Science Denial

[KWCrazy]

As you point out, scientists are not afraid to rock the boat; therefore, a scientific consensus indicates situations where the balance of the evidence tips strongly in favor of one conclusion.

The problem is that AGW is based on models and predictions, none of which have ever even been close. There is no science whatever that shows a causal relationship with human activity or positive evidence of a deleterious consequence of that activity.

 

[RickG]

The problem is that AGW is based on models and predictions, none of which have ever even been close. There is no science whatever that shows a causal relationship with human activity or positive evidence of a deleterious consequence of that activity.

No it is not. AGW is based on the well understood and physics of CO2 which has been known for over 150 years and observation and data since then. As for suggesting that climate models have never been close, I suggest looking at the actual science for once rather than the science denial media. Models have been quite accurate.

As for AGW, it stands for 'Anthropogenic (human caused) global warming). It being anthropogenic has nothing to do with models or predictions. It has to do with the knowledge that the additional atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution is due to burning fossil fuels. Naturally occurring CO2 and fossil fuel CO2 have specific identifiable signatures which are seen in the ratios of carbon isotopes. There is no mistaking this difference.

 

[Belk]

The problem is that AGW is based on models and predictions, none of which have ever even been close. There is no science whatever that shows a causal relationship with human activity or positive evidence of a deleterious consequence of that activity.

Funny how all the actual scientists who study the issue seem to disagree with you. So is it a giant conspiracy or are all the climate scientists stupid?

 

[AV1611VET]

Funny how all the actual scientists who study the issue seem to disagree with you. So is it a giant conspiracy or are all the climate scientists stupid?

Would all the climate scientists agree that God exists, if every single Christian past, present, and future believed: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD? or do climate scientists have an EXEMPT CARD from their own medicine?

 

[Belk]

Would all the climate scientists agree that God exists, if every single Christian past, present, and future believed: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD? or do climate scientists have an EXEMPT CARD from their own medicine?

Are you claiming that all Christians are experts who have a detailed understanding of how God creates, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you claiming that all Christians are experts who have a detailed understanding of how God creates, AV?

Wrong verb.

Read what I said again, please.

I'm talking about GOD EXISTS, not GOD CREATED.

In fact, I stopped short of the word CREATED on purpose, when I said:

IN THE BEGININNING, GOD.

Not: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD CREATED.

So again, would all the climate scientists agree that God exists, if every single Christian past, present, and future believed: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD? or do climate scientists have an EXEMPT CARD from their own medicine?

 

[KWCrazy]

Funny how all the actual scientists who study the issue seem to disagree with you. So is it a giant conspiracy or are all the climate scientists stupid?

Sorry, that's a lie.
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem. source

... if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats.

I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like “most warming since the 1950s is human caused” or “97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming”, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good. source

When you politicize science, it ceases to be science.

 

[Belk]

Wrong verb.

Read what I said again, please.

I'm talking about GOD EXISTS, not GOD CREATED.

In fact, I stopped short of the word CREATED on purpose, when I said:

IN THE BEGININNING, GOD.

Not: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD CREATED.

So again, would all the climate scientists agree that God exists, if every single Christian past, present, and future believed: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD? or do climate scientists have an EXEMPT CARD from their own medicine?

That's nice.

So is it a giant conspiracy or are all the scientists stupid?

 

[Belk]

Sorry, that's a lie.
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem. source

... if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats.

I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like “most warming since the 1950s is human caused” or “97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming”, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good. source

When you politicize science, it ceases to be science.

Ah. So it is a giant conspiracy then? All those scientific organizations that say this is a big issue are lying to everyone?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's Co2 levels which have nothing to do with the actual temperatures.

Right, right... green house gases have "nothing to do" with temperature. Uhu.

 

[KWCrazy]

Ah. So it is a giant conspiracy then? All those scientific organizations that say this is a big issue are lying to everyone?

It's a lucrative business funded by liberals that want even more government control and promoted by pack mentality people who want to see themselves as important by "saving the world." All the global warming models fail for one reason; man's contribution to climate change means diddley and squat. Hint: if the answer to the problem is always big government socialism, then the entire premise is suspect. If someone demands that you accept that the debate is over, you know there are questions they don't want asked.

 

[RickG]

Would all the climate scientists agree that God exists, if every single Christian past, present, and future believed: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD? or do climate scientists have an EXEMPT CARD from their own medicine?

Please stay on topic.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

I used to wonder what lay behind climate change denial. I came to the conclusion that climate change deniers just didn't want to be inconvenienced by unwelcome facts, and who care about the future anyway - we won't be alive then, even if our grandchildren will.

Not for me. I am not a climatologist but I can certainly validate the physics for myself. It isn't even about the physics, though: the stochastic modelling of Earth is obscenely erroneous.

I agree that climate is changing. I do not agree that LAYPERSONS are causing it.

When predicting the cycles and behavior of a dynamical system, you need to have saturation of data more than 0.00008% of the timescaled data range. Humans have been around for 4000+ years, and unless Joe the Plumber has an incredibly powerful ion-emitter, a radiation faucet, or has the power to manipulate the weather, layperson humans are NOT causing this alleged catastrophe.

Which means SOMEONE is being dishonest - whether it is the scientists (precedence,) governments (precedence,) scientists at the behest of government, or some combination of all of the above. That is the common sense of it; layperson are not causing so much destruction to this planet on their own such that they have severely perturbed life systems on this planet: driving toward a certifiable result in the limit as time goes to even 150 years! Amazing... and even more amazing to act as if Earth is not a dynamic system with periodic and acute cycles of correction - as well as natural cycles.

What a lot of "deniers" understand is this is a lot of squwaking to get the world to take responsibility for what a few companies and governments have done to this planet - and as usual the layperson is expected to fit the bill. The story is being made to be put on "consumers," because "our" job is to buy anything as long as the source from which it comes is acceptable. That goes from tires to truth.

The "urgent/not so urgent" rhetoric of the entire thing gives it away: even if it was going to destroy the planet in 150 years, no one would know if it was real doom. No government would alert their citizens of doom more than 2 weeks before an event - for logistical reasons. Then, add in the catch: this scause, this tax, this action, this social media meme will "help prevent" the catastrophe.

How. In. The. Heck. Will. More. Money. Stop. Earth. From climatologically denaturing?

Or rather, How much money will it take to stop Earth from climatologically denaturing?

No, just no. This has been done before: getting the citizens to feel guilty for what a few very evil people do.

What isn't ridiculous is people denying AGW - by precedence alone that is a valid response to the information. What is ridiculous is the amount of people willing to buy into the fear. It isn't "global warming" killing us; in addition to celestial activity, let's not forget the largest 15 ships (owned by what layperson, again?) contribute about the same amount of pollution as most cars on the road in the world. Lab Coat Syndrome and Stockholm Syndrome is killing us and the planet.

 

[RickG]

It's a lucrative business funded by liberals that want even more government control and promoted by pack mentality people who want to see themselves as important by "saving the world." All the global warming models fail for one reason; man's contribution to climate change means diddley and squat. Hint: if the answer to the problem is always big government socialism, then the entire premise is suspect. If someone demands that you accept that the debate is over, you know there are questions they don't want asked.

Once again, the consensuses is world-wide by scientists of all walks of life and political preferences. It is based on what the science shows, not by a poll, opinion or political views. What questions is it that you think scientists don't want asked?

 

[RickG]

I agree that climate is changing. I do not agree that LAYPERSONS are causing it.

Then what is the cause you perceive to be changing the climate?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Please stay on topic.

I think it was on topic. Someone suggested the "all or nothing" card - that a conclusion from someone''s opposing belief on climate change and science falls into either conspiracy, or denial.

In other words, "funny how all the scientists who study this..." disagreeing with an opponent of climate change suggests that all scientists are at a consensus (which says nothing about the accuracy of a result - at all.)

By that extension, the same type of question and comparison was broth up - to an atheist - about his "all or nothing" card working with scientists who profess God.

It suggests if there is one scientist who disagrees with the status quo - one who has the expertise and has studied the phenomenon - then the status quo is wrong, or that scientists who put in just as much (if not, more) work as his/her colleagues in the respective field is simply to be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.

This is grossly insulting, at best, to the scientists, engineers and mathematicians who DO know how to do their own research, who have their own means of verification through the same/similar pedigree - who disagree with the status quo.

It is academic social pressure - and the academic pressure goes much further than simple cliche labels.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Then what is the cause you perceive to be changing the climate?

It isn't from cars, and CO2.

If I decide to actually divulge what (I have researched/believe) it is - that is, if there is ever an audience, then it will be in a paper/scholarly article. Why a paper, and not just say it on Christianforums? Because, Christianforums is a blog in which the exchanges become public intellectual property.

I see a lot of people discussing ideas and theories without proper intellectual protection on public domain all of the time - ridiculed by their opponents only to be confirmed by someone else years later.

 

[RickG]

In other words, "funny how all the scientists who study this..." disagreeing with an opponent of climate change suggests that all scientists are at a consensus (which says nothing about the accuracy of a result - at all.)

Please see my post #178.

 

[RickG]

It isn't from cars, and CO2.

If I decide to actually divulge what (I have researched/believe) it is - that is, if there is ever an audience, then it will be in a paper/scholarly article. Why a paper, and not just say it on Christianforums? Because, Christianforums is a blog in which the exchanges become public intellectual property.

I see a lot of people discussing ideas and theories without proper intellectual protection on public domain all of the time - ridiculed by their opponents only to be confirmed by someone else years later.

If you read my post #178, it shows that 97.2% of the published peer review articles addressing AGW show that the earth is warming due to carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. If not from CO2 from fossil fuels, what?

 

[AV1611VET]

Please stay on topic.

Sure thing.

I'll amend my answer, just for you:

... are all the climate scientists stupid?

Yes.

@ Rick: You're welcome.