Climate Change...Part XXXIII...

It seems that climate change has raised its ugly head again. Only it seems like there are more and more scientists who are publicly stating what most of us have been saying all along: CLIMATE CHANGE IS A MYTH.

Read on:

Chicken Little ‘Science’ - Cal Thomas - Page full

1 Like

Ignoring climate change isn’t going to make it go away. Also very few scientists disagree with climate change, most of the people that do are politicians, writers, and the like.
(No “it’s snowing where I live climate change can’t exist posts from anybody” please, yes I read patrica’s recent thread, I watch the news, I know somebody is going to try and bring it up at some point)

Structure of scientific opinion on climate change Journalist’s Resource: Research for Reporting, from Harvard Shorenstein Center

With all due respect, Robert, you are citing a source of climate change zealots. These are the same people who have a vested interest in perpetuating the climate change myth. Now, let’s be clear: I’m not saying that climate change doesn’t happen. That is, indeed, a fact. However, climate change (first “global warming”, now “global climate change”) according to the Algore Chicken Little climate devotees is a myth. And the only scientific evidence that can be wrought in this argument is the proven climate change evidence of the earth for thousands of years and THAT does not prove in any way, shape, or form, the climate alarmists’ claims.

Robert, then someone forgot to tell these 37,000 scientists that don’t support the claim that climate change is caused by humans.

I guess these scientists must be completely delusional
Global Warming Petition Project

Maybe we should ask the national Academy of Sciences of whome only 2% believe in remote viewing even though remote viewing has been scientifically proven

Entangled Minds: Skeptic agrees that remote viewing is proven

Seriously? You are aware that petition was debunked some time ago right (by which I mean 1998)? Odd Names Added to Greenhouse Plea.

Robert I might stand corrected on this one. So far it looks like your right on the petition. I’ll have to do a better job of playimg devils advocate on these types of sources the next time

Here is something that might stand up better to scrutiny.
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

Here’s an interesting article on this topic.

Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming | National Association of Scholars

1 Like

Paying attention to it isn’t going to make it go away either. The climate has been changing on this rock since it was formed. We are neither setting overall records colder or hotter. It was warmer in the Middle Ages and the Dark Ages (If I recall correctly on the latter) then we are now and were colder during any of the numerous Ice Ages. I doubt my SUV had anything to do with any of those periods.

5 Likes

Nice link CT. I don’t see a majority consensus at all for scientists that believe that global warming is man made at all.

Robert any comment on these 2 links?
By the way Robery Ty for correcting my bad research, it is how we grow in knowledge :slight_smile:

2 Likes

**1) **Off the top of my head concerns about the links would be bias: National Association of Scholars is largely seen as a conservative advocacy group by many based on many of their political views plus the source of much of their funding. Forbes has a focus on business and capitalism (not science or environmental issue) plus Steve Forbes himself is a rather well known Republican giving it a more conservative tilt. Another concern is the rather specific use of the word “scientist”, something I notice every now and then. In the interview he said “the number of skeptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now.” It’s a rather vague statement: are these scientists climatologist? Political scientists? Nuclear physicists? Psychologists? I would also like to take a peak at the methodology of the Climate Change Reconsidered to see how the research was conducted (the how is very important). I noticed a bit farther back that wallstreeter mentioned geoscientists and engineers; neither one of those are experts in the field of atmospheric science.
**2) **I’ve seen that petition a couple times before…last time it led to a shouting match and to be honest I’m rather glad it won’t lead to another (metaphorical) shouting match here.

[quote=“Robert_Clay, post:2, topic:43284”]
Ignoring climate change isn’t going to make it go away. Also very few scientists disagree with climate change, most of the people that do are politicians, writers, and the like.
(No “it’s snowing where I live climate change can’t exist posts from anybody” please, yes I read patrica’s recent thread, I watch the news, I know somebody is going to try and bring it up at some point)

Structure of scientific opinion on climate change Journalist’s Resource: Research for Reporting, from Harvard Shorenstein Center
[/quote]I swore I wasn’t going to get into these debates for a while, but… falsifiability is what distinguishes science from nonscience… at least that’s what I was taught. what would falsify “climate change?” every seemingly or obviously negative weather event is simply swept into the catchall category of “climate change,” while weather events or trends that have a possible positive aspect never get counted as being “climate change.” the game is rigged from the get-go. it is clearly driven by political considerations, regardless of the credentials of the scientists who, like anyone else, are going to say whatever it takes to get those government grants of research money.

the climate of the world is never static, it is always changing, always has and always will. obviously it needs to remain within certain parameters in order for the planet to remain habitable for human beings. we have no guarantee that it always will. but of course if there is anything within reason we can do to ensure staying within those parameters, it behooves us to do so. the bottom line question then seems to be, is industrial output of carbon gases proven beyond reasonable doubt to be the cause of all or most weather trends that are negative in impact? I don’t see it reaching any standard of proof that in an objective world could be considered scientific.

the very fact that “global warming” had to be changed to the vague, all-inclusive, unfalsifiable rubric of “climate change” is itself a stunning admission of the weakness of the position that the global warming folks find themselves in. they don’t like to talk about it, but in the occasional unguarded moment, they do.

I frankly think the disappearing bees, the rise of androgynous simple animals, and the plummeting human sperm count are more urgent questions for human beings to solve than climate change. but solving those mysteries does not necessarily contribute to the growth of government. Ergo, they must not be very important.

2 Likes

I would very much like it if you would prove to me that that statement is true. I’ve never heard of the organization and found it quite by accident. There is nothing in the article or on the website to indicate what side of the political spectrum this site leans. And, if it is, in fact, somehow linked to a conservative group, why would that warrant a sweeping dismissal of the article? And, scientists don’t necessarily have to be climatologists to understand the science of climate!

[quote=“Robert_Clay, post:11, topic:43284”]
**1) **Off the top of my head concerns about the links would be bias
[/quote]This nonsense of “link wars”, “my source is better than your source”, or “my expert is better than your expert”, will go on perpetually. At the end of the day, you will select the things that support your argument.

So what is the solution? Be your own expert.

For example, I have a graduate degree in Chemical Engineering. Does that qualify me to put forth on AGW? Of course not.

But I have some confidence in my abilities to analyze scientific data, and my abilities to render a judgment on MODELS. And, after analyzing data, AND THE MODELS USED, from both sides . . . my conclusion: AGW IS A CROCK. I am my OWN SOURCE . . . PERIOD.

In areas where I lack that confidence, for example in political “classification” of others, I’m a little bit shaky. But as far as AGW goes? No . . . I am solid in my opinion. And AFAIC . . . IT’S A CROCK!!!

3 Likes

Patriciareed; I have on numerous occasions laid out the dynamics of earth and the inherent climate change cycles, but the same idiots who espouse global warming and then change to global cooling wherein it’s a human issue, keep using their false premise to warm themselves by the fire. It seems to be the liberal mantra, to repeat the lie as often as possible expecting it to magically turn to truth.

1 Like

They’re founder one Stephen Balch is a fairly prominent conservative scholar while many present and past members of the advisory board include a number of well known neoconservatives that have been active as far back as the Reagan administration. They also have a strongly stated opposition to several left wing ideals like multiculturalism and gets a chunk of it’s grant money from organizations like the John M. Olin Foundation which is tied to a number of conservative think-tanks. Of course that doesn’t prove anything, it is simply an opinon of mine based on what evidence I’ve seen and they are still a respectable scholarly organization…

…Which of course is why I’m not simply giving the source a sweeping dismissal, but if there is a conservative (or for that matter a liberal) bias I am going to be more wary and suspicious of what a source has to say especially considering the fact that I cannot find the methodology.

Of course not, but a climatologist is more likely to understand the science of climate far better than a non-climatologist. In the topic of the science of climate I’m going to hold the word of a climatologist above the word of say a geo-scientist. The inverse is also true, I’d hold the opinon of a geo-scientist above a climatologist when it come to the topic of the science of the earth and what is under it.

In that case let us presume my source is also biased, does that necessitate a sweeping dismissal of what *my *article has to say?

Of course not, but a climatologist is more likely to understand the science of climate far better than a non-climatologist. In the topic of the science of climate I’m going to hold the word of a climatologist above the word of say a geo-scientist. The inverse is also true, I’d hold the opinon of a geo-scientist above a climatologist when it come to the topic of the science of the earth and what is under it.

Touche… Like some other topics, I believe we are at an impasse. Like Bobjam said, sometimes discussions like this devolve into the “my source is better than your source” argument…which isn’t an argument at all. For me, the bottom line is that I don’t believe in global warming–at least, not how it is presented by the expert climatologists. And, I certainly don’t believe anything that is uttered out of the mouth of Algore.

Wow…something went wrong with my last post!! I seem to have a knack for bringing the “heebie-jeebies” to my posts!

[quote=“Robert_Clay, post:16, topic:43284”]
Of course not, but a climatologist is more likely to understand the science of climate far better than a non-climatologist. In the topic of the science of climate I’m going to hold the word of a climatologist above the word of say a geo-scientist. The inverse is also true, I’d hold the opinon of a geo-scientist above a climatologist when it come to the topic of the science of the earth and what is under it
[/quote]Whoa . . . whoa . . . whoa . . . not so fast.

I wouldn’t disagree that a climatologist might be more likely to understand elements of CLIMATE, but to get there these guys use MODELS. And MODELS are in the realm of mathematicians, engineers, and most with a background in ANY science.

So while the behavior of the climate may be better understood by climatologists (and even that’s arguable and is in the arena of, “my expert is better than your expert”), the MODEL itself, EVEN BEFORE YOU GET TO IT’S APPLICATION TO CLIMATE, is within the legitimate purview of a whole lot more scientists than CLIMATOLOGISTS.

I wouldn’t go toe-to-toe with a Climatologist on climate issues (though I could hold my own there), BUT I WOULD DEFINITELY GO TOE-TO-TOE ON ISSUES RELATED TO THE VALIDITY OF THE MODEL ITSELF. And in that arena, I have found that the MODELS IPCC is using are very very flawed (not the least of which is because they are using linear models for non-linear behavior . . . and that’s not the only problem I have . . . the linear models are flawed themselves right out of the gate.)

1 Like

Well there is a reason you never see me using Al Gore in an attempt to support my argument…also if you add

[quote="Robert Clay] at the very start of you previous post it should fix it.

If I had a nickel every time you said that phrase BobJam… :slight_smile:

So you’re saying that the climatologists themselves aren’t necessarily wrong but that the General Circulation Model is flawed? Or is it another set of models based off of Gen. Circulation?