Climate Change NOT Debunked

[Pilgrim]

Let's see....

The doctor says your cholesterol is too high. You have no symptoms, no distress. he paints a picture of the negative effects it can have on you. he suggests that you change your eating habits, increase exercise, and take medication to avoid the negative effects and possible calamitous consequences of letting your cholesterol remain too high.

Your doctor gets income from your repeat visits. Pharma companies make money from the drugs you take. If you join a health club, they make money from your membership.

No one in their right mind would take that doctor's advice, would they? Certainly millions of people wouldn't....would they?

Because since nothing really bad has happened yet, clearly there's no need for any kind of action.

I don't buy the analogy. not for a moment.

 

[sloasdaylight]

Let's see....

The doctor says your cholesterol is too high. You have no symptoms, no distress. he paints a picture of the negative effects it can have on you. he suggests that you change your eating habits, increase exercise, and take medication to avoid the negative effects and possible calamitous consequences of letting your cholesterol remain too high.

Your doctor gets income from your repeat visits. Pharma companies make money from the drugs you take. If you join a health club, they make money from your membership.

No one in their right mind would take that doctor's advice, would they? Certainly millions of people wouldn't....would they?

Because since nothing really bad has happened yet, clearly there's no need for any kind of action.

I don't buy the analogy. not for a moment.

Aren't all those things you're doing things that you do of your own volition, and also things that have documented evidence of what will probably happen if you choose not to do what your doctor, who you chose, advises?

Here is another doctor story.
1) Smoking is prevalent.
2) Doctors notice that women who smoke during pregnancy have lower birth weights and easier deliveries.
3) Doctors advise women to smoke during their pregnancy for these reasons.
4) As a result of hundreds of surveys, and lord knows how many case studies, we find a direct correlation between infant diseases and asthma in kids as a result of mothers who smoked during pregnancy.
5) The medical opinion changes and no longer are women told to smoke during pregnancy, in fact quite the opposite.

Right now this whole climate change thing is probably in stage 1 or 2, since we're still trying to establish accurate charts and patters for the Earth's temperature.

The planet was here long before we were, and it will be here long after. There is no reason to insist that things happen NOW NOW NOW. And even less of a reason to fudge numbers, use reports known to be in accurate, etc.

 

[RWP]

Let's see....

The doctor says your cholesterol is too high. You have no symptoms, no distress. he paints a picture of the negative effects it can have on you. he suggests that you change your eating habits, increase exercise, and take medication to avoid the negative effects and possible calamitous consequences of letting your cholesterol remain too high.

Your doctor gets income from your repeat visits. Pharma companies make money from the drugs you take. If you join a health club, they make money from your membership.

No one in their right mind would take that doctor's advice, would they? Certainly millions of people wouldn't....would they?

Because since nothing really bad has happened yet, clearly there's no need for any kind of action.

I don't buy the analogy. not for a moment.

I think everyone agrees that sensible measures to protect our environment are a good idea. However, IMHO what I see coming is far from sensible.

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

Here is another doctor story.
1) Smoking is prevalent.
2) Doctors notice that women who smoke during pregnancy have lower birth weights and easier deliveries.
3) Doctors advise women to smoke during their pregnancy for these reasons.
4) As a result of hundreds of surveys, and lord knows how many case studies, we find a direct correlation between infant diseases and asthma in kids as a result of mothers who smoked during pregnancy.
5) The medical opinion changes and no longer are women told to smoke during pregnancy, in fact quite the opposite.

Right now this whole climate change thing is probably in stage 1 or 2, since we're still trying to establish accurate charts and patters for the Earth's temperature.

I wasn't aware that you were a climate change scientist... what evidence do you have for your assertion that we're in stage one or two?

 

[sloasdaylight]

I wasn't aware that you were a climate change scientist... what evidence do you have for your assertion that we're in stage one or two?

I don't have any hard evidence, but, to my knowledge (and I'm willing to admit my ignorance of the matter, if you know more, please enlighten me) that we still cannot account for the previous warming and cooling periods that the planet has experienced, even since Man was "modern"; I.E. last 1000 years or so. The little ice age, the medieval warming period, etc. There are some theories out there that have to do with the number of sun spots of all things, which seems to correlated roughly to warming periods. Some people believe that the planet will continually get hotter due to the continuing increase in the size of the Sun, pushing it toward the planet, there are all sorts of theories out there. Not to mention also the fact that accurate recordings of the Earth's temperature on the whole have been around for only what? the last 150 to 160 years? When you're dealing with something as vast and as huge as the Earth, that moves and develops as slowly as it does (I hear those Himalayans have grown another 1/2 of an inch this year, they're getting so big /sniff), I think it's amazingly arrogant to assume that we're anywhere past stage 1 or 2 in that hastily drawn together analogy-thing I put together.

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

I don't have any hard evidence, but, to my knowledge (and I'm willing to admit my ignorance of the matter, if you know more, please enlighten me) that we still cannot account for the previous warming and cooling periods that the planet has experienced, even since Man was "modern"; I.E. last 1000 years or so. The little ice age, the medieval warming period, etc. There are some theories out there that have to do with the number of sun spots of all things, which seems to correlated roughly to warming periods. Some people believe that the planet will continually get hotter due to the continuing increase in the size of the Sun, pushing it toward the planet, there are all sorts of theories out there. Not to mention also the fact that accurate recordings of the Earth's temperature on the whole have been around for only what? the last 150 to 160 years? When you're dealing with something as vast and as huge as the Earth, that moves and develops as slowly as it does (I hear those Himalayans have grown another 1/2 of an inch this year, they're getting so big /sniff), I think it's amazingly arrogant to assume that we're anywhere past stage 1 or 2 in that hastily drawn together analogy-thing I put together.

But that's exactly the thing, I don't know more. I'm more than happy to take up the banner of skepticism, but it seems to me that all the people who're supposed to be the experts on this thing (i.e. the scientists) are in agreement in regards to climate change.

Like sleepytime said:

I wish the debate was not so clouded with special interest, posturing and maneuvering

And I'm not going to naively assume that the clouds are only being created by one side of the argument (especially when the side most often attacked for its accuracy is the side that 98% of the scientific community is on).

 

[Pilgrim]

Aren't all those things you're doing things that you do of your own volition, and also things that have documented evidence of what will probably happen if you choose not to do what your doctor, who you chose, advises?

Yes, They're also things that thousands or millions of people refuse to do, thereby dooming themselves to early disability or death. Just like the people who totally reject the idea of climate change...who are, I think, a small stubborn minority....just like the ones who refuse to address their cholesterol.

Reasonable people - and there are many of them here - engage in the debate about how much influence humans are having, and how much change we can effect in the situation. There are many good posts here - but total denial is silly.

The planet was here long before we were, and it will be here long after. There is no reason to insist that things happen NOW NOW NOW. And even less of a reason to fudge numbers, use reports known to be in accurate, etc.

Yes, it will assuredly be here. Question is, will WE still be on it? There is no reason to insist that we study and act NOW - unless you agree that the time to treat the high cholesterol is before the stroke occurs.

 

[sloasdaylight]

But that's exactly the thing, I don't know more. I'm more than happy to take up the banner of skepticism, but it seems to me that all the people who're supposed to be the experts on this thing (i.e. the scientists) are in agreement in regards to climate change.

Like sleepytime said:

And I'm not going to naively assume that the clouds are only being created by one side of the argument (especially when the side most often attacked for its accuracy is the side that 98% of the scientific community is on).

Except they are NOT in agreement about climate change other than the fact that it's happening. I already pointed this out to Pilgrim in another post. There isn't a consensus and there isn't a massive amount of agreement as far as the causes of this are concerned.

Yes, They're also things that thousands or millions of people refuse to do, thereby dooming themselves to early disability or death. Just like the people who totally reject the idea of climate change...who are, I think, a small stubborn minority....just like the ones who refuse to address their cholesterol.

Reasonable people - and there are many of them here - engage in the debate about how much influence humans are having, and how much change we can effect in the situation. There are many good posts here - but total denial is silly.

Yes, it will assuredly be here. Question is, will WE still be on it? There is no reason to insist that we study and act NOW - unless you agree that the time to treat the high cholesterol is before the stroke occurs.

This is the problem again. We don't know enough about the Earth's "Cholesterol" as you put it to say what is high and what is not. Should we take care of it? Yea, no one is saying we should. But we shouldn't act as if the planet apparently is on the operating table with 98% blockage in all 4 coronaries.

 

[FL Knifemaker]

This is a GREAT analogy, why can't everyone understand this. Why are so many duped?

I dunno.......There's been one hell of a lotta dupin' going on over the past year and half

 

[sleepytime]

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

 

[Pilgrim]

This is the problem again. We don't know enough about the Earth's "Cholesterol" as you put it to say what is high and what is not. Should we take care of it? Yea, no one is saying we should. But we shouldn't act as if the planet apparently is on the operating table with 98% blockage in all 4 coronaries.

Agreed. But let's at least alter our diets and trim down. It won't hurt us, and we know that in the long run it's better for us regardless of whether it impacts the climate or not. If you don't like the way the change is shaping up, use representative government to moderate it for the better - not to be be another person simply saying "NO."

 

[Geddyfleaharris]

Just like the people who totally reject the idea of climate change...who are, I think, a small stubborn minority....

It all depends on your frame of reference.

I agree that our climate is changing as part of natural events. Maybe fuelled somewhat by man's activities on the planet. In this context there probably is only a small minority left that reject climate change out of hand.


But if you mean MAN MADE, we are evil-about-to-be-killers-of-the-earth type climate change then there is a whole lot more than a small minority who still question the whole hypothesis of climate change.

 

[nic salsus]

I dunno.......There's been one hell of a lotta dupin' going on over the past year and half

The last year and a half????
LOL!
Been goin' on a little longer than that...

I've looked at the information coming from both sides of the global warming debate and I honestly don't know if human activity is having an effect on it. I do get suspicious though when the "mainstream" media and scientific communities both completely stonewall any evidence that we humans might not have much to do with it. There are a lot of very credible voices out there saying we don't but you never hear from them unless you make a real effort. You gotta ask yerself who gains from sweeping them under the carpet? It's all about money and control....and you and I aren't being lined up for either.

 

[Marlat]

A climate change thread devolving into an argument about Al Gore. How utterly surprising and unpredictable. hasn't this exact thread been done 451 times before in TB OT? Has anyone learned anything other than people have divided, entrenched, opinions on the subject.

 

[hrodbert696]

I am not a scientist, and as far as I can tell most of the people contributing to this thread aren't either. A basic education hopefully allows us to understand the basics of what scientists are trying to tell us, but I don't consider myself qualified to assess the data myself and, honestly, I don't consider most of you qualified to do so either.

As far as suspicion of the scientific community goes, that they're falsifying or obscuring data to serve an agenda or make money, it's possible. On the other hand, such suspicion is equally warranted on the other side; there are lots of industrial corporations whose profit margins are going to suffer if stricter environmental regulations are enacted and enforced. So to me, the suspicions kind of cancel out.

So to me, this is another issue that comes down to Pascal's wager -- given that we non-scientists are stuck with uncertainty, but that we have to make real decisions either believing in global warming or not believing in it, which choice offers the best balance of risk and reward? I won't be tedious and run through all possible scenarios, but it does seem to me that acting as though global warming is a reality risks relatively little (more regulation, lower profitability in existing business) -- and stands to gain a hell of a lot (new greentech, new business and jobs, not to mention avoiding environmental catastrophe).

By the way, prior natural global warming and cooling trends have come up in this thread. The issue here is that since industrialization, if the data is right, the warming has proceeded much more rapidly than one normally sees in a natural warming trend.

 

[nic salsus]

As far as suspicion of the scientific community goes, that they're falsifying or obscuring data to serve an agenda or make money, it's possible. On the other hand, such suspicion is equally warranted on the other side; there are lots of industrial corporations whose profit margins are going to suffer if stricter environmental regulations are enacted and enforced. So to me, the suspicions kind of cancel out.

Who funds the science saying we humans are definitely causing global warming? Who funds those saying otherwise?
Don't make too many suppositions Sherlock, follow the money.

 

[FL Knifemaker]

A climate change thread devolving into an argument about Al Gore. How utterly surprising and unpredictable. hasn't this exact thread been done 451 times before in TB OT? Has anyone learned anything other than people have divided, entrenched, opinions on the subject.

Silly us

 

[Marlat]

Silly us

Indeed.

 

[FL Knifemaker]

Indeed.

You need a personal smilie.........

 

[nic salsus]

Just to try and get things back on a meaningful track.......
What strings are best for global warming?