It's an interesting 4 questions and well written article. I do not think AGW is a hoax... and I do think it's more likely than not that "we" have an impact on the planet in many ways, one being changing temperature. But I also dont have enough specific knowledge to really understand the magnitude of change that could occur or the realistic time tables.
There is a ton of science out there that's been accrued. It's not all created to mislead, nor pushed as an agenda of deception.
I agree. I have found that the biggest deniers are the least educated and don't even have opinion based on fact. Mostly it seems like it is people with barely a 6th grade science education.
I'm suspecting only people that think it's real will watch this, but it's a neat video. The guy is not a climate scientist, he's a PhD in micro biology if I recall correctly. He's just amalgamating a bunch of info actual climate scientists have studied.
Maybe, it's wrong. There is always that chance. But hoax or global conspiracy - those ideas percolate enough hot air to speed up AGW ;)...
this "man made" crap is all for ultimate control of the populace ..e.g. carbon tax developed by a guy (I'll call him Al) who jets around the planet using fossil fuels, heats his four homes and pool extensively to sell this BS and make himself rich.
Did you know if you took all the ants in the world and weighed them, they would have the same weight as all the humans in the world?
Has nothing to do with global warming, but just another factoid that cannot be checked by anyone, but I did read it on a science site so it must be correct...right?...8^)
Personally, I do know for a fact that humans can have an impact on the environment. I also am sure that humans cause pollution and have been known to destroy entire habitats and bodies of water. I can see this, I can measure this.
What I cannot see or measure is mankind's impact on the climate. As noted above, a bacteria caused one of the largest climate changes known to man. So, what else could be causing the climate to change, assuming it is changing (whatever that means), besides a human influence?
Why are people so determined that it is mankind's fault (assuming a fault needs to be assigned) for climate change to be occurring now when all previous climate changes, and we know there have been many, were due to something else?
But, somehow (according to Al Gore, et al), "the Sky is falling", and we have to globally pour money into this "problem", to avoid devastation and catastrophe.
Yeah, when it gets to that level...call me a "denier"...I'm good with it!
I find it strange how trusting folks are when it's been proven many times the "scientists" have been caught lying about data or intentionally omitting very important data, such as an entire Medieval Warming Period a blink of an eye ago (with zero chance of any man made causes) or pretty much anything that doesn't help their "cause". That is what it has become. A "cause"..... a religion if you will. And they have been VERY disingenuous (to put it kindly) about their evidence as well as their conclusions, predictions that have not only been wrong.... but drastically wrong. Much of their work is not even held open to peer review. Not even debate, just questioning data and methods are met with scorn and threats to those in the field. The politics have far overtaken any hard proven undeniable science.
Science..... Academia mostly..... is in a period of censorship on a great many subjects and levels where once it prided itself on open and honest and free discussion. Now you are shouted down rather than having to prove and defend everyone's positions.
It is so complex.... there are so many holes in their positions, models and studies..... I can understand the frustration. Why not just come out and say it that they really don't have a definitive handle on any of this rather than be proven wrong (or even dishonest) on a near daily basis? And tell those who are demanding their political solution (and the power that goes with it) to go sit down and shut up. But it seems those are the very people driving the "science".
The global warming debate is like a court case where only the prosecution is funded.
That’s something that even non scientists like me can understand.
The climate's been changing for over 4 billion years, LONG before we even existed. Warming and cooling cycles have been going on since recorded history and before if you study geology. It will continue to change long after we're gone. Should we keep our "house" clean? Absolutely. But to say that we are causing hurricanes and tornadoes is pure gibberish designed by politicians to have more control over us and to take even more of our money.
That's pretty much what I'm saying....I am personally trying to be low impact everywhere possible. It isn't good what is happening to the planet. You can't hardly find the top of a mountain anymore that doesn't have a beer can on it. I will be floating an Ozark river starting Friday morning fishing for trout and smallmouth. This is a river with no outfitters and no human traffic to speak of, especially this early in the year......but I will bet that I come to the end of the 14 miles on Sunday with an extra trash bag full of stuff I didn't bring.
There are rare scenario's in research where things are "perfect". The reality is that they are proven "more likely than not"... The degree to which may be noted via statistical power, but beyond that, 100% proof is rare. Once some research is done, it's value is impacted by replication. The more studies which repeat that question and find the same outcome, the better. It's hard to say that a lot of climate change questions have been asked, and answered repeatedly, without acknowledging that a lot of that info suggests we play a role, and there will be an impact of some sort. Questions beyond that - what do we do about it, etc... Who knows?
When scientists use hyperbole to describe something like climate change having a human influence and potentially significant impacts, like saying "there is no debate", they are trying to broadly note that there is a lot of evidence in one direction. That's it.
Is there evidence in a neutral direction or "no change" direction. Sure. Why is that evidence from the scientific community 100% perfect, infallible and beyond reproach while evidence suggesting the rate of change lately (so to speak) is not just bogus, but poor science and a giant conspiracy designed to alter the geopolitics of the world (I embellish).
It's just curious to me. whenever I talk about this subject with folks who disagree - fine, there is some evidence pointing another way, and if people believe that that evidence is better, cool, we can agree to disagree, go hunting and enjoy roasting some venison over a camp fire and have a great time - but it's always curious to me, that there is zero wiggle room. Zero acceptance that if research on one side of an issue is smothered in bogus work and outcomes... then the research with similar claims on the opposite side of an issue, is going to be just as bogus.
These are the things that people can understand and see. These are the things that most reasonable and responsible people are willing to address and try to find solutions for.
When the Climate Change alarmists keep going off about stuff that no one can really see or feel, things that people just have to take 'their' word for, and these things are accompanied by blind panic, plans to alter the world economies and the way people live their lives and other doomsday scenarios, many reasonable people don't respond to that.
If I've embedded it correctly, here is a pretty good video I show the kids when we talk about climate change.
There is no doubt in my mind that at least in my neck of the woods, the winters are warmer than when I was a kid which were warmer than when my father was a kid. However, I have my doubts about the cause being primarily man made.
Straight —» Arrow's Link
I can. All I have to do is plan to drop the boat in the water and if you really want an accurate prediction, I'll plan to use the pontoon. ;^)
I don't. But it seems the other 3,999,999,800 years don't matter to the AGW cultists.
That's enough case for me that we should be pursuing renewable sources of energy and pushing for things like better fuel efficiency in our cars. It drives me nuts to hear about guys purposefully burning tires on Earth Day and reveling in their gas-guzzlers, just to spite the other side. And a lot the people who do these types of things are supposedly Christians... If Jesus were in front of you, what would he think about your burning tires to spite your liberal neighbors?
I want fossil fuels to be available for my grandchildren and their children for their entire lives and beyond. I also want them to have clean air and water.
It's also a national security issue. We should be pushing for technology and lowering our fossil fuel use for so many other reasons than carbon emissions, that it's almost a smoke screen, yet, fought tooth and nail by so many just because carbon emissions are the cause celebre of the left.
At worst, if Climate Change believers are wrong, we help create a cleaner environment which is good for outdoors folks like all of us.
I remember being very interested in the articles about Jim Hanson and the coming ice age. It was mid-1970s in Time and Newsweek magazines and i was studying geomorphology in college at the time.
That is the same Jim Hanson who, about a decade later, then claimed we were going to boil over!
All of the chicken little's many disaster claims over the following decades have ALL proven to be false.
That should be our first clue. NONE of their disasters have materialized.
AGW is a flat out a hoax. Do we have some small effect? Most likely, but no one can prove what it is or how large/small it is. Some do guess and call that factual data.
Global warming is a complete unknown because it changes via lots of little ups and downs that look important today but may not mean much over the long term and, underline this, we have so little data that we dont even know where we are in the long term cycle! That is correct, we dont know if we are in a little cooling period on a generally warming earth or in a warming period on a generally cooling earth.
Climate change is a fact or I would be sitting under a glacier a few miles thick right now.
All in all, the single largest factor by many many times is the sun. Solar flares are HUGE factors and the chicken littles do their absolute best to keep any info about them hidden while promoting their power and money grabbing scheme.
No at worse you take away jobs, stifle economic growth, slow the economy and make the cost of housing, cars, household products dramatically increase for low income and middle class people!
What if, as new tech/ideas/industry evolved which created a cleaner environment, people embraced growing into new fields and took on jobs in those emerging markets?
Say CC/AGW is not real and those of us who believe are sheeple... But we now have a lingering sector of fossil fuel driven energy jobs and we have a growing and evolving sector of jobs helping create independence from that market? Seems a sensible long term approach that could help our grandkids and their grandkids.
Is the only way to sustain a solid economy to suspect CC/AGW is BS, and to block any effort to work towards more environmentally friendly energy production methods?
Look at the Obama administration and the blatant attempt to bankrupt coal and oil and at the same time pay out to his buddies and prop them up. Literally picking the winners and losers. That didn't work out very well for them... or us. Those he picked took the fed money and ran..... "Energy costs must necessarily skyrocket...." that was a large part of the foundation of his plan to "fundamentally change America".
I understand the point you're trying to make and in theory (on the upside of clean, renewable energy), I agree that's the best course for the long term. I strongly suspect no one here would argue against that; what's being argued against, and justifiably so, is the current proposed new paradigm in which despite being propped up by subsidies the alternatives are simply not economically viable and worse, as alluded to above are job-killing, economy stifling proposals that only serve the pretense of moving towards meaningful, positive change.
What's needed is an all-inclusive strategy, one that continues to make use of current energy sources while maintaining cost-effectiveness and making sound investments in workable alternatives with only upside and no negative impact to jobs, the economy, etc.
Wind & solar have a place but they are not, nor will they ever be the panacea some ascribe them to be. I'm happy to see more money is being funneled into nuclear fusion, a much more viable option for the long term in my opinion.
Lastly, I'd avoid any conflating of CC and AGW; the two are in fact two very different concepts. Climate change is real and has and will always continue to occur. AGW on the other hand is a theory about man-made climate change; looking at the "evidence" on both sides I remain convinced that the greater weight of science-based claims favor the "deniers".
Denying a flawed theorem does not make one a nay-sayer nor does it follow you can ascribe their motivation to being in the pocket of Big Oil; for many in that camp their position has been arrived at by doing what all participants in this argument should be doing; challenging the science until it is undeniably proven to be valid.
Thanks for adding to the discussion.
Couldn't agree more!
I do believe the evidence suggests we are impacting the rate of change in the climate... whether there really is anything we can do to alter course, or if the rate really is going to be as impact-full as some do or do not believe... Ultimately I dont think anyone can be certain there.
Ultimately, the question becomes at what point is the science considered valid... And given the politicized nature of this discussion on a global level... Can that ever really occur?
Thanks for the interesting ideas!