John Kerry is an idiot.

[BoilerJS]

I t

This seems to not be true:

Climate change: China aims for 'carbon neutrality by 2060'

China's surprise announcement of a long-term goal to curb emissions boosts UN climate talks.

www.bbc.com

China is positioned to lead on climate change as the US rolls back its policies

The United Nations is calling on world governments to step up action against climate change. Can China, the world’s biggest carbon emitter, fulfill its pledges?

theconversation.com

How China Can Truly Lead the Fight Against Climate Change

From 2000 to 2011, China's coal consumption almost tripled

time.com

I suspect you've latched onto a single data point that has been floated around on here in recent months, the fact that China is building more coal power plants, as the proof of your claim. As it turns out, those plants are actually part of China's carbon reduction strategy, as they are more efficient than their old ones and, in fact, more efficient than US coal plants.

Everything You Think You Know About Coal in China Is Wrong

China’s new coal-fired power plants are cleaner than ours—and stronger on climate change.

www.americanprogress.org

Meanwhile, China invests more in renewable energy:

Clean energy investment worldwide by major country 2019 | Statista

Chinese investment in clean energy is the highest worldwide.

www.statista.com

China gets a higher percentage of its energy from renewable sources:

Renewable Energy

Renewable energy sources are growing quickly and will play a vital role in tackling climate change.

ourworldindata.org

And since that data is a couple years old, China has dramatically increased their renewable energy capacity in just the last year:

China doubles new renewable capacity in 2020; still builds thermal plants

China more than doubled its construction of new wind and solar power plants in 2020 from a year earlier, government data showed, reflecting Beijing's pledge to cut fossil fuel dependence and bring carbon emissions to a peak within a decade.

www.reuters.com

China's emission standards are stricter than those of the U.S. and the E.U.:

ChinaCoal-WEB-Table1-693.png

They also just increased their automobile emission standards in January:

China: Light-duty: Emissions | Transport Policy

www.transportpolicy.net

None of this suggests to me that China "doesn't seem to believe in man-made climate change."

Ironically, according to a couple of the links above, it seems that Trump's trade war, in damaging the Chinese economy, caused a relapse in the progress China was making.

I think the single data point of increasing the use of coal is pretty telling don’t you?
China has you like most liberals buffaloed. What the say and what they do are two different things. Just reference your links. China will do this in the future, China promises to do this in the near term. And yet they increase coal usage. Got it.

 

[purduepat1969]

This seems to not be true:

Climate change: China aims for 'carbon neutrality by 2060'

China's surprise announcement of a long-term goal to curb emissions boosts UN climate talks.

www.bbc.com

China is positioned to lead on climate change as the US rolls back its policies

The United Nations is calling on world governments to step up action against climate change. Can China, the world’s biggest carbon emitter, fulfill its pledges?

theconversation.com

How China Can Truly Lead the Fight Against Climate Change

From 2000 to 2011, China's coal consumption almost tripled

time.com

I suspect you've latched onto a single data point that has been floated around on here in recent months, the fact that China is building more coal power plants, as the proof of your claim. As it turns out, those plants are actually part of China's carbon reduction strategy, as they are more efficient than their old ones and, in fact, more efficient than US coal plants.

Everything You Think You Know About Coal in China Is Wrong

China’s new coal-fired power plants are cleaner than ours—and stronger on climate change.

www.americanprogress.org

Meanwhile, China invests more in renewable energy:

Clean energy investment worldwide by major country 2019 | Statista

Chinese investment in clean energy is the highest worldwide.

www.statista.com

China gets a higher percentage of its energy from renewable sources:

Renewable Energy

Renewable energy sources are growing quickly and will play a vital role in tackling climate change.

ourworldindata.org

And since that data is a couple years old, China has dramatically increased their renewable energy capacity in just the last year:

China doubles new renewable capacity in 2020; still builds thermal plants

China more than doubled its construction of new wind and solar power plants in 2020 from a year earlier, government data showed, reflecting Beijing's pledge to cut fossil fuel dependence and bring carbon emissions to a peak within a decade.

www.reuters.com

China's emission standards are stricter than those of the U.S. and the E.U.:

ChinaCoal-WEB-Table1-693.png

They also just increased their automobile emission standards in January:

China: Light-duty: Emissions | Transport Policy

www.transportpolicy.net

None of this suggests to me that China "doesn't seem to believe in man-made climate change."

Ironically, according to a couple of the links above, it seems that Trump's trade war, in damaging the Chinese economy, caused a relapse in the progress China was making.

All the while China continues to increase their carbon emissions until 2029 because they don't want to be economically impacted. But keep believing the rhetoric of a "communist" dictatorship...

 

[IndySouthsider]

You're going to get yourself dizzy trying to spin Kerry's idiotic comment. I've watched Kerry be an idiot for many decades. It's what he does and he's good at it. Quit trying to defend the indefensible.

I'm sure Kerry will do as well with Climate Change as he did with the Iran Nuclear Deal. I hear the Ayatollah is going to put up a statue commemorating Kerry in Tehran.

Oh, so it really not his words. It’s just your personal dislike for the guy.
Got it. Your opinion can be thrown out then because it’s formed with a strong bias.

 

[Crayfish57]

Yet somehow, Trump managed to broker THREE peace deals with Israel and it's Arab neighbors, which Biden will probably try to F'up.

All that is involved in Biden F'g things up is when he wakes from his daily slumbers. Asleep is when he is at his least dangerous.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Your statement implies that a majority of scientists argue that climate change is not happening or that it is not at least in part caused by human activities And that those who accept climate change have latched onto a minority opinion. However, the lowest level of consensus I can find is a bit over 80% agreement. If that’s true, then it would seem it’s actually the climate change deniers who are finding scientists who agree with them, even if those scientists are in a significant minority of opinion, and then claiming that science says climate change isn’t real while criticizing those who accept the actual scientific consensus. It’s fine to disagree with that consensus and even to use legit scientific evidence to support that disagreement. But to suggest that it’s ridiculous to accept climate change as real because only a few “scientists” support it is simply false.

Nope, i never claimed that scientists say there is no warming. Pretty much all scientists agree that C02 has some effect. The amount is what is in question and the most lucid arguments I have heard argue that C02 is already saturated and cannot warm anymore because C02 has a logarithmic effect in terms of it's ability to hold in heat. It's a minority opinion that C02 will cause catastrophic warming.

Consensus is the wrong way to go about it anyway. Almost everything in science has been the consensus only to have been proven wrong later on by just a handful of people. Einstein, when he wrote his paper on the theory of relativity had over 100 German physicists write in to claim that he was wrong. It was an attempt to prove him wrong by consensus. Einstein responded by saying, why 100? If I were wrong, it would only take one.

Most other claims that C02 is bad like ocean acidification are baseless and just scare tactics. Real studies have shown that more C02 in the air actually makes things in the ocean grow bigger (at least crustaceans, etc). Ice melt is another. They only ever talk about the north pole and never the south. Both should be melting if we are warming an that isn't happening. Also, alarmists always show ice breaking off and falling into the ocean as signs of doom. When ice breaks off like that it's called calving. It only happens when ice is growing...

NOBODY on the left ever talks about the positive effects of C02 which pretty much outweigh any negative (if there even are any).

 

[Crayfish57]

I t

I think the single data point of increasing the use of coal is pretty telling don’t you?
China has you like most liberals buffaloed. What the say and what they do are two different things. Just reference your links. China will do this in the future, China promises to do this in the near term. And yet they increase coal usage. Got it.

Liberals as a group are the dumbest people on the face of the earth and this thread is another proof positive of that even in a small sampling. The best way to stop climate change would be to get rid of the liberals

 

[Boilermaker03]

While this is correct, we can still be confident in scientific consensus at a level consistent with the amount of consensus. The scientific consensus is that the earth is an oblate spheroid. As you say, that position is not, and cannot be "settled" (how do we know that there's not some alien race putting up a hologram of a round earth which is what we've been taking pictures of all these years?). Are flat earthers reasonable in their rejection of the scientific consensus? If they are not, then why are climate change deniers reasonable in THEIR rejection of the scientific consensus?

Because the data doesn't support it. I watch scientists that bring data. All I ever see from the alarmist side is fear mongering and data tampering. When you get your hands on the raw data (because the alarmists refuse to give it up), their findings are always wrong.

Also, we should make a distinction. Global warming (ie, rising average global temperatures) is an observed fact according to the best measurement techniques and equipment available (it's possible these could be flawed, but we can only work with the best tools we have). What's at question is whether or not human activities are contributing or outright causing said warming. Evolutionary theory provides a good analogy here. Evolution is an observable fact. The theory that best explains the mechanism for said evolution is natural selection. According to a large majority of scientists, the model (I don't believe it's risen to the point of being an actual theory yet, though I could be wrong) of human activities contributing or causing global warming is the current best explanation for the observation of rising global temperatures over the last century or so.

Edit: A better question, perhaps: why is it UNreasonable to accept the scientific consensus?

Only two data sets show we are warming. The other three say we had a very long pause. The other three never get shown or talked about and the first two have been proven to be heavily manipulated. If you want to learn something about the science I suggest you watch this video. Dr Willie Soon is a little hard to understand sometimes because of the accent but he's a brilliant scientist. His presentation doesn't last the entire length of video.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Lots of claims here about fraud in the scientific community. Any evidence for them? If they are true, how can we trust scientists about anything? Maybe the flat earthers you brought up earlier are actually right and we've been lied to all along about the shape of the earth. It's amazing how many NASA scientists can find evidence for the round earth when the government provides their entire operating budget. Throw a few billion dollars around and people will say anything in order to keep their cushy government jobs. Or, is there only fraud in the field of climate science? Also, you understand that grants fund research, not people, right? A university professor who gets a multi-million dollar grant doesn't get any more money for themselves, beyond the impact of earning said grant on their tenure and promotion profiles. They make their same university salary.

Do you have any concerns that much of the supposedly scientific research that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change is funded -- some directly, some indirectly -- by fossil fuel companies?

The Climate Denial Machine: How the Fossil Fuel Industry Blocks Climate Action.

Fossil fuel interests have spent millions funding climate change denial — allowing them to protect dirty energy while remaining out of the public eye.

www.climaterealityproject.org

Or is it only the government that has ulterior motives in creating a climate change narrative and these companies are simply fighting the good fight?

Watch scientists that bring data that refutes what the government scientists are saying and it's pretty clear that either the alarmists are incredibly poor scientists or fraud is happening. Add onto that the climate gate emails (which for some reason gets ignored) and they tell you that they want to do things that you eventually see in their data. One example is their want to get rid of the 1920s-1940's warming because their theory cannot explain it. Look at current temperature graphs. There is no 1920s-1940s heat. Then look up the 1974 NCAR graph and explain to me how the 20s-40s that were warmer than the 50s-80s and then warm again somehow went to straight warming from 1920 to today. People in government in control of our temp graphs are committing fraud.

 

[Boilermaker03]

It's two groups of people who reject scientific consensus. Also, you brought them up first.


Your suspicions must be fact, then.


Here's the current graph:

Temperature record of the last 2,000 years - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Is this practice improper? I don't know, and I doubt you do, either.

Are surface temperature records reliable?

Numerous studies into the effect of urban heat island effect and microsite influences find they have negligible effect on long-term trends, particularly when averaged over large regions.

skepticalscience.com

Sea levels in Florida ARE rising. You understand that just because you can't see something with your human senses doesn't mean it's not happening right? Would you be able to tell if you house was a few inches closer to the water? Are the continental plates not actually moving because you can't see it? Is the moon not getting farther from the earth because it looks the same size in the sky? Is the earth's rotation not slowing because days seem like the same length?

Florida's Sea Level Is Rising

Sea levels around Florida have risen up to 8 inches since 1950, and are now rising as much as 1 inch every 3 years, mainly due to a slowing Gulf Stream. Because of sea level rise, tidal flooding in some areas of the state has increased by 352% since 2000, and communities are spending over $4...

sealevelrise.org

You use words like "seems" and "suspect" a lot. You use them when you question scientific data. That would seem to imply that you think you know more than the scientists do. You use them in questioning the research methods of higher ed, but do you know how higher ed actually works? You get grants before you research begins. You don't know what the results will be. If you're suggesting that they change the results if they don't fit the narrative, you'll need evidence of that.

Essentially, it appears that you fall victim to the personal incredulity fallacy a lot. You can't think of a valid reason why outlier data would be normed up, so you conclude it must be agenda-driven. You can't think of a reason that the vast majority university researchers support the climate change science, so you conclude it must be fraud. You can't see the sea levels rising with your eyes (one of the most imprecise measurement tools available to us), so you conclude it must not be happening.

You accuse me of not having "solid ground" but all the climate change positions I have taken are supported by the vast majority of the actual evidence and the people who are actually experts on the matter. While those people are not automatically correct just because they are experts, we have significant reason to believe that science provides the best path to the truth of the matter, given its track record over hundreds of year. Your climate change positions are supported by accusations of fraud and myths like the global cooling scare. You might, indeed, be right and global warming is nothing to worry about, but the ground on which I build my view is vastly more solid than the one on which you build yours.

And since you didn't respond to it, I take it you don't have any problem with fossil fuel companies funding much of the research that is meant to disprove climate change? There's no chance for manipulated results in that scenario?

That graph is trash. Always adjusting up when thermometers are in urban heat islands is absolutely not correct practice. Adjusting down already recorded past temps is even worse. Sea levels have been rising at the same rate for the last 7,000 years. It's a known fact that science can and has been in the past skewed due to large grants which AGW has massive grants.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Our effects on the atmosphere are observable fact, as we currently have the highest concentration of CO2 in the last 800,000 years by a wide margin. It could also be increasing naturally, but it is not in dispute that we are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and that we have removed the a significant portion of the world's natural carbon scrubbers, so, at the very least, we have accelerated the increase. The proposition that those increased levels is affecting global temperatures is supported by the best understanding of the scientific evidence. The prediction that increased global temperatures, after a certain point, could have catastrophic consequences is also supported by the best understanding of the scientific evidence.

What levels of C02 were in the atmosphere when the largest explosion of life happened on Earth?

What happens to the AGW theory if they don't use ice core proxy data for past C02 levels and use other proxy data such as plant stomata?

Tell me some positive effects of increased C02 in the atmosphere.

 

[MilwaukeeBoilerFan]

Oops, my bad 🤷‍♂️

It's ok. An easy mistaken identity with the haircut which is shorter than mine, and I've got short hair!

 

[Droid12345]

I t

I think the single data point of increasing the use of coal is pretty telling don’t you?
China has you like most liberals buffaloed. What the say and what they do are two different things. Just reference your links. China will do this in the future, China promises to do this in the near term. And yet they increase coal usage. Got it.

With no context around it, sure, it’s telling. In the context of them closing less efficient plants in favor of more efficient ones, it‘s telling of something different. In the context of them transitioning more quickly than us to renewables, it’s also telling. In the context of them meeting their Paris agreement commitments even after we pulled out, it’s also telling.

By and large, our stuff is,”we’ll do this in the future” too.

You argue that they say and do different things. Is this something you know or something you presume because the Chinese government can’t be trusted? How do you know they’re not doing the things they’ve said they’re doing? Did they ever say they were not going to build any more coal plants? Since the Paris agreement said China’s emissions would peak by 2030, its not going against anything for them to still be increasing in the short term, and now they’ve committed to being neutral by 2060. Maybe that’s too slow, I don’t know, I’m not a scientist, but you’ve got nothing to support the claim that China is ignoring climate change other than them building more coal plants, which has always been part of their carbon reduction plan. Maybe it’s not enough, maybe they’re not executing perfectly, but the original post suggested China doesn’t “believe” in climate change, implying they’re doing nothing about it. That’s simply not true.

 

[Droid12345]

@Boilermaker03

Gonna put everything in one post, and I'll probably miss some stuff, but here's a response.

On scientific consensus: I never argued that scientific consensus was necessarily correct and, in fact, acknowledged in another post that it could be wrong. However, just because scientific consensus CAN be wrong does not mean that it IS, in fact, wrong. Decades of study of this issue has only resulted in greater consensus, which tells me that the current best understanding of the issue is that climate change is real, caused at least in part by human activities, and has the potential to have dramatic effects on human civilization. You can argue they are wrong, but you can't argue that's what the results of scientific investigation of the issue have concluded.

On CO2 causing catastrophic warming being a minority opinion: back up this claim

On Antarctic ice: It is melting and there are other factors that affect how quickly it melts relative to Arctic ice. Also, melting sea ice, like at the North Pole does not contribute to sea level rise, so sea level rise must be caused by something else.

On CO2 saturation: It's not a thing

On temperature readings: Already addressed earlier

On sea level rise: it has not been happening for 7000 years

On ocean acidification: why is it baseless? Have you measured the acidity of the ocean recently and compared it to past readings?

On the positives of CO2: Good for plants to a point, bad in the grand scheme of things.

On "Climategate": Debunked long ago. This article also addresses so-called "trash" graphs

On government fraud: Why have no other countries stepped forward to expose this supposed fraud? If the American government was inventing climate change (in order to, I guess, destroy the American economy? seems like a strange thing for the American government to do on purpose, but whatever), then surely another country would be sounding the alarm. If China invented climate change to destroy the American economy, surely American scientists would not be going along with it.

We'll obviously not come to agreement on this, as you reject scientific consensus and I tentatively accept it until such time as it is demonstrated to be wrong. Given how science works, the scientific consensus would then change, and one could continue to tentatively accept the new consensus until such time as it is again demonstrated to be wrong. Scientific consensus can be demonstrated to be wrong by continued scientific investigation that contradicts or re-contextualizes existing data, not by watching YouTube videos or misunderstanding the data that exists.

I also find it interesting that none of your posts actually offer positive proof that humans are NOT causing climate change or positive proof that rising global temperatures WON'T have any significant effects. You just try to poke holes in climate change model. You think the temperature readings are flawed. You could prove they are wrong by getting or finding your own data, but, instead, you just question whether measuring the temperature in an urban environment is the right way to do it. You question whether CO2 is actually bad because there are some positive things about it. But, just because there are positive aspects to something doesn't mean there are no negative aspects. Drinking too much water can kill you. You call ocean acidification "baseless" but offer no evidence that it's not happening.

There are, indeed, holes in the scientific knowledge about climate change. It's too new of a field of study for there not to be. But that doesn't mean that the things we think we know are necessarily incorrect. This is true in all fields of scientific study. One might argue that "intelligent design" must be how life began on Earth because scientists can't explain how the first self-replicating molecule formed. But, just because there is something we don't yet fully understand, that does not automatically make an alternate proposed explanation true. If you think climate change is NOT caused by human activity, that needs to be demonstrated, not assumed because scientists don't yet have totally accurate predictions based on their models. If you think climate change will not have potentially significant effects on coastal cities, our ability to grow food, etc., that also needs to be demonstrated by showing that there's not enough ice to raise sea levels by whatever amount or by showing that a sufficient amount of ice won't melt at whatever global average temperature.

I know you'll likely not look at anything I've linked above, and if you do, you'll reject it as just more evidence of the conspiracy or of my unwillingness or inability to see the real truth. Earlier in this thread, you accused "the left" of finding a "scientist" who will support their narrative and holding that up as showing that the science is settled. And yet, here, you've held up the minority scientific opinion as the evidence that your narrative is correct. You've done exactly what you've accused others of doing. In order to account for the scientific consensus, you've had to fall back on apparently incorrect claims about sea level rise, Antarctic ice melt, CO2 saturation, the unreliability of temperature readings, and debunked and/or nonsensical claims about conspiracy theories.

I'm done here, y'all. If someone else wants to take up the mantle, more power to ya!

 

[Sophie1970]

@Boilermaker03

Gonna put everything in one post, and I'll probably miss some stuff, but here's a response.

On scientific consensus: I never argued that scientific consensus was necessarily correct and, in fact, acknowledged in another post that it could be wrong. However, just because scientific consensus CAN be wrong does not mean that it IS, in fact, wrong. Decades of study of this issue has only resulted in greater consensus, which tells me that the current best understanding of the issue is that climate change is real, caused at least in part by human activities, and has the potential to have dramatic effects on human civilization. You can argue they are wrong, but you can't argue that's what the results of scientific investigation of the issue have concluded.

On CO2 causing catastrophic warming being a minority opinion: back up this claim

On Antarctic ice: It is melting and there are other factors that affect how quickly it melts relative to Arctic ice. Also, melting sea ice, like at the North Pole does not contribute to sea level rise, so sea level rise must be caused by something else.

On CO2 saturation: It's not a thing

On temperature readings: Already addressed earlier

On sea level rise: it has not been happening for 7000 years

On ocean acidification: why is it baseless? Have you measured the acidity of the ocean recently and compared it to past readings?

On the positives of CO2: Good for plants to a point, bad in the grand scheme of things.

On "Climategate": Debunked long ago. This article also addresses so-called "trash" graphs

On government fraud: Why have no other countries stepped forward to expose this supposed fraud? If the American government was inventing climate change (in order to, I guess, destroy the American economy? seems like a strange thing for the American government to do on purpose, but whatever), then surely another country would be sounding the alarm. If China invented climate change to destroy the American economy, surely American scientists would not be going along with it.

We'll obviously not come to agreement on this, as you reject scientific consensus and I tentatively accept it until such time as it is demonstrated to be wrong. Given how science works, the scientific consensus would then change, and one could continue to tentatively accept the new consensus until such time as it is again demonstrated to be wrong. Scientific consensus can be demonstrated to be wrong by continued scientific investigation that contradicts or re-contextualizes existing data, not by watching YouTube videos or misunderstanding the data that exists.

I also find it interesting that none of your posts actually offer positive proof that humans are NOT causing climate change or positive proof that rising global temperatures WON'T have any significant effects. You just try to poke holes in climate change model. You think the temperature readings are flawed. You could prove they are wrong by getting or finding your own data, but, instead, you just question whether measuring the temperature in an urban environment is the right way to do it. You question whether CO2 is actually bad because there are some positive things about it. But, just because there are positive aspects to something doesn't mean there are no negative aspects. Drinking too much water can kill you. You call ocean acidification "baseless" but offer no evidence that it's not happening.

There are, indeed, holes in the scientific knowledge about climate change. It's too new of a field of study for there not to be. But that doesn't mean that the things we think we know are necessarily incorrect. This is true in all fields of scientific study. One might argue that "intelligent design" must be how life began on Earth because scientists can't explain how the first self-replicating molecule formed. But, just because there is something we don't yet fully understand, that does not automatically make an alternate proposed explanation true. If you think climate change is NOT caused by human activity, that needs to be demonstrated, not assumed because scientists don't yet have totally accurate predictions based on their models. If you think climate change will not have potentially significant effects on coastal cities, our ability to grow food, etc., that also needs to be demonstrated by showing that there's not enough ice to raise sea levels by whatever amount or by showing that a sufficient amount of ice won't melt at whatever global average temperature.

I know you'll likely not look at anything I've linked above, and if you do, you'll reject it as just more evidence of the conspiracy or of my unwillingness or inability to see the real truth. Earlier in this thread, you accused "the left" of finding a "scientist" who will support their narrative and holding that up as showing that the science is settled. And yet, here, you've held up the minority scientific opinion as the evidence that your narrative is correct. You've done exactly what you've accused others of doing. In order to account for the scientific consensus, you've had to fall back on apparently incorrect claims about sea level rise, Antarctic ice melt, CO2 saturation, the unreliability of temperature readings, and debunked and/or nonsensical claims about conspiracy theories.

I'm done here, y'all. If someone else wants to take up the mantle, more power to ya!

Ancient Earth

Earth looked very different long ago. Search for addresses across 750 million years of Earth's history.

dinosaurpictures.org

Please refer to link for everything you need to know about the earth over the last 250 million years. Great view of the earth and you choose the time. Oh, it’s been covered in ice, water, dry, mountains, no mountains, desert etc...it’s always changing.

 

[Droid12345]

Ancient Earth

Earth looked very different long ago. Search for addresses across 750 million years of Earth's history.

dinosaurpictures.org

Please refer to link for everything you need to know about the earth over the last 250 million years. Great view of the earth and you choose the time. Oh, it’s been covered in ice, water, dry, mountains, no mountains, desert etc...it’s always changing.

I've made my argument, so I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise, but I don't understand what you think this proves. No one disputes that the climate has changed naturally throughout history. That something can happen naturally is not proof that the same thing cannot happen artificially. Species have changed throughout history due to natural selection. Does that mean we have not changed species through artificial selection? Some of those natural climate changes you reference have resulted in mass extinctions.

I concede, and have always conceded, that climate change can happen naturally, so your link does not provide me any new information nor does it convince me that we cannot be influencing currently-observed and predicted changes in our climate. Given the potential for global warming to cause mass extinctions, I might suggest that we should attempt to slow or prevent it regardless of the cause.

Do you think scientists are unaware of natural climate change? Do you think they haven't considered it as a possibility? Do you think they know it's the real cause, but they're lying to us for some reason? If so, and their goal is to trick us into thinking man-made climate change is real, then why would scientific organizations EVER allow us to know about historical climate change if it so easily refutes their political narrative? They must be REALLY bad at conspiracy-ing.

Your link is useless in this argument.

 

[Sophie1970]

I've made my argument, so I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise, but I don't understand what you think this proves. No one disputes that the climate has changed naturally throughout history. That something can happen naturally is not proof that the same thing cannot happen artificially. Species have changed throughout history due to natural selection. Does that mean we have not changed species through artificial selection? Some of those natural climate changes you reference have resulted in mass extinctions.

I concede, and have always conceded, that climate change can happen naturally, so your link does not provide me any new information nor does it convince me that we cannot be influencing currently-observed and predicted changes in our climate. Given the potential for global warming to cause mass extinctions, I might suggest that we should attempt to slow or prevent it regardless of the cause.

Do you think scientists are unaware of natural climate change? Do you think they haven't considered it as a possibility? Do you think they know it's the real cause, but they're lying to us for some reason? If so, and their goal is to trick us into thinking man-made climate change is real, then why would scientific organizations EVER allow us to know about historical climate change if it so easily refutes their political narrative? They must be REALLY bad at conspiracy-ing.

Your link is useless in this argument.

Trying to stop climate change is like spitting in the ocean.

 

[Droid12345]

Trying to stop climate change is like spitting in the ocean.

A claim without evidence.

 

[Sophie1970]

A claim without evidence.

I’ll show you in a million years what I’m referring to. You’re too young and indoctrinated to comprehend.

 

[Droid12345]

I’ll show you in a million years what I’m referring to. You’re too young and indoctrinated to comprehend.

Ok

 

[Boilermaker03]

@Boilermaker03

Gonna put everything in one post, and I'll probably miss some stuff, but here's a response.

On scientific consensus: I never argued that scientific consensus was necessarily correct and, in fact, acknowledged in another post that it could be wrong. However, just because scientific consensus CAN be wrong does not mean that it IS, in fact, wrong. Decades of study of this issue has only resulted in greater consensus, which tells me that the current best understanding of the issue is that climate change is real, caused at least in part by human activities, and has the potential to have dramatic effects on human civilization. You can argue they are wrong, but you can't argue that's what the results of scientific investigation of the issue have concluded.

On CO2 causing catastrophic warming being a minority opinion: back up this claim

On Antarctic ice: It is melting and there are other factors that affect how quickly it melts relative to Arctic ice. Also, melting sea ice, like at the North Pole does not contribute to sea level rise, so sea level rise must be caused by something else.

On CO2 saturation: It's not a thing

On temperature readings: Already addressed earlier

On sea level rise: it has not been happening for 7000 years

On ocean acidification: why is it baseless? Have you measured the acidity of the ocean recently and compared it to past readings?

On the positives of CO2: Good for plants to a point, bad in the grand scheme of things.

On "Climategate": Debunked long ago. This article also addresses so-called "trash" graphs

On government fraud: Why have no other countries stepped forward to expose this supposed fraud? If the American government was inventing climate change (in order to, I guess, destroy the American economy? seems like a strange thing for the American government to do on purpose, but whatever), then surely another country would be sounding the alarm. If China invented climate change to destroy the American economy, surely American scientists would not be going along with it.

We'll obviously not come to agreement on this, as you reject scientific consensus and I tentatively accept it until such time as it is demonstrated to be wrong. Given how science works, the scientific consensus would then change, and one could continue to tentatively accept the new consensus until such time as it is again demonstrated to be wrong. Scientific consensus can be demonstrated to be wrong by continued scientific investigation that contradicts or re-contextualizes existing data, not by watching YouTube videos or misunderstanding the data that exists.

I also find it interesting that none of your posts actually offer positive proof that humans are NOT causing climate change or positive proof that rising global temperatures WON'T have any significant effects. You just try to poke holes in climate change model. You think the temperature readings are flawed. You could prove they are wrong by getting or finding your own data, but, instead, you just question whether measuring the temperature in an urban environment is the right way to do it. You question whether CO2 is actually bad because there are some positive things about it. But, just because there are positive aspects to something doesn't mean there are no negative aspects. Drinking too much water can kill you. You call ocean acidification "baseless" but offer no evidence that it's not happening.

There are, indeed, holes in the scientific knowledge about climate change. It's too new of a field of study for there not to be. But that doesn't mean that the things we think we know are necessarily incorrect. This is true in all fields of scientific study. One might argue that "intelligent design" must be how life began on Earth because scientists can't explain how the first self-replicating molecule formed. But, just because there is something we don't yet fully understand, that does not automatically make an alternate proposed explanation true. If you think climate change is NOT caused by human activity, that needs to be demonstrated, not assumed because scientists don't yet have totally accurate predictions based on their models. If you think climate change will not have potentially significant effects on coastal cities, our ability to grow food, etc., that also needs to be demonstrated by showing that there's not enough ice to raise sea levels by whatever amount or by showing that a sufficient amount of ice won't melt at whatever global average temperature.

I know you'll likely not look at anything I've linked above, and if you do, you'll reject it as just more evidence of the conspiracy or of my unwillingness or inability to see the real truth. Earlier in this thread, you accused "the left" of finding a "scientist" who will support their narrative and holding that up as showing that the science is settled. And yet, here, you've held up the minority scientific opinion as the evidence that your narrative is correct. You've done exactly what you've accused others of doing. In order to account for the scientific consensus, you've had to fall back on apparently incorrect claims about sea level rise, Antarctic ice melt, CO2 saturation, the unreliability of temperature readings, and debunked and/or nonsensical claims about conspiracy theories.

I'm done here, y'all. If someone else wants to take up the mantle, more power to ya!

I hate trying to respond to super long threads like this. No way I'll get to all of it.

Total ice extent varies, but over the last 80 years hasn't shown any significant change.

https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Arctic-Surface-Temps-Since-1920-copy.jpg

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/MASIEArcticSeaIceExtent_shadow-1.jpg

C02 has a logarithmic effect to warming. Since the feedback they originally expected that C02 would have with water vapor hasn't panned out, they're now trying to say that C02 doesn't have a logarithmic effect even though that fact has been known for a long time.

Why The Radiative Forcing of CO2 is a Logarithmic Function of Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations

Sea level rise.

File:Holocene Sea Level.png - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

Climate gate emails have not been debunked. The media has run defense and you may buy into it, but I've seen things they talk about in the emails and things they've done in manipulating data (past known data) to fit their narrative.

How temperature readings aren't accurate.


Ocean acidification (you obviously didn't watch this when I linked it earlier. It addresses most of what we've talked about but I'll link it directly to the ocean acidification segment)


How much C02 is supposedly bad for plants??? C02 levels have been over 7,000 ppm in the past and in fact that's when the largest explosion in life occurred.


Other countries aren't calling us out on climate fraud because many of them benefit from it. If you know anything about the models you would know that the Russian models have always been the most accurate. Russian scientists have come out in the past basically bashing AGW theory and their models are the most correct ones generally showing little to no warming. Coincidence?

 

[Boilermaker03]

@Droid12345

The Lancet:

"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, 'poor methods get results'."

"The apparent endemicity of bad research behavior is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct."

 

[Droid12345]

@Droid12345

The Lancet:

"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, 'poor methods get results'."

"The apparent endemicity of bad research behavior is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct."

Wow, a quote from Richard Horton, the editor of a medical journal talking about medical research. That's so relevant. You've convinced me. I guess he'd know about publishing fabricated information and conflicts of interest, though, since he's the one who published the Andrew Wakefield study about vaccines and autism and then didn't retract it for 12 years.

Richard Horton, by the way, accepts climate change. Given that he's not an expert himself, he must be ok with accepting the the evidence-backed opinions of those who are.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Wow, a quote from Richard Horton, the editor of a medical journal talking about medical research. That's so relevant. You've convinced me. I guess he'd know about publishing fabricated information and conflicts of interest, though, since he's the one who published the Andrew Wakefield study about vaccines and autism and then didn't retract it for 12 years.

Richard Horton, by the way, accepts climate change. Given that he's not an expert himself, he must be ok with accepting the the evidence-backed opinions of those who are.

Oh I see, since he was mistaken once before, you can never trust anything from him again right? Good lord man... Richard Horton is quoting someone else here too, so it's not him making these claims. The point is that this trend of dubious science goes through much of the scientific community and it's probably the worst in climate change.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Wow, a quote from Richard Horton, the editor of a medical journal talking about medical research. That's so relevant. You've convinced me. I guess he'd know about publishing fabricated information and conflicts of interest, though, since he's the one who published the Andrew Wakefield study about vaccines and autism and then didn't retract it for 12 years.

Richard Horton, by the way, accepts climate change. Given that he's not an expert himself, he must be ok with accepting the the evidence-backed opinions of those who are.

Also from a doctor and author Bruce Charlton:

"Briefly, the argument of this book is that real science is dead, and the main reason is that professional researchers are not even trying to seek the truth and speak the truth; and the reason for this is that professional ‘scientists’ no longer believe in the truth - no longer believe that there is an eternal unchanging reality beyond human wishes and organization which they have a duty to seek and proclaim to the best of their (naturally limited) abilities. Hence the vast structures of personnel and resources that constitute modern ‘science’ are not real science but instead merely a professional research bureaucracy, thus fake or pseudo-science; regulated by peer review (that is, committee opinion) rather than the search-for and service-to reality. Among the consequences are that modern publications in the research literature must be assumed to be worthless or misleading and should always be ignored. In practice, this means that nearly all ‘science’ needs to be demolished (or allowed to collapse) and real science carefully rebuilt outside the professional research structure, from the ground up, by real scientists who regard truth-seeking as an imperative and truthfulness as an iron law. "

 

[Boilermaker03]

@Droid12345
Sad thing is not only is this problem in science, it's in journalism as well...

 

[Droid12345]

Oh I see, since he was mistaken once before, you can never trust anything from him again right? Good lord man... Richard Horton is quoting someone else here too, so it's not him making these claims. The point is that this trend of dubious science goes through much of the scientific community and it's probably the worst in climate change.

I'm not claiming he can't be trusted. I'm claiming the quote you presented is not relevant as he's not talking about climate science.

He most certainly is not quoting someone else in get passage you provided (other than the use of "poor methods get results"). Here's the article:

Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma?

“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I'm not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted...

www.thelancet.com

You're making a claim about dubious science based on your own opinion and then appealing to authority to support it. With it apparently affecting "much of the scientific community," it's a wonder we every make any scientific advances at all.

 

[Droid12345]

Also from a doctor and author Bruce Charlton:

"Briefly, the argument of this book is that real science is dead, and the main reason is that professional researchers are not even trying to seek the truth and speak the truth; and the reason for this is that professional ‘scientists’ no longer believe in the truth - no longer believe that there is an eternal unchanging reality beyond human wishes and organization which they have a duty to seek and proclaim to the best of their (naturally limited) abilities. Hence the vast structures of personnel and resources that constitute modern ‘science’ are not real science but instead merely a professional research bureaucracy, thus fake or pseudo-science; regulated by peer review (that is, committee opinion) rather than the search-for and service-to reality. Among the consequences are that modern publications in the research literature must be assumed to be worthless or misleading and should always be ignored. In practice, this means that nearly all ‘science’ needs to be demolished (or allowed to collapse) and real science carefully rebuilt outside the professional research structure, from the ground up, by real scientists who regard truth-seeking as an imperative and truthfulness as an iron law. "

Another appeal to authority. Why should I care what he thinks? It's not possible he dislikes the scientific community because he was fired from the journal he edited for resisting peer review? A move that was made after he published a paper that there was no proof that HIV caused AIDS? This wasn't 1985, by the way, this paper was published somewhere between 2003 and 2010 when Charlton was the editor for Medical Hypothesis. He's also not in the climate science field.

To demonstrate that climate science is done poorly or fraudulently, it needs to be demonstrated that that is actually the case by actually doing science that contradicts it. Finding some people who hold that opinion is not in any way an actual demonstration of your contention that "much of the scientific community" is dubious.

 

[Boilermaker03]

I'm not claiming he can't be trusted. I'm claiming the quote you presented is not relevant as he's not talking about climate science.

He most certainly is not quoting someone else in get passage you provided (other than the use of "poor methods get results"). Here's the article:

Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma?

“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I'm not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted...

www.thelancet.com

You're making a claim about dubious science based on your own opinion and then appealing to authority to support it. With it apparently affecting "much of the scientific community," it's a wonder we every make any scientific advances at all.

This is the beginning of that article:

" 'A lot of what is published is incorrect.' I'm not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in “purdah”—a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government's payroll."

 

[Boilermaker03]

@Droid12345
Here's President Eisenhower warning the public of the dangers of government funded science and how it's also how it's had an effect on universities.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Another appeal to authority. Why should I care what he thinks? It's not possible he dislikes the scientific community because he was fired from the journal he edited for resisting peer review? A move that was made after he published a paper that there was no proof that HIV caused AIDS? This wasn't 1985, by the way, this paper was published somewhere between 2003 and 2010 when Charlton was the editor for Medical Hypothesis. He's also not in the climate science field.

To demonstrate that climate science is done poorly or fraudulently, it needs to be demonstrated that that is actually the case by actually doing science that contradicts it. Finding some people who hold that opinion is not in any way an actual demonstration of your contention that "much of the scientific community" is dubious.

if he resisted peer review, it was most likely because he was trying to stop bad science. Jesus man, this rot goes DEEP and all you want to do is stick your head in the sand and say, naw it will be alright. WTF?!

 

[Boilermaker03]

To demonstrate that climate science is done poorly or fraudulently, it needs to be demonstrated that that is actually the case by actually doing science that contradicts it. Finding some people who hold that opinion is not in any way an actual demonstration of your contention that "much of the scientific community" is dubious.

Dude... did you even watch the video with Dr Soon? This is exactly what he does! Same with Dr Happer. He knows C02 inside and out because they make lasers with it. He knows just about everything there is to know about the molecule. Did you even watch that video? More head in the sand.

 

[Fastdewey]

MOST of the left have no understanding of science. Especially when it comes to "Climate Change".

The leftist MO is to find a "scientist" that will agree with them and then claim the science is settled. No other scientist has anything valid to say because they don't agree with their pre conceived notions of the science.

OMG! And I thought that was what the RIGHT was doing! Thank you for enlightening me!

 

[DG Boiler]

@Boilermaker03

Gonna put everything in one post, and I'll probably miss some stuff, but here's a response.

On scientific consensus: I never argued that scientific consensus was necessarily correct and, in fact, acknowledged in another post that it could be wrong. However, just because scientific consensus CAN be wrong does not mean that it IS, in fact, wrong. Decades of study of this issue has only resulted in greater consensus, which tells me that the current best understanding of the issue is that climate change is real, caused at least in part by human activities, and has the potential to have dramatic effects on human civilization. You can argue they are wrong, but you can't argue that's what the results of scientific investigation of the issue have concluded.

On CO2 causing catastrophic warming being a minority opinion: back up this claim

On Antarctic ice: It is melting and there are other factors that affect how quickly it melts relative to Arctic ice. Also, melting sea ice, like at the North Pole does not contribute to sea level rise, so sea level rise must be caused by something else.

On CO2 saturation: It's not a thing

On temperature readings: Already addressed earlier

On sea level rise: it has not been happening for 7000 years

On ocean acidification: why is it baseless? Have you measured the acidity of the ocean recently and compared it to past readings?

On the positives of CO2: Good for plants to a point, bad in the grand scheme of things.

On "Climategate": Debunked long ago. This article also addresses so-called "trash" graphs

On government fraud: Why have no other countries stepped forward to expose this supposed fraud? If the American government was inventing climate change (in order to, I guess, destroy the American economy? seems like a strange thing for the American government to do on purpose, but whatever), then surely another country would be sounding the alarm. If China invented climate change to destroy the American economy, surely American scientists would not be going along with it.

We'll obviously not come to agreement on this, as you reject scientific consensus and I tentatively accept it until such time as it is demonstrated to be wrong. Given how science works, the scientific consensus would then change, and one could continue to tentatively accept the new consensus until such time as it is again demonstrated to be wrong. Scientific consensus can be demonstrated to be wrong by continued scientific investigation that contradicts or re-contextualizes existing data, not by watching YouTube videos or misunderstanding the data that exists.

I also find it interesting that none of your posts actually offer positive proof that humans are NOT causing climate change or positive proof that rising global temperatures WON'T have any significant effects. You just try to poke holes in climate change model. You think the temperature readings are flawed. You could prove they are wrong by getting or finding your own data, but, instead, you just question whether measuring the temperature in an urban environment is the right way to do it. You question whether CO2 is actually bad because there are some positive things about it. But, just because there are positive aspects to something doesn't mean there are no negative aspects. Drinking too much water can kill you. You call ocean acidification "baseless" but offer no evidence that it's not happening.

There are, indeed, holes in the scientific knowledge about climate change. It's too new of a field of study for there not to be. But that doesn't mean that the things we think we know are necessarily incorrect. This is true in all fields of scientific study. One might argue that "intelligent design" must be how life began on Earth because scientists can't explain how the first self-replicating molecule formed. But, just because there is something we don't yet fully understand, that does not automatically make an alternate proposed explanation true. If you think climate change is NOT caused by human activity, that needs to be demonstrated, not assumed because scientists don't yet have totally accurate predictions based on their models. If you think climate change will not have potentially significant effects on coastal cities, our ability to grow food, etc., that also needs to be demonstrated by showing that there's not enough ice to raise sea levels by whatever amount or by showing that a sufficient amount of ice won't melt at whatever global average temperature.

I know you'll likely not look at anything I've linked above, and if you do, you'll reject it as just more evidence of the conspiracy or of my unwillingness or inability to see the real truth. Earlier in this thread, you accused "the left" of finding a "scientist" who will support their narrative and holding that up as showing that the science is settled. And yet, here, you've held up the minority scientific opinion as the evidence that your narrative is correct. You've done exactly what you've accused others of doing. In order to account for the scientific consensus, you've had to fall back on apparently incorrect claims about sea level rise, Antarctic ice melt, CO2 saturation, the unreliability of temperature readings, and debunked and/or nonsensical claims about conspiracy theories.

I'm done here, y'all. If someone else wants to take up the mantle, more power to ya!

Great posts!

 

[Droid12345]

This is the beginning of that article:

" 'A lot of what is published is incorrect.' I'm not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in “purdah”—a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government's payroll."

I don't even know why I bother arguing with you since you can't even tell what's a quote and what isn't in an article. Do you or do you not see quotation marks for the passage beginning "The case against science..." in the original article? You do not. That means it is the author speaking. Even in the passage you've linked here, the only thing that is a quote from someone else is "A lot of what is published is incorrect." The rest of the paragraph is the author speaking.

Dude... did you even watch the video with Dr Soon? This is exactly what he does! Same with Dr Happer. He knows C02 inside and out because they make lasers with it. He knows just about everything there is to know about the molecule. Did you even watch that video? More head in the sand.

I did not watch your feature-film length YouTube video, but finding a couple scientists who say they've got it right when everyone else has it wrong does not necessarily make your point. It is, in fact, an example of what you defined as the "leftist MO" in an earlier post. How did you determine that it's not THEM who are the ones doing dubious science?

if he resisted peer review, it was most likely because he was trying to stop bad science. Jesus man, this rot goes DEEP and all you want to do is stick your head in the sand and say, naw it will be alright. WTF?!

Peer review is exactly how the scientific community stops bad science. One guy doing the review and editing process is much more likely to allow bad science through, yes? More eyes and expertise on a paper are more likely to discover errors in methodology, yes? You saying "this rot goes DEEP" does not mean that is actually true. I don't care that you think the scientific community is rotten when it has been demonstrated over and over again that the scientific community consistently and successfully advances our knowledge and understanding of the world in which we live. Scientists doing good work (often with government funding) is why we can go to space, why we can have powerful computers in our pockets, why we have advanced medical scanners, why we have vaccines, why we have satellites and GPS, and why we have INSERT YOUR FAVORITE TECHNOLOGY HERE. It's why we know how the sun works, why we know how gravity works, why we know how stars are formed, and on and on. Science has a pretty darn good track record. Why would science be corrupt just on this one issue? If it's not just this one issue, then what other scientific positions are actually just political agendas? How do you know?

This will really be my final post in this thread, so no need to actually respond, but some questions for you to consider:

How would the government go about getting all these scientists to go along with this lie? Are you saying that not a single climate scientist is principled enough to reject the grant money and sacrifice their job for the sake of truth? Every single one of them is corrupt? None would blow the whistle when the government tells them they have to come up with a certain result? What exactly is this benefit that other countries supposedly get by the U.S. government lying to the public about climate change? What benefit does the government itself get by lying to us about climate change? Is it about control, as I so often hear suggested? What does this supposed control allow the government to do that it can't already? If there really is a conspiracy, why do the very government organizations, like NASA, and the scientists from various places who would have to be in on it publish the very information you're trying to use to refute climate change? Wouldn't they say that current CO2 levels are the highest ever? I know I've been warned against comparing climate-deniers to flat-earthers on here, but they also argue in favor of a government conspiracy to control the people by lying about the shape and motion of the Earth, the moon landing, the mere existence of space, etc. Presuming we can both agree that flat-earthers are making ridiculous claims, why is their conspiracy theory nonsense and yours isn't? I'll concede that the shape of the Earth and the heliocentric model of the solar system are much better understood than the complex set of influences on the climate, but, short of becoming scientists ourselves and literally conducting our own research to prove or disprove the current results, how can we determine which scientists we can trust and which ones we can't? I'd argue that you have started with a position and are then selecting the scientists you agree with while I am accepting the scientific process and agreeing with the bulk of scientific consensus to then form my position.

I know you'll dismiss them as just part of the conspiracy, but here's a link to some explanations for 198 of the myths commonly used to question climate change, including many that you've presented in this thread. Some get pretty into the weeds if you select the "advanced" tab, giving a larger context to the points that, on the surface and without a deeper understanding of the science, could be seen to suggest climate change isn't real or isn't caused by human activity. Given that you routinely post 90-minute YouTube videos for people to watch, I'm sure you'll invest the time to read the explanations thoroughly.

 

[Boilermaker03]

OMG! And I thought that was what the RIGHT was doing! Thank you for enlightening me!

The Right isn't the side claiming the debate is over so... you're welcome!

 

[Boilermaker03]

I did not watch your feature-film length YouTube video, but finding a couple scientists who say they've got it right when everyone else has it wrong does not necessarily make your point. It is, in fact, an example of what you defined as the "leftist MO" in an earlier post. How did you determine that it's not THEM who are the ones doing dubious science?

If you would take the time, you would have seen that he shows that the studies that claim ocean acidification for example are all done with poor methods. There are also studies that do things properly and show that shell fish not only don't have their shells deteriorating as claimed, they grow bigger. The studies that claim ocean acidification is real don't take the time to do their studies right. They are lazy, so instead of waiting for the C02 to work it's way into the system, they add weak acid to speed up the process, which in turn does dissolve the shells of the crustaceans. The complete opposite of what happens when you allow C02 to enter the system naturally.

Peer review is exactly how the scientific community stops bad science. One guy doing the review and editing process is much more likely to allow bad science through, yes? More eyes and expertise on a paper are more likely to discover errors in methodology, yes? You saying "this rot goes DEEP" does not mean that is actually true. I don't care that you think the scientific community is rotten when it has been demonstrated over and over again that the scientific community consistently and successfully advances our knowledge and understanding of the world in which we live. Scientists doing good work (often with government funding) is why we can go to space, why we can have powerful computers in our pockets, why we have advanced medical scanners, why we have vaccines, why we have satellites and GPS, and why we have INSERT YOUR FAVORITE TECHNOLOGY HERE. It's why we know how the sun works, why we know how gravity works, why we know how stars are formed, and on and on. Science has a pretty darn good track record. Why would science be corrupt just on this one issue? If it's not just this one issue, then what other scientific positions are actually just political agendas? How do you know?

Einstein disagrees with you. After submitting his first paper to the peer review process he was appalled and vowed to never do it again. The peer review process isn't the infallible methodology that you think it is. In theory it's sound, but in practice it's been corrupted.

I would also disagree with you that most of those things were brought to us by government scientists. Even if they were, there are more than enough examples of excellent science that has occurred without government intervention.

This will really be my final post in this thread, so no need to actually respond, but some questions for you to consider:

How would the government go about getting all these scientists to go along with this lie? Are you saying that not a single climate scientist is principled enough to reject the grant money and sacrifice their job for the sake of truth? Every single one of them is corrupt? None would blow the whistle when the government tells them they have to come up with a certain result? What exactly is this benefit that other countries supposedly get by the U.S. government lying to the public about climate change? What benefit does the government itself get by lying to us about climate change? Is it about control, as I so often hear suggested? What does this supposed control allow the government to do that it can't already? If there really is a conspiracy, why do the very government organizations, like NASA, and the scientists from various places who would have to be in on it publish the very information you're trying to use to refute climate change? Wouldn't they say that current CO2 levels are the highest ever? I know I've been warned against comparing climate-deniers to flat-earthers on here, but they also argue in favor of a government conspiracy to control the people by lying about the shape and motion of the Earth, the moon landing, the mere existence of space, etc. Presuming we can both agree that flat-earthers are making ridiculous claims, why is their conspiracy theory nonsense and yours isn't? I'll concede that the shape of the Earth and the heliocentric model of the solar system are much better understood than the complex set of influences on the climate, but, short of becoming scientists ourselves and literally conducting our own research to prove or disprove the current results, how can we determine which scientists we can trust and which ones we can't? I'd argue that you have started with a position and are then selecting the scientists you agree with while I am accepting the scientific process and agreeing with the bulk of scientific consensus to then form my position.

I know you'll dismiss them as just part of the conspiracy, but here's a link to some explanations for 198 of the myths commonly used to question climate change, including many that you've presented in this thread. Some get pretty into the weeds if you select the "advanced" tab, giving a larger context to the points that, on the surface and without a deeper understanding of the science, could be seen to suggest climate change isn't real or isn't caused by human activity. Given that you routinely post 90-minute YouTube videos for people to watch, I'm sure you'll invest the time to read the explanations thoroughly.

Of course good science can come from government grants, however there is also a history of science being corrupted for the sake of getting continued grant money, so yes, I know that it's very easy to get a multitude of people that will say what the government wants them to say, otherwise they are out of a job. It's job security. Even if they don't believe what they are telling the government, they don't want to lose their job, which is a big deal when you're field of expertise is so focused. It's not the government so much as coercing them, it's that the government is looking for something specific and the scientists will find what the government wants them to find. The government doesn't tell scientists to study the climate. They say, find us global warming and that's exactly what they get. If you tell the government that you don't believe in it, you get your grant money pulled.

There are a bunch of expert scientists that had this very thing happen to them. Dr Happer and Dr Grey are prime examples. Dr Gray was the father of the hurricane rating system. He was one of the top in his field and was always funded by the government. He was approached by Al Gore to come to a global warming seminar. Gray was forthcoming and told Gore he didn't believe in his global warming theory. From that day on, Gray never received another dime from the government.

Name me one scientist that is being paid with government money that says AGW isn't real and I'll STFU. You won't find one. That's the power of government manipulation.

It's 100% about control. That's what the government does. They use fear to legislate more freedom away from you, which means more power for them. I don't understand how that isn't a painfully obvious fact. That's literally what every government in the history of the world does...

As far as my 90 minute videos, if you'd take the time to invest to learn something other than what gets spewed out by the media, you'd see that most of what I post shows the data, shows the studies and shows how bad the science that is being done really is. It's a ****ing joke what is going on in climate science, but then again, you won't take the time to find out... That's the difference between you and me. You haven't shown me anything I haven't already seen. You, on the other hand have obviously never taken the time to actually listen to what other scientists have to say.

Don't even get me started with Skeptical Science...

 

[Boilermaker03]

@Droid12345
This is an older article but is pretty much still on point when it comes to John Cook and his Skeptical Science website.

Blogger

Free weblog publishing tool from Google, for sharing text, photos and video.

motls.blogspot.com

 

[jrcrist]

And now the moron is reportedly giving Israeli covert ops intel to the Iranians.

 

[BoilerJS]

With no context around it, sure, it’s telling. In the context of them closing less efficient plants in favor of more efficient ones, it‘s telling of something different. In the context of them transitioning more quickly than us to renewables, it’s also telling. In the context of them meeting their Paris agreement commitments even after we pulled out, it’s also telling.

By and large, our stuff is,”we’ll do this in the future” too.

You argue that they say and do different things. Is this something you know or something you presume because the Chinese government can’t be trusted? How do you know they’re not doing the things they’ve said they’re doing? Did they ever say they were not going to build any more coal plants? Since the Paris agreement said China’s emissions would peak by 2030, its not going against anything for them to still be increasing in the short term, and now they’ve committed to being neutral by 2060. Maybe that’s too slow, I don’t know, I’m not a scientist, but you’ve got nothing to support the claim that China is ignoring climate change other than them building more coal plants, which has always been part of their carbon reduction plan. Maybe it’s not enough, maybe they’re not executing perfectly, but the original post suggested China doesn’t “believe” in climate change, implying they’re doing nothing about it. That’s simply not true.

You got me. China is telling us the truth. They are reducing their carbon foot print by burning more, yet cleaner coal.
Have they reduced their carbon foot print in the last 4 years as much as the US has?
More efficient coal generating plants? I'm sure they did that because of the Paris Accord negotiations.
FYI according to IRAN they quit making weapons grade Uranium.

 

[BoilerJS]

The Right isn't the side claiming the debate is over so... you're welcome!

03 I hate to break the news to you but the science is on the side of the man made global warmer theorists.
It can't be a coincidence that around 17,000 years ago when the last ice age was coming to an end that man mastered fire. As he ate is cooked Wooley Mammoth meat over an open fire he watched the smoke and emissions enter the atmosphere. Little did he know he was making extinct his main food source.

Or could it be this:
The cycle of apsidal precession spans about 112,000 years. Apsidal precession changes the orientation of Earth's orbit relative to the elliptical plane. The combined effects of axial and apsidal precession result in an overall precession cycle spanning about 23,000 years on average.