'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Namewithheld, Feb 9, 2012.

  1. 4th_floor

    4th_floor 1,000+ Posts

    My position is not you can't prove it 100%. My position is that the physics and the data do not at all support anything more than a fraction of a degree rise in global temperature. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 0.01% over the last 300 years from 0.03% and 0.04%. The science tells me that that extra 0.01% of CO2 cannot absorb enough energy to have a measureable effect on the temperature of the atmosphere. I agree that there is probably a very small rise in global temperature, but it is too small to be detectable.

    After all of these years of global warming, the coldest temperature ever recorded on earth was in 2015. That was the same year that the ship carrying the climate change supporters to Antarctica got stuck in the thick ice, and the rescue ice-breaker ship also got stuck in thick ice. We have recently seen growth in Arctic ice as well. This tells me there is no global warming crisis. But you can believe what you want.
  2. 4th_floor

    4th_floor 1,000+ Posts

    The satellite data shows no warming since 1998. No data ties the 1 C rise to CO2. In fact, most of the CO2 rise happened before the brief warming trend from 1980 until 1998.
    Excellent point; always follow the money.
  3. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts


    The problem is that the science and the preponderance of the evidence doesn't support the alarmists' point of view. It supports something that might warrant changing course but not in a radical direction and not very fast.

    And if we listen to the "advocates," we're out money, which may not seem like a big deal, but if you're a middle class family, it could make a big dent in your budget. I live in a country that has largely adopted the alarmists' view. I pay triple the kwh rate for electricity that I paid in the US, and my bill literally has pages of BS fees, taxes, and surcharges. If a family with central AC had to pay at the same rate, it would crush them. So it's true that we'd only be out money, but it's a lot for consumers.
    • Like Like x 2
  4. OUBubba

    OUBubba Reluctant and Bullied Sponsor

    My understanding is that the changing environment is going to lead to more variation in weather, colder and hotter. However, the average will inch up. I don't know the facts either. I live about 6 miles from a coal fired plant and have no worries about it. From my layman's explanation, it seems to me the weather pattern that impacts the OK/TX region (gulf stream) has migrated north about 200 miles.

    It seems interesting to me that the oil companies have used the same methods to address the climate movement as the tobacco companies used in the past to try to assure us that cigarettes had no link to cancer. All things being equal, doesn't that give one pause?

    My take on climate science has a lot to do with the mini ice age that hit after we'd started warming up from the dark ages. Seems logical that solar activity/inactivity played a big part in that "blip". The planet worked as designed and adapted. I worry that perishing reef's, the growth of plastic islands, deforestation of areas like the Brazilian rain forest, etc. are all going to hamper the earth's ability to adapt as designed by Coach Switzer. :)
    • Like Like x 1
  5. 4th_floor

    4th_floor 1,000+ Posts

    I have heard this explanation. It is inconsistent with CO2 absorbing more heat from the sun, which is the only real science offered by the alarmists. So the alarmists are free from data and science and can simply claim a climate crisis is coming and they have to take control of industry to stop it. Trust them to save you. Only they can understand the problem and find a solution.
  6. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    so your argument is that a single spot on the globe recorded "the coldest temp ever", so the rest of the aggregate data doesn't matter?? The data that shows that the trend for the planet is definitely increasing. I remember reading someone's post about how the data has been manipulated to make the past look colder, so that they present looks warmer and I get that may make the problem look worse than it is....But, almost all of the science folks argue it is happening, the only folks that seem to be clinging to the "no it's not" line are people with a vested interest in fossil fuels.

    My argument is simple...when I was 5 years old and got my first BB gun, the first lesson I learned was to never point it at anyone even when I was sure it wasn't loaded. I got the same line from my drill instructors in the Army...We all know why. Even if you can see there isn't a magazine in the weapon, you still don't point it at someone because in the one-in-a-thousand chance that you are wrong and the weapon is loaded...someone likely dies. In this case, more than 90% of the people that study this for a living seem to say it is happening. Seems like most of them regard the weapon as fully loaded.

    Until the pro-fossil fuels side can PROVE TO ME/Us/The World that it definitively isn't happening...I will regard the weapon as loaded and I will favor policies that do the same.

    I'm not advocating we shut off all production of fossil fuels or require a wholesale shift over the next decade. I am advocating a heck of a lot more environmental/climate proactive stance from the GOP. The oil isn't going to disappear, waiting doesn't hurt anything except the oil companies pocket book...and I'm not terribly concerned about that.
  7. mchammer

    mchammer 5,000+ Posts

    The earth's climate system is not as fragile or unadaptable as you think. If it were, the climate would have gone off the rails a long time ago.
    • Like Like x 3
  8. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    It seems reasonable to ask why there are so many fraudulent "scientific" studies sounding the alarm. If it were true, you wouldn't see any false reports because they wouldn't be needed. I agree with 4th floor that this is the same old crap that the so called "elite" use to force their ridiculous ideas upon everyone. I also agree with Okie that he has no facts. That being said, there is no reason to needlessly spill, or allow others to release any hazardous materials into the air or oceans.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    Most agree man-made CC is happening to some degree. It's irresponsible to say 90+% believe CC is a monumental threat and escalating more erratically than in history.

    Since 2008, the sudden, massive money flow was tailored to reward alarmist findings. 90+% of climate scientists, many being Lib academics, began experiments with desired conclusions already made.

    They were well aware any research that didn't find narrative backing results would simply be replaced with others that did. And the author/scientist would no longer be useful to the cause which diverted future CC funding elsewhere.

    There's been several scientists who've gone on record about this corrupt system that was rigged before it ever started. But nobody in the CC alarmist camp wants to hear it because they've been cult brainwashed to believe any dissent is reckless climate denial.

    When the Libs made 'science' important and cool again with this panic issue...there's no way in hell most were gonna miss out on the new gov funds gravy train and help their fellow Libs worship hero Al Gore's shrine.

    The way they set up the system and methods for preconceived outcomes was bogus but highly advantageous to their careers and wallet. The only reason 3-10% disagreed was they were the few who valued principles and morals over reckless ambition.

    The science is still very much out. Until the scientific community becomes responsible and strictly follows the scientific method without results swaying manipulations, conclusions have no merit. Especially not enough merit to invest multiple billions $ into a massive globalist power scheme adopted in Paris.
    Last edited: May 6, 2017
  10. hornde68

    hornde68 25+ Posts

    Hey Namewithheld. You have been duped, for any number of reasons. Before giving some data/information, I would like to read the article that you quote, completely. Would you please forward site information? I am a UT engineer/MBA statistics and I can relate some CO2/warming correlations that are eye-opening. The simplest being that we (as humans) have difficulty wrapping our minds around just how vast the oceans are, in terms of total water, depth, heat/light diffusement, thermal anticlines etc. There is every good reason to believe that water temperature rising/gas content are inversely related (Boyle's law) and CO2 is responding to a two hundred year lagged total ocean warming. El nino/la nina sort of thing but global.
    The problem is lack of data. We haven't had accurately ocean SURFACE temperatures but 30 years ago. Why else would it have been so recent this weather explanation that is rather accurate. Forget the idea of total sea temperatures. No means to measure whole world temperatures (other than modeling which is subject to the modelers bias even IF they are purely scientifically motivated) Imagine if their research is funding by someone wanting to prove Global warming.
    Worst of all and immutable, in geological time, the earth is over 3 billion years old. Our data, if it were an accurate 300 years and it is not, would be like asking 10 people, Globally chosen at random, and concluding their opinions reflected the whole of humanity. Or in other context, if the world stretched from NYC to LA, we would measure the first quarter inch (or any quarter inch but we only have the latest) and conclude that represents North America. That make sense to you?

    Please, I would love to read the article to forward to some colleagues on the other side of the fence. One other comment. When Mount St. Helens exploded in 1980, it put more ash/sulfur dioxide/ etc into the air in one episode than all the combustion engines in the history of time up to that point. There has been some volcanic eruption (albeit most less impressive) going on in some form of eruption, every day since then. Wonder if we can somehow regulate those?
  11. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    The great thing about analogies is you can pick one that's pre-slanted in your favor and make them sound reasonable every time. But comparing CO2 to a loaded BB gun is patently ridiculous. We KNOW that shooting someone in the eye is dangerous.

    By your logic, I can and should claim that since studies show that pets put out more CO2 than automobiles, we should ban pets unless and until someone can prove that they really aren't having an impact. It puts your side of the argument in an incredible place of power when you can simply say "this causes global warming, and until you can prove it doesn't, you have to stop."
  12. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

    I think your extrapolation goes way over the top. Global warming is hardly the only bad outcome of pollution and some of the most egregious source of pollution aren't all that wonderful on a purely economic cost of extraction per Btu benefit, pollution be damned (Canadian tar sands oil, Texas Lignite). Non-polluting efficiency is sometimes a lot cheaper than fuel. There are lot of common sense ways to reduce/avoid pollution before we start taking away people's pets.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada Winebibber

    If they said it wasn't happening, they'd be out of a job.
    • Like Like x 3
  14. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    Climate change research in the present all boils down to a scientist either benefiting from the avalanche of research funding or being shunned and pushed aside. There is absolutely no benefit and extreme consequences to challenging the narrative.

    A simple analogy is comparing a government funded CC study to a corporation hiring a consultant. Imagine if the CEO offers a big consulting contract and says "I believe there's something really wrong with my company's current processes and if monumental changes aren't made asap we're sure to collapse".

    I accept and spend a month inside the company researching their internal workings. Let's say everything is pretty much on the level according to normal business practices besides a few routine fixes. Nothing is more alarming than past projects where the company made minor adjustments and the business was fine.

    I'd be inviting serious harm to my career by suggesting minor, routine fixes to a CEO who's preconceived conclusion was impending doom without massive, novel overhauls.

    One thing is for sure, I'd never get another dollar from that company or any other company they slander my name to as incompetent and useless.

    And if the CEO is still hellbent on his doomsday prediction, he'd simply hire another consultant who shares his preconceived conclusions and is known for radical overhauls (even if there's no legit basis for it).

    The bottom line is there's no benefit and extreme consequences for CC researchers and future funding if they don't support the alarmist narrative. There's no doubt data manipulations are running rampant on this subject to match desired conclusions.
    • Like Like x 2
    Last edited: May 7, 2017
  15. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

    A lot of money is spent combatting climate science research, but most of it goes to politicians and bloggers. I think it crazy to think scientists open to the idea that man made global warming is a hoax can't get money to support research if they have credentials and expertise. The tobacco scientists who proved cigarettes healthy got plenty of money for their research
    • Like Like x 1
  16. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    That's quite a claim. I assume you have the data to back it up. Please reference it for us.
  17. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

  18. bystander

    bystander 5,000+ Posts

    From Crockett's link:

    "AEI received $3,615,000 from ExxonMobil from 1998-2012 [5], and more than $1 million in funding from Koch foundations from 2004-2011. [6]"

    Being generous (more than $1 million) let's say AEI received $5,000,000. Not PER YEAR, but in total. That is an average of $333K per year. That's hardly a massive effort to beat back what is being advertised as a threat to destroy the entire fossil fuel industry.

    Per Wikipedia, AEI had revenues exceeding $84 MILLION for the fiscal year ending June 2015.
  19. mchammer

    mchammer 5,000+ Posts

    Is this a joke? The climate change industry is worth 10's of $billions annually.
  20. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    Last edited: May 8, 2017
  21. 4th_floor

    4th_floor 1,000+ Posts

    No. that's not my whole argument. My argument is as follows: 1) The alarmist theory of global warming theory is flawed because a 0.01% increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 cannot cause more than 0.5 F increase in temperature. The measurement error in global temperature is likely greater than 0.5 F. The alarmist math does not work. 2) The satellite data shows no warming since 1998 despite a continual, but gradually slowing increase in CO2 concentration. The alarmists have never shown a correlation between global temperature and CO2 concentration. 3) Statistics tell us that if the average is increasing, record minimum values become more and more improbable. So if we have had global warming for over 100 years due to increasing CO2 concentration, the probability of an all time record low temperature is extremely low.
    If you look at the raw satellite data, the earth's temperature has decreased since 1998. Yes, I know the New York Times has told you the the last 3 years have been the hottest years ever on the Earth. This is an unsupportable argument. The "data" provided by government scientists to reach this conclusion has been filtered to remove a lot of outliers. If data is filtered enough, you will eventually get the conclusion you want. Kind of like counting votes in Minnesota until Al Franken won.

    Yes, it is.
    • Like Like x 2
  22. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    That was funny.

    All of the arguments above are plausible...
    1. It's happening but its not as extreme as purported
    2. The CC establishment is biased and seeking only to confirm themselves
    3. The science has been rigged
    4. The system is too vast for us to be able to properly account for variables
    5. The system is so vast that we (and what we do) don't matter

    So if the GOP establishment believes that CC science is bunk then now is the perfect opportunity to put some legitimate scientist into the EPA and ensure that they are given room/resources to study the issue without a predetermined conclusion.

    Will they do this, or will they use their preferred findings and shut out the EPA? It seems to me that the current decisions by GOP administration aren't being driven by settled science but rather profit seeking that is looking to get their toe in the door of the parks and arctic while they are in power.
    • Like Like x 2
  23. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    We already have the answer to this. Scientists have been kicked off a "major scientific review board" and will be replaced people from within the industry...on a scientific review board.

  24. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    The first step is to clear out the massive collection of opportunistic rift raft that uniformly obstruct sound CC science from taking place.

    Fortunately the purge is in full swing...

    EPA administrator Scott Pruitt – perhaps stung by criticisms that he was turning into a squish – today reaffirmed, in an interview with CNBC, that he is not a believer in catastrophic man-made global warming.

    “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet…”

    This new boldness coincides with a purge of warmist scientific advisers at both the EPA and the Interior Department.

    EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has chosen to replace half of the members on one of its key scientific review boards, while Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is “reviewing the charter and charge” of more than 200 advisory boards, committees, and other entities both within and outside of his department. EPA and Interior officials began informing outside advisers of the move on Friday, and notifications continued over the weekend.

    Pruitt’s move could significantly change the makeup of the 18-member Board of Scientific Counselors, which advises EPA’s key scientific arm on whether the research it does has sufficient rigor and integrity. All of the members being dismissed were at the end of serving at least one three-year term, although these terms are often renewed instead of terminated.

    Among the tragic victims is Robert Richardson, a Michigan professor and “ecological economist”, who tweeted movingly about his martyrdom.
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Search for Global Warming on the EPA's site and this is what you get now. Since the Trump Admin took over they've been in the process of purging all publicly available climate science data from their site.

    It's utter BS to claim that Scott Pruitt is simply trying to ensure "good science" exists but rather science that subscribes to their bias which less than 10% of all scientists subscribe to. This is nothing more than a hostile takeover of climate change science by big business interests.

    EPA Global Warming.PNG
  26. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    How in the world could anyone possibly state that only 10% of scientists believe a particular conclusion or view? How could you even find all of the scientists, and then verify that their views are exactly alike, or that they subscribe to "something" similar?

    Statements like those are so ridiculous that those supporting man made climate change lose credibility. Before you know it, fraudsters stating such nonsense will begin getting kicked off of government committees.
  27. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    It was an estimate. What's your estimate based on these 11 studies on the topic? The fraudsters based on the science are those claiming climate change is still in dispute.
  28. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Woohoo... esteemed climate scientist Ivanka Trump will run point on deciding whether the US should or should not remain part of the Paris Accords.

    This must be a joke.

    Step 1: Purge the scientists from the EPA.
    Step 2: Bring in industry representatives to replace them.
    Step 3: Put Ivanka Trump (BA in Economics) in charge of the review process for determining whether the US should remain in the Paris Accords.
    Last edited: May 8, 2017
  29. 4th_floor

    4th_floor 1,000+ Posts

    Did you know that 88% of all quoted statistics are made up? :e-thinking:
  30. OUBubba

    OUBubba Reluctant and Bullied Sponsor

    The middle ground between what I consider fairly reasonable climate people on this board and some of you is like freakin' Mongolia. I'm expecting to read at some point here that if we can ramp up some oil production from the tar sands and stop all of this wind/solar crap that only ******* want to use then we can really get this climate cooking with gas and warm things up for the whole world!

Share This Page