You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Climate Change: Factors Ignored by the Mainstream
I don't think "global warming zealots" exist, or that it's a religion. That seems like a dishonest caricature to me, and how anything seems when it's unclear to the layperson what makes it credible. Nor do I think the middle point between two extremes is always correct. 2+2=5 is in between 2+2=4 and 2+2=6, but that doesn't make it the most reasonable.
Confounding effects like the heat island effect, shade, albedo, etc. were what caused Richard A. Muller to also be skeptical of the findings AGW is based on. So, he re-did all of the original experiments while accounting for those factors. Notably, his funding came from the Koch brothers, who hoped he would find some flaw in the original methodology.
Can you guess what he found instead?
Well, of course he converted from a skeptic to a believer! I have heard the same argument made to support Christianity.
I wouldn't characterize all people that believe in anthropogenic global warming as zealots. Hopefully that isn't how I came across. There is definitely a sub group that are so invested in the idea of CO2 based gloabal warming that no matter what current evidence or new evidence might come up, it wouldn't change their minds. Which basically means that they have faith in this AGW idea.
One of the issues I have with AGW being pushed by the mainstream media, governments and educational institutions, is that for the last 20 years that people have been focused on it, almost all the other real environmental issues have been ignored. Deforestation and constant plowing leading to topsoil loss and desertification is a huge issue and where is the public outcry? Nitrification of our lakes and streams from synthetic fertilizers and improperly managed livestock operations is also a big deal and I hear nothing about it almost.
It is getting late and I don't have time to write an essay, maybe I can do a follow up video. To keep it brief though, I trust my five senses and gut a whole lot more then a bunch of academics. I have seen too much shenanigans with science when it comes to health issues to just blindly trust the "experts" on global warming.
Don't fixate on the language used, but on his research. He had every reason in the world to conclude what his paymasters wanted. Why didn't he?
No, nobody's like this and it's an absurd caricature you're using to dismiss legitimate scientific findings.
I don't think that's the case. There's still plenty of attention paid to those problems. If you gauge how much work is being done on solving a problem by your personal awareness of it, consider that's mostly connected to the amount of news coverage each problem receives.
So do flat Earthers.
I'm gonna guess those shenanigans were fake news though, like "climategate" which was a whole lot of nothing.
"I'm gonna guess those shenanigans were fake news though, like "climategate" which was a whole lot of nothing."
Hmm, remember Al Gore's graph that he rode a scissor lift to elaborate on? Well turns out he was lying. Straight out lying. He separated the graph of CO2 emission and temperature increase in such a gross fashion to hide the fact that the graph actually shows that the heat PRECEDES the CO2 emissions. NOT the other way around.
Pure deception, and he got nailed for it.
I don't see any citations in your post.