Science

[Libertarian01]

I'm confident in the data too. I'm quite sure it exists. I'm not confident what the data say. I don't have it. And, because I'm not trained in climate science, several hours on Google isn't likely to give me the expertise I need to understand it as a climate scientist does. Maybe you have a bit more training than I do, and maybe you have access to the raw data that I don't have.

About what the data say, a lot of scientists seem to think differently. Maybe that's because there's a conspiracy. I mean, I think there is at least a little. The people pushing climate change policy sure do act like they're hiding something. I don't think all the climate scientists are in on it though. And there does seem to be a consensus that the earth is warming, and there's at least a plurality of climate scientists who think it's caused, at least a little, by humans.

I'm not arguing that you're wrong about the data. I can't say because I'm willing to admit that I'm not an expert in this field. I'm asking how do you square what you believe the data says with what others say who study this for a living? Have you heard a rebuttal of Tony Heller's analogy? It's pretty easy to believe something and then find reasons to believe it.

To Jamil,

Regarding the rebuttal, here is a link: How Steve Goddard a.k.a. Tony Heller does bad science - Greg Laden's Blog

Basic point made there is that Heller cherry picks his data, only using the US, only using dates, geography, and data points that support his point of view.

----
To All,

There is so much lies and bullcrap on each side I don't know who to believe, so I will default generally to scientists. Just because one scientist at NOAA falsified data doesn't mean all the studies are wrong, it means one idiot falsified data. And just because he falsified data doesn't mean his conclusions are wrong, it only means that he cheated to get there. The police can plant evidence on a suspect and get him sent to jail. It is wrong and the police behaved horribly, but it doesn't mean he didn't do it, it only means they were wrong in how they got there.

I still see no direct evidence of a "conspiracy" on the climate change side. Every single argument I have heard is a guess, well reasoned or not, as to why or how they are conspiring, but no tangible, direct proof. For example, yes they have reasons to lie to get grants. However, there is ZERO evidence put forward that most of them have lied, only that they have reason to. I have yet to see an email released from Wikileaks from Al Gore giving marching orders to scientists around the world.

And while I agree with Chip's argument that we don't want to see sea levels falling and moving toward another ice age, again this doesn't mean the rising sea levels are good, or the rate of the rise is good. It only means that yes, we don't want another ice age. Any change that is radical and temporally fast is bad, either way. If the average rainfall of Indiana rises 10" over the next 1,000,000 years that might or might not be bad. However, if it rises that fast over the next 10 years it will be catastrophic. Farmers will lose decades of crops. The agricultural industry will not be able adapt quickly. Once in a century flooding will be every couple of years. Etc etc etc.

I remember when we had acid rain. Buildings were actually being destroyed due to chemicals in the air that rained down. Monuments were wearing away - quickly. In 1990 Congress shoved through amendments to the Clean Air Act. Big reductions in bad chemicals were mandated. The economy did not collapse. Industry did not fail. Electricity is still produced. So I see just as much fake fearmongering opposing a greener society as I do elsewhere.

Yet I still find myself questioning the climate change scientists. However, I see no reason not to improve our way of life by reducing pollution, massively reducing the use of plastic, and generally living a cleaner lifestyle both as individuals and as a society. It isn't a bandwagon I'm going to get on, I'm just not going to get in its way.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Trigger Time]

Why doesn't the government just release the alien power technology they've reverse engineered and take us totaly off fossil fuel?
Because it would collapse the economy. I believe theyve hidden free power sources that exist in our earth. Definately believe they've hidden many many visits from ET's and their crashed spaceships. Top generals, CIA directors, and even presidents and other world leaders have admitted that aliens exist and the govt hides it.
I dont care if people think im crazy for saying it. Thats how they've kept it hidden so many decades.
Who knows what world governments are doing to our weather and earth. Planes spraying things creating chemtrails has been proven now and even admitted to. People in the govt used to call those theories crazy until they got caught and admitted doing it.
They CAN and do control the weather.
I dont think fossil fuels are killing the planet, i think world governments are.
But I also believe in natural cycles of climate change. Its also been said the north and south poles are shifting.
True magnetic north is rapidly shifting yearly . Something is going on but its a total farce to give billions more under the disguise of man made climate change, to governments who are the ones causing it with technology, not fossil fuels

 

[jamil]

I mean WTF. Tony Stark is dead. Someone should steal that mini arc reactor, mass produce it until it’s cheaper than a Big Mac, and use it to power everything. Electric cars? **** batteries. Arc power!

 

[Dead Duck]

I mean WTF. Tony Stark is dead.

 

[NKBJ]

Why doesn't the government just release the alien power technology they've reverse engineered and take us totaly off fossil fuel?
Because it would collapse the economy. I believe theyve hidden free power sources that exist in our earth. Definately believe they've hidden many many visits from ET's and their crashed spaceships. Top generals, CIA directors, and even presidents and other world leaders have admitted that aliens exist and the govt hides it.
I dont care if people think im crazy for saying it. Thats how they've kept it hidden so many decades.
Who knows what world governments are doing to our weather and earth. Planes spraying things creating chemtrails has been proven now and even admitted to. People in the govt used to call those theories crazy until they got caught and admitted doing it.
They CAN and do control the weather.
I dont think fossil fuels are killing the planet, i think world governments are.
But I also believe in natural cycles of climate change. Its also been said the north and south poles are shifting.
True magnetic north is rapidly shifting yearly . Something is going on but its a total farce to give billions more under the disguise of man made climate change, to governments who are the ones causing it with technology, not fossil fuels

Any basis for disagreeing with anything you said there? Not that I know of.
Could piggy back maybe and say reliance upon petroleum provides control of nations.
And control is everything, money being only a device in the tool kit of control.

 

[two70]

Anecdotally, if not empirically, conservatives are far better at actually practicing conservation behaviors. The left likes to talk and virtue signal about conservation, and use it as a driver for more state control; but they tend not to be very big into actually practicing the behaviors themselves.

The left likes to conflate preservation with conservation. They do it on purpose because the "wise use" mantra of conservation is far more appealing to most people but provides much less control over people than the "absolutely no use" ideology of preservation. The more one can restrict access to resources the more control one can acquire but of course, one can't be honest about it lest those to be controlled fail to go along with the scheme.

 

[Expat]

If I accept everything I have read from the view of side of the coming calamity side, we are screwed no matter what. If the US and Europe make all of the demanded changes it wouldn’t be enough to make any difference. We need to almost immediately depopulate the world by a substantial amount. I don’t see us being willing to do that.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Are those effects dwarfed to the point of insignificance by natural forces? Unquestionably.

In my mind, the most unquestionable part is that, even if it's happening, and even if we are doing it, and even if it could be reasonably proven, we are still - all most, but not quite - completely powerless to stop ourselves from continuing to do it.

The one thing that there is exhaustive evidence of is that people in one place absolutely cannot perceive any need to alter their behavior in order to benefit different people who live in a different place.

We really may as well be arguing about hair-styles.

 

[Mark-DuCo]

Why doesn't the government just release the alien power technology they've reverse engineered and take us totaly off fossil fuel?
Because it would collapse the economy. I believe theyve hidden free power sources that exist in our earth. Definately believe they've hidden many many visits from ET's and their crashed spaceships. Top generals, CIA directors, and even presidents and other world leaders have admitted that aliens exist and the govt hides it.
I dont care if people think im crazy for saying it. Thats how they've kept it hidden so many decades.
Who knows what world governments are doing to our weather and earth. Planes spraying things creating chemtrails has been proven now and even admitted to. People in the govt used to call those theories crazy until they got caught and admitted doing it.
They CAN and do control the weather.
I dont think fossil fuels are killing the planet, i think world governments are.
But I also believe in natural cycles of climate change. Its also been said the north and south poles are shifting.
True magnetic north is rapidly shifting yearly . Something is going on but its a total farce to give billions more under the disguise of man made climate change, to governments who are the ones causing it with technology, not fossil fuels

Do you have any links to the chem trails thing? I wouldn't put it past our government to be doing it, but I haven't seen any proof that they are doing it or admitted to it. I really am just curious.

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

Ok, this is what you studied and that earns you the right to speak on the subject, so, I have a couple questions for you. If man caused this, man can reverse it. Only makes sense.

The paid off scientists have reached a consensus, its mans fault.
Tell me how humans changed the climate?

How do we reverse something that you contend we caused?

It's a lot easier than you think, and it starts with conservation management. If you look at PPM charts of greenhouse gasses, you see a jump right at the start of the Industrial evolution. This is not surprising, or news to anyone. What also happened around that time is the insane growth of the planet. I'm of the opinion that a large amount of climate change we see has just been are shear lack of resource management. There's nothing inherently wrong with logging, but why shouldn't a company be required to replant the trees they fall to create a self sustaining ecosystem like is already in place in Oregon? Trees are the natural born enemy of greenhouse gasses. As technology gets smarter, why shouldn't car companies continue to look at hybrid/battery powered vehicles to reduce greenhouse gasses? Why shouldn't we, as a country, hold companies accountable when they dump toxic waste or chemicals into rivers/lakes/oceans? If someone has the means to (I know not everyone does), why shouldn't you recycle your plastics and papers?

Which of these simple solutions sound like they'll destroy an economy? This is just at a U.S. level too. There are already MUCH more restrictive environmental rules in place across most of Europe, so if these are picked up on a global scale, you already get the ball rolling. Preserve land, maintain ecosystems, and replace what has been destroyed. I fail to see how any of that is a bad thing.

 

[HoughMade]

The "climate" is changing, has always changed and always will change. All I am is a simple country lawyer, but it seems to me that before we can reach any conclusions about what things men may be doing (and have done) to affect climate change, we would have to have a complete understanding of all of the natural mechanisms that affect climate change and the ability to know exactly what the "natural" state of the climate would be due to those natural forces. Only then could we even begin to measure the effect man has. Saying: "things used to change this much, now they change this much....doesn't get you there.

....but how do you set a baseline on something that has always been changing? What does "climate change" mean when there is no steady-state to measure change from? Isn't any point in time you decide to compare current conditions to arbitrary as the climate changed from something to get to that point...and it changed from something to get from that point to the next point.

Anyhoo, I'm all on board with conserving resources, economizing, efficiency.....what I am not on board with is the government picking winners and losers and forcing its agenda, which may not be altruistic, on everyone.

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

Man where do I start with this one.......

No knock just wondering.

I believe the climate is changing. I have been on this rock long enough to see things are not the same. But from what. Do we actually have the power to put things back. Back to what. Are we solely responsible.

And yes I used to watch my idiot relatives and my dad dump used oil down the storm drains. They were all Dems by the way. Laughed when they did it. Idiots.

I think at it's core CM, climate change/global warming has become a partisan issue. Republicans want you to think that ANYTHING done to try and correct the wrong will hurt the hard working men an woman of the heartlands. I call BS. How is fining a company to hell, and forcing them to clean up their mistakes after an environmental disaster a bad thing. Think of how hard coal companies and fossil fuel companies have tried to suppress the building of wind farms. Have you been to western Kansas or the Texas panhandle? Nothing out there but wind and cows. A perfect spot for giant wind turbines to create electricity. Democrats say that we need to carpool, and stop driving trucks, where Republicans say it will hurt the coal industry, and take jobs away from good Americans. Have you seen the true scorched earth techniques coal companies use these days? They literally blow mountains to bits in order to get the goods. How can any of that be sustained for an ecosystem? Nobody wants to meet in the middle, as is the case with anything, and try to find simple solutions to get the ball rolling.

EVEN IF man made global warming is a myth, how is trying to preserve the planet and make it cleaner a bad thing? If our elected officials can stop acting like children for 15 minutes, and listen to what each other has to say, then I think we could easily get this ball rolling in the right direction for the better.

 

[chipbennett]

The stance 90% of people take on this issue just **** me off to no end. Some people watch too much Fox News, so the only solution they hear to fighting climate chance is that **** that AOC introduced in the house. Yeah sure lets ban all fossil fuels and cars, that will surely do the trick. The economy? No, we don't need that. There are totally simple things that we can do today to try and help solve the issue, but you won't hear about that because this has become a partisan issue, and GOD FORBID a Republican agrees or want's to assist anything a Democrat suggests.

Just so we're clear, what is the issue, specifically? Or, are you talking about any given issue about which there is bipartisan debate/ideological disagreement?

I used to be like most people in this thread. This whole, "The climate changes naturally' nonsense. While it's totally true, it has absolutely nothing to do with the events occurring today.

On one hand: it can't be nonsense if it's totally true.

On the other hand: to what events occurring today, specifically, are you referring?

I had to sit back and things, who profits from this? If every major atmospheric scientist and scientific organization AGREES that this is happening and getting worse...

A: false premise, as it is not true, and/or not relevant. (Organizations are largely advocacy entities in such matters, and the beliefs of their members are not monolithic.)

B: even if it were true, science is not a matter of consensus, and anyone who argues for a certain scientific belief based on consensus - especially, at the expense or exclusion of the dissent - is not arguing from a scientific basis.

...how is this profitable for anyone? There are too many mouths coming to this table to feed. Even if someone were making this up to profit from it, there's no where near enough money to sustain the lie.

Not true. There are billions - if not trillions - at stake/in play: more than enough to feed the grift, and far more than enough to entice fraud.

I studied this in school. It's what I have my degree in. This is what I have an authority to speak on, and I used to be like everyone here. We've become so jaded to everything said by the other side of the political spectrum, that we just write it off as nonsense. Even if that thing is a very real, very potent threat facing the globe.

Yeah, but china amarite?

I'm not sure what "this" you're referring to, regarding what you studied in school, have your degree in, and have authority to speak on. It could be climate science or political science - or something else entirely - for all I can tell from the context.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think at it's core CM, climate change/global warming has become a partisan issue. Republicans want you to think that ANYTHING done to try and correct the wrong will hurt the hard working men an woman of the heartlands. I call BS. How is fining a company to hell, and forcing them to clean up their mistakes after an environmental disaster a bad thing. Think of how hard coal companies and fossil fuel companies have tried to suppress the building of wind farms. Have you been to western Kansas or the Texas panhandle? Nothing out there but wind and cows. A perfect spot for giant wind turbines to create electricity. Democrats say that we need to carpool, and stop driving trucks, where Republicans say it will hurt the coal industry, and take jobs away from good Americans. Have you seen the true scorched earth techniques coal companies use these days? They literally blow mountains to bits in order to get the goods. How can any of that be sustained for an ecosystem? Nobody wants to meet in the middle, as is the case with anything, and try to find simple solutions to get the ball rolling.

EVEN IF man made global warming is a myth, how is trying to preserve the planet and make it cleaner a bad thing? If our elected officials can stop acting like children for 15 minutes, and listen to what each other has to say, then I think we could easily get this ball rolling in the right direction for the better.

First, I agree with you about things like blowing up mpuntains and rivers catching on fire. These, however, dont have a damned thing to do with global warming. Conflating the two issues is pure propaganda.

Second, taken in historic context, it is impossible to make a plausible argument for man-made global warming. There is no benchmark. There have been extreme fluctuations throughout history long before industrialized society.

Third, how much tyranny are you willing to tolerate in the name of conservation which may well not result in anything being conserved other than usurped political power?

 

[2A_Tom]

If I accept everything I have read from the view of side of the coming calamity side, we are screwed no matter what. If the US and Europe make all of the demanded changes it wouldn’t be enough to make any difference. We need to almost immediately depopulate the world by a substantial amount. I don’t see us being willing to do that.

Again, Rainbow 6.

 

[chipbennett]

To Jamil,

Regarding the rebuttal, here is a link: How Steve Goddard a.k.a. Tony Heller does bad science - Greg Laden's Blog

Basic point made there is that Heller cherry picks his data, only using the US, only using dates, geography, and data points that support his point of view.

That really doesn't rebut the analogy. The mole fraction of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere is not a "cherry picked" data point.

----
To All,

There is so much lies and bullcrap on each side I don't know who to believe, so I will default generally to scientists. Just because one scientist at NOAA falsified data doesn't mean all the studies are wrong, it means one idiot falsified data. And just because he falsified data doesn't mean his conclusions are wrong, it only means that he cheated to get there. The police can plant evidence on a suspect and get him sent to jail. It is wrong and the police behaved horribly, but it doesn't mean he didn't do it, it only means they were wrong in how they got there.

East Anglia was not "just...one scientist". It exposed endemic conspiracy and fraud.

I still see no direct evidence of a "conspiracy" on the climate change side. Every single argument I have heard is a guess, well reasoned or not, as to why or how they are conspiring, but no tangible, direct proof. For example, yes they have reasons to lie to get grants. However, there is ZERO evidence put forward that most of them have lied, only that they have reason to. I have yet to see an email released from Wikileaks from Al Gore giving marching orders to scientists around the world.

And while I agree with Chip's argument that we don't want to see sea levels falling and moving toward another ice age, again this doesn't mean the rising sea levels are good, or the rate of the rise is good. It only means that yes, we don't want another ice age. Any change that is radical and temporally fast is bad, either way. If the average rainfall of Indiana rises 10" over the next 1,000,000 years that might or might not be bad. However, if it rises that fast over the next 10 years it will be catastrophic. Farmers will lose decades of crops. The agricultural industry will not be able adapt quickly. Once in a century flooding will be every couple of years. Etc etc etc.

The point about sea level rise is that it is something that happens without any human intervention, and the rate of sea level rise has not changed. Predictions and models never bear out, and any measured rate of increase is always measured locally (i.e. "cherry picked").

I remember when we had acid rain. Buildings were actually being destroyed due to chemicals in the air that rained down. Monuments were wearing away - quickly. In 1990 Congress shoved through amendments to the Clean Air Act. Big reductions in bad chemicals were mandated. The economy did not collapse. Industry did not fail. Electricity is still produced. So I see just as much fake fearmongering opposing a greener society as I do elsewhere.

Acid rain is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Acid rain is an environmental issue, yes; but it is a localized weather phenomenon - and dealing with the issues that caused it was the right thing to do. Cause and effect were known and understood, and the remedy addressed the known cause. The same is not true for "climate change".

Yet I still find myself questioning the climate change scientists. However, I see no reason not to improve our way of life by reducing pollution, massively reducing the use of plastic, and generally living a cleaner lifestyle both as individuals and as a society. It isn't a bandwagon I'm going to get on, I'm just not going to get in its way.

And this is where conservatives actually get on-board: again, we tend to be conservationists, with a desire to be good stewards of the resources we've been given. (For many of us, it is at least partly religious in nature, in that we believe that we are commanded by God to be good stewards of the earth.)

 

[jamil]

If I accept everything I have read from the view of side of the coming calamity side, we are screwed no matter what. If the US and Europe make all of the demanded changes it wouldn’t be enough to make any difference. We need to almost immediately depopulate the world by a substantial amount. I don’t see us being willing to do that.

It looks to me like bat**** crazy ideologues push for reorganizing our entire economy to zero emissions, which would result in a meaningless impact. If you look at emissions per capita, we’re nowhere near the top. Developing nations are. And they want us to pay for those developing countries to re-order their economies too. That’s part of what the Paris accords were. And we’re better off without.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm confident in the data too. I'm quite sure it exists. I'm not confident what the data say. I don't have it. And, because I'm not trained in climate science, several hours on Google isn't likely to give me the expertise I need to understand it as a climate scientist does. Maybe you have a bit more training than I do, and maybe you have access to the raw data that I don't have.

About what the data say, a lot of scientists seem to think differently. Maybe that's because there's a conspiracy. I mean, I think there is at least a little. The people pushing climate change policy sure do act like they're hiding something. I don't think all the climate scientists are in on it though. And there does seem to be a consensus that the earth is warming, and there's at least a plurality of climate scientists who think it's caused, at least a little, by humans.

I'm not arguing that you're wrong about the data. I can't say because I'm willing to admit that I'm not an expert in this field. I'm asking how do you square what you believe the data says with what others say who study this for a living? Have you heard a rebuttal of Tony Heller's analogy? It's pretty easy to believe something and then find reasons to believe it.

Much of the raw data are actually readily available. The manipulations to those raw data are also largely right out in the open. East Anglia proved that there is a conspiracy; certainly, there may be debate about how widespread that conspiracy is. That said, much of scientific academia has moved from purely scientific pursuit to ideological/policy advocacy, so its "consensus" is even more unreliable, because it is neither objective nor unbiased. (Rhino can provide first-hand details.)

As I replied to Doug: that doesn't really rebut the analogy. The mole fraction of CO2 in earth's atmosphere is not a "cherry picked" data point.

 

[2A_Tom]

[snip] how much tyranny are you willing to tolerate in the name of conservation which may well not result in anything being conserved other than usurped political power?

Mandatory recycling is the answer. Instead of putting all of your recyclable items in 1 truck and burying them with the non-recyclables, You spend time separating them so that they can be picked up by a second truck and driven to a place where they will be separated by machine and hand and the rejected non-recyclables placed in another truck and taken to the same place where non-recyclables were buried in the first place. Then the recyclables will be separated by type and placed in more trucks several other plants where they will be processed with machinery into new products.

This will reduce the carbon footprint and solve global warming.

 

[rhino]

It's a lot easier than you think, and it starts with conservation management. If you look at PPM charts of greenhouse gasses, you see a jump right at the start of the Industrial evolution. This is not surprising, or news to anyone. What also happened around that time is the insane growth of the planet. I'm of the opinion that a large amount of climate change we see has just been are shear lack of resource management. There's nothing inherently wrong with logging, but why shouldn't a company be required to replant the trees they fall to create a self sustaining ecosystem like is already in place in Oregon? Trees are the natural born enemy of greenhouse gasses. As technology gets smarter, why shouldn't car companies continue to look at hybrid/battery powered vehicles to reduce greenhouse gasses?

And this supports which hypothesis, exactly? How do you intend to demonstrate or even infer a causal relationship between those gas concentrations and the pattern of warming/cooling/nothing that occured? For that matter, how do you intend to demonstrate an actual correlation when the concentrations were marching upward, but temperature was fluctuating in a pattern inconsistent with those concentrations?

Why shouldn't we, as a country, hold companies accountable when they dump toxic waste or chemicals into rivers/lakes/oceans? If someone has the means to (I know not everyone does), why shouldn't you recycle your plastics and papers?

In most cases they are when they are identified and more importantly, how does this fit into discussion of climate science other than part of a political platform? It's a separate and distinct issue.

I think at it's core CM, climate change/global warming has become a partisan issue. Republicans want you to think that ANYTHING done to try and correct the wrong will hurt the hard working men an woman of the heartlands. I call BS. How is fining a company to hell, and forcing them to clean up their mistakes after an environmental disaster a bad thing. Think of how hard coal companies and fossil fuel companies have tried to suppress the building of wind farms. Have you been to western Kansas or the Texas panhandle? Nothing out there but wind and cows. A perfect spot for giant wind turbines to create electricity. Democrats say that we need to carpool, and stop driving trucks, where Republicans say it will hurt the coal industry, and take jobs away from good Americans. Have you seen the true scorched earth techniques coal companies use these days? They literally blow mountains to bits in order to get the goods. How can any of that be sustained for an ecosystem? Nobody wants to meet in the middle, as is the case with anything, and try to find simple solutions to get the ball rolling.

EVEN IF man made global warming is a myth, how is trying to preserve the planet and make it cleaner a bad thing? If our elected officials can stop acting like children for 15 minutes, and listen to what each other has to say, then I think we could easily get this ball rolling in the right direction for the better.

Appropriate stewardship of resources is a separate issue.
Addressing localized pollution and contamination problems are separate issues.

None of that has anything to do with the lack of evidence supporting the hypothesis that human activity is the cause or even a significant cause of accelerated climate changes.

I learned about this long before I had any idea of the politics involved or which "team" was supporting which angle. I saw the lack of scientific rigor being displayed (or by inference, hidden), conclusions that not supported by data, causal relationships asserted without appropriate experimental evidence, and a level of secrecy around data sets and their analysis that is complete foreign to modern scientific investigation. Only after I saw clearly that the entirety of the foundation was invalid (at best) did I learn of the political connections.

The actual fraud being perpetrated is 100% political. The socio-political agenda is the WHY, which was the missing piece for me. I didn't understand why scientists would do and say what they had done and said, because it was contrary to everything I was taught and experienced about scientific method and analysis.

You said this is what you studied (be careful of appeals to authority), but it makes me question what you studied and who taught you.