Climate Skeptics: I Have Questions!

[metis]

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.

Only some of the data comes from satellites, whereas much of it also comes from ground temperature measurements, CO2 and methane measurements, changes with the surface ice, etc. And most of this is handled through the scientific community, not the gov.

But what often is missed is the fact that the scientific community has pretty much dismissed other possible causation over the last few decades because there's no evidence to even hypothesize that it's anything other than higher levels of CO2 and methane. As a long-term subscriber to Scientific American (almost 50 years), I've seen a gradual transition over the last three decades especially, whereas there's been increased certainty that this is the main cause.

 

[icehorse]

What you are REALLY talking about is Anthropogenic global warming or AGW. It is my view that only a total dimwit would pretend that climate change is not real. The real question is how much man's industrialized rape of the planet and ecosphere has contributed to the greenhouse effect AND if it is reversible or even possible to change. We simply do not know the answers to either of the latter, though it is likely we have had some effect on the ecosphere we piddle in.

Sorry, I know this is a bit of a tangent... We can predict to a decent degree of precision what will happen to the world's coastlines if the ice sitting on places like Greenland and Antarctica melts. This is just math. (And, BTW, the effect on coastlines is a YUGE problem.)

Given that, who cares about how much mankind is contributing to the melting - we should do everything in our power to stop the melting!

 

[fantome profane]

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?

Can you explain to me who benefits from a global warming hoax? Where is the payoff?

And it can't just be the researchers. If somebody is paying researchers to make fraudulent or exaggerated claims there has to be a reason. Who benefits?
Is it the government? How does the government benefit from a global warming hoax? And it would have to benefit all the governments around the world that are trying to prevent this. Why? How does this benefit them?
Is it the media? Do they benefit from this hoax? Do they pay the scientists and the government so they can get ratings from global warming stories?
Is it people making solar panels? Do they have this much power? Or the giant windmill conglomerate?

Who is behind the hoax? Is it the Chinese?

 

[Quagmire]

Can you explain to me who benefits from a global warming hoax? Where is the payoff?

And it can't just be the researchers. If somebody is paying researchers to make fraudulent or exaggerated claims there has to be a reason. Who benefits?
Is it the government? How does the government benefit from a global warming hoax? And it would have to benefit all the governments around the world that are trying to prevent this. Why? How does this benefit them?
Is it the media? Do they benefit from this hoax? Do they pay the scientists and the government so they can get ratings from global warming stories?
Is it people making solar panels? Do they have this much power? Or the giant windmill conglomerate?

Who is behind the hoax? Is it the Chinese?

pssst, sunscreen manufacturers.

 

[fantome profane]

pssst, sunscreen manufacturers.

That is the ozone hoax. Completely different.

 

[Quagmire]

That is the ozone hoax. Completely different.

Ok then: the Air Conditioning Repairman Union?

 

[Lighthouse]

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.

1) The unnecessary hysteria behind it all. The billions of dollars wasted when nothing has even been done.
2) That the science is settled. The vast majority of the material that gets published only favors it. The material evidence that is contrary to the agenda does not get published. Publish all of the material, not just select.
3) Calm down, and stop living in fear. We cannot change or alter the sun and it's solar cycles. Climate changes, this is true. Common sense. The people that hype this up are the same people who have no problem with the same and new technological advances that harm the environment and the atmosphere. Seems like they make billions off of climate change and billions off of the same stuff they claim causes severe climate change.
4) Same as #2, publish all of the information, not just the favored ones. Stop lying about the science being settled and how a vast majority of scientists support such when that is untrue.
5) There is too much information that is not released. There is too much information that just goes against common sense.

 

[icehorse]

The unnecessary hysteria behind it all.

I pulled this sentence out of the larger post, but I have to say I find this perspective illogical and extremely dangerous.

 

[buddhist]

Can you explain to me who benefits from a global warming hoax? Where is the payoff?

And it can't just be the researchers. If somebody is paying researchers to make fraudulent or exaggerated claims there has to be a reason. Who benefits?
Is it the government? How does the government benefit from a global warming hoax? And it would have to benefit all the governments around the world that are trying to prevent this. Why? How does this benefit them?
Is it the media? Do they benefit from this hoax? Do they pay the scientists and the government so they can get ratings from global warming stories?
Is it people making solar panels? Do they have this much power? Or the giant windmill conglomerate?

Who is behind the hoax? Is it the Chinese?

Have you not heard about how governments are using this global warming conspiracy theory to concoct a whole host of new taxes, like carbon taxes? Or, additional taxes on gasoline, or on the mileage you might travel?

Even if the middlemen - science and researchers - are honest, it does not preclude the fact that the data they've been provided might have been fradulent, which renders their conclusions false.

Government provides the alleged data, and government is trying to reap their benefits.

 

[Lighthouse]

I pulled this sentence out of the larger post, but I have to say I find this perspective illogical and extremely dangerous.

Why so?

 

[idav]

pssst, sunscreen manufacturers.

I am very glad to hear that skin cancer is just a hoax.

 

[icehorse]

Why so?

There were many errors in your post, but to pick one, you seem to have a poor understanding of science in general. Of course there are a few scientists who get bought off by corporations. But for the most part, scientists are scrupulously honest. Everything they publish comes under harsh peer review.

 

[Lighthouse]

There were many errors in your post, but to pick one, you seem to have a poor understanding of science in general. Of course there are a few scientists who get bought off by corporations. But for the most part, scientists are scrupulously honest. Everything they publish comes under harsh peer review.

I wasn't aware that selective publishment had anything to do with peer review. Has nothing to do with anything that I said. Unless you're trying to argue that the only reason things don't get published are because they don't get past the peer reviewers. Which would be silly in my opinion.

On a side note, I do not think that "everything" is "harshly" reviewed as made out to be. As if they have all the time and money to replicate tests, etc.

 

[suncowiam]

Only some of the data comes from satellites, whereas much of it also comes from ground temperature measurements, CO2 and methane measurements, changes with the surface ice, etc. And most of this is handled through the scientific community, not the gov.

But what often is missed is the fact that the scientific community has pretty much dismissed other possible causation over the last few decades because there's no evidence to even hypothesize that it's anything other than higher levels of CO2 and methane. As a long-term subscriber to Scientific American (almost 50 years), I've seen a gradual transition over the last three decades especially, whereas there's been increased certainty that this is the main cause.

Pretty much this. The science isn't difficult to understand nor is it difficult to replicate the green house effect with CO2. It's not difficult to measure the CO2 in our atmosphere nor is it difficult to build a chart of the yearly increments. Heck, we can also track CO2 amounts in previous years even before we actively measured it from the atmosphere. The trend is simple to prove that C02 is rising.

Is anyone disputing our C02 rising footprint? If not, then can we simply agree on this as the baseline?

 

[Quetzal]

The billions of dollars wasted when nothing has even been done.

How/where do you feel the money is being wasted? If you were in charge of spending for a day, how would you spend it differently?

That the science is settled. The vast majority of the material that gets published only favors it. The material evidence that is contrary to the agenda does not get published. Publish all of the material, not just select.

Would it also be possible to consider that, at the moment, there is no credible data to the contrary? Follow up, what material evidence do you believe should be published, but isn't?

Calm down, and stop living in fear. We cannot change or alter the sun and it's solar cycles.

True, we cannot.

The people that hype this up are the same people who have no problem with the same and new technological advances that harm the environment and the atmosphere. Seems like they make billions off of climate change and billions off of the same stuff they claim causes severe climate change.

Who is they? Which people? What technologies? I am asking not to put you on the spot, but specifics like this are important to the discussion.

4) Same as #2, publish all of the information, not just the favored ones. Stop lying about the science being settled and how a vast majority of scientists support such when that is untrue.
5) There is too much information that is not released. There is too much information that just goes against common sense.

Could you please share some specific examples?

 

[Lighthouse]

How/where do you feel the money is being wasted? If you were in charge of spending for a day, how would you spend it differently?


Would it also be possible to consider that, at the moment, there is no credible data to the contrary? Follow up, what material evidence do you believe should be published, but isn't?


True, we cannot.


Who is they? Which people? What technologies? I am asking not to put you on the spot, but specifics like this are important to the discussion.


Could you please share some specific examples?

Here we are today...fear predictions that never came true, waste of time and money arguing over temperature that has remained relatively flat for a few decades, polar ice increasing. Every major argument offsetting.
Waste. If every penny were removed from this waste... guess what would happen? NOTHING. The climate will continue to naturally change, fluctuate, course correct, and do its thing. I'm sure anyone can think of many alternative things in which the money could and can actually be beneficial. There was never a "crisis" to begin with just as there isn't one now.

There is ample data to the contrary. When I speak of publishing, I am referring to information being transparently made to the public. Particularly stuff that is suppressed, distorted, or downplayed. Has nothing to do scientific peer reviews. There are many examples, FOIA requests and climate audits where NASA and other government agencies stonewall and do not provide data or information that should be readily made free and available to the public.

A common sense example: billions of dollars have been utilized on urges and crisis and fear building and has it stopped any alleged harmful climate change? Has it made people and countries comply be their alleged rules? Should people have no concern with geo-engineering? Can we alter the sun and it's solar cycles?

 

[Quetzal]

When I speak of publishing, I am referring to information being transparently made to the public. Particularly stuff that is suppressed, distorted, or downplayed.

Can you link me to a specific example?