Climate-Change Science - - Whom to trust ?

originally posted by: HalWesten
There are scientists that are in it for the science and there are scientists and opportunists that are in it for the money. Figure out which are which and you'll know who you can trust.

Hi HW.
Have you figured that part out yet ?
Anything to share with us ?

originally posted by: EvilAxis
I think this short video answers the OP's question.
(Spoiler: overwhelming scientific consensus).

Hi EA.
Thanks for the vid, but it didn't convince me.

Is that what is deemed a 'call to authority' ?
Seems to me that many questions from the OP remain, no ?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Nothin

How is Joe-Public supposed to be able to tell, whom the "right" scientist is, and whom the "wrong" scientist is ?

We seem to be wondering: why does there appear to be scientists, on both sides of the AGW debate ?
Does this mean, that all scientists are not "right" ?
Folks are arguing, in various threads, that some scientists, are 'better', or more credible, than others.

It is like with doctors. Both a dentist and a heart surgeon are doctors, but their professional opinions only hold weight in their field of expertise. Same goes with scientists. There are climatologist and then there are biochemists, Medical laboratory scientist, Petroleum geologist, political scientist, and many more. They each have their specialties and some may overlap other fields, but just like doctors their professional opinions only hold weight in their field of expertise.

Hi Grim.
Are all professional opinions right ?
What about dissenters ?
Are all opinions, other than 'the experts': wrong ?

Are we not again engaging in a 'call to authority' ?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Nothin

We certainly do not trust the Republicans representing Big Oil interests with the most at stake to lose!!!

Hi DudeFromNewJersey.
Could we trust any politician, from any nation ?
Any government ?

originally posted by: Edumakated
Part of it is understanding the data being presented. I try to look at both sides of an argument but I also like to see and understand the data myself.

A big issue with the climate hysteria is that the data is often taken at face value. Few on the left questions the data sets. The issue is that if the data sets are wrong then the conclusions drawn are also wrong. There have been multiple scandals where scientists have been caught manipulating the data to conform to a predetermined outcome. Just google climate gate and climate hockey stick scandals.

This is why there is that saying there are "Lies, damn lies, and statistics."

I have a better than average grasp of stats/data, so I always want to know what information is being used to draw a conclusion. Too many people just take a headline without understanding what the data really says.

Much of the climate data is based on estimates, computer models, etc. Garbage in and garbage out. We've really only had precision instruments for the past 150 years... really maybe say 50 years. Climate estimates in the past are based on stuff like ice cores, tree rings, etc. You can make an educated guess but at the end of the day, it is pulling numbers out your ass... not too mention we know the earth was hotter before man was even a factor, so they have a hard time explaining that away...

Climate changes. I don't think anyone argues against that... however, I do know the solution is not fascistic taxing to solve the issue.

Finally, I have a simple question that no one who believes in climate hysteria has ever once answered. What is the optimal temperature?

Thanks for the effort put into your well thought-out post.

We sit together, in this seemingly leaky boat of inconclusivity, in the raging seas of baseless conclusions.

When i came across this article the other day, I wondered about a possible connection with climate forecasts and the discrepencies between scientists conclusions. Going by the information presented it wouldn't be difficult for computer simulations to be inaccurate

www.sciencealert.com...

a reply to: eccentriclady

Going by the information presented it wouldn't be difficult for computer simulations to be inaccurate

Indeed. That's why they are constantly being refined and come with uncertainty values. But they seem to be doing fairly well, considering all them butterflies.

www.realclimate.org...

originally posted by: Nothin
Hi EA.
Thanks for the vid, but it didn't convince me.

Is that what is deemed a 'call to authority' ?

It is.
But the way to differentiate between a legitimate and a fallacious appeal to authority is by evaluating the nature and strength of the authority. On complex matters requiring specialist training and knowledge it's rational to consult experts.

Despite a very high degree of consensus and certainty (see video), they could be wrong. Or they could be deliberately misleading us.

What motive do diverse groups of climatologists from different countries working under no single controlling authority have for engaging in a joint global conspiracy to deceive?

originally posted by: Caver78

originally posted by: Nothin
Or do we 'need' a scientist to interpret, and explain the results to us ?

So how, can anyone be sure that their view on Climate-Change, is not truth, but merely their belief ?

Paraphrasing you a bit.
No we don't need a scientist to interpret or explain. Right there is the problem. It's easier to get someone else to tell us what's what than to actually think for ourselves. People should be ashamed they are so lazy.

SMH

It's time we quit whining about this and just stuck our heads outside and looked for ourselves. The Climate IS Changing, it never wasn't going to change! We know the correct things to do, yet we faff around looking for something or someone or some industry to blame.

Anyone following a wide array of weather news KNOWS things are changing. Permafrost is melting, the boreal forest is moving north, farmers and gardeners are seeing plants bloom at the wrong times, birds are slowly disappearing , the list goes on. So why argue over who's right about "what /when" what we really need is to just adapt.

Altho stop shyting in our own nest would be a start.

Oh an by sticking your head outside an just looking we can rule out beliefs and agenda's. Cold is cold, overcast is overcast. Belief is irrelevant at that point. An yes, some geographical areas aren't as hard hit as others, so you're going to do your own data collecting from various sources. You know, if you still want tomatoes?

Hi C-78.
Has your opinion changed over the last few years ?
Was looking at some of your older threads, and it seems that perhaps the doubts you had, have been resolved ?
If so: what was/were the turning points ?

Are we still, in a standstill ?
2013: IPCC HEAD PACHAURI ACKNOWLEDGES GLOBAL WARMING STANDSTILL

originally posted by: tulsi
trust in..

weather warfare programs

colliders all over us mainland

dwave satellites!

Hi tulsi.
Agreed that we have seen proof, that governments conspired to use weather as a weapon.

Do they have any publicly-announced colliders in the USA ?

Have no idea what kind of shenanigans that D-Wave satellites might be up to ?

originally posted by: 727Sky
a reply to: Nothin

Would a supposed 'Truth', not be self-evident ?
So: how does one 'know', that their view on Climate-Change is 'right', and those whom don't agree, are 'wrong' ?

One way to have an idea of who is correct is to look at all the forecast models the alarmist have made over the last 30 years. Ice free Arctic, Kids will never see snow during Christmas, Polar bears with no ice, but my favorite is all the fake graphs and fiddled numbers the supposedly experts have put out as fact when they are indeed easily proven lies.

youtu.be...

cei.org...

If you go back to the 60s and look at all the experts who managed to get their expert opinions published you will quickly realize there really are no experts when considering Earth's climate; just look at their track record and all their forecast..

"Oh but what if they are correct this time" ?

If history is any kind of indicator I would not lose any sleep over it.

Hi 727Comin'OuttaTheSky.

( Ok-Ok: the song says "737", but: you know... ).

Thanks for your reply, and a special thanks for your impressive body of work here on ATS.

IMHO: The vid, and link that you posted are real eye-openers, and merit consideration by any person attempting to use critical thinking, to get a grasp on all of this Climate-Change, GW, AGW, business.

It would be an understatement, to say that my personal experiences, have left me less than impressed with so-called 'experts', of any flavor.
Honestly feel that there is a point where the blinders are taken-on, indoctrination becomes 'truth', and then our silly society puts them on pedestals.

Have we forgotten how to ask questions ?

originally posted by: turbonium1
It's been colder than normal where I live, over the past couple of years, so these so-called 'experts' are full of crap.

They used to call it 'global warming' all the time, but when we saw it was colder, or the same as before, they changed it to 'climate change', to cover their lying asses.

Climate always 'changes', always has, always will. Nothing new here.

It's just a cash grab, and more of their typical fear-mongering, so please, don't fall for their bull. It's pure nonsense, flogged over and over in mass media, to ignorant masses. Sad.

Hi Turbo. Thanks for your post.

If Climate-Change™ has always happened: then why do tens of millions of people crap green-tacks when it is mentioned ?

originally posted by: Gothmog
Turn away from the new-fangled "climate scientists" and turn to the ages old true sciences.
Climatologists - use records dating back only since about 1925
True science - uses data going back sometimes millions of years.
Then you will have your answer.

Hi GM.
Despite having been Gothsmacked: can still see the wisdom in your post.

originally posted by: snarfbot
It's a big scam to sell carbon credits.

So the companies that pollute in China will pay Al Gore and his ilk literally trillions of dollars.

Big fat scam.

Hi SB.
You tell 'em Woody !!!!

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Nothin

When it comes to science it's best to trust the majority consensus.

Hi STS.

All hail ! The Majority Consensus™ !!

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: Nothin


Always going to happen! Just like we still have experts and people who believe HIV does not cause AIDS, even though the evidence tells us otherwise!

All you can do is look at the evidence presented.

Hi JM.

Thanks for encouraging people to think.

What is the optimal temperature?

a reply to: Edumakated

One we must try to achieve The fallacy of that chase is all to obvious. Since we can not ever influence the global temperature on the planet, we can safely crusade this issue until the planet dies.

The alarmists themselves even claimed that if every nation reduces carbon emissions by the desired numbers, the models say the effect on global temps would be negligible. Something like 0,01 Celsius or something like that.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
a reply to: Nothin

@Climate-Change Science - - Whom to trust ?

Follow/trust your instincts.

Personally I feel yes the climate has changed and does change naturally over periods or cycles.

It HAS to be acknowledged however that artificial strip mining and resource removal of natural resources that normally would not be dug up refined then used for energy and the waste or trash produced from said artificial products does have a negative effect on the planet.

These negative effects are associated with the refining processes of natural resources which burn and release sediment or pollution into the air environment.
Also the natural resources waste removal and storage of toxic nuclear waste can and will have effects on under ground streams and oceans where regulations are not upkept and so waste dumped directly into the liquid environment such as Oceans, Lakes-Ponds, Rivers which can begin to effect weather patterns if enough mixes into the oceans altering oceanic temperatures...

Current physical effects that may cause enhanced climate and or land changes in the future.

Internal voids caused from over fracking, mining and petroleum removal.
Warmer polluted air and seas from air and sea pollution and waste/trash incineration and dumping. Think how the plastic islands in the oceans carry varying temperatures.

Toxic waste containment and dump areas.
= Environment altered unnaturally

as of now...?
It is logical to consider weather pattern changes in the future if these current ways of managing resources are not better cared for.

Hi OP-13.
Thanks for your thoughtful post, and for bringing in environmental problems, into the discussion.
So: how bad is it ?

originally posted by: tkwasny

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: turbonium1

So are you saying there is absolutly no evidence that we are causing climate change? No evidence at all?

Actual science has measured that the entire race of Man is responsible for .0038% of the earth's atmosphere with regards to CO2. The world's termite population, about about .04%.

Hi tkwasny.
Welcome to the thread, and would you happen to have some links for those numbers ?
Do not termites have a 'right' to life ?

originally posted by: eccentriclady
When i came across this article the other day, I wondered about a possible connection with climate forecasts and the discrepencies between scientists conclusions. Going by the information presented it wouldn't be difficult for computer simulations to be inaccurate

www.sciencealert.com...

Hi EL.
It is always nice to meet folks whom are challenging the status-quo.