Serious quesiton for people who deny human involvement in climate change/global warming

[framer]

Here is my thing. Are there ANY claims that scientists make about Global Warming that members of the "concerned community" are skeptical of? I mean, I'm a Christian, but the dudes in Arkansas handling snakes? Those guys are idiots. My experience is that any crazy thing someone says about the effects of global warming (if not letting it be redefined as "climate change" because that was goalpost moving) is immediately internalized and met with no skepticism. It is creepy. Are people that support legislation to curb global warming able to point out any "quacks" on the pro AGW side? Anyone at all who is too extreme or uses shoddy science to prove their point?

When Einstein came out with his theories he had to knifefight with the scientific community EVERY TIME. Hordes of scientists came out of the woodwork to try to debunk him, and about matters that weren't at all political. And it was freakin' Einstein! Now its like "Name that Tune." "I can melt the polar ice caps in 100 years!" Next Guy- "I can do it in 50!" Last Guy- "How about next Thursday!" At least a couple of them are wrong, no?

So, AGW supporters, who are the quacks on your side? Or is there a 90% scientific "consensus" on everything anybody says on the pro AGW side of the ledger? Because that doesn't look a lot like science to me. If you can't find any failures, the only possible reason is that you aren't looking. . .

 

[Siro]

Here is my thing. Are there ANY claims that scientists make about Global Warming that members of the "concerned community" are skeptical of? I mean, I'm a Christian, but the dudes in Arkansas handling snakes? Those guys are idiots. My experience is that any crazy thing someone says about the effects of global warming (if not letting it be redefined as "climate change" because that was goalpost moving) is immediately internalized and met with no skepticism. It is creepy. Are people that support legislation to curb global warming able to point out any "quacks" on the pro AGW side? Anyone at all who is too extreme or uses shoddy science to prove their point?

When Einstein came out with his theories he had to knifefight with the scientific community EVERY TIME. Hordes of scientists came out of the woodwork to try to debunk him, and about matters that weren't at all political. And it was freakin' Einstein! Now its like "Name that Tune." "I can melt the polar ice caps in 100 years!" Next Guy- "I can do it in 50!" Last Guy- "How about next Thursday!" At least a couple of them are wrong, no?

So, AGW supporters, who are the quacks on your side? Or is there a 90% scientific "consensus" on everything anybody says on the pro AGW side of the ledger? Because that doesn't look a lot like science to me. If you can't find any failures, the only possible reason is that you aren't looking. . .

TLDR: It's only science if I say it's science.

 

[framer]

TLDR: It's only science if I say it's science.

Ima gonna print up some ballcaps with "Making Science Great Again!" stenciled on the front. . .

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

It's Hillary Clinton isn't it?

Close.

 

[franklin]

*Edit*

Screw science, bruh. That's like, not a populist goal and stuff. Who cares about scientific discovery and stuff. Amiright guys **** this guy!

 

[babe]

TLDR: It's only science if I say it's science.

srs question. . . are you really throwing this out there to mock framer, or are you just admitting your own bias?

science has always had two definitions, one held by defenders of contemporary thinking who ascribe "science" as settled, and one held by those who challenge some contemporary fashion of belief and call it "science" to question stuff.

guess who's gonna look good a hundred years from now? well, in some cases it will be the questioners. depends on facts, not politics, in the long run.

framer has a good question. . . . and he is right about it being a bad indicator when partisans in favor of one general perspective are not quarrelling amongst themselves about actual facts. Any time you have "authorities" putting their thumbs on the scales, or reshaping the data to fit their desired political agenda, and using extremely rhetorical verbiage in argument. . . . it's pretty clear the facts are not really there.

 

[DutchJazzer]

CHOO CHOOO

believe it or not this is still cleaner then obama, gore clinton and all those climate change hyporctis who fly around the country for 15 minute speeches!

CHOOO CHOOO ALL ABOARD the COAL ROLLER

 

[Siro]

srs question. . . are you really throwing this out there to mock framer, or are you just admitting your own bias?

science has always had two definitions, one held by defenders of contemporary thinking who ascribe "science" as settled, and one held by those who challenge some contemporary fashion of belief and call it "science" to question stuff.

guess who's gonna look good a hundred years from now? well, in some cases it will be the questioners. depends on facts, not politics, in the long run.

framer has a good question. . . . and he is right about it being a bad indicator when partisans in favor of one general perspective are not quarrelling amongst themselves about actual facts. Any time you have "authorities" putting their thumbs on the scales, or reshaping the data to fit their desired political agenda, and using extremely rhetorical verbiage in argument. . . . it's pretty clear the facts are not really there.

Is that really a serious question? The "questioners" are the ones with the political agenda. They consider climate action as an economic imposition, so they dismiss the topic hoping it would go away. It is the same as the "questioners" in evolution debate , they are always the ones with the ulterior motives (and they still "question" hundreds of years later, even though we're all laughing now).

This isn't an honest discussion between neutrals looking to evaluate the weight of the evidence. I would love for climate change not to be happening, or not to be the product of human activity. But I am not a climate scientist, so I have no choice but to accept the overwhelming scientific majority's interpretation of the evidence. Similarly, I am not a geologist, and I am therefore inclined to accept the idea of tectonic plates, as I have no ideological reason to construct/seek a pretend scientific objection.

So no, I won't play the dishonest game of "scientific disagreement" with laymen who have unrelated ideological motives.

 

[LogGrad98]

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...tampering-with-temperatures-in-south-america/

The comments section is especially interesting.

Is that really a serious question? The "questioners" are the ones with the political agenda. They consider climate action as an economic imposition, so they dismiss the topic hoping it would go away. It is the same as the "questioners" in evolution debate , they are always the ones with the ulterior motives (and they still "question" hundreds of years later, even though we're all laughing now).

This isn't an honest discussion between neutrals looking to evaluate the weight of the evidence. I would love for climate change not to be happening, or not to be the product of human activity. But I am not a climate scientist, so I have no choice but to accept the overwhelming scientific majority's interpretation of the evidence. Similarly, I am not a geologist, and I am therefore inclined to accept the idea of tectonic plates, as I have no ideological reason to construct/seek a pretend scientific objection.

So no, I won't play the dishonest game of "scientific disagreement" with laymen who have unrelated ideological motives.

Really?

 

[babe]

Is that really a serious question? The "questioners" are the ones with the political agenda. They consider climate action as an economic imposition, so they dismiss the topic hoping it would go away. It is the same as the "questioners" in evolution debate , they are always the ones with the ulterior motives (and they still "question" hundreds of years later, even though we're all laughing now).

This isn't an honest discussion between neutrals looking to evaluate the weight of the evidence. I would love for climate change not to be happening, or not to be the product of human activity. But I am not a climate scientist, so I have no choice but to accept the overwhelming scientific majority's interpretation of the evidence. Similarly, I am not a geologist, and I am therefore inclined to accept the idea of tectonic plates, as I have no ideological reason to construct/seek a pretend scientific objection.

So no, I won't play the dishonest game of "scientific disagreement" with laymen who have unrelated ideological motives.

Well, I have no problem with reading research articles or comprehensive overview/reviews of scientific subjects in the chemistry, geology, or climate fields, and I see plenty of good reason not to just roll with the political agenda of AGW/climate change. I think the concern for an imminent ice age is more valid than a hundred or fifty year projection of massive disruptions in human activities due to sea level or climate change. If anything, what we're doing in raising the CO2 level is beneficial in the long term.

 

[♪alt13]

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...tampering-with-temperatures-in-south-america/

The comments section is especially interesting.

That's not recorded data. That's modelling data. It's computed. Further it represents a region surrounding that weather station. Finally it doesn't represent temperature but rather temperature anomalies(deviation from the base period).

Here is an explanation for why the modelling data is different prior to 2012. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/GHCNM-v3.2.0-FAQ.pdf

 

[babe]

That's not recorded data. That's modelling data. It's computed. Further it represents a region surrounding that weather station. Finally it doesn't represent temperature but rather temperature anomalies(deviation from the base period).

Here is an explanation for why the modelling data is different prior to 2012. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/GHCNM-v3.2.0-FAQ.pdf

I hear enough from "the inside" to understand their frustrations with basically uninformed rhetoricians on the discount side of this "debate". Point still is, as framer has asked, why there is a cultural bias against naysayers within the scientific community that is so strong that nobody but nobody dares squeak within the insider ranks in this field of "enquiry". I'd say there is a very strong institutional bias that squelches honest objections and points of fact. It's also true that there is a determined sort of propaganda now to project an essentially false solid "front" to the public, as your link exhibits.

I mean no "outsider" could possibly have the expertise to evaluate that kind of jargon for objectivity.

I think this is a fine example for showing, in due course, why we just can't let the government control science, or institutionalize it "in the public interest". What I predict is within twenty years a complete reversal on AGW and a concerted new "emergency" to deal with unprecedented. . . lol. . . . ice ages.

 

[♪alt13]

I hear enough from "the inside" to understand their frustrations with basically uninformed rhetoricians on the discount side of this "debate". Point still is, as framer has asked, why there is a cultural bias against naysayers within the scientific community that is so strong that nobody but nobody dares squeak within the insider ranks in this field of "enquiry". I'd say there is a very strong institutional bias that squelches honest objections and points of fact. It's also true that there is a determined sort of propaganda now to project an essentially false solid "front" to the public, as your link exhibits.

I mean no "outsider" could possibly have the expertise to evaluate that kind of jargon for objectivity.

I think this is a fine example for showing, in due course, why we just can't let the government control science, or institutionalize it "in the public interest". What I predict is within twenty years a complete reversal on AGW and a concerted new "emergency" to deal with unprecedented. . . lol. . . . ice ages.

Since you brought it up a new emergency why don't we forget about AGW for a minute and talk about ocean acidification. LINK CO2 seems to also be the culprit here. Is this another example of "institutional bias" leading to junk science?

 

[franklin]

I don't know about equating tectonic plates to GW (or the couple Hitler references the GW crowd has put into this thread).

 

[LogGrad98]

That's not recorded data. That's modelling data. It's computed. Further it represents a region surrounding that weather station. Finally it doesn't represent temperature but rather temperature anomalies(deviation from the base period).

Here is an explanation for why the modelling data is different prior to 2012. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/GHCNM-v3.2.0-FAQ.pdf

Did you even read it? Or go to the links? It is the actual raw data before it was adjusted. Easy to dismiss. Tough to actual consider objectively. And that article is far from the only one showing falsification of data. If you can look past the biases it's amazing what you might see.

 

[Deleted member 848]

If you can look past the biases it's amazing what you might see.

likewise.

 

[franklin]

Did you even read it? Or go to the links? It is the actual raw data before it was adjusted. Easy to dismiss. Tough to actual consider objectively. And that article is far from the only one showing falsification of data. If you can look past the biases it's amazing what you might see.

I've worked as an analytical chemist. Those adjusted data graphics are so out of whack that I cannot see how it's possible to manipulate raw data like that. Manually adjusting an area under a spike might add a minute amount of difference; we are talking a tenth of a percent if the chemist is lucky.

I hope we have a meteorologist or somebody with this type of instrumentation experience who can chime in.

 

[♪alt13]

Did you even read it? Or go to the links? It is the actual raw data before it was adjusted. Easy to dismiss. Tough to actual consider objectively. And that article is far from the only one showing falsification of data. If you can look past the biases it's amazing what you might see.

Q. What exactly do we mean by SAT ?
A. I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10 ft or 50 ft above the ground. Particularly in the presence of vegetation (say in a rain forest), the temperature above the vegetation may be very different from the temperature below the top of the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion might be to use the average temperature of the first 50 ft of air either above ground or above the top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been suggested or generally adopted. Even if the 50 ft standard were adopted, I cannot imagine that a weather station would build a 50 ft stack of thermometers to be able to find the true SAT at its location.


Q. What SAT do the local media report ?
A. The media report the reading of 1 particular thermometer of a nearby weather station. This temperature may be very different from the true SAT even at that location and has certainly nothing to do with the true regional SAT. To measure the true regional SAT, we would have to use many 50 ft stacks of thermometers distributed evenly over the whole region, an obvious practical impossibility.

Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created ?
A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant. This may be done starting from conditions from many years, so that the average (called a 'climatology') hopefully represents a typical map for the particular month or day of the year.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html

Yeah, I looked at it and I read it. Instead of taking a bloggers word for it I went to the source and tried to gain some level of understanding of what I was actually looking at. My understanding may be rudimentary but it's better than being completely clueless because I took some random wordpress page as gospel.

 

[fishonjazz]

I think they should legalize pot

 

[[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]]

I think they should legalize pot

Krockodile bro. Krockodile. Legalize any drug it should be Krock. Try it my friend. Life changing. Like the LSD LIFE CHANGING.