Questioning the Climate-Change Narrative

[Hafnium1979]

You are not to question the Almighty climate change you are but to kneel before it. If you dare you will be labeled a heretic sometimes referred to as science denier.

In Greta thunberg's name. Awoman

Actually one should question all science, but it does require a bit more education than most have. Most people don't have the technical ability to understand even the basic stuff and so their "questioning of the science" is about as meaningful as a toddler questioning the science.

People tend to confuse their own lack of knowledge with some deeper insight which isn't really there.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Literally no one disagrees that there is a larger draw over the last 20-40 years on water in the SW (actually this has been an ongoing issue for almost 130 years) but the original point that climate was also involved is still valid and accurate.

Have you looked at the last 100+ years of data, or are you just repeating some bloggers propaganda?

Can you show me that the times we have a lower precipitation it is due to AGW? It is constantly rising and falling. There is no solid correlation to greenhouse gasses.

 

[Hafnium1979]

Have you looked at the last 100+ years of data, or are you just repeating some bloggers propaganda?

Can you show me that the times we have a lower precipitation it is due to AGW? It is constantly rising and falling. There is no solid correlation to greenhouse gasses.

I never claimed it was 100% proven that the current drought was caused by AGW. I'm far more savvy than to make a claim like that. I did, however, not that there is a real climatological factor here (decreased water supply) and as such one cannot simply assume the entirety of the drought is due to increased population.

There is a known multi-year drought in the SW as well:

A Closer Look: Temperature and Drought in the Southwest | US EPA

This feature provides a closer look at trends in temperature and drought in the southwestern United States.

www.epa.gov

 

[watsup]

You are not to question the Almighty climate change you are but to kneel before it. If you dare you will be labeled a heretic sometimes referred to as science denier.

In Greta thunberg's name. Awoman

Denier talking point nonsense.

 

[watsup]

It isn't a record low. It is within the minimum rage of recorded precipitation.

Why do you guys always blame everything on AGW without proper evidence?

Do you understand how unreliable that makes your integrity?

Last sentence: psychological projection.

 

[watsup]

Have you looked at the last 100+ years of data, or are you just repeating some bloggers propaganda?

Can you show me that the times we have a lower precipitation it is due to AGW? It is constantly rising and falling. There is no solid correlation to greenhouse gasses.

Bloggers propaganda talking point.

 

[longview]

Sophisticated skeptics who questioned the mainstream science are a dime a dozen.

“Miguel Angel, a former U.S. Marine sergeant from Dallas, Texas, isn't a full-fledged flat Earther. He instead refers to himself as an observational scientist and considers the state of the world to still be an open question.”

5 Questions About Believing In A Flat Earth That You Were Afraid To Ask

Conference attendees at the 2nd annual Flat Earth International Conference in Denver gladly dispensed their knowledge when asked.

www.cpr.org

So what does your story have to do with the topics raised in the book?

 

[ataraxia]

So what does your story have to do with the topics raised in the book?

That sophisticated science skeptics are not that sophisticated: climate change is not real, earth is flat, masks don’t work, vaccines don’t work, etc, etc...

Dime a dozen. Don’t have time to refute all their points in all their books.

 

[CLAX1911]

Actually one should question all science, but it does require a bit more education than most have. Most people don't have the technical ability to understand even the basic stuff and so their "questioning of the science" is about as meaningful as a toddler questioning the science.

People tend to confuse their own lack of knowledge with some deeper insight which isn't really there.

I'm not too keen on the incredulity fallacy.

 

[Hafnium1979]

I'm not too keen on the incredulity fallacy.

That is usually the way that most skeptics online approach the science. They come at it without any real understanding of the basics, reject it outright because it conflicts with their deepest wishes and then they characterize it as seeing that which all the world's experts have somehow missed.

 

[CLAX1911]

That is usually the way that most skeptics online approach the science. They come at it without any real understanding of the basics,

I'm still not keen on the incredulity fallacy.

 

[watsup]

I'm still not keen on the incredulity fallacy.

Then why do you use it so much?

 

[longview]

That sophisticated science skeptics are not that sophisticated: climate change is not real, earth is flat, masks don’t work, vaccines don’t work, etc, etc...

Dime a dozen. Don’t have time to refute all their points in all their books.

Science only cares about the data!
Does the data support the hypothesis?
For human caused climate change, the data supports that added greenhouse gasses cause forcing warming, but the required strong positive feedbacks are strangely missing.
Once the models showed that the latency between emissions and maximum warming was only about a decade, the possible uncertainty was reduced. From the 3 main temperature data sets,
It looks like the data supports a 2XCO2 ECS of about 1.7C! This is not high enough to be of concern given our limited supply of fossil fuels.
We need to find an alternative to fossil fuels, but not because of CO2, but sustainability!

 

[ataraxia]

Science only cares about the data!
Does the data support the hypothesis?
For human caused climate change, the data supports that added greenhouse gasses cause forcing warming, but the required strong positive feedbacks are strangely missing.
Once the models showed that the latency between emissions and maximum warming was only about a decade, the possible uncertainty was reduced. From the 3 main temperature data sets,
It looks like the data supports a 2XCO2 ECS of about 1.7C! This is not high enough to be of concern given our limited supply of fossil fuels.
We need to find an alternative to fossil fuels, but not because of CO2, but sustainability!

Whatever it takes bud.

 

[CLAX1911]

Science only cares about the data!
Does the data support the hypothesis?
For human caused climate change, the data supports that added greenhouse gasses cause forcing warming, but the required strong positive feedbacks are strangely missing.
Once the models showed that the latency between emissions and maximum warming was only about a decade, the possible uncertainty was reduced. From the 3 main temperature data sets,
It looks like the data supports a 2XCO2 ECS of about 1.7C! This is not high enough to be of concern given our limited supply of fossil fuels.
We need to find an alternative to fossil fuels, but not because of CO2, but sustainability!

If you don't believe you are a heretic and they scorn you for it. It's how they were indoctrinated.

 

[CLAX1911]

Have you looked at the last 100+ years of data, or are you just repeating some bloggers propaganda?

The latter. The cool kids will call him names if he doesn't.

Can you show me that the times we have a lower precipitation it is due to AGW? It is constantly rising and falling. There is no solid correlation to greenhouse gasses.

AGW is a movable goalpost. If there is an odd occurrence say a lot of rain, a hurricane, unseasonable weather it's the demon AGW.

This is a religion. In absence of mythology people make up their own.

 

[Hafnium1979]

AGW is a movable goalpost. If there is an odd occurrence say a lot of rain, a hurricane, unseasonable weather it's the demon AGW.

Not per actual climate scientists. No climate scientist is going to take an isolated incident and decree it necessarily due to climate change. This is not how it all works.

Yes there are some hyperbolic types who will jump on any deviation and decree its cause to be a particular thing but that isn't how climate change is assessed. It is assessed on the preponderance of evidence, of masses of data collected and compared over years, decades and centuries. With the development of proxy data we can even see it over millennia.

This is a religion. In absence of mythology people make up their own.

I sense you have not actually read any climate science or earth systems science. Your characterization is not based on reality.

 

[CLAX1911]

Not per actual climate scientists. No climate scientist is going to take an isolated incident and decree it necessarily due to climate change. This is not how it all works.

a climate scientist is like a cryptozoologist. It's something made up to study a myth.

 

[Hafnium1979]

a climate scientist is like a cryptozoologist. It's something made up to study a myth.

It is ok to not understand something. There are plenty of resources you can use to learn the basics.

I am guessing you are still in school? Take some science classes and learn what is out there. People have been studying climate for a very, very long time. Understanding the overall weather patterns in specific areas and over longer time scales is a very interesting topic.

 

[CLAX1911]

It is ok to not understand something.

It's not as complicated as you need it to be for your fallacy.

 

[watsup]

If you don't believe you are a heretic and they scorn you for it. It's how they were indoctrinated.

More denier talking points. *YAWN*

 

[watsup]

The latter. The cool kids will call him names if he doesn't.
AGW is a movable goalpost. If there is an odd occurrence say a lot of rain, a hurricane, unseasonable weather it's the demon AGW.

This is a religion. In absence of mythology people make up their own.

More denier talking points.

 

[watsup]

It's not as complicated as you need it to be for your fallacy.

The fallacy talking point.

 

[Hafnium1979]

It's not as complicated as you need it to be for your fallacy.

The basics aren't really that complicated, you are correct, but it does require at least a basic understanding of how gases and radiation work. An intro geology class and an intro chemistry class could do you wonders.

Now, the nitty gritty stuff can get quite complex and you won't be up for that until you get further along in your studies.

Here's the basic stuff we do know:

We've known since the 1800's that CO2 absorbs IR radiation. That's incontrovertible. If you take a chemistry class they can show you that in actions.

We know that starting in the middle 19th century that western Europe and the US started mass industrialization and burned a lot of coal

We know that burning coal makes CO2 (you'll learn that in basic intro chemistry!)

We know that it takes a long time to fix carbon in coal naturally but we can burn it very quickly meaning we released a LOT of extra CO2 from our industrial output.

You can learn in geology classes how the CARBON CYCLE works and how it takes a lot of effort and time to get extra CO2 back out of the atmosphere.

There you have it! Pretty much basic things understandable by even a high school kid with minimal science training.

Now there's obviously a LOT more to it than just that but that's a good start for someone with almost no science background.

One of the really cool things is that we can tell, chemically, that a lot of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere since the mid-19th century is from burning fossil fuels! They can actually tell that! It's neat what science can do.

So, like I said, it's never bad not to know something because you can always learn!

Take an intro chem class and an intro geology class ( so you can learn about the history of earth and its climate) and you'll open a really cool area of learning.

 

[CLAX1911]

The basics aren't really that complicated,

You can pretend it's more complicated than it is to your heart's delight it is self-serving and it doesn't work on me.