Jump to content

My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies


SomeRandomGuy

Recommended Posts

thebob

Scientists in the pocket of Big Green are dangerous scum.

 

 

And propagandists in the pocket of big oil aren't?

 

 

 

 

How do you take the Earth's temperature- stick a thermometer up its butt?

 

But let's assume that we can reliably take the Earth's temperature. How long have we been doing it?

 

But let's assume we have been doing it long enough to conclude the Earth is really warming up.

 

 

There are so many ways it is unbelievable, and very many ways to infer the data from long, long ago. The conclusions are extremely solid.

 

You don't seem to want to investigate the answers to your questions, because you don't want to believe the answers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • thebob

    14

  • SomeRandomGuy

    12

  • Paul

    6

  • hchoate

    6

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

thats a hell of a lot of research and time and money spent on what exactly?   how to pull the wool over a person's eye's?  The only reason I was a skeptic is because AL Gore first brought to our at

My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies I receive many e-mails, and a recurring complaint is that many of my posts are too technical to understand. This morning’s installment arrived with the subj

http://grist.org/series/skeptics/   HOW TO TALK TO A CLIMATE SKEPTIC: RESPONSES TO THE MOST COMMON SKEPTICAL ARGUMENTS ON GLOBAL WARMING     Share on reddit  Below is a complete listing of

The world is an oblate spheroid. It isn't round.

 

 

actually it is round    i thought that is what a sphere was a round object..... what u mean it isnt a circle i think

 

No. As much as we disagree on the Global Warming topic, I have to agree with ol' Theb on this one.

 

My 8th grade science teacher just about beat it into us that the earth is an oblate spheroid. God, I will never forget those words. I remember it as though it were yesterday. 

 

 

Strange but True: Earth Is Not Round

It may seem round when viewed from space, but our planet is actually a bumpy spheroid

By Charles Q. Choi

 

As countless photos from space can attest, Earth is round—the "Blue Marble," as astronauts have affectionately dubbed it. Appearances, however, can be deceiving. Planet Earth is not, in fact, perfectly round.

 

This is not to say Earth is flat. Well before Columbus sailed the ocean blue, Aristotle and other ancient Greek scholars proposed that Earth was round. This was based on a number of observations, such as the fact that departing ships not only appeared smaller as they sailed away but also seemed to sink into the horizon, as one might expect if sailing across a ball says geographer Bill Carstensen of Virginia Tech in Blacksburg.

 

Read on

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
And propagandists in the pocket of big oil aren't?

 

I don't recall them being mentioned. Methinks that be a straw man. Or are you accusing me of being one- it's not clear?

 

 

 

There are so many ways it is unbelievable, and very many ways to infer the data from long, long ago

 

I didn't mean that no one knew of any way. I had assumed it would be obvious that that is just the problem- many ways to measure, each with different results. Which leads to the picking and choosing of results to support one's prejudice. And inference is never data. It's inference which, in real science, must be supported by data to be given credence. Another word for infering is guessing.

 

 

 

The conclusions are extremely solid.

 

Only in the minds of true believers and in Democrat talking points. The data is not solid so how can the conclusions drawn from it be solid?

 

 

 

You don't seem to want to investigate the answers to your questions, because you don't want to believe the answers.

 

You are, coyly but nonetheless, accusing me of being close-minded and prejudiced in this matter. And purporting to read my mind. How about discussing specific points instead of making blanket assertions?

 

 

 

 

Same old, same old.

 

I couldn't agree more.

Edited by hchoate
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
thebob

 

 

You are, coyly but nonetheless, accusing me of being close-minded and prejudiced in this matter. And purporting to read my mind. How about discussing specific points instead of making blanket assertions?

 

I'm suggesting that you are disregarding the 97% of qualified scientists that disagree with "your" conclusions about the data, most of which you don't have access to.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

AHHH, the sheer arrogance of mankind !  inventors of technology,  creators of science,  masters of the Earth.  In reality we are but bacterium on an elephant's ass. We cannot make him turn left or right, We cannot make him go forward or reverse,  And we especially cannot induce him to alter his temperature.  Temperature change has been occurring for BILLIONS of years before the invention of man and will continue for billions more after he is gone.  We are however spewing unnecessary and potentially harmful pollutants into the atmosphere that have nothing to do with 'Global Warming', but rather our quality of life. Let us focus on what is really important here and leave Al Gore to his own devices.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
thebob
We are however spewing unnecessary and potentially harmful pollutants into the atmosphere that have nothing to do with 'Global Warming', but rather our quality of life.

 

It is quite simple. It took millions of years to sequester all of the fossil fuel that we have burnt in the last 100 years. While those forests were growing, the planet couldn't support mammals because of the huge amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are just releasing it all back again to create conditions in which our children wont be able to survive.

Edited by thebob
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm suggesting that you are disregarding the 97% of qualified scientists that disagree with "your" conclusions about the data, most of which you don't have access to.

 

I am not disregarding them, I am saying that common sense screams suggests that they are making it up wrong. Real science is not accomplished by consensus. If the conclusion suggested by data defies observable reality or simple logic then a real scientist tries to figure out why the data is wrong rather than trying to cram it whole down others' throats.

 

The 97% figure is complety phony - arrived at by picking and choosing statistics to fit a desired outcome- sound familiar?  It's ridiculous on its face (there's that pesky common sense again)- can you really believe that 97% of any group agrees on anything. (That's a big problem for leftie greenie busy bodies- they get all excited and overdo it. It's a characteristic of immaturity.)

 

You are correct that I have not seen the holy DATA, but then I have not pretended any conclusions from it either- except for Gore's graph- I'd love to hear how something that happens later causes something earlier. Time machine maybe? That's as likely as a lot of this nonsense.

 

Don't have access to? It's being kept secret? Hey, tax dollars paid for a lot of it. What's kept secret is data that contradicts the official narrative- why would anyone keep secret something that proves their case? (There's that pesky common sense again.)

 

Just yelling 'Everybody says you're wrong.' is pure denial- no logic, no evidence, nothing but repetition of hearsay.  Isn't everybody against doing that? They say they are.

 

 

 

It took millions of years to sequester all of the fossil fuel that we have burnt in the last 100 years

 

That science is not established, either.

 

 

 

conditions in which our children wont be able to survive

 

Our children! That's absurd.

Edited by hchoate
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Knowdafish

It is quite simple. It took millions of years to sequester all of the fossil fuel that we have burnt in the last 100 years. While those forests were growing, the planet couldn't support mammals because of the huge amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are just releasing it all back again to create conditions in which our children wont be able to survive.

 

This is a theory and at best an educated guess. It can not be proven. Were you there? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Davaoeno

This is a theory and at best an educated guess. It can not be proven. Were you there? 

 

 

I just hate these intellectual posts !!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
thebob
I am not disregarding them, I am saying that common sense screams suggests that they are making it up wrong. Real science is not accomplished by consensus. If the conclusion suggested by data defies observable reality or simple logic then a real scientist tries to figure out why the data is wrong rather than trying to cram it whole down others' throats.

 

By "common sense" and "simple logic", you mean your preconceived notions. Experimental design is a very difficult subject. First you form a hypothesis, then you collect experimental data to try and disprove it. If data defies observable reality, the first thing you do is to check your observations. They are also data.

 

 

 

The 97% figure is complety phony - arrived at by picking and choosing statistics to fit a desired outcome- sound familiar?  It's ridiculous on its face (there's that pesky common sense again)- can you really believe that 97% of any group agrees on anything. (That's a big problem for leftie greenie busy bodies- they get all excited and overdo it. It's a characteristic of immaturity.)

 

The 97% figure comes from that flyby night group called NASA.

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

 

 

 

Don't have access to? It's being kept secret? Hey, tax dollars paid for a lot of it. What's kept secret is data that contradicts the official narrative- why would anyone keep secret something that proves their case? (There's that pesky common sense again.)

 

You don't have access to it because there is such a large amount of it. The recently released report by the IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis was released in an unedited form on Monday, 30 September. It is over 2000 pages long and cites 9200 scientific publications.

 

This report contains Summary for Policymakers, The level of confidence in each finding was rated on a confidence scale, qualitatively from very low to very high and, where possible, quantitatively from exceptionally unlikely to virtually certain (determined based on statistical analysis and expert judgement).

 

Here are some of the the conclusions.

 

 

General

  • Warming of the atmosphere and ocean system is unequivocal. Many of the associated impacts such as sea level change (among other metrics) have occurred since 1950 at rates unprecedented in the historical record.
  • There is a clear human influence on the climate
  • It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report.

Historical climate metrics

  • It is likely (with medium confidence) that 1983—2013 was the warmest 30-year period for 1400 years.
  • It is virtually certain the upper ocean warmed from 1971 to 2010. This ocean warming accounts, with high confidence, for 90% of the energy accumulation between 1971 and 2010.
  • It can be said with high confidence that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass in the last two decades and that Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent.
  • There is high confidence that the sea level rise since the middle of the 19th century has been larger than the mean sea level rise of the prior two millennia.
  • Concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased to levels unprecedented on earth in 800,000 years.
  • Total radiative forcing of the earth system, relative to 1750, is positive and the most significant driver is the increase in CO2's atmospheric concentration.

 

 

 

 

Just yelling 'Everybody says you're wrong.' is pure denial- no logic, no evidence, nothing but repetition of hearsay.  Isn't everybody against doing that? They say they are.

 

I've presented my evidence, it appears to me that you are the one who is denying the huge preponderance, of evidence collected by multiple, independent bodies, spanning dozens of scientific disciplines, with little more than gut feeling to support your assertions.

Edited by thebob
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyMan

It is quite simple. It took millions of years to sequester all of the fossil fuel that we have burnt in the last 100 years. While those forests were growing, the planet couldn't support mammals because of the huge amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are just releasing it all back again to create conditions in which our children wont be able to survive.

Don't worry about the them.  The Darwinists believe they will mutate into some photosynthesizing creatures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, good back and forth with reasonable points from each side being presented. Well most of you anyway.

 

Man can affect the climate locally, don't stand too close when I burn leafs. How wide an area, how lingering the effects,  that is the bone on contention.

 

I'll leave you with this. Cincinnati - 2 radio weather shows - each put in their own temperature sensors - one was in enclosed perpetual shade - the other always direct sunlight - neither could figure out why their readings were so different. Finally a viewer noticed the obvious problem when each proudly showed their very own remote weather station.

 

Never underestimate Murphy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
By "common sense" and "simple logic", you mean your preconceived notions.

 

with little more than gut feeling to support your assertions

 

You are rather long on the lectures and short on refuting specific points. Which of my points are you calling a 'preconceived notion' or a 'gut feeling'. I know, I know- all of them (unspecified).

 

Again, opinion polls are not science. And it's pretty easy to design polls to get the results you want. Which has been shown to have been done many times by these alarmists.

 

The IPCC stuff never passes the smell test. Same for its latest:

 

...

Here are a few reasons why: IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen has accused it of having "sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence." Nigel Lawson has called it "not science but mumbo jumbo". The Global Warming Policy Foundation's Dr David Whitehouse has described the IPCC's panel as "evasive and inaccurate" in the way it tried dodge the key issue of the 15-year (at least) pause in global warming; Donna Laframboise notes that is either riddled with errors or horribly politically manipulated – or both; Paul Matthews has found a very silly graph; Steve McIntyre has exposed how the IPCC appears deliberately to have tried to obfuscate the unhelpful discrepancy between its models and the real world data; and at Bishop Hill the excellent Katabasis has unearthed another gem: that, in jarring contrast to the alarmist message being put out at IPCC press conferences and in the Summary For Policymakers, the body of the report tells a different story – that almost all the scary scenarios we've been warned about this last two decades (from permafrost melt to ice sheet collapse) are now been graded by scientists somewhere between "low confidence" to "exceptionally unlikely;" and this latest from the Mighty Booker.

And there's plenty more where that came from.

...

And the best one Where's the data that proves the modest 0.8 degrees C warming in the last 150 years has done more harm than good?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100238550/the-climate-alarmists-have-lost-the-debate-its-time-we-stopped-indulging-their-poisonous-fantasy/

 

My bottom line:

 

Yes, the Earth might be getting warmer but not by much and that's probably not even a bad thing- so it doesn't really matter why.

 

It's certainly not clear that it's such a big problem that we should hand over our economies to power-grabbing schemes by self-proclaimed elitist experts (or did we already do that? oops!)  or even if we did they could 'fix' it.

 

They will keep trying really hard to use this to gain power and wealth for themselves and their cronies, whatever it takes- and I do mean whatever. They have scared a lot of people into helping them- victims of propaganda. And the media pumps it because disaster sells.

Edited by hchoate
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Knowdafish

 

 

You are rather long on the lectures and short on refuting specific points.

 

And I thought I was the only one that noticed this. Welcome to thebob's world.  :wheel:

Link to post
Share on other sites
thebob

He is funded by The Heartland Institute.

 

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/

 

 

Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test
 
 

The discredited Heartland Institute is attempting to present its new NIPCC report, Climate Change Reconsidered, as a legitimate alternative authority to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the NIPCC report is not a credible scientific undertaking, and the Heartland Institute has no credibility, scientific or otherwise.

Update: The Heartland Institute is planning to launch Climate Change Reconsidered at an event on September 18.

The following is a guest post by Climate Nexus. (The post in PDF format ishere.)

With the launch of new NIPCC report, the discredited Heartland Institute goes head to head with the entire world’s foremost climate scientists.

Tomorrow the Heartland Institute launches a new report Climate Change Reconsidered. To write the report, Heartland assembled a group it calls the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a particularly revealing choice of name. The name, combined with the timing of the release to coincide with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s upcoming Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), shows that Heartland is attempting to present itself as a legitimate alternative authority to the IPCC.

However, the Heartland institute is nowhere close to the IPCC in terms of credibility. A few key points show the NIPCC to be a transparent marketing gimmick rather than a legitimate scientific undertaking:

    • The NIPCC does not follow the same rigorous scientific evaluation process as the IPCC.
    • The Heartland Institute has a long history of opposing settled science in the interests of its free-market funders, and has used decidedly un-scientific tactics to do so.

The NIPCC vs. IPCC Process

The IPCC is supported by hundreds of scientists, think tanks, and organizations around the world that assess and synthesize the most recent climate change-related science. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007, involved more than 500 Lead Authors and 2000 Expert Reviewers from more than one hundred participating nations. These authors and reviewers were all unpaid volunteers, and are required to identify and show consideration to theories that differ from conventional wisdom.

Unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC examines literature published exclusively by climate contrarians who are paid to contribute their findings to NIPCC reports, according to leaked internal documents of the Heartland Institute. The 2009 NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered had two lead authors, Fred Singer and Craig Idso, and 35 contributors. Similarly, the 2011 Interim NIPCC report had three lead authors, Fred Singer, Craig Idso, and Robert Carter, and only eight contributors. The NIPCC does not employ the same rigorousstandards and approval process used by the IPCC to ensure its assessment reports are accurate and inclusive.

The Heartland Institute’s Credibility

The Heartland Institute has a long history of valuing the interests of its financial backers over the conclusions of experts. It has campaigned against the threats posed by second-hand smokeacid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as the Endangered Species Act. With its aggressive campaigning using tools such as billboards comparing climate change “believers” to the Unabomber, Heartland makes no pretense at being a scientific organization.

Heartland’s funding over the past decade has included thousands of dollars directly from ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, but a large portion of their funding ($25.6 million) comes from the shadowy Donor’s Capital Fund, created expressly to conceal the identity of large donors to free-market causes. The Koch brothers appear to be funneling money into Donor’s Capital via their Knowledge and Progress Fund.

Heartland’s credibility has been so damaged that mainstream funders have been abandoning the organization, and it has been forced to discontinueits annual climate conference.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..