Calling All Climate Deniers

1. No. Climate change is a normal and repeated cyclical process.

2. Yes climate change exists and it is likely to cause problems in the future. If you will recall the rather famous portrait of Washington Crossing the Delaware, you'll note the little icebergs, the Delaware doesn't come close to freezing that much in recent history (last 100 years or so).

3. I believe in climate change as a natural process; the geological record, even the historical record, I think is sufficient to "prove" this. The data on human climate change is harder to discern. So many of the "studies" have been produced with funding from groups that have clearly staked out a position. I have yet to find a scientific article that has definitively explain natural climate change, nor any studies that have used proper multivariate factor analysis to evaluate the relative impact of this natural process and human influence.

4. The issue is not a complete hoax, though there are those who have been discredited on both sides of the issue.

5. It is a natural process, and I am undecided what if anything we can do about it.

Give me hard objective data, either way, and I'll change my opinion.

alien444 said:

Calling All Climate Deniers

Click to expand...

I've never yet met anyone who denies that climate exists.

alien444 said:

In a sincere effort to understand your position, I would like to ask the following:

Do you deny that climate change is happening at all?
Do you believe it and just think it won't cause problems in the future?
Believe climate change but not man made climate change?
Think the entire issue is a hoax?
It's happening but natural and there is nothing we can do about it?

Click to expand...

Climate change takes place constantly, at all times, in all places on earth and even on other planets. No climate is ever entirely static.

There is probably a component of current trends in climate that's caused by human activity. This is in addition to trends in nature that have been occurring for millions of years. There is no reliable way to sort out the difference between the two. I highly recommend reading these two articles:

The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought.

Understanding the Global Warming Debate

To give a quick summary: for a long time, politicians have been using scientific predictions of the planet warming 3 degrees Celsius by midcentury. More recent research predicts that the total amount of warming will be much less than that already modest amount: probably under two degrees. The original models that have been used to justify the hysteria about global warming were wrong.

While the entire issue is not a hoax, there are certainly a large number of hoaxes circulating around the issue. For example, in the USA the government requires that all gasoline we buy include 10% of corn ethanol. They claim that this will reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In reality it increases carbon emissions, because farmers have to burn a lot of fuel in order to grow all that corn. So why do we have this policy? Simply, the corn industry gives money to the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party makes the laws which benefit the corn industry, while pretending that the purpose of those laws is to combat global warming. So uninformed people vote for Democrats, thinking that Democrats are opposed to global warming, when in reality the Democrats are happy to require everyone to pump more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. As long as people continue to vote for Democrats, this will continue.

Can anything be done about global warming? Probably not. In the past decade, there have been nineteen international conferences aiming to reach a worldwide agreement for reducing carbon emissions. None of those conferences have actually produced an agreement. Do you think the 20th conference will produce an agreement? How about the 21st? Or the 22nd?

Do you deny that climate change is happening at all?

Click to expand...

No. I think it is happening. I don't think it's a big of a deal as people make it out to be. I think that most climate change/global warming true believers are alarmists who are probably out for their own personal gain.

Antarctic Ice Shelf On Brink Of Unstoppable Melt That Could Raise Sea Levels For 10,000 Years

Click to expand...

And I loled at the alarmism in the title of that article. Here's a few cool bits:

The Wilkes is vulnerable because it is held in place by a small rim of ice, resting on bedrock below sea level by the coast of the frozen continent. That "ice plug" might melt away in coming centuries if ocean waters warm up.

Click to expand...

Notice that "might" and "if" there.

The study indicated that it could take 200 years or more to melt the ice plug if ocean temperatures rise. Once removed, it could take between 5,000 and 10,000 years for ice in the Wilkes Basin to empty as gravity pulled the ice seawards.

Click to expand...

So...it 200 years that ice cap might met, and in 5000 years, that ice might be in the ocean. So, we've got at least 5200 years to solve the problem.

alien444 said:

I noticed you ignored the article titled "Climate Change is Already Here Says Massive Government Report". You turned the other article into a straw man--good job. I posted the article because they were linked, but I am not so much concerned about what happens 2500 years from now as 10, 20, 30, 40 yrs from now. This argument about the future will play out in front of us, so at least it will be resolved.

Click to expand...

It looks like they use data from the USHCN which is pretty much worthless.

alien444 said:

What's the point in arguing this right? Neither of us is going to be convinced by the other. I have got to stop posting threads that automatically lead to deadlock. lol.

Click to expand...

I place no credibility in anything global warming related that has relation to the USHCN or is in anyway connected to any organization that James Hansen has been affiliated with.

That report fails on both counts.

alien444 said:

See I was with you on the ethanol until you unnecessarily turned it political. Democrats and Republicans are both in the pockets of corporate America. If I had to chose between BIG OIL or BIG CORN(?) I think I will continue to chose the latter.

Click to expand...

That's not exactly a strong vote of confidence for the Democratic Party, is it?

alien444 said:

I really don't see how the data (from various sources) can get any harder or more objective

Thanks for the post

Click to expand...

A scientific theory becomes accepted when it is replicated; replication is simply impossible with climate change. We cannot turn back time and unindustrialized the world and make comparative measurements of climate. Correlation is not causation, e.g. in almost every beach in America drownings strongly correlate with ice cream sales. This apparent relationship occurs because both phenomena also strongly correlate with the number of people on the beach and the number of people in water.

If you can point me to a research study that has an appropriate multifactor analysis and gauge of natural climate change and its effects independent from all other supposed causes, I'll read it. But you admitted that studies on both sides have been debunked as frauds, so I'd still need to dig into the study to determine whether or not the researchers were being objective.

I'm afraid that to be confident in the objectivity of the researcher requires a rather extensive investigation.

The ultimate test of climate change people is the "Act as if test."

Do they act as if the world is going to end if we don't cut carbon emissions?

It certainly doesn't seem like it.

The earth is getting warmer, probably since about 1850. How much of it has to do with mankind? I think it is impossible to really say. I see the study of global warming as "science based". It is not true science. It is impossible to put up a hypothesis and attempt to falsify it. What we mostly have is people collecting data and making a correlation. They then develop sophisticated computer models to help explain the data and support their presuppositions. I believe there is value in trying to figure it out, but mostly it is just prejudiced correlations.

The politics, on the other hand, are very suggestive. To properly fight global warming, the U.S. essentially has to become a third world country. Mainly we have to all stop driving and stop using electricity, the sooner the better. Many think it is already too late.

China, Russia, and India, essentially are getting a "pass". They talk big, but they are doing their very best to elevate their citizens to U.S. standards. China puts about 200 thousand new drivers on the road each month, for example. If they do not get on board, it is hopeless.

I get the impression the Europeans and Japan are trying harder, but ultimately to be successful they need to bankrupt their people, and they have to get the rest of the world on board with the drastic changes necessary to our human lifestyle. They are trying to persuade us to follow. We have made some baby steps, but it is not going to happen.

I agree with the ethanol poster. Even if we do get on board, the science behind our decision making is very complicated and likely influenced by political considerations. Are we really doing what is best? Or are we doing what our politicians are getting bribed to support? Or, are we genuinely doing what we think is best, and are just spinning our wheels or making it worse?

Additionally, Americans (all people really) are very oriented to the "present". We are very selfish. For example, our baby boomers are taking, taking, taking, and leaving nothing for the grand kids but a twenty plus trillion dollar debt, a monstrosity of a Federal government which is essentially uncontrollable, and no easy way out. They are leaving their grand kids the future of Detroit. I do not see selfish humans succeeding at fixing anything on the scale of global warming - assuming it is even fixable.

In conclusion, the earth is getting warmer but the scientific understanding of the reason why is very questionable, the correct path to fix it is very debatable, the majority of the world's population is not attempting to change and likely never will, the political answers suggest both wealth redistribution as well as economic regression and the steps necessary to change our course are unpalatable and untenable.

When President Obama essentially tells his scientists what he wants to hear, and then makes a big splash about the "news" from their report, he is building a platform to take from the rich and give to the poor. It will not fix global warming, but it will make him feel good that he could use the issue of global warming to achieve some of his socioeconomic goals.

My ultimate answer is that the politics involved in the global warming discussion are the only things which count as the political decision making is very changeable and could have a major impact on everyone's lifestyle.

Actual global warming is a fun discussion, but irrelevant as we are stuck with it regardless of the cause.

alien444 said:

Agreed, but consensus and replication is what makes a theory valid.

Click to expand...

No. Not at all. Objective truth is what makes a theory valid.

For decades there has been a consensus among scientists that a diet high in saturated fat leads to higher risk of heart attack and stroke. Experiments proving this to be true were repeated many times. Government agencies spent vast sums of money trying to bribe, trick, or force us to eat less saturated fat. Entire organizations were created based upon that advice. Zillions of "low fat" products were introduced and advertised as healthy. But guess what? Saturated fat does not cause heart disease.

The moral of the story is simple. Even if there's a consensus among scientists about a false statement, it's still false. No one can turn falsehood into truth merely by believing in it.

alien444 said:

Who gains from climate change. Some scientists might further their career in the process of doing research, but the more scientists brought to the field, the more intense the scrutiny for their findings.

Click to expand...

Who gains from convincing people to believe in climate change? A lot of people. The main goal of climate change activists is to outlaw all or some fossil fuels as energy sources. Since we'll always need energy, if fossil fuels are outlawed, we'll have to buy energy from elsewhere. Perhaps you've heard of Tom Steyer, the billionaire who gave $100,000,000 to the Democratic Party in exchange for a 'no' vote from Pres. Obama on the Keystone XL Pipeline. Would you believe that he invests heavily in alternative energy sources such as solar and wind? The more that climate change activists work to shut down the coal and oil industries, the richer he's going to become. And we've already discussed the corn companies that are benefiting from the ethanol mandate.

Perhaps you think that scientists are in some way pure and unstained by the drive for money. But those of us who have worked in any field of scientific research know that the need for grant money from rich organizations is a major factor in determining what research gets performed.

I am convinced that climate change is real but I have my doubts about a carbon tax being the best first response.

"So how is our problem of continental drying causing global warming? It all has to do with vegetation and sunlight. When sun light hits a plant, it causes a process which we call photosynthesis where the energy from the sun light creates oxygen for us to breathe, water for us to drink, and is stored as sugar for plants and animals to use. When the same sun light hits the soil, all of its energy turns into heat and is radiated back into the atmosphere.. ."

"Therefore, the less vegetation you have on the planet, the more sunlight is being turned into heat and the warmer the planet becomes...."

"Just take a look at any satellite picture of the earth showing heat and you will see that our deserts are the warmest spots on the planet by far. More heat is being generated by just one of the top four or five deserts than by all of our cities combined.... "

"The truth is that you can do more to decrease global warming by just reducing the average temperature for the Sahara Desert by one or two degrees than if we humans completely quit using fossil fuels and returned to the cave…."

"So, how would you start working to resolve this problem? Easy, cool the deserts and get some vegetation growing on them as soon as possible. But the method is much more complex than that. You have to use the prevailing trade winds in relation to the deserts to get the best results as quickly as possible and it will be extremely expensive…."

"Then we build desalination plants along the coast near these water sheds and pipe water to the tops or ridges of the water sheds…"

"We need to start working on this as soon as possible because, if the planet reaches a point to where it is warming faster than our technology can possibly stop or reverse this warming trend, then our planet is lost and all life will cease to exist on this planet within a relatively short period of time. We will need to start with the largest and hottest deserts because cooling them will have the greatest benefit in the least time (Global Warming II by biologist Carl Cantrell)."

Click to expand...

This would be a good way to delay the threat of rising ocean levels….

West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse is under way | UW Today

Collapse Of Antarctic Ice Sheet Would Likely Put Washington, D.C. Largely Underwater -- ScienceDaily

Collapse Of Antarctic Ice Sheet Would Likely Put Washington, D.C. Largely Underwater

Geophysicists have shown that should the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse and melt in a warming world -- as many scientists are concerned it will -- it is the coastlines of North America and of nations in the southern Indian Ocean that will face the greatest threats from rising sea levels.

Click to expand...

dbcsf said:

My ultimate answer is that the politics involved in the global warming discussion are the only things which count as the political decision making is very changeable and could have a major impact on everyone's lifestyle.

Click to expand...

Do most people who promote the idea of human-caused climate change/global warming act as if they believe it?

Generally, it seems that they don't.

Which begs the question, why should I act as if I believe it? Obviously the people who claim to know what they're talking about don't take it very seriously.

First rule of climate change discussion:

The climate has always changed, is changing, and always will change. You can't stop it.

JohnLocke said:

Give me hard objective data, either way, and I'll change my opinion.

Click to expand...

http://www.futuretimeline.net/21stcentury/images/correlation-co2-temperature-graph.jpg