How Fossil Fuel Money Made Climate Change Denial the Word of God

I have a question that has bothered me about climate change for some time, maybe one of you smart folks can answer it, or point me to the research.

What I have read seems like you only have 2 choices, its man made or its natural.

I have seen very little that even looks at the possibility of a perfect storm of events, explosive population, destroying millions of acres of land that naturally helps keep the balance to put in concrete and steel, coupled with fossil fuel usage, coupled with magnitudes more methane being released in the ocean than was previously believed, solar events having an effect, or something like that.

We know and admit that weather patterns can collide and cause super storms (or events if you prefer), so why does it seem like this particular area that is deemed so important it looks like we are reduced to 2 choices.

Any help clearing this up would be greatly appreciated, I have tried reading up on this stuff and well have to admit quite a bit of it flies over my head.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Actually you are wrong. It's not between man made or natural. It's between man made and natural or just natural. Climate Change deniers like to obfuscate the issue by pretending like man made climate change can't work in tandem with natural climate change.

a reply to: jrod

Still wondering if you had a rebuttal to the points that slap made as I thought they were pretty good points negating a lot of your OP. I know they might take some time to refute with a pretty good argument so I waited, however to me and I'm sure many others it looks like you just bailed on your thread after you couldn't rebut a well made argument against your claim. If that is the case that's fine as well, I just wanted to give you a chance to refute his claims before I finished,forming an opinion about this thread and the,argument made here.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

A. C12/C14 and C12/C13 ratios prove the excess CO2 is indeed coming from fossil fuels. This has been discussed in detail several times on ATS, I am pretty sure you participated in some of those threads.

B. It is ignorant with the amount of fuel we burn, which CO2 is the by product, to believe it does not raise CO2 levels.

C. Claiming CO2 is not relevant because it is only 0.04% of the atmosphere is a fool's argument. It still contributes greatly to the greenhouse effect and a 40%+ increase of CO2 is quite significant.

D. Better education and better alternatives in my opinion are the answer. Even the Oil tycoons in Dubai know fossil fuel consumption will be phased out and are betting/investing in alternative energy.
Cap and trade on CO2 is a discussion worthy of it's own thread.

This all has been discussed previously on ATS. If i get bored enoygh before i pass out, I may even link those threads.

I still feel like those youtube videos are a waste of time and havent watched them as most links like that are a bunch of talking heads who are concerned about sounding right, making the other side appear wrong instead of actually addressing the evidence. Someone can elegantly argue something that is false, while the other guy can poorly argue something that is true and the audience will believe what ever sounds better.

originally posted by: crayzeed
To anyone who believes that global warming is man made please watch a video called "The great global warming scam" on shh you know what tube. It has real scientists giving real data and it's opened my eyes to the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the human race. Watch it then come back and refute it.

I believe you mean "The Great Global Warming Swindle" ?

a reply to: RickyD

It only took a few minutes....but still havent wasted my time watching those youtube.

I was just being lazy and waiting on you to call me out again.

Since you loved his post so much, why don't you summarize those youtube clips for us?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SlapMonkey

A. C12/C14 and C12/C13 ratios prove the excess CO2 is indeed coming from fossil fuels. This has been discussed in detail several times on ATS, I am pretty sure you participated in some of those threads.

Here's where the problem lies: What is the natural baseline? I only ask because, like I've noted MANY times, dramatically steep increases and decreases in CO2 have happened naturally innumerable times in the history--even very relatively recently--of the world before fossil-fuel use was even a consideration, let alone a norm. So, where did that baseline come from? What year do they use? How much would the CO2 have naturally risen or fallen since that time?

When those proposing the theory have failed to prove to me that their baseline is 100% accurate and that their claims based on that are also 100% accurate, it is not proof of much, at least scientifically speaking (and I use the word "proof" very tightly). I leave the data as a possibility, but I'm just not convinced, taking other evidence into consideration, that they have it right enough for me to be all scared and worried about the effects of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere.

B. It is ignorant with the amount of fuel we burn, which CO2 is the by product, to believe it does not raise CO2 levels.

And it is ignorant to keep repeating that to me, as I have never denied that this is a reality. In fact, in my response (B) to which you just responded, I specifically note that it is a contributing factor, I just expanded on that reality to further explain that other factors must be considered as well. This response of yours doesn't address anything of substance.

C. Claiming CO2 is not relevant because it is only 0.04% of the atmosphere is a fool's argument. It still contributes greatly to the greenhouse effect and a 40%+ increase of CO2 is quite significant.

"Quite significant," again, does not equate to an absolute deviation of the norm, and since we still don't know what the CO2 levels would have actually been had we not had the industrial revolution, it's impossible to say that such an increase is a massive deviation from the natural norm, and it is also--I'll say it again--something that has happened innumerable times in our past and the earth has done just fine.

Another fool's argument would be to constantly counter my notation that it's 0.04% of the atmosphere with, "Well, yeah, but that doesn't matter, you fool!" (paraphrased, of course) It does matter, especially when you should consider that, at 0.04% of the atmosphere, CO2 also "only" contributes 9%-24% (so we'll take the middle road at 15.5%) of the totality of the greenhouse effect. So, yes, it matters, even if it is the main catalyst of temperature change (according to current claims and models, although I have seen a lot of data that shows temperature changes precede CO2 changes, for the most part).

D. Better education and better alternatives in my opinion are the answer. Even the Oil tycoons in Dubai know fossil fuel consumption will be phased out and are betting/investing in alternative energy.

As they should if they still want to remain in the business of supplying energy. And I'm all for cleaner energy sources, just not ones that need subsidized by the government in order to be viable. When there is enough innovation that the cost is worth private investment and purchase (which we're very close in a few avenues of energy) without he promise of tax breaks for purchasing it (oops), then that will be a great day. But we're not quite there, yet. But that doesn't mean that we must discount the advances in fossil-fuel usage that has greatly--GREATLY--reduced the amount used for the same things from 100 years ago.

Cap and trade on CO2 is a discussion worthy of it's own thread.

No, it really isn't worthy of discussion, at least as it pertains to CO2 (a non-pollutant).

This all has been discussed previously on ATS.

Nearly everything AGW-related has been discussed ad nauseam before on ATS, yet it keeps rearing its ugly head. But at least it gives us something to talk about that doesn't have "Trump" or "White Supremacist" in the title or OP.

I still feel like those youtube videos are a waste of time and havent watched them as most links like that are a bunch of talking heads who are concerned about sounding right, making the other side appear wrong instead of actually addressing the evidence.

Choosing not to watch them based on a pre-conceived notion is detrimental to discussion (and the epitome of logical fallacy). I read your link in the OP, even though it didn't change my mind about much. To be fair, the second one is pertinent to the AGW hypocrisy, but it's less interesting than the first video. If you only watch one, watch the first.

IF.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Irishhaf

Actually you are wrong. It's not between man made or natural. It's between man made and natural or just natural. Climate Change deniers like to obfuscate the issue by pretending like man made climate change can't work in tandem with natural climate change.

This comment in bold needs a definition attached to "Climate Change denier," as many who embrace AGW theories assume that everyone who does not is a "denier."

Personally, I'm a skeptic--hard skeptic, if you want to get a bit more accurate--concerning the AGW theories, but I openly admit that man-made CO2 increases are a reality, but I constantly question how much of that cited increases in the past 100+ years are solely based on the man-made additions versus natural.

This is a question that not one person I have every asked has EVER answered, basically because most of the AGW theory follows that there is a claimed "normal" level of CO2 in the atmosphere, which anyone who has researched the topic for more than 3.721 minutes knows is not the case.

So, what is your definition of "Climate Change denier?" Does that include skeptics? I'm just wondering...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Pretty much, I always get an answer like Krazy gave... your wrong get smarter.

No references to research, just your wrong.

a reply to: Irishhaf

To be honest, I was responding to your post (to which Krazy responded) and was explaining why you're correct, at least in taking into consideration all of those factors that you mention.

Then I saw Krazy's response, so I switched gears.

But you are right to consider all of those factors. Agricultural land is 38.4% of the world's land area. Now, this doesn't specify what percentage of those areas are naturally clear of trees (like the Great Plains, or the San Joaquin Valley in California) or that have been cleared of trees (like the farms that we have here in KY), and it doesn't specify the crops grown that may or may not replace the plant process of converting CO2 to O2 in the atmosphere (like in my hometown in California, where citrus orchards and almond groves have trees that do more than the dead yellow grass ever would have if left to be natural land).

On top of all of that land used for agriculture, though, we also have the reality that about 1%, give or take and accounting for over-estimation, is covered by large urban areas, and you get about only 60% of the world that is left the way that the earth meant it to be.

A man-made effect on 40% of the earth's land masses isn't something to be ignored when talking about man's effect on the globe, on top of other natural drivers of climate change that happens in an ebb and flow throughout the life of the planet.

I could go into more discussion on it, but I'm just kind of tired.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Here is a thread that explains where the CO2 is coming from.

We can even estimate how much CO2is released through fossil fuel burning based on oil sales. Guess what? It correlates to the CO2 increase we are observing.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Youtube videos are tough to watch via my cellphone. Why not summarize what the videos say for me and others who cant access youtube.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
So, what is your definition of "Climate Change denier?" Does that include skeptics? I'm just wondering...

Well if your argument is summed up by your disagreement with the scientists' margin of error then you aren't a denier. Even scientists don't all agree on the total damage done by man made climate change. The margin of error is pretty wide and grows wider the further our our predictions grow.

a reply to: jrod

Because you have had ample time to view them on other devices, so if you actually cared to view it, you would have done so by now. I'm not going to summarize it because it's not an OP and I was specifically sharing them with you.

Look, I get it, you're doing everything in your power not to watch the videos. Just don't watch the videos--I really don't care at this point.

Or, to rephrase in the fun way, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

a reply to: Krazysh0t

My argument is summed up by a lot of variables, including margin of error, accuracy of reported numbers, method of data collection, motivation of certain reports, opposing data, etc., etc.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t

My argument is summed up by a lot of variables, including margin of error, accuracy of reported numbers, method of data collection, motivation of certain reports, opposing data, etc., etc.

Some of those things aren't scientific analysis and are borderline bias based. I'm not sure I can agree with you anymore. I only care about the data presented. When you start talking about things like "motivation for doing a report" you are venturing into "I'm looking to prove this wrong" territory instead of just testing the data to see where it goes.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Some of those things aren't scientific analysis and are borderline bias based. I'm not sure I can agree with you anymore. I only care about the data presented. When you start talking about things like "motivation for doing a report" you are venturing into "I'm looking to prove this wrong" territory instead of just testing the data to see where it goes.

We can agree to disagree with that--I think that the motivation of the agency who publishes reports definitely matters. If it's purely science and their data-collection methods are sound and their data representations are accurate, then they are motivated by science, which is great. If their reports are riddled with alterations and changes to data, have sketchy reporting, and defend this as science, I get concerned about their motivations, especially when they vehemently deny any opposing scientific data to their conclusions.

So, it may not matter to you, but it matters to me--motivations should be pure, but when it comes to climate reports, motivations aren't always as pure as they should be, and that's true for all sides of the debate.

But I think that "motivation" is the only thing that you can possibly isn't scientific in my list, and I would argue that it definitely matters, and it speaks to the true scientific nature of the final product.

It's okay to disagree, though--I don't mind. I get the hunch, though, that we agree with most of that list. But just remember, the motivation leads to my skepticism, not my freedom to randomly disregard all data within the report just to meet up with my preconceived notions.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I used to be an AGW proponent, but it was when I didn't do much research. Once I started doing research, my opinion on the matter was altered from proponent to skeptic. I don't have an agenda to which I'm trying to mold data to meet, I have changed my views to meet the data that I read.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

If there is something wrong with the motivations of the agency then it should be reflected in the data they collect. When peer reviewed it shouldn't add up to the same result that other agencies are getting. You can at that point challenge their data to find out why. If they constantly submit shaky data like that then they are blacklisted from the scientific community, but at no point do you need to worry about a research paper's motivations while reviewing their findings.

I'll say that I still don't consider you on the level of those that desperately cherry pick information to try to disprove MM Climate Change like some posters on ATS, but I still disprove of the motivation thing. Data never lies. If it is collected properly, it shows. If it is collected improperly, it also shows.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

What information led to your skepticism?

Please enlightened us.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Data never lies. If it is collected properly, it shows. If it is collected improperly, it also shows.

We'll agree to agree and I'll leave it on that positive note.