The New Exchange

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



3/22/2015 7:22 am  #21


Re: Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

Sure, one should take the time to find out the backgrounds of these writers. But, it's not been a two way street. 

What is particularly galling is that deners have from the outset impugned the motives of those presenting evidence in support of the theory of climate change. We have had to endure frequent, and often unsupported speculation that spokeseople like Al Gore, or Nancy Pelosi were poised to make a fortune on renewable energy if they could just succeed in "fooling" the american people into believing in Climate change. The same people conveniently ignored that the fossil fuel industry was already making a fortune and had every commercial interest in maintaining the staus quo.

The looking at the backgrounds of people involved in climate change also does not appear to be a two way street. Folks will dismiss Greenpeace with a wave of their hand. Yet, point out that dener Wille Soon gets paid by the fossil fuel industry and you are accused of "smearing him".

The politics is poisonous and will never end.
The actual studies, on the other hand, are quite clear.


We live in a time in which decent and otherwise sensible people are surrendering too easily to the hectoring of morons or extremists. 
 

3/22/2015 11:50 am  #22


Re: Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

By the way, has anyone read Mr. Moore's paper in it's enterity? Let's go through this paper, line by line and see if what Moore writes makes sense, regardless of who pays his salary.

"I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.” Actually there is a great deal of data showing that the climate has changed and that industrial activities are driving it.

"My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model." Actually, computer models are just tools. The theory was developed by man in response to observational fingings. 
"
The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures"
Untrue. The theory does NOT state that the world will be heated to unlivable temperatures. The theory states that warming of the planet will cause climate changes that will challenge agriculture, coastal life, and water availability, among other detrimental effects. It does NOT state that mankind will become extinct.

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.
So? This is completely unrelated to the topic.

The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous. Why? Because you say so?

Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about. The problem is that the IPCC said no such thing. The IPCC has advocating blunting the increase in CO2, emissions. They never set a goal of zero. That would be ridiculous.

IPCC Conflict of Interest

By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Unlike the fossil fuel industry?

Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. This is not true.

We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse. This is a conspiracy theory which is unsupported 

The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.

Political Powerhouse

Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it.

Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations;  Untrue. Environmentalists try to stop environmental degradation. And more often than not they lose. 

politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; Except for those politicians who keep their jobs by denying climate change. 
the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, You are alleging that our scientific institutions are all corrupt with absolutely no evidence at all? create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Except, of course those businesses who make billions by denying climate change and maintaining the status quo. 

Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy. Ah yes, the global conspiracy to destroy capitailsm. There is about million times more evidence to support climate change than there is of a global conspiracy.

So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die.

Human Emissions Saved Planet
This is hilarious. The earth, which is about 4.5 billion years old was headed for the extinction of all life until it was saved by the industrial revolution. You are skpetical about climate change, but you can accept this statement at face value, with no supporting data at all? Seriously?
Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.

At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.

We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?
Once again, no evidence is presented.

Celebrate Carbon Dioxide

The IPCC’s followers have given us a vision of a world dying because of carbon-dioxide emissions. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide, and more of it will be a very positive factor in feeding the world. Let’s celebrate carbon dioxide. The thing is, Mr Moore, no one has suggested that we'd be better off with NO carbon dioxide, and no proposals have suggested ridding the atmosphere of carbon dioxide, or even decreasing it. The only proposals are to slow the increase of carbon dioxide.




So, what we have here is the usual denier (NOT skeptic) rhetoric.

No data is presented.

Climate change theory says that we are all going to die. Except of course it doesn't. Mr. Moore's entire essay is filled with similar staw man arguments.

He suggests that those dealing with climate change want to rid the atmosphere of all carbon dioxide, which of course is untrue, and a ridiculous lie.

It was warm once in the past, so, for some reason what is happening now is of no concern.

It's a vast conspiracy including all the world's scientists, environmentalists, anti-capitalists and universities.

Economic motivations are alleged to drive those who believe in climate change. But the economic interests of those who deny climate change are ignored.

He uses politics and economics to dismiss scientific data and theory.

No proof is offered. Just innuendo and false logic. Universities get grants to study climate change.Therefore they manufacture data. The Post hoc ergo propter hoc  falllacy. (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this")  "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."


CO2 coming form the smoke stacks the world over have actually saved us, because CO2 levels were going to become too low to support life. This theory is waaaay out there. I've never seen it discussed in any mainstream scientific publication. Yet, the author accepts this theory as true without any of the evidence he would demand of climate change. How convenient.


This is poppycock. I cannot believe that any human being of even average intelligence could look at this and be caught up in it.
If that's condescending, so be it.

 


We live in a time in which decent and otherwise sensible people are surrendering too easily to the hectoring of morons or extremists. 
 

3/22/2015 12:32 pm  #23


Re: Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

Good rebuttal to his argument. 

I've often wondered when it comes to this subject, why micro results are simply ignored when it comes to the macro. We know what happens in a micro environment when too much carbon dioxide is present. Living things die. Why would that be untrue of the macro environment?

 

3/22/2015 1:21 pm  #24


Re: Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

BYOB wrote:

Good rebuttal to his argument. 

I've often wondered when it comes to this subject, why micro results are simply ignored when it comes to the macro. We know what happens in a micro environment when too much carbon dioxide is present. Living things die. Why would that be untrue of the macro environment?

But, living things have survived years ago in much more carbon dioxide. Historical science has shown us that. NOAA even says that there are more factors that influence climate change than CO2 in that there have periods of higher CO2 and lower temperatures. NOAA scientists tend to believe that there were other mitigating influences of sun activity, earth orbit changes, etc that help explain that. 

I DO believe we still have much to learn about climate change, but at the same time I believe it is still in mankinds best interest to reduce our CO2 emissions as well. I really have no objection to that. What I would like to see is a better international study and overall cooperation into the whole subject area. 

As an aside and to think how climates have changed,  I have stated before that I am just blown away when standing at our own Grand Canyon to hear that science tells us at one time it was UNDER WATER. 
http://www.factsbarn.com/facts-about-the-grand-canyon/



 

Last edited by tennyson (3/22/2015 1:24 pm)


"Do not confuse motion and progress, A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress"
 
 

3/22/2015 1:42 pm  #25


Re: Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

tennyson wrote:

BYOB wrote:

Good rebuttal to his argument. 

I've often wondered when it comes to this subject, why micro results are simply ignored when it comes to the macro. We know what happens in a micro environment when too much carbon dioxide is present. Living things die. Why would that be untrue of the macro environment?

But, living things have survived years ago in much more carbon dioxide.



 

 
Once again, the theory does NOT say that life will not survive, so there is no inconsistency here.


We live in a time in which decent and otherwise sensible people are surrendering too easily to the hectoring of morons or extremists. 
 

3/22/2015 2:08 pm  #26


Re: Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

Goose wrote:

tennyson wrote:

BYOB wrote:

Good rebuttal to his argument. 

I've often wondered when it comes to this subject, why micro results are simply ignored when it comes to the macro. We know what happens in a micro environment when too much carbon dioxide is present. Living things die. Why would that be untrue of the macro environment?

But, living things have survived years ago in much more carbon dioxide.



 

 
Once again, the theory does NOT say that life will not survive, so there is no inconsistency here.

I should have specified in my post that everything doesn't die. I'm just having a hard time understanding why, if life lately (in universe/planet time) has seemed to flourish much better with lower levels of CO2, we would think that changing the atmospheric make-up would not change the results.
 

 

3/22/2015 2:48 pm  #27


Re: Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

tennyson wrote:

Brady Bunch wrote:

Do you really need to be so condescending?  There really is no need for that

All I did was ask Fred for the source of his information that was discrediting the skeptic.  I made no comment on what my thoughts were on the subject and my personal position.

Common presents an article, and Fred then responds by posting information trying to discredit Mr. Moore.  I don't think it is much to know who is trying to discredit him and what motives they may have.  It is good to know what motives Mr. Moore might have, but shouldn't we know what possible motives someone would have for trying to discredit him?

I totally agree with you. One needs to understand where people are coming from and if they present biases in their assessments. That is how you should always approach ALL things. 



 

Thanks Tennyson.  I just wanted to know who was saying that about Mr. Moore so i could determine what biases they might have.

I myself am a skeptic of just about everyone and everything, so I like to know what stake everyone has in a debate or subject.

 

3/22/2015 2:49 pm  #28


Re: Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

What do you think of Moore's essay?


We live in a time in which decent and otherwise sensible people are surrendering too easily to the hectoring of morons or extremists. 
 

3/22/2015 2:55 pm  #29


Re: Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

Brady Bunch wrote:

tennyson wrote:

Brady Bunch wrote:

Do you really need to be so condescending?  There really is no need for that

All I did was ask Fred for the source of his information that was discrediting the skeptic.  I made no comment on what my thoughts were on the subject and my personal position.

Common presents an article, and Fred then responds by posting information trying to discredit Mr. Moore.  I don't think it is much to know who is trying to discredit him and what motives they may have.  It is good to know what motives Mr. Moore might have, but shouldn't we know what possible motives someone would have for trying to discredit him?

I totally agree with you. One needs to understand where people are coming from and if they present biases in their assessments. That is how you should always approach ALL things. 



 

Thanks Tennyson.  I just wanted to know who was saying that about Mr. Moore so i could determine what biases they might have.

I myself am a skeptic of just about everyone and everything, so I like to know what stake everyone has in a debate or subject.

You and I then are very similar in that regards. I too always want to know if the statements are somehow jaded and biased. That in an of itself, does not make what the person or group is contending is wrong, but at least should give you pause and want to investigate more which I did. NOAA has some very good info that I pointed out that also tries to address some of the inconsistencies in higher CO2 and lower temps, etc.in past history.  We are learning more and more everyday about this big blue marble. That I hope is GOOD !! 







 

Last edited by tennyson (3/22/2015 2:57 pm)


"Do not confuse motion and progress, A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress"
 
 

3/22/2015 2:57 pm  #30


Re: Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

Goose,

I have tried having discussions with you before that were utterly frustrating and really have no interest in attempting it again.

Heck, earlier in the thread all I did was ask Fred for a source for a link and you became condescending.  This is why I barely participate in the forum to begin with.  I generally steer clear of any conversations where I may disgaree with you because it is a pointless endeavor.

Last edited by Brady Bunch (3/22/2015 2:58 pm)

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum