Science denialism: The problem that just won’t go away

I don't know anyone that is claiming that our use of fossil fuels is the largest influence on climate change. I know of approximately 97% of scientist claim that our use of fossil fuels is an accelerant to natural processes. These scientific hypotheses are backed by lots of scientific facts.

As to vested interests, I suppose one could claim that those involved in so called green energy alternative development are a vested interest.

Of course they aren't financing the campaign to deny/smear the science and the scientists and paying for a cadre of puppets to spout such extreme skepticism/denial. If anything they are financing the ADVANCEMENT of science and the development of new technologies for the ultimate betterment and benefit of our civilization.


I don't know how to explain it better in layman terms.

 

You have made a lot of allegations and the usual deflection as well as ad hominems

 

You mean like making claims you can't back up?

 

The alarmists cannot comprehend or at least recognize that as far as we know, humanity has always prospered under a warming earth. Instead of looking to the positive side of what a warmer planet yields, they focus only on a contrived prediction of just how horrible it will be.

It almost looks like these people demand to keep the co2 concentration at 280 ppm, and the temps non changing, which is absurd on the face of it, but even that is lost on the alarmists.

I think the real trouble is fairly simple. These alarmists are taking a very limited knowledge and then acting like it is anything but limited, even as they seek to remove any uncertainty about what their limited knowledge has created.

NOW, if we look back at previous warmings when man was here, we see humanity thrive and prosper with populations increasing. Since the ability to produce food is of course tied in with this, we know that a warming has always given us more food, therefore healthier populations.

Yet for some reason, the alarmists seem to demand to keep co2 at 280 ppm and temps basically unchanging and stagnant. And they want to do this in an eco system that doesn't stay still, doesn't remain in one place, but is ever changing. Surely the insanity of this is not that hard to discern?

And so, I do not understand the alarmism. Not at the level it has been at for quite awhile. This is certainly not to say that man should be an irresponsible being upon this planet and not be good shepherds of the earth, since its health will effect our own. We should indeed by very environmentally conscious, and not be wasteful of our finite resources. We should not disrupt ecosystems unless the trade off has been calculated and seen to be something we can live with, and not to be too damaging. We should not pollute our ecosystem, with dangerous things, whether it be radiation or particulate matter in our atmosphere, or our drinking water. We should not treat our oceans as garbage dumps, nor do anything that would direly effect its ecosystem.

But to place co2, a life giving necessary gas in with those other things I listed is not quite right, nor fair, nor that sensible, given that we will sooner rather than later stop adding co2 from the burning of fossil fuels. It very well could be, that all that needs to be done with co2 is to address it with land management, which means the planting of co2 loving flora, as we force the end of the destruction or our rain forests which serve as the planets lungs.

Yet this co2 hysteria, that is contrived, is driven by an agenda. And you cannot redistribute income from the working people to the poor, by land management, which is why it is obvious that the IPCC isn't concerned about co2, and addressing it, unless they can redistribute income by doing so.

And for me, until we actually get serious about doing the sensible things like land management, I will not see this deal as anything but a political move to redistribute income from the working people to the poor, while the elites interpose themselves between the source of the money and those that will receive it, so they can dip their beaks in that income stream, not that much different from the way the mafia worked in the past. Just a way for the elites to get richer, as it costs working people. They have not shoved their hands deep enough into our pockets yet and will not be happy until they get the few cents left in the bottom. It's a common thread that has run through the entire history of humanity. This time, it is using science to achieve its end goal.

 

Hmmm yes - it seems to be done all the time about Cook's site but once again you are deflecting and I would really like to see some answers

 

There are no previous warmings since the last ice age equivalent to what we are experiencing today

 

And THIS post is on a thread where more than one respondent is claiming we are currently experiencing global cooling. We even have members quoting Don Easterbrook who is famous for claiming global cooling

 

You saw a bunch and what did you do? Refute the points? Nope, you attacked the messenger, much like the cartoonists blog does.

 

This conversation would be easier if I knew what you were actually talking about instead of guessing. My last post referencing any site was to confirm Contrails findings and this is "attacking the site". If there is misinformation then the site must be suspect - we have shown there is you have never shown where the misinformation purportedly is on SKS - oh! You have linked in the past to someone with a gripe but that proved to be just that with NO substance

 

You made a claim with that one you didn't back up. Back it up. You were also given a long list of SKS misdirection that you ignored and just attacked the messenger. Yet here you are defending a cartoonist as if being a cartoonist is the epitome of climate science expertise.

 

Sounds like a whole bunch of scare-mongering to me. How often have a group of professionals stood up in front of public and swore that A, B, and C were true...only to be found out to be liars later on...years later...after they have profited from these actions and seem clear free of punitive action?

What's even more confusing is how people can be so convinced of something in which they possess little to none of the knowledge necessary to have such a conviction. There's nothing settled on the science of global warming and even on the side of global warming, it isn't even settled whether it is a "catastrophe" or a relatively harmless event in the earth's natural cycle.

Rather than is Global Warming a thing or not, I want to know how people are able to distinguish the veracity of one argument from another, academically.

 

When it comes to science, the only criteria that distinguishes one argument from another is the ability to explain past phenomena and the ability to predict future phenomena. Global warming critics can question the accuracy of climate models all they want, but the simple fact is models that don't consider human CO2 emissions do much worse.

 

Remind me again what that claim was please - unless you are talking of the POS you posted that I refuted - the one that was NOT referenced was NOT peer reviewed and was NOT validated?

 

Uh, we clear cut over a hundred acres in the 1950s, on the edge of our farm. Today, we have the same species of trees that were cut down. Oak, Hickory, Pine, sassafras, elm, beech, the list could go on. And anyone who has ever owned land and clear cut it, knows this too. You live in a city?

The earth rebounds, and has been doing that habit for so long, its hard to imagine. But granted, some species can be lost, if there isn't another forest close by.

 

And when some people are trying to use science, to say the science is SETTLED, you know you are listening to basically a village idiot, or someone with an agenda, who doesn't mind falsifying.

Climate does change, that is a fact. But to use what is natural to fear monger is just wrong. And IMO, if this had never moved into the political realm, you would not have people hollering the science is settled. I am certainly not denying the climate is changing, for it is supposed to change, as we are still coming out of the last ice age for gods sake. Eventually the polar caps will melt and the ice age ends. And then at some point in time, a new one begins. That man might be speeding it up a little bit is no biggee. For it happens regardless with man or without man. But given the fact that we will be off of fossil fuels well before the turn of the next century means we will stop adding co2. So the problem, if it is one, corrects itself anyways.

So, using science if you want to decrease co2, you involve worldwide land management, which is simply planting trees and other co2 loving plants. Problem solved. But you cannot redistribute income by just planting trees and such, so the politically driven don't want to hear that. They demand carbon tax, to redistribute wealth, with an elite as a middle man, so he can dip his greedy little beak in the flow of income from west to east. This has been little more than an agenda driven farce from the get-go. The great mistake was made when we injected politics and political agendas into science, corrupting science.

 

Just means that models suck. How 'bout using real numbers?

 

Climate models are good at predicting long-term climate patterns on a global scale, and when they happen to get variable systems like ENSO right they are even better. How 'bout showing me a climate model that doesn't rely on anthropogenic CO2 emissions?

 

I don't live in the city. You apparently live in a mixed deciduous forest in a temperate climate. And your family has taken care of the land. The bulk of the logged land on the planet is in tropical climates with very thin soil that is susceptible to washing away after the forest is felled. So even if you wanted to replenish these forests lands, there is no soil on which to regrow them. So no the Earth doesn't always rebound. And what if one of those species that goes extinct is us?

 

Does it? Maybe the shorter lived trees may rebound but not the older trees and when you cut large swathes of forest you alter the microclimate of the area - less rainfall

The tropics are where the real issue is - thanks to cheap timber sourcing by western industrial nations large areas have been deforested and may take centuries to recover - IF and only IF they are allowed to recover, Brazil is clearing rainforest for cattle

 

What do you think the models are built of Leggo parts?

 

Yeah, you are correct, deciduous and temperate.

But the earth does rebound, given time. For instance, the Sahara was once green. And it will eventually be green again. Time is the great healer.

Of course speaking of greening, we are entering into a cyclical cooling cycle, which is historical, that is, history repeats, and our problem will not be warming which is good, but cooling, which is bad. The time wasted on warming, that fraud, should be used to get ready for massive crop failures and the loss of much of our bread basket. We only had a billon humans during the last cooling, but this time closer to 8 billion, and that means populations will shrink, from starvation.

Hard to escape these cyclical coolings, and that cycle is here. We should be seeing the evidence, so that no one can deny it in the next 5 years.

 

My dear dude, the issue is not and never has been whether or not the Earth can rebound from the outrageous damage we have done to it. Give enough time (and it would need a hell of a lot of time) it likely can. The questions are will we be around to witness it, will we play a part in its rehabilitation, and most importantly, do we truly have a right to subject our only home to such willful destruction? Does any species? Research has shown that while many ecosystems can and have been severely damaged in a relatively short period of time by man's actions on this planet, the rate at which they can recover has been shown to be far slower that was previously thought orders of magnitude slower, in fact.

 

Which, of course, they don't. Certainly did not predict the current warm blob in the Pacific.

 

They didn't predict the snow storms in Boston this winter either, but that's the difference between weather and climate.

 

Regardless of the damage we inflict, the Earth will survive and go on.....Humans and other animals might not be quite as lucky.