Humans are the Cause of Global Warming

[rbbert]

I'd say those last 3 posts pretty well summarize the fallacy of the Global Warming argument.

One person cut-and-pastes and article that he doesn't understand, and probably didn't even read. If he did understand and read, he would have certainly recognized the numerous outright lies and distortions found within. Really, that 'story' is laughable for it's transparent pseudo-science. I'm assuming that came from Weather Underground? Knowing Jeff Masters personally I'm not surprised, that guy has been willing to do whatever it takes to 'sell' Global Warming since day one.

So one lay-person cut-and-pastes ridiculous story full of holes, then following 2 lay-people just swallow it whole, never once bothering to ask themselves questions about the veracity of data and information represented. I'm just waiting for another lay-person to regurgitate, "But 97% of scientists agree that it's fact!". Then the circle would be complete.

You may well be more qualified to comment on the scientific aspects of global warming, but apparently you have problems reading a topic thread and understanding why and what people post what they do, and their allusions and references.

 

[Vapor1]

You may well be more qualified to comment on the scientific aspects of global warming, but apparently you have problems reading a topic thread and understanding why and what people post what they do, and their allusions and references.

I understand why people with no credentials regarding Global Climate get involved. It's because the issue has been transformed out of a scientific one and into a political one, it keeps us divided and obfuscates the truth to the point of it no longer mattering. Once it's made into a political debate, opinions are formed solely on partisan divides.

If you do have any inclination to learn the truth, as I mentioned before you need to research for yourself how the temperature data has been manipulated to fit the case. Of course that's backward, the case should be manipulated to fit the data.

 

[BlueFox]

I understand why people with no credentials regarding Global Climate get involved. It's because the issue has been transformed out of a scientific one and into a political one, it keeps us divided and obfuscates the truth to the point of it no longer mattering. Once it's made into a political debate, opinions are formed solely on partisan divides.

Perhaps with your wisdom you can enlighten us as to the members, reason, and history of this conspiracy to create a political issue out of scientific data.

 

[edorr]

Perhaps with your wisdom you can enlighten us as to the members, reason, and history of this conspiracy to create a political issue out of scientific data.

According to my libertarian friends on facebook, It is all part of a global green/red conspiracy, which aims to establish global fascism/communism, crush the individual and take everyone's guns. Final holdouts will be taken out with drones. It all makes 1984 seem like a walk in the park. Current event in Venezuela are cited as proof of the movement. It is all very intriguing stuff.

 

[mdabb]

I'd say those last 3 posts pretty well summarize the fallacy of the Global Warming argument.

One person cut-and-pastes and article that he doesn't understand, and probably didn't even read. If he did understand and read, he would have certainly recognized the numerous outright lies and distortions found within. Really, that 'story' is laughable for it's transparent pseudo-science. I'm assuming that came from Weather Underground? Knowing Jeff Masters personally I'm not surprised, that guy has been willing to do whatever it takes to 'sell' Global Warming since day one.

So one lay-person cut-and-pastes ridiculous story full of holes, then following 2 lay-people just swallow it whole, never once bothering to ask themselves questions about the veracity of data and information represented. I'm just waiting for another lay-person to regurgitate, "But 97% of scientists agree that it's fact!". Then the circle would be complete.

Perhaps you could back up your opinion/case with facts, data or evidence. As someone who claims to have a degree in Atmospheric Science and work experience at NCAR and NWS, this would surely be an easy task. Where & when did you obtain your degree? What level of degree? Would you post or PM your name so people could verify your claims/credentials & as well as your claim about personally knowing Jeff Masters.

Essentially if I am a victim of a massive hoax, and you personally know the "truth" .......... would you be so kind to prove your claims?

Nothing personal but I'm gonna need some verifiable proof.

 

[rbbert]

Part of the problem in a more global (ha!) sense is that the political efforts nominally aimed at affecting global warming are B___S___. "Carbon credits"? Come on. And really, as Mosin posted earlier (but may not have been too serious about, since it's in contradiction to most of his other posts) what we should be focusing on is cleaning up the environment generally. THE big problem is that without government involvement business has no economic incentive (which means no real incentive) to do that, and of course government involvement brings partisan politics with it. This despite the fact that if anything should be above partisan politics it should be protecting the place where we all live.

 

[Vapor1]

Perhaps you could back up your opinion/case with facts, data or evidence. As someone who claims to have a degree in Atmospheric Science and work experience at NCAR and NWS, this would surely be an easy task. Where & when did you obtain your degree? What level of degree? Would you post or PM your name so people could verify your claims/credentials & as well as your claim about personally knowing Jeff Masters.

Essentially if I am a victim of a massive hoax, and you personally know the "truth" .......... would you be so kind to prove your claims?

Nothing personal but I'm gonna need some verifiable proof.

Who I am is easy enough to be verified, I'm not attempting to create some cloud of anonymity. I'm also not claiming to know the truth, nor am I saying ALL of it is a hoax. However, much of it is regarding manipulation of past and present temperature data. Again, you can get that information for yourself if you take the time to read. But that's such a rabbit hole, the entire argument is based on convincing graphs that use this manipulated data, without them there's nothing. Remove the manipulations, and correct for heat-island effects, and that same data will paint a VERY different picture. There's a youtube video from some years back where a 9 year old did just that for a school project and guess what, no warming. If a 9 year old (admittedly with the help of his educated father) can do it, any of you here can as well. That would however require taking a step back and looking at the issue outside the scope of partisanship.

I am not the source of all answers, my only message is cut-and-pasting being the end of your research is foolish. If you do wish to understand the issue deeper than headlines, take the time to do so yourself.

Also like I said I haven't worked in the field for some time, I'm not an authority that is quoted or anything like that. But had things worked out differently, I certainly could have been at this point in my life. I know enough, and 99 times out of 100 I'm the only person with a degree that takes part in these discussions online. So you shouldn't discard me as some denier cook.

My honest belief is that in 10 years this 'issue' will be history. We're at the peak of a solar cycle right now, which turned out to be a very low relative to those of the past 100 years. Over the next few years when we slide into the solar minimum of an already low cycle, I believe cooling will again become the dominant concern. We'll have to wait and see how politicians try to finagle that into a means of taxation.

 

[rbbert]

I'm pretty sure that in 10 years all environmental issues will be even more apparent than they are now if the US (and more of the developing world) doesn't start doing more about pollution of all kinds (which does include waste heat and CO2, although that's not where I'd recommend focusing most effort).

 

[mdabb]

Who I am is easy enough to be verified, I'm not attempting to create some cloud of anonymity. I'm also not claiming to know the truth, nor am I saying ALL of it is a hoax. However, much of it is regarding manipulation of past and present temperature data. Again, you can get that information for yourself if you take the time to read. But that's such a rabbit hole, the entire argument is based on convincing graphs that use this manipulated data, without them there's nothing. Remove the manipulations, and correct for heat-island effects, and that same data will paint a VERY different picture. There's a youtube video from some years back where a 9 year old did just that for a school project and guess what, no warming. If a 9 year old (admittedly with the help of his educated father) can do it, any of you here can as well. That would however require taking a step back and looking at the issue outside the scope of partisanship.

I am not the source of all answers, my only message is cut-and-pasting being the end of your research is foolish. If you do wish to understand the issue deeper than headlines, take the time to do so yourself.

Also like I said I haven't worked in the field for some time, I'm not an authority that is quoted or anything like that. But had things worked out differently, I certainly could have been at this point in my life. I know enough, and 99 times out of 100 I'm the only person with a degree that takes part in these discussions online. So you shouldn't discard me as some denier cook.

My honest belief is that in 10 years this 'issue' will be history. We're at the peak of a solar cycle right now, which turned out to be a very low relative to those of the past 100 years. Over the next few years when we slide into the solar minimum of an already low cycle, I believe cooling will again become the dominant concern. We'll have to wait and see how politicians try to finagle that into a means of taxation.

If you think "cutting-and-pasting" was the end of my personal research you are sorely mistaking. Most people are not gonna click on links so pasting the info (not my opinion) for all to see is a better approach. It's not like I didn't cite the source. Which includes basic, intermediate and advanced explanations. Plus data & links to other scientific studies. I also posted a video (easy enough to watch) produced by the National Academy of Sciences as a basic starting point. You assert this is nothing but pseudo science with manufactured and/or manipulated data. How so? Perhaps if you bothered to view & discuss, rather than insult and dismiss, it would be more constructive.

You make these assertions without providing any evidence to back it up other than "I know enough". You state you have a degree in Atmospheric Science, and work experience at NCAR and NWS. Instead of me playing internet detective, what's wrong with disclosing when & where you received your degree? As well the level of degree? After all you are casting doubt on the work of many accredited scientists in numerous disciplines around the globe.

97% of actively publishing climate scientists are convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change. They also found that those scientists that were unconvinced had significantly fewer publications (in any science) than those that were convinced. This suggests that the (vocal) "unconvinced" group actually has done a lot less research.

And to add to that........ a list of climate change position papers put out by the major governmental scientific institutes of the world that deal with the atmosphere, ocean, and climate. All of these organizations agree that significant human-caused climate change is occurring: United Nations IPCC, American Meteorological Society, NOAA, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, American Geophysical Union, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Royal Society of the United Kingdom, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Science, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Royal Society (UK) (PDF File), Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK)

Still, I keep an open mind. However, I don't see much or anything credible from the opposition to inform & educate us simple common folk. Really why is that? Scientists have reached a consensus and now I'm supposed to look up a youtube video put out by a 9yr. old & his father. That just sounds ridiculous & absurd. Plus, you don't think scientists didn't account for the solar minima & solar maxima, etc...

I have nothing against you & don't hold grudges. Luckily I don't have thin skin. This isn't my first rodeo with AV fora. You are entitled to your opinion, but please communicate with respect to others. I'm not sure you realize or care that you are a Representative of your business. Potential customers may find your manners crass.

Anyhow, I'm sure we could both go on & on but that isn't doing much for the conversation. If you are serious, I would view evidence to support your argument. Please refrain from politics.

Thanks!