Why I don't believe "climate change" experts

a reply to: Bilk22

Just goto the many evolution threads and read them.
All your questions have been answered.
Oh and evolution has been proven...observed also in our life times.
But that is for the evolution threads.

The problem is that every scientist and every politician has his own agenda. Wheter it is for greed or good reasons or disinformation or corrupted data its a matter of individual case, each one is different.
Who to believe? Nobody. Everyone can be wrong and some may be partly right, but we should start learning how to better read the "evidence" which is presented.

Anectodal evidence is still evidence, statistics often blur the reality, data are always processed through computer models based on theories developed on other evidence etc etc. It's very hard to see a mistake after so much more has been built upon it so it's better to never believe anyone so you can change a stance without being religious towards a theory.

I don't think we have any conclusive evidence about nature, there are too many hidden or concealed variables, too many artificially inflated/deflated data and history shows there is not only one direction for progress. We might be going into a dark age or we may be in a dark age, we can't know now so better be open.

In the current age it's always worth following the money, mostly because ideals, religion, beliefs are food for the masses, the reality is if somebody is doing something at high level, somebody else is paying a staff of people to understand how to profit from it, regardless of the direction or the possible outcome.

When it was time to gain from burning fossil fuels the alarmism was the ice age, today "green" (or greed) energy is big business, just look at all those analytical softwares to trade carbon emissions. Both sides despite being opposite have been based on facts, evidence and not even cherry picked. We just tend to think that with a hundred years of recording we can infer the entire history and future of the universe. If you remove money then it becomes pride or power or something else, but it won't go.

Best idea is to play the devil's advocate even against yourself. It's too easy to rely on expert, the accepted opinion is just that, accepted, interpretation makes the difference.
No scientist will ever be right, nor will I, you or anyone and there is no shame in having doubts about established theories or alleged facts. Should they stop researching? Not at all, but let's not forget that if some expert tells you a theory without telling you the problems of the theory itself is doing a disservice. In general the problems come from sensationalism in the media rather than researchers, but would you cast a doubt about your theory if that's going to hurt your ability to get funded for reasearch? Especially if you strongly believe in it you think it's a white lie.

So we live in the middle of the black and white lies. Evolution had problems, but was fighting against religion. Global warming has problems, but is going to bring a healtier environment... except those white lies are used by the exploiters that can make huge profits from that.

I don't think we the people are responsible for the changes in the weather we are seeing, cold? hot? Who cares if the real problem is deforestation and poisoning?

a reply to: grandmakdw

Try actually reading links in the post... more papers were published in that same time period on global warming than global cooling. It probably is meaningless to you but, that fact means something.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
Many of us are old enough to remember the alarmist memes back in the day.

Even Spock himself warned us of a possible impending doom of another ice age around the corner:

Yup. I unfortunately, am old enough to remember This was even being taught in schools. I may have an old text book somewhere. I'll have to check. But yes, they were so sure were heading toward another ice age. Now they're equally sure we're going to fry.

Well I'm not old enough to remember them "all" apparently predicting an ice age in the 70s, but I do have access to this amazing thing called the internet (thanks Al Gore!).

I'll take your "they were all predicting cooling in the 70s" and raise you one "they predicted global warming in the 50s":




Or how about the 90s:

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground

That's the 1890s.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: grandmakdw

Try actually reading links in the post... more papers were published in that same time period on global warming than global cooling. It probably is meaningless to you but, that fact means something.

Oh where are all these articles and papers from the 70s? Do we have to take their word on it or are they available to read somewhere?

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Bilk22

Just goto the many evolution threads and read them.
All your questions have been answered.
Oh and evolution has been proven...observed also in our life times.
But that is for the evolution threads.

You might need those classes yourself. Evolution is theory and not scientifically proven.

a reply to: Bilk22

So is gravity....
Do you understand what a scientific theory is?.
But again goto the evolution threads and educate yourself.
Or just don't and continue being wrong.

My first impulse, as far as the thread title, would be:

"Because you lack the education and information about the climate in general to rate as an "expert" or even a particularly informed layperson.

And as far as your thoughts in the OP... then if the little clean up we've done so far is "good," then why in the heck do you think it wouldn't be better to clean things up a tad more?

I mean even IF the accumulated data is in error, and it is is not, what possible harm would less pollution from human activities do?

I agree that humans have an imperfect, incomplete view of ...well, most everything... and the world's ecosystem is likely more robust than we give it credit for (plus or minus a genus, species or dozen...including homo), and does fluctuate without humans all by itself.... but with the amount of sewage, garbage, gases and complex, toxic industrial waste pouring into our environment every moment, curtailing or slowing that flow would seem a good idea... and it will take a concerted effort by every nation state to accomplish any sort of clean up.

Sure, ice ages come and go... asteroids hit us... suns explode and kill everything... but why, in that environment, should we give hostile natural processes any help?

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Bilk22

So is gravity....
Do you understand what a scientific theory is?.
But again goto the evolution threads and educate yourself.
Or just don't and continue being wrong.

I'm educated thank you. You claiming otherwise? Parroting the same thing over and over again, is a sign of dementia. Are you ok?

But again goto the evolution threads and educate yourself.

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Bilk22

So is gravity....
Do you understand what a scientific theory is?.
But again goto the evolution threads and educate yourself.
Or just don't and continue being wrong.

I'm educated thank you. You claiming otherwise? Parroting the same thing over and over again, is a sign of dementia. Are you ok?

But again goto the evolution threads and educate yourself.

Oh and since you did ask - yes it's theory as I stated. Should I provide a definition for you? Maybe you missed that day in school.

a reply to: Bilk22

Obviously not educated in scientific theory and how evolution works.
I'm attempting to help you go and read the evolution threads the answers are there.
This reminds me of the evolution threads...me repeating myself and others not understanding or just choosing to ignore the evidence.

a reply to: Bilk22

Oh please do...

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Bilk22

Obviously not educated in scientific theory and how evolution works.
I'm attempting to help you go and read the evolution threads the answers are there.
This reminds me of the evolution threads...me repeating myself and others not understanding or just choosing to ignore the evidence.

No you're easy enough to ignore. I just choose to not to at this moment, but that time is soon approaching

Maybe you should read the quotes in this link. It may open that closed mind of yours.

a reply to: Bilk22

Still waiting for the definition....

a reply to: Bilk22

Great quotes the latest being from 1997..
Still waiting on that definition btw.

follow the money...most scientists get grant money ,or donations.
who supplies the money will for the most part decide how the scientific data is presented.
there is always an agenda..always.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Bilk22

Still waiting for the definition....

I see you must be a fast reader. Or, you didn't read that at all and would rather exhibit your closed mind for all to see. LOL

It's apparent you have nothing to offer so you are a proud member of my ignore list, boymonkey

a reply to: Bilk22

Ah so you don't know what the definition is then.
Dodge the question why don't you.
Closed mind? nope I have looked at all angles from many different fields to do with evolution but as you have just proved you are not here to learn and expand your mind you are here just to continue being wrong and ignorant of the actual truth.
But you could have just posted your definition like you said you would....

Oh and that post just read.

I don't like what you say so I'm gonna ignore you....how grown up of you.

a reply to: Kali74

Try actually reading links in the post... more papers were published in that same time period on global warming than global cooling. It probably is meaningless to you but, that fact means something.

I don't know about you, but the rest of us didn't have access to read science papers published back in the 70's.

Al Gore's internet didn't exist yet, libraries did not have public access to any and all science papers, most peer review journals were membership subscription only, and you couldn't let your fingers do the walking in the yellow pages.

The only thing we had in front of us is what the media was spewing to the general public.

And the media was spewing "cooling temperatures" and claiming this info was coming from various scientists.

So there you have it.



It's friggin laughable how you all are posting links to science papers archived in today's internet sites that were non-existent back in the day, and acting like the information has always been so readily available.