Why I don't believe "climate change" experts

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I am a college dropout, however I have taken a few advanced courses on the Earth's atmosphere and climate(and passed the classes). My professors encouraged us to look at evidence both for and against global warming, they warned about fallacies of blindly accepting what most consider true and accurate.

I myself have even made some strong arguments against man-made global warming, however after looking at as many angles as I could, I have concluded that man-made climate change is a reality. The evidence that human activity is changing this planet is overwhelming. The sharp increase of CO2 over the past 50years is just one piece of a complex puzzle.

a reply to: jrod

I have read a lot about this subject, and when referring to "religion" i only point out that the fervor in which supporters attack deniers or even doubters is a parallel. Its a matter of close mindedness on both sides. I take a third stance that both are wrong and only time will tell. I like what both sides have to offer which is debate, which in most instances furthers the pursuit of knowledge.

Undoubtedly the eventual slinging of "Logic Flaws" comes to every discussion as a means to discredit or even silence the opposition, but can be applied to the logic of both sides.

Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa

Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent.

Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.

Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.

Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole

False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more

Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification[37]) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.


All of these apply (and More) to both sides of the argument. I'm not saying the data is incorrect or even falsified, but even the slightest chance that is it misapplied or applied incorrectly has been questioned multiple times by multiple creditable sources. So I say again its a Theory and only time will reveal the true cause of Global Climate Change once ALL factors have been accounted for (which will take time as its deciding factor).

a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

And now instead of addressing the topic, you are just posting logic fallacies.

When the heart of one's argument is based on a logic fallacy, then there is likely a problem with the argument. However just because a logic fallacy is present in an argument that does not necessarily mean the argument is incorrect, see the fallacy fallacy.

Here are a few links that addresses the CO2 concentrations since that you mentioned burden of proof.

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

www.scientificamerican.com...

CO2 Levels above 400 PPM Threshold for Third Month in a Row

Atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas, which helps drive global warming, haven’t been this high in somewhere between 800,000 and 15 million years
July 2, 2014 |By Andrea Thompson and Climate Central
new CO2 milestone

First full month with levels above 400ppm.
Credit: Climate Central Click to enlarge

April fell first. It lasted through May. Now June will be the third month in a row with average carbon dioxide levels above 400 parts per million.

Atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas, which helps drive global warming, haven’t been this high in somewhere between 800,000 and 15 million years.

www.scientificamerican.com...

CO2 Levels for February Eclipsed Prehistoric Highs
Global warming is headed back to the future as the CO2 level reaches a new high
March 5, 2015 |By David Biello
earth-atmosphere-from-space

More and more carbon dioxide molecules are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere.
Astronaut photograph from International Space Station courtesy of NASA.

February is one of the first months since before months had names to boast carbon dioxide concentrations at 400 parts per million.* Such CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have likely not been seen since at least the end of the Oligocene 23 million years ago, an 11-million-year-long epoch of gradual climate cooling that most likely saw CO2 concentrations drop from more than 1,000 ppm. Those of us alive today breathe air never tasted by any of our ancestors in the entire Homo genus.

Homo sapiens sapiens—that’s us—has subsisted for at least 200,000 years on a planet that has oscillated between 170 and 280 ppm, according to records preserved in air bubbles trapped in ice. Now our species has burned enough fossil fuels and cut down enough trees to push CO2 to 400 ppm—and soon beyond. Concentrations rise by more than two ppm per year now.

Are you still going to try to claim the science is not out on the 400ppm CO2 levels?

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt
a reply to: jrod

I have read a lot about this subject, and when referring to "religion" i only point out that the fervor in which supporters attack deniers or even doubters is a parallel. Its a matter of close mindedness on both sides. I take a third stance that both are wrong and only time will tell. I like what both sides have to offer which is debate, which in most instances furthers the pursuit of knowledge.

Undoubtedly the eventual slinging of "Logic Flaws" comes to every discussion as a means to discredit or even silence the opposition, but can be applied to the logic of both sides.

Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa

Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent.

Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.

Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.

Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole

False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more

Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification[37]) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.


All of these apply (and More) to both sides of the argument. I'm not saying the data is incorrect or even falsified, but even the slightest chance that is it misapplied or applied incorrectly has been questioned multiple times by multiple creditable sources. So I say again its a Theory and only time will reveal the true cause of Global Climate Change once ALL factors have been accounted for (which will take time as its deciding factor).

The logical fallacies apply only to AGW because AGW are the one's passing laws on the assumption that AGW is true, is catastrophic, and that the laws can do something about it. None of which have been proven.

Proof of AGW would be nice. It would tell recent college graduates where to invest in real estate or what product lines might grow in sales. It would be nice to know the truth, whatever it is.

originally posted by: jrod

a reply to: Justoneman

That is a cute trick you tried there, but flawed in so many ways. The 40% increase is significant, the fact is has been observed in such a short amount of time(50 years is a blink of eye as far as the Earth is concerned) is of great concern to this planet and our species.

It isn't a trick like hiding the decline was. It is quite simply the facts that it would now be 0.056 % of our atmosphere. On top of the fact the temperature mean of planet Earth has a very long way to go to be anywhere near the max or minimal numbers geological records indicate. As one with access to real time data, I can see this. Those who are blindly parroting the story that we are doing great harm to more than our drinking water and wildlife of the waterways are in fact helping to destroy the scientific process so well described by Dr Feynman over CO2.

We have to use logic and logic says the currently recorded temperatures verses the now repeatedly failed predictions are well within the 5% of probable error standard used in science to determine the significance of a change in conditions.

We can't ignore the process that brought us here and expect to succeed in anything. But even more importantly, we lose the public trust in science and the scientific community. I for one and doing my best to speak up and bring you information from the good scientists who are combating the bad ones. I have an obligation to the truth.

a reply to: jrod

I think perhaps you missed the point of my regurgitation of logic flaws. It was not to point fingers but to allow for critical thinking when discussing alternate viewpoints. As far as right, wrong or in between, none of that matters because things will turn out the way they turn out. This forum is for discussion, or debate your assumption that I swing one way or another on any individual topic implies that I have a side. Perhaps I just take an alternate view to challenge my own preconceptions?

The data is out there, yes.

Raising atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to 0.04 percent may not seem like much but it has been enough to raise the world's annual average temperature by a total of 0.8 degree Celsius [33.44 fahrenheit] so far

There is some good information in this OP ED, I especially like the ideas of adding Heavy Metals to the ocean and making fake trees to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere.


These are daily outputs from the volcano site in Hawaii. (not Man made)
Moana Loa

I'm still confused at this point, the articles point to a know site of CO2 production from volcanic activity, is this on 400ppm on top of the cars and factories in Hawaii? Earlier posts in this thread pointed to negligible contribution from volcanic activity or even dismiss that volcanoes contribute any real percentage of CO2 to the total global green house effect. Not sure what your point was in these as they implicate fossil fuels but site data from a volcanic area.

One again very interesting reading, but is an indicator of a small segment of global implication, not if the article read, 10,000 measurement sites record an increase to 400ppm of co2 globally, then it may be more of an alarm.

Furthermore why do we keep calling DATA science????

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"the world of science and technology"
synonyms: branch of knowledge, body of knowledge/information, area of study, discipline, field
"the science of criminology"
a particular area of this.
plural noun: sciences
"veterinary science"
a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
"the science of criminology"
synonyms: physics, chemistry, biology; More

da·ta
ˈdadə,ˈdādə/
noun
facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.
synonyms: facts, figures, statistics, details, particulars, specifics; More
COMPUTING
the quantities, characters, or symbols on which operations are performed by a computer, being stored and transmitted in the form of electrical signals and recorded on magnetic, optical, or mechanical recording media.
PHILOSOPHY
things known or assumed as facts, making the basis of reasoning or calculation.

a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

It truly is futile with you.

Now you are questioning the Moana Loa data based on a complete BS argument, that is is too close to a volcano for accurate numbers, when the reason why NOAA picked that location is because it is on an Island in the middle of the Ocean, a great spot for good data points, far removed from the pollution of big cities. Moana Loa does not spew CO2........

There are other locations that track CO2, unlike some of us, I do not get paid to post on here and do not have the time nor patience to do the research, provide good links, only for someone to just turn my links and research into a strawman debate full of logic fallacies.

The information and data regarding the CO2 concentration at 400ppm is there, there is NO debate that this is where the CO2 levels are. I do not care if you wish to ignore the data, ignorance is bliss for some. I do NOT appreciate it when you one tries to spread the ignorance, pull the wool over our eyes. It is obvious that you, Justoneman, and Semicollegiate are doing little to add to the discussion and a lot to disrupt the conversation.

Can any of you 3 provide good sources the 'debunks' the 400ppm CO2 levels we are currently observing?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: Justoneman

Fox News is not a credible news channel, so fat chance of getting people who know something about global climate change on it. Bill Nye or Al Gore would eat any opposition alive by simply reciting basic facts. Faux News is about as scientifically credible as Pat Robertson.

NBC has also proven itself to be not credible with their multiple proven false stories, also MSNBC is in the same position. Both channels have had Al Gore on several time but refuse to put on scientists who disagree with the "climate change" being caused by humans mythology.

If it were true, then Al Gore and Bill Nye would simply say we needed to go back to humans using hydroflorocarbons
in order to cool down the earth, as the scientists claimed hydroflorocarbons were doing in the 70's. That would be the best way to correct global warming caused by humans and that humans could easily do; if all the scientists past and present are correct and global climate change in either direction is caused by humans (as opposed to a naturally occurring over millennia phenomenon).

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

It truly is futile with you.

Now you are questioning the Moana Loa data based on a complete BS argument, that is is too close to a volcano for accurate numbers, when the reason why NOAA picked that location is because it is on an Island in the middle of the Ocean, a great spot for good data points, far removed from the pollution of big cities. Moana Loa does not spew CO2........

There are other locations that track CO2, unlike some of us, I do not get paid to post on here and do not have the time nor patience to do the research, provide good links, only for someone to just turn my links and research into a strawman debate full of logic fallacies.

The information and data regarding the CO2 concentration at 400ppm is there, there is NO debate that this is where the CO2 levels are. I do not care if you wish to ignore the data, ignorance is bliss for some. I do NOT appreciate it when you one tries to spread the ignorance, pull the wool over our eyes. It is obvious that you, Justoneman, and Semicollegiate are doing little to add to the discussion and a lot to disrupt the conversation.

Can any of you 3 provide good sources the 'debunks' the 400ppm CO2 levels we are currently observing?

From the literature I have read, 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere seems to be an accepted figure by everyone.

What did your university classes say about the Little Ice Age and the warming that ended the Little Ice Age?

By what reasoning is the warming that ended the Little Ice Age not warming the planet now?

a reply to: jrod


My mom always said I was difficult if that helps ease your frustration.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm sure the numbers are correct. I looked through the data sheet and i see a 1 ppm increase annually(ish) since 1958 (with fluctuations) and a total of about 64 ppm since 1958. Having actually lived in Hawaii, I know that the air quality can vary dependent on a number of factors including higher than normal volcanic output, trade winds and other factors (i especially like VOG).

Can any of you 3 provide good sources the 'debunks' the 400ppm CO2 levels we are currently observing?

Well since Mauna Loa observatory is generally the only one sited in a majority of studies I suppose I have to accept it as fact.

Although there is this:

The AIRS instrument measures 2,378 different infrared channels, or segments, of infrared light. Carbon dioxide absorbs and emits very specific wavelengths of infrared light, giving it a unique fingerprint. By measuring the emitted thermal infrared radiation, AIRS can detect this fingerprint, giving scientists a way to estimate carbon dioxide concentrations globally.
AIRS has shown that carbon dioxide is not evenly distributed over the globe; it is patchy with high concentrations in some places and lower concentrations in others. The gas’s transport and distribution through the atmosphere is controlled by the jet stream, by large weather systems, and by other large-scale atmospheric circulations. The findings from AIRS have raised new questions about how carbon dioxide is transported from one place to another—both horizontally and vertically—through the atmosphere. To address these questions and others, NASA is preparing to launch the Orbiting Carbon Observatory in 2014. It will be the first satellite dedicated to monitoring carbon dioxide, and it will do so with greater precision and detail than current instruments.

ARRIS

OCO2

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt


Can any of you 3 provide good sources the 'debunks' the 400ppm CO2 levels we are currently observing?

Star for your efforts to understand.


I am not debunking the CO2 levels. I am debunking the affect of CO2 that can be laid out in a way laypeople and scientists both can understand in "An Inconsistent Truth".

www.youtube.com...


Plus i would like to point out the same people pushing taxation of carbon are deliberately avoiding alternative fuels that don't need coal or oil. There is a clue to the truth of the matter with them wanting to make money while not discussing the replacements that do work like H2 for combustion and Thorium or other safe nuclear reactors for large power plants. Just this week in the news was a fusion reactor being touted by Lockheed Martin.

www.eweek.com...

Now we are talking about a plan that is coming we all can live with.

I asked these questions:

What about the observed 40%+ increase of CO2 over the past half century?

Do you think the 'science is still not conclusive' to attribute the CO2 increase to human activity?

And this was your response:

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt
a reply to: jrod

I think you meant to say "Data not conclusive" and I will continue with my previous train of thought on this. Is that your data, straight from the source, or has it been processed by Big Science for your digestion? The same talking points regurgitated over and over only follow the logic of "A lie repeated often enough tends to be mistaken for the truth".

Your Religion of Man Made Global warming may have tons of data behind it, but it has more rhetoric than a Sunday bible tent revival and is as close minded and hostile as the Klu Klu Klan when it come to acceptance of outside ideas and theories.

I still hold my ground in saying think for yourself, challenge each and every theory and never ever take someone else facts as gospel because a theory is an idea that needs to be challenged.

A response of garbage, with no science, no data......


At least now you agree we are at 400ppm of CO2. That is a step in the right direction.

a reply to: jrod

see my post above about ARRIS and OCO2....and that's not 400ppm globally, and if you take into account the measurements its closer to 390ppm (average) globally with some areas having a higher concentration than others.

The atmosphere has a mass of about 5.15×1018 kg,[2] three quarters of which is within about 11 km (6.8 mi; 36,000 ft) of the surface. By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen,[1] 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.

1. Zimmer, Carl (3 October 2013). "Earth’s Oxygen: A Mystery Easy to Take for Granted". New York Times. Retrieved 3 October 2013.
2. Jump up ^ Lide, David R. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC, 1996: 14-7

Do you think the 'science is still not conclusive' to attribute the CO2 increase to human activity?

I never said that it wasn't attributed to human activity, as there is a huge population increase over the last 10,000 years, I simply disagree with it all being caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

a reply to: grandmakdw

What is your obsession with HFC's? They're terrible for the environment. They are a very detrimental part of the greenhouse effect. We still use them. What we used before HFC's were CFC's, those depleted the ozone, so we can't go back to those.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: grandmakdw

What is your obsession with HFC's? They're terrible for the environment. They are a very detrimental part of the greenhouse effect. We still use them. What we used before HFC's were CFC's, those depleted the ozone, so we can't go back to those.

Actually, I was using satire.

Ok, I got HFC's mixed up with CFC's, and got that wrong.

But the principal of the satire is the same.

One day they tell us to stop using CFS's because it will cause an ice age.
The next day we have to stop using .... because it will cause global warming.

My satire was, if scientists are so concerned about global warming,
well they know how to cool the earth back down by doing
what was "causing" the global cooling.

It is the inane and contradictory back and forth that is absurd and that I was attempting to satirize.

In my opinion and from what we see in ice core samples and geological samples, the earth has, long before man arrived, gone through NATURAL extreme cooling periods and extreme warming periods. It is part of the natural life cycle of the earth, not caused by man.

Also, I want to make the point that it is not mandatory that one
must believe in global warming
to care about the environment.

One can care about clean water, air, etc. (the environment)
and not believe the contradictory "science" of global warming.
That is a line of propaganda that has been foisted upon people to make it appear that the two are inexorably linked, which they are not.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: grandmakdw

What is your obsession with HFC's? They're terrible for the environment. They are a very detrimental part of the greenhouse effect. We still use them. What we used before HFC's were CFC's, those depleted the ozone, so we can't go back to those.

Actually, I was using satire.

Ok, I got HFC's mixed up with CFC's, and got that wrong.

But the principal of the satire is the same.

One day they tell us to stop using CFS's because it will cause an ice age.
The next day we have to stop using .... because it will cause global warming.

My satire was, if scientists are so concerned about global warming,
well they know how to cool the earth back down by doing
what was "causing" the global cooling.

It is the inane and contradictory back and forth that is absurd and that I was attempting to satirize.

In my opinion and from what we see in ice core samples and geological samples, the earth has, long before man arrived, gone through NATURAL extreme cooling periods and extreme warming periods. It is part of the natural life cycle of the earth, not caused by man.

Also, I want to make the point that it is not mandatory that one
must believe in global warming
to care about the environment.

One can care about clean water, air, etc. (the environment)
and not believe the contradictory "science" of global warming.
That is a line of propaganda that has been foisted upon people to make it appear that the two are inexorably linked, which they are not.

You, I and others can keep spreading logic all day, but they won't listen. They're indoctrinated. They only see the here and now. They ignore historical data. And rely on "predictions" about future climate. Forecasters can barely predict next weeks weather with over 50% accuracy, let alone what the Earth as a whole will do in the next century.

You are spot on, BTW. Earth, the sun, and everything in sight runs in cycles. Always has, always will.

And I will say it again. Humans will NEVER, I repeat, NEVER be of one mind about anything. Aliens could invade tomorrow, and tell us all they are going to exterminate us from the planet, and there will be some who swear they are just misunderstood. Human Nature at it's finest. SMH

You can care about the environment but not buy into the whole man made climate change BS. I'm a nature boy myself. Every chance I get I'm out in the woods hiking, or camping. I honestly believe if there is one thing we need to do to help it is to stop deforestation. Because plant life is Earth's way of sequestering carbon. It's not the carbon were burning causing the increase, it's the lack of natural carbon scrubbers (trees). The save the rainforest movement had it right, but was taken over by the carbon tax idiots like Al Gore.

I think we finally got to the meat of the matter, why so many armchair 'reseachers' vehemently deny man made climate change...........having to pay for it.

It doesn't get much more selfish than that.

originally posted by: agenda51
what amazes me is scientists have shown they can not be trusted through the years and make fun of those who don't trust them. the have basically lost public trust but instead of trying to earn the trust back they go the arrogant condescending jerk off route and tell everyone else they are stupid.

Nice PR campaign they have going LOL. when they start releasing technology for the sake of science instead of getting patents and selling technology to corporations the hide it away while lining their own pockets then I might listen to them a bit more. as it stands now i trust them as much as politicians and actors flying around first class or on private jets funded by taxpayers screaming the climate is changing.

people need to clean the trash out of there front yards before they worry about climate change. maybe start drinking out of glass bottles again. go back to making products that actually last and can be fix instead of everything being throw away. I would say all the trash is a bigger mounting problem than climate change. Funny how big trash cans are these days compared to 20 years ago.

That's good !!!

I remember drinking cokes from glass bottle and then turning them back in for 5 cents.
What about paper bags you could reuse or even burn in the fireplace? After all trees are a great renewable source right?


I agree 100% the Climate change thing is a big hoax. Is the climate changing? Yes. Has it change for the last few 10,000's of years? Yes. Will it keep changing? yes.

And far as Kyoto stands lets look at this

Yep 194 countries signed BUT

only 24 agreed to reduce gasses
8 said they where going to raise the %
and 5 said the would stay neutral
1 dropped out (Canada)
1 has not ratified it but still has dropped out put of gases. (US)
SO 155 signed it just to get people off heir backs and then ignored it and 18 countries said no way from the beginning for a total of 173 countries doing nothing. SO only 12% of the worlds countries are following it. (including the US doing it own thing.) BUT everybody blames the US for this "climate change".

As for the number of scientist that do NOT believe in globe warming?

31,487 in the US as of right now.
www.petitionproject.org...

How many FOR climate change? No clue. I was unable to find a true number of ANY scientist, never mind American scientist. Oh I got a lot of this 97% thing. But seems that AGU sent out a survey to 10,257 scientist. About 3000 replied. of those ~3000 77 wrote papers on the subject. 75 of those where peer reviewed. so we get the 97% (75 of 77)
www.forbes.com...


UMM 75 for 31,487 against? and we should believe that 75?

originally posted by: Prezbo369
I think we finally got to the meat of the matter, why so many armchair 'reseachers' vehemently deny man made climate change...........having to pay for it.

It doesn't get much more selfish than that.

Most "armchair scientists" here seem to agree that cleaning up the environment is necessary and good and paying for legitimate environmental cleanup is good, clean water, clean air etc.

It is the phoney "carbon credits" trumped up by the Global Warming fanatics
that we object to paying for because they will only enrich the already rich,
the politicians and their cronies.