Who should I believe, AGW/ACC advocates, or deniers?

I'm not scientist. I don't know who has the correct science.

This site has gone to an extraordinary length to present the case for AGW/ACC,
so, what are your rebuttals?

https://skepticalscience.com

Click on the link for all 198 'myths rebuked'

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

 

Meh. They're both too agenda driven to 'believe.' Seems to me carbon mitigation has the least potential (if any) for returns on investment. Better imo to focus on reducing pollution of things like heavy metals, pH imbalance, synthetic hormones, radioactive isotopes and plastics into the environment. The planet has been adapting to shifting carbon content for eons. We can adapt with it. The other stuff is new, has no arguable benefit and easily demonstrable detriment, and is a lot less costly to prevent/reduce.

 

As a coherent paradigm, AGW has already failed.
The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) paradigm has dominated climate science in recent decades, certainly since about 1995. See Bernie Lewin, Searching for the Catastrophe Signal. In a nutshell, the AGW paradigm holds that greenhouse gases are the vastly predominant driver of climate change in our time. The paradigm has however failed its test, as we shall see. I recently re-read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, within which the following passage is found (p.144, University of Chicago Press, Fiftieth Anniversary Edition):

"In so far as he is engaged in normal science, the research worker is a solver of puzzles, not a tester of paradigms. . . . Therefore, paradigm-testing occurs only after persistent failure to solve a noteworthy puzzle has given rise to crisis. And even then it occurs only after the sense of crisis has evoked an alternate candidate for paradigm."

The noteworthy puzzle is the specification of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), and the failure to solve it presents the crisis of the AGW paradigm.

 

I don't believe that the anthropogenic climate change (ACC) case is agenda driven. It is driven by an effort to understand climate science and to provide useful information to political leaders. The anti-ACC case is agenda driven. The ACC case is driven by those favoring a minimum of government regulations, the fossil
fuel lobby, and those people who believe that the ACC case is not supported by scientific evidence and the agenda would be to prevent a waste of resources.
The politicians have an agenda to protect the public from environmental harm, most of that into the future. The idea that everyone is corrupt in the world is not
reality and to say that ACC is agenda driven is to imply corrupt motives on everyone who is associated with mainstream climate science.

Some scientists in the 19th century wanted to understand the causes of the ice ages and the large temperature swings in the past. The idea that
there were positive feedbacks in the climate system that would magnify an initial perturbation were thought to be a necessary factor to account for these
large temperature changes. All of the feedbacks in the climate system can be summarized in the climate sensitivity number which is 3 +/- 1.5 according to
the most recent IPCC report, which means that any perturbation is multiplied by a factor of 3.0 +/- 1.5. This number (3.0) has not been coming down in
recent decades regardless of what others have reported on this forum. Recent studies of climate sensitivity are still coming up with a number that averages
around 3.0. (See Explainer: How scientists estimate climate sensitivity (carbonbrief.org))

If I read and believed everything reported at the "No Tricks Zone" and "WUWT" websites I would probable conclude that AGW is incoherent and nonsense.
I have to read those articles that go against the mainstream with skepticism because there is such a good case for the mainstream position and I and other
people reading those articles from denialist websites have found errors and distortions of the truth.

 

No, to say something is agenda driven does not imply corrupt motives on everyone who is associated with it. You obviously know this since you already stated you believe "The anti-ACC case is agenda driven. The ACC case is driven by those favoring a minimum of government regulations, the fossil fuel lobby, and those people who believe that the ACC case is not supported by scientific evidence and the agenda would be to prevent a waste of resources." There are good people with honest motives on both sides who simply get lost in the propaganda and disinformation.

 

Both are demonstrably more fair and open to opposing views than are, for example, RealClimate and SkepticalScience.

 

It is important understand how the climate alarmists lost their way and forfeited much of their credibility.



A failure of self-correction in science has compromised climate science's ability to provide plausible views of our collective future. In 2021, climate research finds itself in a situation similar to breast cancer research in 2007. ...

How Climate Scenarios Lost Touch With Reality | Issues in ...

 

Thank you. Well written, and it is clear to me that I have much to learn about this subject. I often refer to skepticalscience.com a pro ACC site, I was wondering what you think of that site?

 

I am just amazed by people with no background or education in subjects as basic as physics, chemistry, math and computer programming who accept this narrative about global warming that is being led by an "intergovernmental panel on climate change".

Being an artist, I would encourage you to checkout another artist's opinion about climate change, Mike Crichton. Mike had zero obligation to the Koch brothers, or ExxonMobil, or Chevron, etc, ad nauseum, that critics of those who question the validity of the "science" that predict temperatures 100 years in advance from the IPCC managed "research" complain are just repeating Big Oil talking points. Now, I suppose this is just my opinion, but I do consider everyone involved in the creative arts to be an artist, first and foremost, and Mike Crichton was one of the greats, with a vast number of achievements in fiction and film with a healthy mix of "science" spanning many many of his works. Now this is a long video at two hours, but for what it's worth I highly recommend this video, especially to all the true believers in the death of the planet because of climate change. Give it 15 minutes at least and I suspect you'll be hooked to watch the whole thing.



Just give that a bit of consideration - these forecasts. If we can't often even predict weather correctly for an entire week then does it seem reasonable that we can predict weather for a century? Much less that we know the cause of it? You have a background in music, yes? Does it seem likely to you that a musician who can't even get one song correct can somehow get a hundred x 52 songs correct? Most musicians have likely spent far more time practicing their craft than most "climate scientists", who are btw composed of a wildly diverse staff.

***
Be all of this as it may, fossil fuel resources are finite and I fully support sustainable energy investments and research. What I have a problem with is CO2 regulation, because I do not believe that the actual science according to my education backs up the IPCC agenda, and the funds are not being used to invest in solar and wind and battery technologies.

 

Michael Crichton was also a Harvard MD and a journal-published author of peer-reviewed research.

 

I miss him very much, and I suppose I am highly biased to have an inclination to agreeing with his point of view that is probably one of the most visible of those in opposition to Al Gore's opinion about this State of Fear crap.

I find Mike Crichton far more credible than Al Gore. And I find that college profs with PhDs in Oceanography having leaned into the field and scored a post doc or whatever at Scripps Institute to go sail the South Pacific doing "research" and publish as one of 24 credited authors on these "peer reviewed" IPCC propaganda reports can just go f themselves.

Fossil fuels will run out, and it is a critical infrastructure problem, as well as a geopolitical problem, similar very much to the theme explored by Frank Herbert in Dune: the Spice Must Flow!

Interestingly enough, I disagree with your approach to arguing this general subject. I think you attempt to get too far into the weeds regarding aspects of the science. There are plenty of inconsistencies in the IPCC reports themselves that can be referenced. In particular, the lack of allocation of tax revenues to sustainable energy infrastructure and research is simply incredible, while all of the fear pushed into very marginal science in the first report receives beaucoup bucks.

 

The fundamental errors are in the science. That's why I focus my posts there.
As for Michael Crichton, I think you'll enjoy this if you haven't already read it.
Aliens Cause Global Warming
Thursday, January 31st, 2019

 

Frank Herbert was a fine novelist but a poor economist.

“Our supplies of natural resources are not limited in any economic sense. Nor does past experience give reason to expect natural resources to become more scarce. Rather, if history is any guide, natural resources will progressively become less costly, hence less scarce, and will constitute a smaller proportion of our expenses in future years.”
― Julian L. Simon

 

Read everything. Don’t blindly follow the dogma. The failed cartoonists experiment Skeptical Science is one sided, some good, some misleading. Don’t believe everything you read unless you investigate all sources. Never believe government. Read individual scientists opinions. Don’t fall for appeal to authority fallacy. Don’t fall for consensus.

In other words widen your horizons. If you don’t agree with something don’t react, investigate.

 

Okay I have spent a lifetime learning scientific thought and the last 20 years debating climate science online (at least)

Skeptical Science is a website run by an Australian but backed by one of our most prestigious universities Queensland Uni

The guy who runs it has a degree in Solar Physics so has a scientific background. He is also a talented cartoonist

The website has been attacked relentlessly by every denialist out there but the bottom line is that everything on that site is referenced and validated by solid reviewed citations.

 

It is not a matter of economy, it is a matter of geology. How much oil are they pumping these days from Spindletop?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spindletop

 

Love it, I've read it many times.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Simon

Aww bless! An Exxon shill! You do keep coming up with these disinformation peddlers!

 

Thomas Gold accurately predicted the amount of moon dust for the moon missions. He also predicted oil was naturally produced and would not run out.

https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/28197

Also coal, which is only found in strata between 30 to 60 million years ago may not be unlimited but we have barely scratched the surface.

Coal is produced by plant material during that time because plants started producing lignite. It took nature 30 million years to figure out how to break down lignite and why you don’t find coal after 30 million years ago.

 

Skeptical Science is one of my favorite sources for rebuttals to claims by those arguing against anthropogenic global warming. I have been using that site since
it was launched in 2007 and I have read most of their rebuttals. I also like to read the readers opinions in the discussion section. There are some climate scientists
and others with a good science background who post opinions on that site - in contrast to the type of opinions that I read on this site.

 

You obviously have NO a idea of what the process is for development of the IPCC reports

Go to the website they are finalising the next reposts and invite anyone who has a valid objection to actually give feedback

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2021/07/AR6_FS_review_process.pdf
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2021/07/AR6_FS_dealing_with_errors.pdf

Mind you they don’t want to deal with thousands of Twonks saying “I don fink dats rite!” But if you have a legitimate argument they are open.

IF you are interested and not closed minded I will walk you through how to spot valid research and how to tell good sources from bad

 

The failed cartoonists experiment is filled with both good and misleading science. You need to widen your horizons.

 

Solar is where it's at. We need to build an equatorial ring of power with distribution to Northern and Southern locations. Elon is focused on the wrong s with Mars.

 

A small group puts together the IPCC report with zero transparency and sends the report to governments for corrections. It is a panel created for governments and has a specific agenda. Probably the only valid IPCC report was the first one.

 

Nope. I'm not that interested in arguing the "science" of it with a medical professional that seems to have done no work to understand the energy industry, and furthermore I fully support the move to sustainable power. You claim to have studied this for 20 years, but you have left me hanging before in a couple of challenges I've made to you, so I'm not playing Charlie Brown with you again unless you commit to carry the conversation to an end.