Why I don't believe "climate change" experts

a reply to: xuenchen

What about extremes in climate change prior to the past half century?

CO2 isn't the problem.

Why do you say that?

To put it simpler:
Running out of gas isn't the only thing that makes a car stop running.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: xuenchen

What about extremes in climate change prior to the past half century?

CO2 isn't the problem.

Why do you say that?

To put it simpler:
Running out of gas isn't the only thing that makes a car stop running.

C'mon Phage. We both know what the old fox is like. Don't rise to the bait!

Why I don't believe "climate change" experts

because climate scientists have to be confined indoors when it rains or else they stare up (like turkeys) and drown?


EDIT: And turkeys really don't do that but i wouldn't put it past an AGWer.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Perhaps we should all throw snowballs onto the Senate floor instead hmm?

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.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

The clean air acts were a quick fix by the government to cover up a problem made from regulation and selective enforcement by the government.

What? The problem was pollution.
Before the clean air act there were no regulations to enforce.

Lawsuits were doing there damage. Now the environmental groups successfully sue the company's and the threat of compensation for the victims is the free market answer to pollution. One state sues another for SO2 pollution and wins. That was how it was supposed to work but never let a crisis go to waste government stepped up the nanny state and are ruining freedom for all. Remember the phrase "your freedom ends at the tip end of my nose" applies here and will solve the problem. Control of our government by competing large corporations decides who gets punished and who walks away with the gold. Citizens have the power of evidence at their disposal.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

several cadre of the IPCC are saying the conclusions repeated over and over in the news media

Several. How very impressive.

I have shown it over and over and Phage has lost the debate about it.

I disagree.


Yet it is true. You can't deny the very scientist from the IPCC are the ones in dispute of YOUR so called facts.

And I ask you why the media won't let them debate?

Debate whom? Maybe you should ask "the media." Fox might be a good place to start.

Fox News cannot get Al Gore, Bill Nye or Dr. Mann to come debate the facts. They are allowed to whore out their position freely in the Liberal Media and we all see it plain as day. We have began to resemble "Oceana" from Orwell's book 1984.

Phage don't want to believe it, but you are perpetuating the lie by refusing to acknowledge the scientist who have the dispute. Those who can debate the likes of Dr. Mann exist and can put this to rest.

I expect YOU of all people, who appear to seek the truth, to at least study the material and learn who are in dispute. Therefore, you are choosing the loosing side and spout their data as fact. Not the same one you have been on other subjects.
Wake up and smell the truth as it will most assuredly win out in the end.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Why didn't any government ever sue a polluter?

They have, but regulation is a better way to address an overall problem. Think "whack a mole."

Industry had no worries about being sued, for some reason.

Are you sure about that?
en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, the pollution is proof that the industries had no worries about being sued.

The clean air acts were a quick fix by the government to cover up a problem made from regulation and selective enforcement by the government.

DING DING DING!!

Selective enforcement is EXACTLY what goes on just like the NCAA and Syracuse. Other schools get special treatment and in Industry it is based on who is lining pockets via special interest lobbyists. The citizen groups win in court but now they expect the government to do it for them and what can be done by the governments usually gets corrupted by money.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

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?

Lets see 40% of .04 % of the atmosphere. I will use the standard equation for the calculation of the uptick.

1.40 x 0.04% = .056% of the atmosphere. Not significant at all as it isn't even remotely close to dangerous levels.

Then if it was significant warming what would be the ideal temperature of the Earth for you guys?

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt
The problem lies with science not having any imagination. Some of our greatest accomplishments thought out history were contrived by philosophers and lay people.

Did lay folk and philosophists land a man on the moon? a probe on an asteroid?

Or were those scientific concepts debunked by someone with an imagination?

(did you mean to say contrived?)

Science fiction is any idea that occurs in the head and doesn't exist yet, but soon will, and will change everything for everybody, and nothing will ever be the same again. As soon as you have an idea that changes some small part of the world you are writing science fiction. It is always the art of the possible, never the impossible.
Ray Bradbury

Science fiction writers foresee the inevitable, and although problems and catastrophes may be inevitable, solutions are not.

Isaac Asimov

Nice quotes but they don't exactly reflect reality (some ideas inevitably become a reality, but the vast majority do not) and neither person is using nothing but their imagination and feelings to contradict current scientific findings are they?

Actually historically the do. Most of the greatest inventions man has seen, Rockets, Spaceships, Submarines, Helicopters, airplanes, cell phones, computers, bionic implants, robotics, space travel, faster than sound/light travel were all imagined by people who where neither scientists nor professionally trained, but authors, screen writers and philosophers, sometimes even decades before they could become theories or applicable.

So to be so arrogant as to say that ALL science comes from the imagination of Scientists is false. Asimov laid the framework for the modern robotics field with his imagination, because imagination inspires science to create. H.G. Wells combined work inspired hundreds of inventions, Tesla, Bradbury, shall I go on. I'm sure even some of these inspired the great Steven Hawking to formulate his theories. But modern science takes all this for granted because they have become faithless and without imagination.

However in the last 20 years (minus some small particle theory science and possibly some robotics) science has not progressed because the modern scientist stifles imagination and refuses inspiration or criticism. Sure we have faster computers and more advanced stealth technology, but name me one thing Science has created in the last 20 years that wasn't just an improvement of older technology or theory? just because we make it smaller and more efficient doesnt make it new technology, that's called refinement and improvement.

So tell me more about how science is responsible for everything again, because I think maybe you need to research more into how Ideas become reality, I'm fairly certain they start with inspiration, and a majority of that inspiration has been provided by non-scientists.

Sometimes the difference between the idea and the actual at hand product is a lot of time and experimentation to find an economical way to the solution.

Scientists do most of the experiments and put in most of the time required to make a product for the masses.

Products for the masses always make more money that products for the rich alone.

A non-degreed person, considered as a non-scientist, could do the experiments and would know they had succeeded when the final prototype worked. Our modern educational system prevents most people from ever considering this as something they could do themselves.

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.

a reply to: Justoneman

Excerpt from article: Larry, astonishingly, given the extremely costly policies that have been proposed and implemented in the name of preventing dangerous “man-made global warming”, there is only one published peer-reviewed paper that claims to provide scientific forecasts of long-range global mean temperatures. The paper is our own, a 2009 article published in the International Journal of Forecasting. www.kestencgreen.com...

UN IPCC Modeling

Excerpt from article: According to chaos theory, all the current "initial' conditions throughout the atmosphere must be known precisely to predict what the atmosphere will be doing in the distant future. In addition, one must know all the current conditions throughout the oceans as well, since the oceans control the atmosphere.

Father of chaos theory explains why it is impossible to predict weather & climate beyond 3 weeks

Excerpt from Article: In the minds of many of us who are gathered here, the most important question concerning greenhouse gases is not whether they will produce a recognizable global warming, but when will they do so? Probably we take it for granted that, barring some catastrophe that halts or overwhelms the accumulation of carbon dioxide and other constituents, the warming predicted by theoretical studies will eventually occur. The apparent upward trend of global-average temperature during the most recent century, and the unusually warm and dry weather that has invaded parts of the world during parts of the most recent decade, have led some of us to speculate that the greenhouse warming is already being felt. In this talk I wish to examine the basis for speculating that the greenhouse effect is not the main cause of what we have been experiencing and, particularly, that the suggested warming is due to processes purely internal to the atmosphere and its immediate surroundings.

Words of wisdom Ed Lorenz

Just some food for thought for both sides

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I agree about the education system being the main factor for stunting imagination, and yes scientists take the idea and hash it out. My argument is not the how but the why. Why does it appear that scientists are not challenging the IPCC or the AWG supporters claims and theories? Is consensus now the new science?

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I agree about the education system being the main factor for stunting imagination, and yes scientists take the idea and hash it out. My argument is not the how but the why. Why does it appear that scientists are not challenging the IPCC or the AWG supporters claims and theories? Is consensus now the new science?

Erm, because scientists agree that global climate change is happening and that the primary cause is down to what we humans have been doing? Consensus is being driven by facts.

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Pollution is bad in China because they were afflicted with central planning regulations to a nightmarish degree and so they don't have enough money to be picky about pollution.

That's not even close to being true.

Pollution in China is bad from lack of enforcement. Why? Because J-O-B-S. When one steel factory can employ 10,000 people there isn't a bureaucrat anywhere that can shut that down. It's the exact same argument you hear from free-market capitalists, 'regulations cost jobs.' Regulations might cost jobs but pollution costs lives and health. You think the smog is China is from clean air regulations?

How do you explain modern day Pennsylvania? How do you explain modern day London? Do yourself a favor and look at some of the photographs from London's 'Great Smog' or look at Donora, Pennsylvania's smog in 1948. We've learned our lessons, we have regulations for a number of very, very good reasons.

The reasons, or excuses, or apologies, for regulations come from problems that regulations have created in the first place. 100 years ago, all energy production was monopolized and since then the energy industry has had no incentive to improve. Energy utilities had only to meet the minimum service requirements to get automatic income. In a competitive market, companies would have to improve to keep out new competitors with more efficient machinery.

Regulation completely annihilated 100 years of energy technology development.

China is suffering pollution from the legacy of central planning.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

No i agree that climate change is real and is happening, its a fact that climates change for a number of reasons. What i disagree on is that a majority of the change is based on "Man made reasons".

Consensus is being driven by theory and data is more appropriate, the facts are not realized when it comes to climate change because only time will prove whether or not the predictive models are true.. when we see the .5 Celsius increase in global temperature in 2050 then we can say "Yes that model was correct" but until then it is just theory.

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I agree about the education system being the main factor for stunting imagination, and yes scientists take the idea and hash it out. My argument is not the how but the why. Why does it appear that scientists are not challenging the IPCC or the AWG supporters claims and theories? Is consensus now the new science?

In the book The Bell Curve author Charles Murray has some observations about higher education. The big one I remembered was that since WW2 every smart person is expected to graduate college. Which means every smart person is indoctrinated in whatever the college wants them to know. Every and all smart persons are supposed to be college indoctrinees.

Since then there has been an acceleration in socialist tendencies by voters and governments. Welfare, Viet Nam, permanent wartime armed forces, fiat money, bussing, increased taxes-- the government was 40% of the economy before Obamacare.

It might be over 50% with OC.

Before WW2, a smart person could be anywhere in the economy. He could be a shopkeeper or a mechanic or a tailor and possess a diversity of mind reflecting his own tastes and judgments. Now the average smart person has learned what the state wants him to know, which is the natural inevitability or necessity or practicality of strong central control over whatever.

AGW is a subset of people with non-productive degrees who's only means of career advancement is to grow academe, NGOs and government. There is a feedback from people with non-productive degrees moving into organizations which make policies that grow bureaucracy and create more careers for non-productive degrees.

The MIC did it first, offering interesting work to inventor entrepreneur types, and now the true believers in big government are filling out their ranks. At some point, a voting majority will be directly employed or contracted to the government.

Some more interesting findings from independent researchers:

Why Models Run Hot: Results from an Irreducibly Simple Climate Model

Ocean Acidification

It is interesting that most models don't take into account the balancing effect of nature. Lest we all forget CO2 is still plant food for photosynthesis which produces oxygen as a byproduct and if these 2 studies have any validity then an increase in marine plan life and an increase in the ability of trees to handle the excess CO2 would be a positive thing and possibly counteract some of the effects of so called green house gasses.

a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

You failed when you called the climate change discussion a religion. I feel like if that is your mindset, then having a productive conversation with you on the issue is futile. No science, no facts will change your opinion. You will just keep building strawmen and cherry pick pieces of information that suit what you want to believe while ignoring the facts and science. I also see you are running with the CO2 is plant food therefore is good claim, which is a logic fallacy(appeal to nature). Plants also love nitrates, but when my local lagoon gets exposed to excessive nitrates, the algae blooms and fish kills happen and the excessive nitrates are clearly a problem.

The data is there that shows we are around 400ppm of CO2 and rising, about 50 years ago that number was 280ppm a 40% increase. A simple google search on CO2 concentrations will lead one to a plethora of sources to confirm this fact.

A lot of anti-climate change crowd accuses the climate change crowd of being closed minded and not looking at the evidence when they are guilty of the exact thing they are accusing the other side of.

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.