Climate Change denial vs History

This is where people are having trouble.

It is the trend of raising temperatures over a long time. Climate temps can be rising and still have a cooler day, month, year from one to the next. The same goes for decades.

It is the warming trend that is alarming scientist.

Temps have changed on Earth since it was formed. Once everything settled the temps tended to change rather slowly over long periods of time. The red flag is the trend is the temperature started raising after the industrial revolution rather significantly.

There is a reason climate change deniers fail to show charts and graphs measuring the trend for temperatures over long periods of time or when they do it is using data points to hide the trend. They select relatively small sections of about 10 years to deny climate change. My favorite is picking a cold temperature somewhere for a day, week or month and using that as evidence.

There is also a reason climate change denial papers are not peered reviewed and just get released as evidence.

I really suggest everyone that do not believe climate change is caused by human activity to research the history of leaded gas being banned. A lot of similarities to the denial that the lead build up in the environment was not caused by leaded gas.

 

Yet that is exactly what climate alarmists are doing. And have been doing since the seventies. Ever since scientist took a cue from news agencies, and horror movie makers and discovered that there is more money in scaring the crap out of people than in telling them everything will be just fine.

 

If you have any openly available datasets for temp readings (proxy readings w/o "corrections") please share. My preference is https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets w/ hundreds of sets including ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt . It plots out thus:


This idea that temp trends are more extreme now than they were before is simply not in the raw (not "corrected") readings that the rest of us have. Of course, if you're merely talking about how "everyone knows it's true" and not looking at physical records then we understand each other and I thank you for your time.

 

There is a reason ice core samples are the goto for climate change deniers.

Do a little research.

There are other methods with way less margins of error that can be used.

Historical records.

Growth of coral

Tree rings

Fauna where plants and animals are thriving or not compared to the past.

Paleolimnology the study of past conditions in freshwater lakes.

Paleoceanography the study of past conditions in oceans.

Plant macrofossils finding out where and when stuff grew.

Pollen grains the number and identity used to determine amount and type of plant life in an area.

Loess and eolian dust. Silt-sized material deposited on the Earth's surface by the surface winds.

All the above show an unprecedented trend in climate change excluding times of extreme conditions like when the Earth was young, the meteor impact killing dinosaurs and similar.

I will challenge you to find a peered review paper that does not attribute climate change to human activity. I will also challenge you to find one not written by someone with ties to the oil industry. Like they worked for some organization funded by oil. I even found one where the guys brother was an oil executive who was the person that released the paper. I found one written by a Russian that was not peer reviewed, but I could not find any other information beyond he written it and his education. So I will give that one a benefit of doubt he does not have oil connections.

 

Of course you challenge me, and I'll take that to mean you have no basis in observation for your statement about temperature trends. Sure, you got lots and lots of basis for the trends in ideology, in political rhetoric, and in "someone said that they read that a famous guy wrote..." but no observations of physical phenomena that the rest of us can study...

--and somehow it all means that I'm the guy, not you guys making all the claims, it's me that has to prove, well, whatever it is you want me to prove.

 

Are you saying I can not find peered reviewed papers that say climate change is caused by human activity?

The reason I put forth the challenge is because I have not found any peer reviewed papers denying climate change is not caused by human activity. I am not saying they do not exist just I can not find any.

The other challenge to find papers from people not connected to the oil industry in some way is also tough. Like I pointed out I found one. Written by a Russian that I could find very little information on.

Feel free to prove me wrong and link multiple sources for these scientific peer reviewed papers.

I would suggest you also look at the history of scientific research and papers before leaded gas was banned. Similar pattern. Papers stating it was natural build up were not peer reviewed and most scientist saying it was natural had oil ties. There was an attempt to remain unbiased until oil companies learned the answers they were getting did not support their position. With those they cherry picked data to use or picked short time periods where it showed lead increasing somewhere before the use of leaded gas.

There is a reason the scientific consensus that the global warming we are experiencing is caused by human activity is around 98%. Papers on the subject are peer reviewed and the papers come from sources that are not funded by oil companies.

 

+

But sometimes the unpopular position prevails only after a great deal of damage has been done

---------------------

Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician from the 1800s who specialized in surgery and obstetrics/gynecology, is known today as the “savior of mothers.” He is credited for finding in 1847that the incidence of puerperal fever, which typically afflicted women who recently gave birth, could be drastically reduced by the use of hand-washing standards in obstetrical clinics.

He made this important discovery while working as an assistant at the Obstetrics/Gynecology Clinic at Vienna General Hospital and ultimately mandated that wash their hands with chlorinated lime. The rate of mortality of new mothers, in turn, was reduced.

Sadly, however, when Semmelweis advocated his findings, he was ignored or ridiculed by his peers. He eventually was demoted and committed to a Viennese insane asylum, where he died at age 47 in 1865.

“So there was a tragic end for someone that had a profound effect on medical history,” Scherer said.

http://news.medinfo.ufl.edu/articles/staff/hand-washing-pioneer/

 

blah blah blah. Words of ideological zealotry.

Most "Climate change" panickers are ideological zealots that absolutely do not care in the slightest about "science" whatsoever. What "science" proves it that the earth's climate has perpetually and oft radically changed across earth's history. However, climate change zealots deny this, claiming that ONLY humans can change the climate and only by industrialization - and accordingly claim the earth's climate, sea level, oxygen and Co2 levels were 100% identical for billions of years until the 1800s and industrialization. That claim is as ignorant and denial of science as it gets.

 

The stats used as proof have been proven to be fake and lies hundreds of times. No matter how many times they are still repeated, it is still just repeating lies.

 

When someone tries TOO hard to use a phrase like " Climate Deniers "
they are not acting in good faith.This is the New Religion for the Left.
To use being Pro-Choice and Pro- Climate Change as some kind of
weapon.Meaning it is intended for one purpose only.To quash any and
all debate.You would think Rational Minds would like a healthy debate
about such things.But Climate Change Authoritarians are not Rational.
Nor are those Pro-Choice folks.
Tucker Carlson makes an example of them 5 nights a week.
Our Country is being weaned towards a Twilight Zone narrative
of Faith in things that are not worthy of Faith.
We are Deconstructing into a past of wild new theories and bold
new claims.Like the Ancient Greeks or 17th Century France and
the horrific persecutions by Cardinal Richelieu and his crusades
to hunt down deniers of HIS style Faith.

 

The origins of apocalyptic global warming comes from a real Nazi named Gunther Schwab.

How can anyone leave this out of the history of global warming?

 

Climate change deniers are about as logical as Creationists.

CO2 levels affect global temperature. They have varied over time, and often with disastrous effect. With humans pumping massive quantities of that and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, certainly the climate will be affected. Every model shows this.

And the sea is warming. And the ice is melting. Denying this is beyond ignorant... it's delusional and pathological, since denial enables inaction. For the past we can often identify the causes of climate change. And we can do it for the current situation.

Extinctions are now occurring at a rate promising the demise of a high enough % of species to threaten us with an extinction even comparable to that of the end Cretaceous. The anti-science corporate-dupe denier will I suppose claim that this is simply a manifestation of natural cycles as well.

When a topic is related to the environment, you can bet that the positions coming from the Right will be ONLY those which serve corporate interests. Humanity, the fate of the planet, etc., be damned.

 

Of course scientists are often wrong! That's why the Scientific Method exists. It ensures that Science is more accurate than scientists' beliefs

The biggest misconception that exists in popular belief about Scientific knowledge is that Science is settled by some sort of "popular vote" among scientists.

It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong. Or if they agree or disagree. The only thing that matters in Science is what they can prove

Science is not a democracy. it is the most stringent dictatorship you can imagine. It is ruled by the application of the Scientific Method. It doesn't matter if a scientist is right or wrong, or if a "fact" appears unambiguous or not. The only thing that matters is if they have used the Scientific Method to reach a conclusion.

I'll give you an example: most theoretical physicists, by far, agree with the Multiverse Model. Hawking mentioned in a recent interview, how it's been more and more difficult to find scientists who outright deny it. But it is faaar from being proven. So it is not science. Period. It's mere speculation.

 

We have many people today, whose method of discussion fits the old saying about the 600 lb gorilla in the room. Simply overlook anything you don't agree with and pretend you don't see and it's not there. They think that doing so is somehow winning an argument, for whatever that is worth- but of course it is not, because a legitimate discussion never takes place.
I find that sad; it strikes me like a person with a handicap that is self imposed and can't be fixed, with the only real loser being the person themselves.

I seem to remember a situation regarding the treatment of ulcers, in which an Australian doctor came us with clinical evidence that ulcers were actually caused by a type of bacterial action in the stomach, and could be treated with the proper antibiotics. That was proven and the result could be duplicated by others. However, with doctors not liking to change their minds, it took 20 years for the idea to be widely accepted. While some question the classification of medical doctors as scientists, most do not. Point being- that while proof is indeed the point to reach, acceptance is another issue and not always agreed on. While there are few scientists on this forum, one can see how easily those who do not wish to support a conclusion simply discredit proof of it. Good thing science is a little more disciplined...

 

You are mistaken.

He was ridiculed and ignored by his fellow physicians, who considered it an insult to suggest that they should wash their hands.

The Scientific community, on the other hand, respected his findings. And they were published in reputable Scientific magazines.

Being a Physician doesn't make you a scientist.

But, more to your general point about some being ridiculed. That's how the scientific method should, and does, work. Being right is absolutely meaningless in Science. Proving things is the only thing that counts. And there is a method to do this called the Scientific Method..

The only scientists that are ridiculed are those who don't understand this. And they deserve to be ridiculed. Not because the are right or wrong. But because they don't understand the most basic principle of what Science is

 

The fact that somebody is a medical doctor doesn't make them a scientist. A scientist is somebody who does Science. Most medical doctors use Science. But they don't produce it.

Exactly As is illustrated by the case on hand: Global Warming.

 

Except for the measured data.

 

Got news, Sherlock. Natural Gas is a fossil fuel and it's leading the pack in terms of growth in power generation applications. Many coal-fired plants are located close to their fuel source which is also close to oil and gas deposits. Since coal-fired plants provided 40% of our electric generation, a large share of our distribution infrastructure is in position to be used to distribute electric power from gas turbines. Unlike wind and solar, power produced by gas turbines is also dispatchable.

 

And so, you are no doubt the Einstein of the forum circuit. How fortunate we are to have such unquestionable insight! Is this by advanced degree and international acclaim, or just observation and conclusions made from your desk? The only person that apparently doesn't acknowledge they don't know everything is you?

 

As in.......

You know if climate scientists HAD been lying about the temperature measurements why would there have been a platueing of global temps ?

 

You mention history, have you considered that there have been multiple Ice Ages? Humans didn't cause those to form or melt. And no, I don't deny global warming, I just think it's natural and not man made.

 

And one of the reasons for using gas is that it is cleaner than coal