conspiracy to make people buy into said climate change, while at the same time being the only nation in the world to deny it exists, to refuse to strict reductions, while simultaneously profiting grandly from business practices that continue to pollute and contribute to said climate change. How shockingly clever of them.

It's not just the USA but nice way to pigeon hole the argument... The USA is an active member of the international community and will toe the line to UN / CFR / WHO demands. look at all the land use and zoning requirement the US adopted in line with Agenda 21.

A bunch of unelected official corroborate behind closed doors to weave a specific narrative that then trickles down into federal then state then local governments.