Why I don't believe "climate change" experts

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?

Exactly! Finally, others are realizing none of it is real. The day I've been waiting for!

Also, just because we didn't hit full blown ice age in exactly 30 years, it's all a hoax?

a reply to: Eunuchorn

We can and should cherry pick what we believe.

Way too often what "science" swears is true today
becomes false tomorrow.

If we don't question "science" we'll get stuck
in a sort of dark ages
where no progress in science takes place
and we will accept as religious type gospel
whatever "scientists" say as if they were gods.

Yes, the only progress in science is when someone has the guts
to say, I think everyone else is wrong, and sets out to prove it,

Example:
Ulcers were not too long ago blamed on stress and diet.

There were lots of MD's who made lots of money treating the stress and diet and doing surgery on ulcers.
Mainstream science said definitively that the sick person was to blame because of poor diet and allowing stress to cause ulcers.

The one lone MD said, wait a minute, I don't agree. He did research and found that ulcers were caused by bacteria and developed a drug that killed the bacteria. He proved ulcer victims did not cause their own illness, it was caused by an outside invasion of bacteria.

Did the other MD's and scientists go WooHoo, you are right, yeah we found a cure. Absolutely NOT, they called him a quack and said awful things about his lousy science.

Well after 5-10 years the person
who refused to worship at the "everybody in science knows it is true" line,
and now ulcers are treated with medication, not surgery,
and sick people are no longer blamed as causing their own illness.

We are obligated to not fall hook line and sinker for
everything scientists decide is absolutely true.

Yes we MUST question science, even science that we are told is definitive and the only right answer, or be doomed to a Dark Age mentality.

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.

a reply to: nomadone407

Real & provable based on what? Long term conditiong? Good luck convincing me anything anyone says is the truth, especially when it comes from those unconditionally indoctrinated into the system, ie scientists doctors etc

Arnt we lucky we have all of these untrained, unqualified, armchair laymen with the power of Google to tell us the real truth!.....

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.

So, either there is enough non accumulated CO2 in the lower atmosphere to have an effect, or AGW is a total farce.. you can't have it both ways.

Jaden

a reply to: jimmyx

I love it when people try to use gravity as a reason to believe scientific theories are truth...lol.

Gravity is real and measurable, the theory of gravity as to the underlying mechanism and cause of gravity is still COMPLETELY up for debate which is the theory of gravity.

Do you realize that we have NEVER predicted the accurate movement of celestial bodies beyond the periods that they had been previously measured and that their compositions and masses had to be constantly adjusted to fit newly measured data???

Anyone who wants me to believe what those scientists postulate is smoking crack...

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: jimmyx

I love it when people try to use gravity as a reason to believe scientific theories are truth...lol.

Gravity is real and measurable, the theory of gravity as to the underlying mechanism and cause of gravity is still COMPLETELY up for debate which is the theory of gravity.

Do you realize that we have NEVER predicted the accurate movement of celestial bodies beyond the periods that they had been previously measured and that their compositions and masses had to be constantly adjusted to fit newly measured data???

Anyone who wants me to believe what those scientists postulate is smoking crack...

Jaden

The same scientists that landed a probe on an asteroid? a car sized rover on mars? a man on the moon?

Yeah wtf do they know........whereas you on the other hand....

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.

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.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: jimmyx

I love it when people try to use gravity as a reason to believe scientific theories are truth...lol.

Gravity is real and measurable, the theory of gravity as to the underlying mechanism and cause of gravity is still COMPLETELY up for debate which is the theory of gravity.

Do you realize that we have NEVER predicted the accurate movement of celestial bodies beyond the periods that they had been previously measured and that their compositions and masses had to be constantly adjusted to fit newly measured data???

Anyone who wants me to believe what those scientists postulate is smoking crack...

Jaden

Public Education: working as intended.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

I'm going to ignore the sniping in this post and move onto where Science has really failed here. The number of misunderstanding about what science is in this thread is staggering.

First, there is no such thing as "proof" in science. This is a mathematical concept. Math build proofs are built on top of assumptions, which are very simple axioms. E.g., I can have an abstract idea of equality.

Modern science is Popperian, in that any theory is not scientific if one cannot find evidence which falsifies the theory. So a theory that holds up, is one in which all observations do not contradict the theory. A theory if well established overtime, eventually might get labeled "Law", i.e. law of gravity. In that after centuries of observation there's not been any deviation from the scientific model (within it's range of applicability). For example, Newton's law of gravity is known to be wrong in light of relativistic effects, however in everyday usage one doesn't have to worry about relativity unless doing astronomical observations, or coordinating satellite orbits. To date, there's not been an observed violation of Einstein's relativity and a lot of smart people have tried-- but it's still called a theory.

Science has failed the public in education about what it is, and what it's saying. There's been an active war on science promoted for the last 20 years in political circles--the current National Geographic has this as a focus this month. Reality is what happens even when you don't believe in it. Science has failed in the face of a continued attack of rhetoric from political circles.

More to the original post. There was talk of a theory that we were heading into an oncoming ice age back in the 70's. Now the dialog has shifted to global warming. Then recently solar output is down, which itself was thought to be a cause of "mini" ice ages in the past. The global warming hypothesis was established back around 1900 by Svante Arrhenius. He was a chemist, and his basic model of atmospheric chemistry as a key predictive factor of average global average temperature still holds today. In fact, it's amazingly accurate. The physics of global warming are simple, and described quite accurately with a simple differential equation model. The evidence has been measured in numerous ways, and *none* of it contradicts the global warming hypothesis. There is little debate on the reality that global warming is occurring.

Where does the ice age claims fall in all this? Well there's another model of climate, which shows that climate is relatively stable up to tipping points. These stability points fall within, ice age, current climate, and really freaking hot. (sitn.hms.harvard.edu...). The 70's claim of an impending ice-age was based on a model of climate which is now *falsified*. There is an accumulation of evidence which shows this theory to be false.

Science is open to new ideas. Theories are proposed, some catch the public imagination. Evidence is accumulated. If it contradicts the theory, a new one is proposed and the process starts over. Look around you, and see how much was produced and discovered under such a cognitive model. The fruits of this process have been overwhelming. Science works, even if it's not fully understood by the public.

The debate should be centered on, what are the consequences of this warming trend? If the solar output reduction continues, do we get more time to react? This is where the divide in opinion begins.

TL;DR
* Science has failed to educate the public on what it is, and is under attack for political reasons.
* The evidence of global warming is incredibly strong.
* It's debatable what this means for the human race.
* The ice-age predictions of the 70's are a falsified theory, in which evidence has accumulated show the theory was false.

a reply to: CyberGarp

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

If that is so, which I agree that global fluctuations occur in warming and cooling cycles, I agree man has nothing to do with it. Man did not cause it, nor can man stop it.

"Global Warming" as the term is used today, refers to man made, man caused, and fixable by man, which I think is completely wrong and not true in any way shape or form.

"Global Warming" as the term is used today, has been the excuse to enact legislation to control either the macro or micro society for the benefit of the politicians and their cronies who benefit financially.

That is why I don't believe in "Global Warming" as the term is used today. I do believe in natural global warming and cooling cycles. Ice core samples and geological evidence is quite conclusive on that point.

However, we were hoaxed into doing away with things like freon (which by the way made fantastic air conditioning, much better than anything since). Because of the hoax that the impending "Ice Age" was man made.
And the hoax that hairspray, etc. was causing the ozone layer to disappear, when it turned out to have a natural cycle, apart from man.

Now it is my opinion that "Global Warming" as man made and man caused is also a hoax. Man did not cause it, man can not stop it if the trend continues. I refuse to acquiesce to the thieves and swindlers who are forcing people into giving up things or purchasing imaginary things like carbon credits, in the name of man made Global Warming, because it does not exist, and if real global warming is occurring there is not one thing that mankind can do to stop it.

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.

a reply to grandmakdw

You're sounding incredibly contradicting in your posts. I don't know if that's intentional or if you're unaware of it.

You start with this:

Way too often what "science" swears is true today
becomes false tomorrow.

You then follow up with this:

Yes, the only progress in science is when someone has the guts
to say, I think everyone else is wrong, and sets out to prove it,

Previously you were ranting about global cooling and how that never happened. As a result of that line of thinking, you believe that anthropogenic global warming is false because some scientists were wrong about global cooling.

Again, we could go over the scientific literature on both global cooling and the literature on global warming. We can even go over the handful of papers directly linking human activity to global warming. We won't though. You've got a disturbing level of cognitive dissonance about science and what science is. Because of that, arguing with you is unreasonable because your mind is made up about the subject, 'They were wrong once so they're always wrong, except the guy who proved them wrong, he was right.'

Your ulcer analogy is questionable, at best. Some of them are stress induced, some of them aren't. Some of them are understood and can be treated, effectively. Some aren't understood but can still be effectively treated.

You know, I just now noticed your signature. It's extremely telling in your understanding of science. Again, there's some cognitive dissonance in your understanding;

It is NOT up to me to prove I am right.

Yet you argue;

Yes, the only progress in science is when someone has the guts to say, I think everyone else is wrong, and sets out to prove it

I've got a rock that keeps ravenous tigers away. I don't need to prove it because you don't see any ravenous tigers around me, do you? By your logic, it's up to you to prove my rock doesn't work...even though it's just a rock and doesn't actually keep ravenous tigers away, because it's just a rock.

Even the thread title, you don't believe climate change experts, but you do believe that the climate is changing...how do you believe that? Did you come to your own, peer-reviewed conclusion? Or are you believing what the experts have said? Which experts?

a reply to: grandmakdw

Are you seriously saying that the Ozone Hole is a hoax? Because when even people like Margaret Thatcher became convinced that the science was solid on that, that was always going to be addressed. Go to Australia and tell them that it's a hoax. They'll laugh you out of the country.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: SlapMonkey
With all that smog, has it gotten hotter there???

That would interesting to know...

If CO2 caused global warming is even POSSIBLE, the places that accumulate the most low level CO2 should be blazingly hotter than it was in the past...

Jaden

Well, CO2 causes negligible warming of the earth, but that's beside the point--smog contains a lot of CO, but not CO2, so it wouldn't be a good indicator if used to test warming trends.

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.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: grandmakdw
Are you seriously saying that the Ozone Hole is a hoax? Because when even people like Margaret Thatcher became convinced that the science was solid on that, that was always going to be addressed. Go to Australia and tell them that it's a hoax. They'll laugh you out of the country.

I don't remember where I read it, but a while back (probably a few years) I remember either reading an article or watching a video about a theory that the ozone hole was actually a natural response to the earth's ambient temperature--kind of like a self-regulating thermostat that opens to allow more heat to escape, then closes when temperature reach a more optimal temperature.

I can't really find much more on it or relocate from what I got that information, but it was an intriguing theory to me and I wish I could research more.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: grandmakdw

Are you seriously saying that the Ozone Hole is a hoax? Because when even people like Margaret Thatcher became convinced that the science was solid on that, that was always going to be addressed. Go to Australia and tell them that it's a hoax. They'll laugh you out of the country.

No I didn't say that, in my youth it was claimed by the scientific community that the Ozone was getting larger and would continue to get larger until man stopped certain activities. It ended up that after decades of watching that the Ozone hole varies in size on a regular basis, nothing to do with man's activities, it is a natural phenomenon.

a reply to: links234

I understand your confusion. I explained it earlier. But I will explain it again just for you.

I don't believe in the popular definition of global warming:
i.e. humankind caused it, humankind has made it worse, humankind can fix it
That was the same popular definition of global cooling:
ie. humankind caused it, humankind made it worse, and humankind could fix it

I don't believe the "climate change experts" whose definitions of climate change
is that it is caused by humans and human activity
and can be cured by humans and human activity or non-activity.
There is plenty of evidence for long term natural cycles of warming and cooling
on the earth that has nothing to do with humans,
that is NOT what the popular and currently accepted definition of global warming is.
I don't swallow without question science that has been contradictory over my lifetime.
I do find that the research on global climate cycles of nature to be consistent over time -
and is NOT what is meant by the layperson or John Kerry and his buddies
when talking about global warming.

Nearly all progress in science
is made by lone voices trying to disprove previously held "facts/theories"
(and in the case of global warming, the facts/theories are held with a sort of religious fervor)

To not question science (or any "truth") is to doom one to
remain stagnant in true scientific discovery and innovation,
or to doom one to intellectual stagnation.
Science is not God, and their proclamations are not
truths to be worshiped and not questioned.

I do believe in natural cycles of global cooling and warming.

I do not believe in the popular ideas (memes posited by scientists)
on how mankind is responsible and can fix it,
and that humankind should buy and
exchange imaginary carbon credits to cure global warming.
What a load of hogwash.

Yes, if humankind does not want to reenter a new Dark Ages
science "fact", especially popular memes of what is "fact" must always be questioned
examined and reexamined
to make any progress in science.

When you spoke of ulcers, they are NOT caused by stress, they may make ulcers that are not symptomatic yet worse, but it does not cause it, H. Pyloric (see webmd) causes ulcers.

Yes I don't respond to demands of proof. Why?
I am a retired professor.
When I was using what I felt were the best proofs I had,
the Mods forced me to stop using them because they said I posted the same proofs over and over.
I generally stick with the same set of topics.
I felt dirty using quasi respectable "proofs" from unknown internet sources,
and so have stopped responding to requests for proof altogether.

If someone wants proof, they can go find it themselves, it is not that hard to do.
It is downright lazy to request proof from someone,
means you don't have the desire to get off the proverbial couch and look it up yourself.
Generally takes less than 5 minutes on the internet
and one can examine the excellent sources
and wallow in the quasi respectable if they wish.

It is not my duty to respond to requests for proof.
If someone wants proof or to disprove me they can,
if they really care and aren't just trying to bait me
(which is normally the reason people ask for proofs)
they can take a few minutes and a little bit of neuronal activity
and do it themselves.

I believe the long term research and as of yet not disproved,
theory of natural cycles of global warming and cooling,
ie ice core samples and geology.
Which shows that these cycles were far worse than what we see today
and were around long, long, long before
the arrogant and self centered human was,
who thought they could cause it and control it.

I do NOT believe the popular, arrogant,
and infantile like self-centered definition
of man caused global warming and cooling.

Not a contradiction at all.
We are just using different definitions of the same words and phrases.