Climate Change denial vs History

Actually your approach more resembles a religious belief. Your words betray it. To prove this, lay out exactly what is proven and how it was proven.

 

Scientists are often wrong, but you don't hear about those cases.

Take the AIDS "epidemic." We heterosexuals were supposed to be all wiped out by AIDS when in fact the disease was confined to homosexuals and IV drug users. Heterosexual transmission of AIDS was less common than male breast cancer, but that didn't stop Oprah from declaring us all doomed.

 

Scientists are ordinary people, just like you and me. The only difference being that they're usually better educated in their field of expertise than the deniers, and they don't react to screeching tabloid headlines instead of doing some actual research on the subject, which requires employing some actual thought instead of a confirmation bias.

 

Religion is based in dogma. Unlike a religious belief science changes constantly as new evidence emerges and our knowledge increases. Furthermore there is no 'proof' in science.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

 

Oprah was trying to get ratings. And you are correct, in the US this disease was confined primarily to homosexuality and drug use. But on the international scene, especially in Africa, heterosexual contact was the primary transmission

 

Exactly and why saying the science is settled is anti-science.

 

Very good; that's how science works. Someone proposes a theory (a 'guess' in your world), and until someone else comes up with a better one it remains a theory. Just like Relativity.
Oh, and as far as not knowing what we have done to our climate is concerned, I would refer you to the Montreal Protocol. We knew precisely what we had done, what the prognosis was and we set about fixing it.

 

Of course, to be accurate you have to see more than just what helps the conclusion you want. Science is always a work in progress, correcting itself when it finds errors in it's thinking- which it does constantly. The catch is that discovery in science is also rejected by scientists who disagree among themselves- and often an unambiguous fact is denied for decades within the scientific community- and other times, they all agree, yet later find they were all wrong. Climate change is of course not a recent occurrence or discovery, it has been going on since our climate came into existence. The changes have always been driven by natural events- and while some took place over thousands of years, some were very rapid. The passionate views here come from the pace of change, and the perception that the cause of it is totally human in origin, as if natural change was irrelevant or didn't exist.

The question seems to be how much of the change we see today is actually man made, and then- what, if anything can we do about it that will actually make a difference. If passing a law against it would accomplish something meaningful without creating other equally damaging results, that could be appropriate- but upsetting the wagon for the sake of doing something even if it doesn't work, just to satisfy the most passionate climate environmentalists makes no sense at all.

There is no question that man is the most destructive species ever to inhabit the planet, but we have extremely little power to influence nature on the grand scale. We are already taking a great many steps to reduce our contribution to atmospheric gasses- but many of the extremists are not far from suggesting we quit exhaling CO2 because it's a greenhouse gas. They aren't exactly reliably rational either. Rational judgement is not found at either end of a controversial issue because the view and perspective is always limited from that point

 

There IS Climate Change.But like DuH ! Every kid in grade school
knows that and has since I've been on Earth.
But I think this past Feburary is proof that our Seasons are
changing around a bit.Summer lasts into fall and winter burps
and strikes up their band at different stages.Feburary was always
THE Coldest month.I know because I've never been able to go Motorcycling
in Feburary.This past feburary hit record highs.In the low 70's.
I think it's due to ChemTrails.There is the capability for aircraft { jets
at high altitude using jet fuel laced with chemicals at the industrial level }.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection.Part of a $ 10 Billion/yr. program to
Geo-engineer.NASA admits that the Earth is 30% darker.
I'm not talkin' crystal condensation but metallic materials being
released into the atmosphere to influence weather patterns.

 

" Settled-Science " is a Nerd invention created by the Father of
Global Warming { Al Gore } and his loyal Looney Tunes
practitioners like Ed Begley Jr.Begley Jr. hung up over Peer Reviews.
Lacking any interest in how Negative Peer reviews over Global
Warming were Suppressed.Just like anyone bothering to hear Al Gore
lecture were forbidden to ask questions or Interview him.

 

I think there's very legitimate debate over what the effects will be going forward.

 

This would be a good time to remember that the primary definition of "science" is--

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.​

--even though most folks like to think in terms of the word's secondary meaning:

a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.​

Yeah, we all know that organized knowledge is supposed to already be in agreement w/ observational study but fairly regularly we see that discrepancies do in fact arise, and what's needed is that confirmed observation must always prevail over established belief. Humankind in general and science in particular is best served by our vigilance and willingness to correct our errors. Suppression of thought is never the answer.

OK, I question that. At the risk of our hijacking the thread do we really have any hard evidence of this?

 

So you have found enough justification in personal opinion or theories of others and feel comfortable in believing it , wonderful! I too am a amateur epistemologist in the fields of religion, holistic medicine, plant and animal communication, Life in distant Galaxies and the inventive potential of future mankind!

I know, right! Pretty heavy for a amateur, but really, what's in a theory and choosing to dedicate ones beliefs to it!

 

The real question would be to find any evidence that is contradictory to that? The evidence that we are is everywhere you look, from the huge aggregation of plastic garbage in the center of the pacific to nuclear waste dumps that will be deadly for thousands of years to the list of species endangered by toxic wastes and destruction of habitats. Of course, you could throw in the fact that we kill our own kind not just for survival or protection of home and family- but go around the world to kill humans over philosophical differences. I think we are the first species to have a sizeable chance of being the direct cause of our own extinction. We are one scary animal, on a scale nothing else in nature has ever been capable of.

 

I ask this question over and over but never get an answer. What are you going to DO about it, besides whine. Vastly greater contributions to planet pollution come from the other side of the world - that side is way bigger than us and has many times the population of the Western Hemisphere. Their vehicles pour out polluting smoke, their infrastructure is designed to pollute water as they use it for disposal of everything from toxic medical waste to sewage to industrial run-off. Every time there is a tsunami or hurricane, their garbage gets swept into the Pacific ocean, to create the great garbage vortex. And don't forget the Fukushima catastrophe; an event unprecedented in its total release of radioactive contamination into the ocean. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/fukushima-radiation-continues-to-leak-into-the-pacific-ocean/

I disagree with you that this is a partisan issue. Keeping our world pristine is something most of us want. I would say it is more of a cultural issue - as tidiness and cleanliness is a virtue in some cultures and not particularly emphasized in others. I can see this cultural discrepancy every summer as the tourists and day-trippers pour into the forest I call home -- and sadly witness the mess they leave behind, and the destruction to nature they commit. I see cyclists, all clad in fancy racing gear, throwing their energy bar wrappers to the wind. I see kayakers tossing their lunch baggies into the lake. I see where beach goers have spray painted the wooden stairs constructed by the Park and supported by our tax dollars. It drives me nuts. I do not see it as a partisan issue, I see it as a matter of character. Personal cleanliness goes to environmental cleanliness. Respect for self goes to respect for nature.

I'm glad you bring up the science deniers because they are back in force with regard to marijuana initiatives and lowering the voting age. THERE is something you can DO something about.

 

I tend to think it's more that some people are not so black&white about the environment. Discrepancies are never more evident than when environmentalists completely kill a valuable American industry over spotted owls. Somewhere between killing the lumber industry and annihilation of the forest, there is a happy medium.

The inability of environmentalists to be reasonable has forced the demand for lumber to be met by a booming industry in countries with NO environmental oversight. We've gone from the Pacific Northwest to the Amazon and beyond -- their methods are horrific and have a far greater adverse affect on our planet.

 

Huh, Do you always answer a question w/ another question? That's really stupid --oops, I guess I just did it too...

Sounds like we're leaving reason far behind here.

LIke, are we saying that a species is "destructive" if there's evidence of it having existed? If so then we'd have to say that all the limestone all over the world (by volume one tenth of all sedimentary rocks) means that coral is the most "destructive" species. OK, so we're bad because we kill each other --and no other animal has ever ever fought and killed a member of its own kind? Seriously? If that were truly an important criterion then we'd have to also consider how many human lives are saved by other humans. I have never seen an ant 'medivac' unit whenever I studied army ants.

OK, so most probably none of these observations will make any difference to this discussion because my guess is what we're really talking about here is the holding of humanity in contempt. That's why I think we're done:

“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”​

 

And if they're wrong and it costs us trillions and nothing we do can reverse anything, are scientists smart or incredibly irresponsibly STUPID? Remember, when what you say has no negative consequences what reason is there to be truthful? Think about it. If they're wrong what happens to them? NOTHING!!! They'll be congratulated for being wrong. And they'll be paid to find another problem if they claim they can fix it. A climate scientist is no better than a mechanic scaring you into changing your brakes 2x as often as you need to or your oil when you don't have to. They get paid to create doubt and scare you. Think. Just because they have a higher education than a mechanic that they don't apply the same rules for job security makes you naive.

How many scientists from 20 or 30 yrs ago have been completely dead wrong as to the severity of where we would be right now? Nearly all of them. And they still have jobs. Explain how that's fair?

Some people are pushing forward with science that is guaranteed to potentially destroy us all yet they continue on. Sci-fi writers have predicted more than most scientists and it's scary.

 

Scientists are often wrong. It's the job of other scientists to prove that they are wrong-or right; that's how we got from two bicycle repair guys flying kites at Kittyhawk, to the Moon in less than a century. Trial and error, and learning from the latter. There is no other way.

 

Very true. But there isn't any profit in disproving how much impact man has had because how much we have had can NOT be proved. We really don't know. All we know is what has changed in the brief century we have semi accurate information on.

I'll say again. If a climate scientist is wrong will he lose his job? Nope. Denying mans impact will basically end your income. It's basically a career death sentence.

If these people are smart how can they be so pathetically wrong? FL is still here. It's not supposed to be if we listened to many of them. They're not climate scientists but the same people said back in 05-06 that FL would be hit with multiple catastrophic hurricanes every year. They were also pathetically DEAD WRONG!!! And we're still listening to them because all they have to be is correct once and they'll claim superiority when they should be unemployed. With no formal training I can be just as accurate as any climate scientist. I can say anything, like "the earth may get warmer in the future". That doesn't make me a genius because if it doesn't, I can easily quote that I said "may" and I didn't specifically say when. The true genius is a career where no matter how wrong you are, no one can call you incompetent without being called crazy for not believing you no matter how accurate or inaccurate you are.

It's simple. No university will pay you to disprove global warming. Wait, check that. Global warming was too specific so they changed it to climate change to remove any andl ALL accountability.

 

How many times in the history of science has someone said the science is settled....until knowledge increased and what was settled was no longer settled?

But here is the deal. We are in a warming cycle regardless of fossil fuel burning. So, if it really matters to gov't, and to science that co2 levels are creating a faster warming rate, above the natural rate of warming, WHY is land management and stopping the deforestation of rain forests not being addressed, given this co2 induced warming has been painted as a nightmare scenario? Well, if you cannot make the rich richer by carbon taxes, we will just not do a damn thing to address c02 levels in other ways, like adding flora, stopping deforestation which would have a direct effect on co2 levels? Why is this? LOL

So when Dyson Freeman, or is it Freeman Dyson, anyways, asked why were we not indulging in land management, all he gets are the sound of crickets. So, until some serious attempts are made at land management, stopping the deforestation, obviously the gov't which seems to be so concerned about carbon taxes being implemented are not worried at all. Their worries involves whether they can redistribute more income by carbon taxes.

So until someone gets serious, and shows us it really is some great problem, by using land management, to increase flora, well, it makes some of us very suspicious, for apparently the only way it should be addressed is by redistribution of income.

Personally, I do not think we are at the place in climate science to know what we claim we know. It is a very complex thing, climate and change. No one knows how much fossil fuel burning is responsible for the change, and how much is natural cycle. The reason we do not know, is because the science is not hard enough to determine that.

Anyways, it does not matter who accepts this settled science, as some people claim it is, all that matters is that if it is such a nightmare, if we cannot redistribute income in addressing it, it will not be addressed. How many grants have given to scientists who are working on how much flora we need to add to address co2 levels? I would bet very, very little. For there is no income to be redistributed by the results of that research. LOL

Hell, these people who are so worried about co2 will not even go and plant one tree!! Yep, these people are so serious. Serious idiots.

 

Climate science is the religion of the left. It's a tool to frighten the masses into enough hysteria to succumb to their assumed superior "intellect" in order to allow their evil bidding...........higher taxes, carbon credits, and wealth redistribution to a few who control the insane asylum. The delusional left mystifies me. They whine and moan about the "1%" yet they hand them the keys to their cars and homes in the name of political correctness. Loons, loons all.

 

My 2 cents.

People who think the climate change claim is BS look up what happened when the whole lead in the air and ground water was being debated. Oil companies pushed back and paid "independent" researchers that for some reason most said it was a natural build up.

Then I suggest researching some of the scientist claiming the climate change happening now is not influenced by human activity. Their papers on the subject are not peered reviewed and surprisingly you can find connections to oil companies for many of them.

For some reason when the industrial revolution happened that is when temperatures started to rise. Not only that rise more rapidly and higher than any other time over about 20k year time period. Before that the temperature would rise and fall relatively slowly over a long period of time.



A graph I have seen for climate change denial and used by politicians for some reason selected an odd set of years to cover. It shows a small period of time recently where temperatures looked like they were falling and rising. Ignoring the trend of a longer period of the temperatures rising. I remember one congressman asking why those years were selected and the the response was deflection. (If I can find it I will post it here)

Scientist agree that the CO2 rate of build up in the atmosphere is happening at an unprecedented rate. The argument is really why. Considering it started happening and increased in relation to the use of fossil fuels it makes it seem as if it is from human activity.

 

What " Scientists ". You mean the Shills Al Gore used because as
a big environmentalist as V.P. under President Clinton he had access
to many " scientists ". And " scientists " rely almost exclusively on funding.
It's like how our State dept. { Officials and employees } gave Hillary
over 99% campaign donations.There's no way Hillary's State dept. is
gonna support of back President Trump for quite some time.
Until all those Obama/Hillary holdovers are flushed out at State.
Same with " Scientists ". There was money and funding to be had
for going along { often willy-nilly } with Global Warming propaganda and
then Climate Change.Peer review was only permitted publication for
one result.We Know for fact that Weather Data was manipulated.
At the time Jack London wrote his Novel - The People of the Abyss -
air quality in London's East End and beyond was horrific.So bad some days
the sun couldn't shine through.
How about that Huge { Monstrous } Plume after the Persian Gulf War in '91.
When Saddam Hussein lit around 700 Oil wells in and around Kuwait.
Serious speculation as to a nuclear winter and acid rain were discussed.
Even Carl Sagan was heavily involved with dire warnings and consequences
like " self-lofting " sooty smoke that would get heated by the sun and lifted
higher and higher injecting into the stratosphere and causing catastrophic
gound cooling. Never Happenned.Because our Earth can weather most
calamaties man can dish out.Not so easily with Huge Vocanos however.
I'm much more curious about Volcano's erupting like Mt. St. Helens.
Global Warming is a get rich scam.Why else would there be talk of Carbon credits.
How that's gonna stop too much carbon in the air.
Plus Plants,trees,Vegetation rely on Carbon Dioxide.

 

The Hottest decade on record is the 1930's or Dust Bowl years.
The year 1911 was also an outlier.