Why I Remain Skeptical of Man Made Global Warming

Did the earliest medical doctors set out into the field of medicine because they thought medicine has no ability to help people, and they wanted to merely disprove the concept that peoples health can be positively impacted? Of course not, they went into medicine because they felt they could impact peoples lives. If medicine has no ability to improve peoples health, a doctor has no use to society whatsoever.

Did the earliest nuclear physicists set out in that field because they wanted to disprove that the atom could be split? Of course not. They chose that line of study because they believed they could change the world. If the atom cannot be split , a nuclear physicist has no value to society whatsoever.

Does a ghost hunter set out in that field because they believe that ghosts don’t exist, and they wish to disprove the concept? Of course not, they go into that because they wish to prove the existence of ghosts. If ghosts don’t exist a ghost hunter is merely a nutcase with some useless equipment, and they serve no use to society whatsoever

Does a person that chooses to go into the new discipline of climatology do so because they want to prove that man has no impact on climate? Of course not, because if man has no impact on climate, a climatologist has no use to society whatsoever.

With this in mind, I am always amazed why leftists think that a high preponderance of “Climatologists” insisting that man has a significant impact upon climate, is proof positive of that assertion. A high preponderance of big foot afficionados' that have dedicated their life to finding big foot, insist that he is real as well. Until an actual carcass is found, I will delay judgment. As recently as the 70s, scientists delving into climate thought that global cooling was caused by man. We thought at that time that we were at the apex of science, and we finally had a grip on the interaction of man and climate. Cooling did not happen, and after observing a slight warming trend, that same ilk now INSISTS that they KNOW that man is causing this warming, and they have dire predictions for 50 years into the future.. Never mind that scientists don’t have the ability to accurately predict the weather next week, we must just accept as fact however, that science has reached an apex where it knows the temperature in 50 or 100 years.

The fact of the matter is that man made global warming is an interesting theory that certainly deserves further study, but insistence that it is settled science is utterly preposterous. Throughout history, “science” has been wrong about many things, and only through the benefit of hindsight are we able to determine the legitimacy of many of these scientific beliefs. We thought the earth was flat, that we lived in a geocentric universe, the universe was static, that stress caused ulcers etc etc etc. etc. The list goes on and on and on.Not accepting that man made global warming is settled science, does not make me “anti science”, rather it makes me observant of the history of scientific belief.

Lastly,the study of Climatology is in its infancy, and those that set out upon that field of study surely didn’t do so with the intent of making their field useless to mankind. They embarked on that field of study for the express purpose of proving its existence. Man made global warming is a very political topic, and its study is primarily funded by academia, which is inarguably leftist, and that same academia is the same mechanism that decides which hypothesis’ get funded. With those two factors in mind, it doesn’t surprise me in the least that an overwhelming preponderance of climatologists believe that man causes global warming. In fact I would be shocked if they didn’t.

You will have to forgive me if I refuse to worship on blind faith at the altar of global warming. I am not saying that man definitely doesn’t cause it, nor am I saying that man definitely does. This skepticism doesn’t make me anti science, it makes me pragmatic.

 

If you have something with which you take exception, please feel free to do so, and I will be more than happy to respond. A veiled insult that addresses nothing is a cowardly response. If I am as "foolish" as you seem to be implying, this should be like shooting fish in a barrel for you.

 

What are people supposed to say to willful ignorance? If you were faced with a family that would not give their dying child a blood transfusion, because of religion, what would you think?

There is no reasonable argument that can be made for doubting the science. A person could only claim that they live in a society, where media is so full of b.s., that they can not get access to enough truthful information, to make an informed decision. But I would think in the age of the internet a person could overcome the disadvantages of being an American.

 

Once again, you responded without actually responding to ANYTHING that was actually said. Essentially what you have said is that anyone that disagrees with you is therefore wrong. End of story. If you think my rationale is faulty, point out specifically with which part you take exception. The "you are wrong" ...."no Im not"... method of debate that you seem to be trying to employ accomplishes nothing.

 

You claim I was insulting you. But if you would take a look at what you posted it was insulting to all those who understand the science. You are inferring that you are somehow better than us, because you are not a minion who will bow at the altar of the blind believers.

Also you didn't really make any assertion, you posted up a collection of analogies, which seem to represent a logical fallacy. Your conclusions were not sound, because Climate Scientist do not study the science to prove climate change, they study the science to understand the climate.

If you want to post up something that you do not understand about climate change, I will be happy to answer you.

 

Weather and climate change are two different things. The Earth's climate is very delicate. Too much C02 will warm the planet. I don't understand how people don't understand that.

 

Your analogies make sense up to the point where you introduced the climatologist.

The correct analogy would have ask if people went into the new science of climatology to prove that there is nothing there to learn and that we should take it for granted, No people went into the field to study how nature operates and learn from the patterns one sees there, as they would in medical science, physics or ghost hunting.

Your climatologist piece does not fit the rest of your analogy, and therefore, your attempt to extrapolate from that questionable analogy is similarly challenged.

I think that global warming is an interesting theory that all evidence suggests is the recieved wisdom of the vast majority of scientist who study such things.

Manmade global warming is almost certianly real. At this point, we've been talking aobut it for nearly thirty years, and the only challenges we've seen to the general concensus are political and junk science financed by oil companies out of fear.

The agenda is clear. Doing something about manmade global warming means cleaner air, and lessening our dependence on burning hydrocarbons for fuel, just as post colonial America had to stop burning its forests up in its new factories and steamboats. We can do it now, and have better health, longer lives, and no be dependent on the whims of multi national corporations.

Or we can do nothing, and continue to suck on the oil tit until some smart country(ies) figure out the key to reliable cheap alternative energy. The first country the cracks that puzzle wins the future.

But oil companies are only interested in maintaining the markets for their products, no matter what, and their conservative supporters only see the future through their rear view mirrors.

 

Your first response was " did you start this thread in an effort to look foolish". Is that an insult? I dont know, I see it that way but also couldnt care less. It certainly isnt worthy of debating.

Your second response was basically 'if you dont agree with me you are an idiot'

Your third response is a vague mischaracterization of what I said, and a display of unmitigated gall by believing that while not responding to anything that I said, that somehow I am going to ask YOU questions. You responded to me. Not the other way around. You seem to hold yourself up as an expert. Then teach me, and all skeptics. What in the OP is incorrect?

Indignation does NOTHING to prove your point. If what I said is ridiculous, then it should be easy for you to refute. If you got em....smoke em. If you dont, then simply remain silent.

 

I totally agree that weather and climate are two different things. Weather is simply tracking storm fronts and the like, and climate is INFINITELY more complex. This only further serves to bolster my point

Too much CO2 in theory CAN warm the planet, however we dont have even the most basic understanding of the planets capability in regards to filtering itself. While we can say that x amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause x amount of warming, we really dont have the ability to say x amount of CO2 produced will result in x amount in the atmosphere. For example, when CO2 increase so does plant and fauna life which serves to filter even more. Volcanoes throughout time have emitted huge amounts of CO2 and yet the planet has somehow managed to successfully filter itself before armegeddon occurred.

 

In the case of Volcanoes the amount of ash and whatnot that filled the sky was enough to block out the sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer). The Earth IS really good about cycling C02, but it will eventually goes back into the atmosphere (by way of volcanoes). Every Carbon atom will eventually leave and go back out into space as the Earth isn't big enough to keep it forever, but not of that matters if too much is in the atmosphere at one time. The warming trend will increase because Carbon traps heat, thus warming the planet. More and more carbon leads to a warmer and warmer planet, and the cycling of carbon that the Earth does naturally won't stop that from happening. As for plant life growing, thats simply ridiculous. Plants breathe C02 but they don't arise simply because there is more C02 in the air, and in any event, we are rapidly destroying forests anyway. If we stopped emitting C02 in the atmosphere right now the levels would eventually fall to what they were prior Industrial Revolution (until a volcano erupts). If we continue, and even increase the C02 output, the planet will get warmer.

 

I appreciate your reasoned response.

I disagree with your notion that climatology exists in order to "study how nature operates and learn from the patterns one sees there". If that were the reason for Climatology's existence, it most certainly would have remained n the realms of both geology and meteorology, and NOT been given its own specific distinction separate from those disciplines. The "scientists who study these things" have a pre conceived belief prior to entering the field. I happen to present scientific( medical) studies for a living, and I am well aware how easy it is to take completely valid data, then turn around and make completely INCORRECT assumptions as to the implications of that valid data. It happens all the time, and pre conceived notions play a large role in shaping the conclusion drawn from perfectly valid data.

The rest of your post is predicated on the belief that man made global warming is truly a problem, and because this thread is about whether or not that problem exists or not, I will not comment on it.

 

I understand that carbon traps heat, and am not disputing that even remotely. What I am disputing is the notion that we have a handle on the earths capabilities in filtering that carbon. We dont have the faintest clue how much carbon the earth can successfully filter, thus keeping it out of the atmosphere. Carbon existed long before man, and as evidenced by the fact that huge volcanic eruptions have NOT created significantly higher temperatures, we know that the earth has an ability to filter itself beyond the point of what would be considered normal carbon emmissions. That much is known. What is not known is the actual capability that the earth possesses in regards to how much CO2 it can filter. Most scientific study is aimed at singling out one variable in order to test that hypothesis, and in the case of carbon filtering, not only can we not single out just one variable to test, we cant even narrow it down to a thousand variables. When you cant single out one variable to test, you are basically throwing darts at a wall.

 

If I had know that you would interpret my second response in the way you did, I would have stopped there.

 

LOL....Has "indignation only" been a successful debate technique for you in the past? Were you an only child?

 

....and seemingly far too dense to grasp the concept that in order to actually make a point or refute something in a political chat room, one has to actually discuss SOMETHING of substance. "Indignation Only" is NOT a debate technique. Not a successful one anyway.

 

More from the Church of Global Warming -- er, um, the Scientific Sciencists of Settled Science, yah that's the ticket!:

35. “Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

 

Yes because we have no use for meteorology

 

Oh how delightfully clever.

 

Or maybe they do it to study climate. Are you suggesting that cosmologists think that humans can have a retroactive impact on the origin of the universe? Of course not. Like the vast majority of scientists, their primary motivation is uncovering the truth.

And in how many peer reviewed journals can you find research on big foot?

We've known the world was round for thousands of years. At what point would you have accepted it as "settled science"? Not until the first pictures came back from Soviet satellites? Yes, sometimes we get it wrong. That doesn't mean you can ignore overwhelming evidence for an arbitrarily long amount of time in the hope that an inconvenient fact might someday be overturned.

You're dismissing science because it's funded by academia. Certainly, academia has it's problems, but in matters of science, who on this planet is more trustworthy? Governments? Corporations?

Hypothetically, what would it take to convince you?

Also:
[video]www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI5ulKiZAoE[/video]

 

I accept Global Warming, just not the half baked ideas scientist advocate in fixing it.

No, I do not accept it as incontrovertible proof or a scientific fact. Everyone should be open to different types of ideas on the matter.

 

With past CO2 levels lower at their peak than what we have today, I don't think the "filtering itself" analogy is valid. I would prefer not to wager human existence on a little CO2 experiment just because deluded conservatives are scared of change.

 

I find it odd that you will not fully accept Climate Change, though there is a lot of proof of it's reality. But with little proof of it's existence, you will accept that their is integrity in Wall Street.

 

The way I see it, a scientific fact is something that no scientist (no serious scientist, anyway) could be able to despite.

There are scientist who can produce data disputing the principles that can cause the rise in earths temperature and that it is caused by natural process, then that is enough for me. The debate should not be closed.

 

The few dissenting scientists are paid off by Big Oil and the GOP goons.

 

Why do you believe no one should disagree with Climate Change?