Why I Remain Skeptical of Man Made Global Warming

Have you ever noticed that it is said that 97% of the world scientist agree with theory of climate change and that 3% of the any population are sociopaths?

- - - Updated - - -

Because no one should disagree with seat belts. Especially if there is a six inch spike in the middle of your steering wheel.

 

That doesn't answer the question.

 

Cosmology is a retrospective science aimed almost exclusively at learning about the origin of the universe. The desire to learn about the origin of "being" is obvious. Climatology on the other hand, prior to the mid 80s was essentially a mundane endeavor compiling regional statistics for farmers. In the modern boom of climatology, it is aimed almost exclusively at studying global warming. When you see people quoting statistics like "97% of climatologist agree that man has at least some impact on climate", they are quoting and reflecting the view of those that study climatology for the express purpose of addressing global warming. If somehow one day man made global warming were to be completely debunked ( which is just as unlikely as it being completely proven), they would be without a job. The symbiotic relationship of the concept of man made global warming and climatology cannot be ignored when assessing the implication that supposedly 97% of those that identify themselves as a climatologist believe that man plays at least some role in climate. When you are a hammer, EVERYTHING looks like a nail.

Being that big foot research isn't an actual scientific discipline, my guess would be none. That doesn't mean that their symbiotic relationship to the prospect of big foot existing isn't analogous to climatologists and man made global warming.

I would have had a strong suspicion it may be round after viewing a lunar eclipse, but certainly once Magellan sailed around the earth the question would be settled. In other words, once it was actually PROVEN.

What arbitrarily long amount of time?

I am questioning scientific study that supports man made global warming due to its motives and funding source, just as you question the funding source and motivation of those scientists that deny man made global warming. Somehow those on the left think the former is preposterous while the latter is a given.

PROOF

 

Oh yes, that drastic increase that started in 1750, long before man was creating CO2 emissions in any measurable quantity. Funny how those levels have varied rather drastically over the 400,000 year period represented in that graph. Even funnier still is if one looks at the Late Ordivician Ice Age that occurred some 400 million years ago ( prior to the time period represented in your graph) when CO2 PPM was between 2000 and 4000PPM. If the greenhouse gas theory were the only variable involved, the earth should have literally baked, yet it did not, and languished in a protracted ice age. Your "proof" doesn't really have an answer for that. Perhaps this isn't settled science?

http://www.geology.ohio-state.edu/~saltzman/youngetal_2010.pdf

 

Weather, as we are fond of being reminded ad nauseum, is not climate. Do try to keep up.

Dunce

 

Do liberals all go to Al Gore's house on the week-ends to get this stuff drilled into their heads? BTW, in the 70's some of these same so-called scientists were predicting another ice age was coming. How did that prediction go? Oh....and Greenland was once "green"....thus the name. Really......I believe it's pretty telling that some humans are arrogant enough to think that humans can actually change the climate.

 

Do all deniers go to Al Gores house on week ends to get a frontal lobotomy?

What is so hard to understand?

CO2 = Greenhouse gas.

CO2 has increased = The Greenhouse effect has increased.

 

No, it didn't. Stop making (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it didn't. Stop making (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

 

Don't debate me. Debate the study published in the peer reviewed journal " Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology". Sort of an inconvenient truth buried in the middle of a pro global warming paper isn't it?

http://www.geology.ohio-state.edu/~s...getal_2010.pdf

 

Debate the 200+ global organizations that have officially called global warming a fact.

 

You want to ignore that and change the subject don't you? Im not surprised.

 

Lets simplify the topic. Since you said you are a skeptic, lets start at the beginning.

Do you believe in CO2?

 

To get a degree in climatology it is recommended you study meteorology, among other things - Do try to keep up

 

Because we've been talking about this for 25 years now, and only a very few people with any real standing have raised issues with it.

Most of what you see in the media you consume is poltical activism and junk science. Much of it is fronting for the fossil fuel industry, which sees alternative energy and a clean environment as a threat to their business model.

Contrary to the impression that is being actively promoted in American right wing media, there is not real debate in the scientific community on global warming. I go to enough conferences to know.

 

The irony to me is that the alarmist side that screams the sky is falling supports policies that would exponentially aggravate the problem if AGW does exist. Any policy that is geared at increasing consumption like raising wages, or improving wealth, or attacking the most efficient production models businesses create in the name of fighting poverty or creating jobs or saving lives in the third world all have increased carbon output implications. I guess we need the whole world to be rich so they can consume nothing

 

Debates are not settled by the numbers.

It's also a threat to the wallets of the consumer.

Do you attend conferences around the world? If your answer is no, then you haven't attended enough.

Majority of the Scientist with Global Warming Skepticism are foreign Scientist.

 

Taxcutter says:
Actually it's almost entirely a threat to the wallets of the consumer and taxpayer and US worker.
The big corporations have already worked out ways they'll make beaucoup money off AGW.

DuPont made out like a fat rat over the Ozone Hole thing. Who do you suppose makes the substitute refrigerants? Who do you suppose licensed the Chinese and the Indians to make Freon? DuPont, of course.

But the US consumer got hammered. AGW will be at least two orders of magnitude worse than 40 CFR 82.

 

One of the first big "non-partisan think-tanks" that took on denial of climate change was the rightwing Competitive Enterprise Institute.....

began with a $750,000 grant from Exxon-Mobil.



Do "coincidences" like that effect your skepticism?

 

Funding sources absolutely fuel my skepticism, and must be taken into account. With that in mind, Global Warming is a HIGHLY political issue that is fueled by the environmentalist movement which has tentacles into some of the farthest reaches on the left. It just so happens that acedemia also happens to inarguably have strong ties to both the farthest reaches of the left as well as being in bed with the environmentalist movement. Acedemia funds almost all pro Global Warming research, and they hold the purse strings as to which hypothesis' get funding for research.

My question to you is does this "coincidence" effect YOUR certainty?

All too often it seems like the left simply summarily rejects any private funded research because it comes from a point of bias, yet at the same time ignores the bias inherent in acedemia's relationship to the left. In reality the bias that comes from both sides should fuel a degree of skepticism from what either side says. The burden of proof however, lies with those insisting that man made global warming is a fact. The position that I am holding is actually FAR more flexible than yours, because I am leaving open the possibility that it may or may not be true, while you are insisting that it definitely is fact. My position actually takes into account the skepticism that should naturally arise out of the bias from both sides' funding source, while yours completely ignores the bias that comes from the side that you support.

 

Taxcutter says:
Absolutely. Everybody gets funding from somewhere.
The pro-AGW crowd gets its funding (directly or indirectly) from Big Government. Big Government money flows through the academic sector into pro-AGW political outlets. All of the scientists who support AGW get their funding (directly or through academic intermediaries), so cannot be credited with being neutral authorities. Scientists may be many things but they aren't dumb enough to bit e hand that feeds them their government grants. If Big Government pays the money then they call the tune and the AGW scientists play it.


Is anyone brain-dead enough to think that the energy companies NOT have - given a quarter century to think about it - some way to make big bucks out of AGW?

I really don't give a damn about the energy companies. I speak for the consumer and the taxpayer.

The consumer dies not want $20/gallon gasoline.
The consumer does not want $2.00/kwh electricity.
The consumer does not want government rationing of energy.
The taxpayer does not want higher taxes.
The taxpayer does not want to subsidize the hyper-corrupt UN.


The consumer and taxpayer wonder: If AGW is real, why is there not a massive embrace of nuclear power?
The consumer and taxpayer wonder: If AGW is real, why is China (the largest emitter of CO2) not asked to sacrifice first?
The consumer and taxpayer wonder: If AGW is real, why is Big Government not asked to sacrifice.
The consumer and taxpayer wonder: Is AGW any more real than the Ozone Hole, which has been oblivious to trillions of dollars sacrifices made by US consumers?

 

Ya, you should be the last person to claim you understand the science, because you've clearly demonstrated that you don't.

 

Actually, the observed temperature record for the last 17 years does that nicely. The "science" is based upon models. Models that have now been shown to overestimate the warming.

 

No, there is no real debate at Global Warming Conferences. Would seem to be by design.

 

That is the question we ask of true believers in the face of current evidence that the models are wrong.

 

Forget all of the charts for a minute then. Just your knowledge against my knowledge.

Please convince me, that adding more CO2 to an atmosphere, will not increase the retention of heat energy.

You could also include condition that may counter the CO2 greenhouse effect such as increased atmospheric humidity.