Why Is Climate Change Theory So Hard to Understand?

Honest Question -

Why is the science behind Climate Change Theory difficult to understand and agree with?

It's simple cause and effect, basic physics, elementary chemistry.

I'm a former oil field geologist with eight years in the industry, with a degree in ancient history. Let's figure this out.

a reply to: Herolotus

I have a better question.

Why did man made global warming theorist change the name to climate change?

a reply to: Herolotus

Do you mean just climate change? Or man made climate change?

I find that usually the argument is against mad made climate change. And it's not because people dont understand the science. But just like there is scientific evidence behind man made climate change. There is scientific evidence against it also.

Some people choose to believe one side, some people believe the other.

Now as for me. I don't know. But I'm not a former oil field geologist with an ancient history degree.

All I know is I recycle what I can and walk to places that arent too far away.

It doesn't do me or the planet any harm.

a reply to: Herolotus


Why have scientists been caught manipulating the data? That's bound to raise some questions about their findings don't you think?

originally posted by: Herolotus
Honest Question -

Why is the science behind Climate Change Theory difficult to understand and agree with?

It's simple cause and effect, basic physics, elementary chemistry.

I'm a former oil field geologist with eight years in the industry, with a degree in ancient history. Let's figure this out.

I don't think it is hard to understand or agree with. I just think that this theory, is just that. Until it's proven. There isn't enough data (for me anyways) to say without a doubt that humans are the cause of this. Are humans hurting the planet? Yup. Is that enough to say it is the definite cause of it? No, at least not in my mind.

Off topic: How do you go from a degree in ancient history to becoming an oil field geologist? Did they relate at all?

There is nothing to figure out.

We live on a planet, spiraling around a fire ball, which spirals around a galaxy, that most probable (following this obvious pattern of nature) spirals around the center of the universe.

Planets go through cycles, they change, they die out in their enormous life time.

We occupy it's space and think alot about everything that doesn't matter to feel intellectually superior and significant.

End of story really

originally posted by: Herolotus
Honest Question -

Why is the science behind Climate Change Theory difficult to understand and agree with?

It's simple cause and effect, basic physics, elementary chemistry.

I'm a former oil field geologist with eight years in the industry, with a degree in ancient history. Let's figure this out.

Very good. Please take an introductory graduate course in physical oceanography.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Herolotus

I have a better question.

Why did man made global warming theorist change the name to climate change?

They didn't. Link. Don't worry, I thought the same thing and went and looked it up.

Questions met with questions!

Why did scientists change the name? I can't speak to that, I don't work for NOAA or anything... But my understanding of that issue is simply that 'Global Warming', as a term, confuses people into thinking that the entire earth will 'warm', when truly it will cause more severe weather, including severe warming, cooling, storms, etc. The more people who used the arguement that we still have snow and winter to disprove the theory, the more the scientific establishment sought to clarify the issue, hence the name change.

As far as man-made climate change goes, is it so hard to believe that man could cause the climate to change, why is that a thing that people find incredible? We are causing the 6th great extinction event, poisoned the water, built the Panama Canal, gone to the moon - why is this soomething people have a problem with? Sure all the data is not in, but science doesn't really work with that kind of certainty. The best evidence points toward man-made climate change, it could be wrong, but probably isn't...

Scientists lie! They do sometimes, it's true. Sometimes it's from political pressure, sometimes it's from financial pressure, or peer pressure - I mean, they are people too, subject to the same corruptions and mistakes as any human being on this earth. But where do we draw that line of trust? So we 'believe' that scientists are wrong about Climate Change, do we believe they are wrong about any other big issues? Or do we just like to 'believe' science is a big fat liar when they tell us things we don't want us to hear, things that would tell us we are engaged in bad behavior and should change? I would love to see other examples of a polarized public opinion agaisnt established scientific theory where the public was right.

a reply to: Greathouse

The main reason is because man made global warming is causing the climate to change.

@ Hoosierdaddy It's been discussed about a million times on these forums and I'm pretty sure you've been in the many threads that cover the topic. I'm not sure why you don't acknowledge that.

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71
The best question to ask. Why change the numbers or the locations of the measuring devices. Surely professional true scientists (needed confirmation) know that averages are tied directly to the numbers and locations that have been. To change any one(much less a number) of either completely destroys any chart or averages (or projections for the future) that is produced by those altered statements. That is one law of averages , probability, and statistics.There is no debate in that. You have to be completely 110% consistent . After all , it is science .
Wish I could give a number of stars to you .

And OP - you state ancient history. That only includes the time of the written history. Lets go back further. Every indication that pre-history shows so far is this Earth has went through very many periods exactly like we are going through now. A lot of this information comes from studying , of all things , tree rings. The scientists that study the previous climate changes we have went through can derive an almost unlimited amount of information regarding CO2 and O2 levels and the temperature and climate of the varying periods of the Earth. To use facts and figures from just the time temperature has been recorded is very imprecise as the technology has progressed since the past and only shows a brief timeline.

Also , the last one was app 26000 years ago. This one ended abruptly with a mini ice age.

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Herolotus

I have a better question.

Why did man made global warming theorist change the name to climate change?

They didn't. Link. Don't worry, I thought the same thing and went and looked it up.

Better keep that handy. Because apparently most global warming theoristst do not know the difference. They interchange the word and apply it to global warming.

Myself I have no doubt there is climate change. But I strongly disapprove of the theory of man-made global warming.

Well, it is human nature to complicate everything. If we didn't push consumerism and wasting of our resources along with trashing this planet we wouldn't have global warming. The master of deceit has made us so we can't see that we are causing this by all our actions. The masters of deceit sell us things we really don't need.

a reply to: [post=19324460]mbkennel[/

Apparently they do! I did very well with that background actually. Practical hsitorical education requires an awful lot of geological and archaeological knowledge. I had to prove I could do the job, but it worked out pretty well.

I mean, as long as you don't mind working for a completely corrupt industry...

Noticed several folks again saying that it's the 'man-made' part that is the sticking point!

This is the heart of what I'm getting at, why is that so hard to believe? Why couldn't we change the atmosphere and the environment? Why is this a thing that is so incredible to imagine?

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Herolotus
Honest Question -

Why is the science behind Climate Change Theory difficult to understand and agree with?

It's simple cause and effect, basic physics, elementary chemistry.

I'm a former oil field geologist with eight years in the industry, with a degree in ancient history. Let's figure this out.

I don't think it is hard to understand or agree with. I just think that this theory, is just that. Until it's proven. There isn't enough data (for me anyways) to say without a doubt that humans are the cause of this. Are humans hurting the planet? Yup. Is that enough to say it is the definite cause of it? No, at least not in my mind.

Off topic: How do you go from a degree in ancient history to becoming an oil field geologist? Did they relate at all?

Dude you just compare the term climate change to global warming ?

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
a reply to: Herolotus

Why have scientists been caught manipulating the data? That's bound to raise some questions about their findings don't you think?

That's EXACTLY the issue. It is not "just a matter of physics." If that were true we ought to be able to predict the weather at 100% accuracy. There's quite a lot of data to crunch and many arguments over cause and effect. And this is not helped when "scientists" have been caught red-handed manipulating the data to make it look like climate change is greater than it is. This issue is blatant and well-proven and we have gone over it numerous times at ATS. So my question is:

Why have the numerous smoking guns proving data has been manipulated being ignored?

It may be that you don't know about them, in which case perhaps you ought to study the issue a little more closely. The Climategate e-mails are public. There's no reason you can't read them. Why don't you? You might find out what "hide the decline" really means. You might find out that Al Gore, noted climate scientist, mixed up cause and effect when he loudly proclaimed that CO2 increases caused an increase in temperature when the exact opposite happened: Increases in temperature caused CO2 to increase.

I and others have written extensively on this subject here on ATS, complete with references and citations galore. It's all still here. Just search for it. But to claim it is a "simple matter of physics" is completely simplistic itself. The entire issue is fraught with fraud, manipulation, and political intrigue. It's not "simple" at all.

a reply to: Herolotus

We are causing the 6th great extinction event,

proof of this..?

Sure all the data is not in, but science doesn't really work with that kind of certainty

actually normally when trying to prove a theory all the data has to work out , to make it accurate....

Youre a geologist , and you think thats how the scientific method works? Also how does being a geologist qualify you in this area?

Not poking at you just asking...

Scientists lie! They do sometimes, it's true. Sometimes it's from political pressure, sometimes it's from financial pressure, or peer pressure - I mean, they are people too, subject to the same corruptions and mistakes as any human being on this earth. But where do we draw that line of trust? So we 'believe' that scientists are wrong about Climate Change,

which is exactly why we should question the data......in fact we should always question, if we didnt then we wouldnt have made scientific advancements......its sort of what science is based on....



You seem to be answering your own questions there in......

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Greathouse

The main reason is because man made global warming is causing the climate to change.

@ Hoosierdaddy It's been discussed about a million times on these forums and I'm pretty sure you've been in the many threads that cover the topic. I'm not sure why you don't acknowledge that.

The two different terms are doing nothing but further obfuscating the issue.

originally posted by: Herolotus
Noticed several folks again saying that it's the 'man-made' part that is the sticking point!

This is the heart of what I'm getting at, why is that so hard to believe? Why couldn't we change the atmosphere and the environment? Why is this a thing that is so incredible to imagine?

its not about being hard to believe, its the fact that many times we see any data that has pointed to this sort of thing as being skewed or made up completely just to fit into the parameters......