Climate Skeptics: I Have Questions!

[Quetzal]

So, I have approached this topic before. I realize now that I have not done so in a very productive way. I want to be better. With that said, I have questions to ask so that I can better understand your position.

1. What is something that annoys you with the topic? (Are there common fallacies that you see? Common phrases that turn you off from the topic? etc)
2. There is quite a bit of materials out about this topic, most of it is in support of climate change. Where do you feel these materials come up short? Why do you feel this way? Are there alternatives that you feel might be more accurate?
3. Is there something that those of us who believe this is a urgent problem can do to be better when attempting to share our position?
4. Is there something we could do to be better in regards to presenting the information we find?
5. Is there a piece of information that you feel is missing, under-explained, or simply doesn't make sense?

Thanks for taking the time.

 

[BSM1]

There is no definitive proof of any climate change as you present it. There is a lot of speculation and histrionics surrounding unsubstantiated climate models that have not been proven in real worlds applications. BTW, you notice "global warming" is no longer the bugaboo it once was.

 

[Quetzal]

There is no definitive proof of any climate change as you present it.

Gotcha. What kind of evidence do you think would be necessary for you to begin considering it on a more serious level? There are reports of some of the more recent years being warmer than any other on record. Are these findings too short sighted for now, maybe?

There is a lot of speculation and histrionics surrounding unsubstantiated climate models that have not been proven in real worlds applications.

Can you help define what you mean by real world application, please?

BTW, you notice "global warming" is no longer the bugaboo it once was.

Yeah, I have noticed this myself.

 

[buddhist]

I'm not skeptical about the climate. I'm skeptical about "global warming".

First, I as an individual cannot know and verify for myself all of the alleged data regarding the alleged warming around the whole world.

Second, I've read claims by "the other side" that much of the recorded data is faulty, e.g. temperature monitors placed right up against the heat output of an air-conditioner vent against scientific standards and policy, etc.

Third, I tend to be skeptical of anything statists claim, especially when they state things like "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste ... provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not before." I see this as another opportunity for statists to increase control, decrease freedom, confiscate more of our blood and sweat, and to enrich themselves in the process.

P.S. I've added to my skepticism when "they" altered the dialogue from "global warming" to "climate change".

 

[Quetzal]

First, I as an individual cannot know and verify for myself all of the allegedly collected data regarding the alleged warming around the whole world.

This is fair, do you find the sources that present the data untrustworthy or biased? Would an independent source be better? What do you think that would look like?

Third, I tend to be skeptical of anything statists claim, especially when they state things like "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste ... provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not before." I see this as another opportunity for statists to increase control, decrease freedom, confiscate more of our blood and sweat, and to enrich themselves in the process.

Okay, so if I understand you right, the source is important to you. Kind of referring back to my previous question regarding independent sources. If data was presented from an organization unaffiliated with a government or political power, would that be more attractive?

 

[buddhist]

This is fair, do you find the sources that present the data untrustworthy or biased? Would an independent source be better? What do you think that would look like?

Of course government-affliated sources are biased. Isn't it self-evident? Government - or perhaps more specifically those within and affiliated with government - has an unending desire to increase it's own power and wealth to the detriment of the People.

Okay, so if I understand you right, the source is important to you. Kind of referring back to my previous question regarding independent sources. If data was presented from an organization unaffiliated with a government or political power, would that be more attractive?

How can I positively verify that "independent sources" are truly independent? Besides, many independent sources already claim what I posted (e.g. air conditioner heat, etc.), but they are often dismissed.

 

[Quetzal]

How can I positively verify that "independent sources" are truly independent? Besides, many independent sources already claim what I posted (e.g. air conditioner heat, etc.), but they are often dismissed.

That is a good point, let's approach it from a different angle. Instead of "independent sources", how about credible sources? Where do you find information that you find credible?

 

[metis]

Much like one does not "believe" in evolution but either "accepts" the reality of it or they don't, much is the same about global warming whereas it is based on real temperature measurements accumulated for more than 200 years now.

So, it's not a matter of "belief"-- it's simply a matter of whether one "accepts" the science.

BTW, because of a voluntary commitment not to engage in politics, I will not debate the politics on this.

 

[Quetzal]

Also, since @BSM1 and @buddhist both brought up the fact that the dialogue changed from "global warming" to "climate change", it might be worth addressing a bit. From what I understand, "climate change" became more accurate because of the theory that the climate itself is changing and that encompasses more than just temperature, hence the shift. I hope that helps.

 

[buddhist]

That is a good point, let's approach it from a different angle. Instead of "independent sources", how about credible sources? Where do you find information that you find credible?

The most credible information is that which I can verify and have verified for myself

I'd judge other sources on the number and severity of conflict of interests. E.g. government sources have many & significant conflicts of interest.

 

[Quetzal]

The most credible information is that which I can verify and have verified for myself

Out of curiosity, if I could dig up raw temperature data, but that data was taken via something sponsored by the government (NASA, NOAA, etc), would that be helpful?

I'd judge other sources on the number and severity of conflict of interests. E.g. government sources have many & significant conflicts of interest.

This is helpful, are there particular news outlets that you gravitate towards more than others? (CNN, BBC, Fox, maybe none at all?) I ask because they run stories from time to time but most of them have their own bias, too.

 

[buddhist]

Also, since @BSM1 and @buddhist both brought up the fact that the dialogue changed from "global warming" to "climate change", it might be worth addressing a bit. From what I understand, "climate change" became more accurate because of the theory that the climate itself is changing and that encompasses more than just temperature, hence the shift. I hope that helps.

"Global warming" is a very specific claim - that "warming" is happening on a "global" basis. This does not seem to be what "climate change"-rs are now claiming.

Out of curiosity, if I could dig up raw temperature data, but that data was taken via something sponsored by the government (NASA, NOAA, etc), would that be helpful?

Not really. Like I said, 1. I cannot verify their alleged data for myself, 2. they have huge conflicts of interest, etc.

This is helpful, are there particular news outlets that you gravitate towards more than others? (CNN, BBC, Fox, maybe none at all?) I ask because they run stories from time to time but most of them have their own bias, too.

No, I don't gravitate towards any one or few specific news-entertainment sources. I do, however, like to hear from every side.

 

[metis]

One can more directly access the data by googling "climate change" or "global warming" and checking links to NASA, NOAA, Scientific American, the NAS, National Geographic, etc.

 

[Quetzal]

"Global warming" is a very specific claim - that "warming" is happening on a "global" basis. This does not seem to be what "climate change"-rs are now claiming.

I am actually really happy you brought this up. What do you perceive the message CCers to be? In other words, if someone asked "What are the CCers trying to argue?", how would you respond?

Not really. Like I said, 1. I cannot verify their alleged data for myself, 2. they have huge conflicts of interest, etc.

That makes it challenging since most of the data is collected via satellite. Only entities that can afford that technology are typically government agencies. Well... wanna launch a satellite?!

No, I don't gravitate towards any one or few specific news-entertainment sources. I do, however, like to hear from every side.

You are super centrist, I like it!

 

[Quetzal]

One can more directly access the data by googling "climate change" or "global warming" and checking links to NASA, NOAA, Scientific American, the NAS, National Geographic, etc.

Right, and that is the challenge. Almost all of that data is harvested through satellites that were funded by the government. If an individual is skeptical of the government, I can see why skeptics might see it in a negative way.

 

[buddhist]

I am actually really happy you brought this up. What do you perceive the message CCers to be? In other words, if someone asked "What are the CCers to argue?", how would you respond?

I point to Wikipedia as a contemporary example. CCers are now seemingly lumping cooling in with warming, for instance.

That makes it challenging since most of the data is collected via satellite. Only entities that can afford that technology are typically government agencies. Well... wanna launch a satellite?!

You are super centrist, I like it!

Just call me skeptical about all sources who/which claim "I possess authority ... and you, peon, must simply obey/believe/sacrifice". It's another faith-based religion.

 

[Quetzal]

I point to Wikipedia as a contemporary example. CCers are now seemingly lumping cooling in with warming, for instance.

Just call me skeptical about all sources who/which claim "I possess authority ... and you, peon, must simply obey/believe/sacrifice". It's another faith-based religion.

Thanks for helping me gain a bit of perspective.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm sorry, I have to ask this. @buddhist , can you please define "conflict of interest" for us? I get the sense you are using the word wrong, because the groups that do this research (many of which are various climatologists spread at universities worldwide who have no common affiliation anyway) do not stand to profit from global warming. Fossil fuel companies, on the other hand, absolutely stand to profit by debunking the notion that their business is a pollutant that should be strongly regulated if not discontinued. Probably why they have a very well oiled (pun intended) propaganda engine to fuel (pun intended) climate change denial.

 

[buddhist]

I'm sorry, I have to ask this. @buddhist , can you please define "conflict of interest" for us? I get the sense you are using the word wrong, because the groups that do this research (many of which are various climatologists spread at universities worldwide who have no common affiliation anyway) do not stand to profit from global warming. Fossil fuel companies, on the other hand, absolutely stand to profit by debunking the notion that their business is a pollutant that should be strongly regulated if not discontinued. Probably why they have a very well oiled (pun intended) propaganda engine to fuel (pun intended) climate change denial.

Conflict of Interest: "A term used to describe the situation in which a public official or fiduciary who, contrary to the obligation and absolute duty to act for the benefit of the public or a designated individual, exploits the relationship for personal benefit, typically pecuniary."

Are these independent research universities: 1) not receiving money or other benefits from the Public/government, and 2) are they collecting the data themselves?

 

[Quintessence]

Conflict of Interest: "A term used to describe the situation in which a public official or fiduciary who, contrary to the obligation and absolute duty to act for the benefit of the public or a designated individual, exploits the relationship for personal benefit, typically pecuniary."

Are these independent research universities: 1) not receiving money or other benefits from the Public/government, and 2) are they collecting the data themselves?

Okay. That answers my question. You are absolutely using the word wrong. Thanks.