A few crackpots don't make up the consensus of the scientific community. Just because a conference has climate in its name doesn't make it legitimate. You will be able to find a ton of bullshit in the world to support your viewpoint, that doesn't make what you are thinking in this regard true. I can't ask people who lack training to try to decipher actual scientific literature because it's written in a bunch of jargon and jibberish and is hard to make sense of unless you have been forced to learn it. So you just have to trust the general consensus of the community. To choose to believe the fringes is to fall prey to those with an adgenda.
Thanks for the explanation. I understand the basis of the argument, including the methane aspect, at least to some degree.
Here are some reasons some people are very resistant:
Science has claimed that poisons from everything from DDT to glyphosate were harmless to humans. It's been going on a long time, and continues to happen with each new round of destructive chemicals.
Science provided us with saccharin and aspartame as healthy alternatives to sugar.
Science has been known to have inbreeding, including self-peer-reviews. Hyung-In Moon is a great example.
Universities have also been known to teach what their benefactors sell.
Science claims that plants are bad for us but synthesized food and medicine are good.
USDA - Reams could be written. I already mentioned dietary standards based on false data.
FDA - Ditto
Some scientists claim one thing while others claim another.
You're probably more aware of these types of things than I am. But Stanford had a bit to say about it here.
Add to this asinine legislation such as carbon taxes, fart taxes and myriad other fees, regulations and draconian impositions, and people are fed up. Scientific consensus has lied to us and been wielded as a mechanism of control by the state, as well as corporations, often for cronyistic reasons and to both the physical and financial detriment of those who buy into the claims.
Al Gore.... not much more needs to be said here.
This isn't an attack on your personally. But you and your colleagues would do well to be empathetic to folks who are sick of being yanked around by the nose by so-called science. It's incredibly difficult to know who to believe. And just claiming credentials and expertise simply isn't enough, especially when someone is attempting to wield the claimed results in a way that's detrimental to most of us. It has as much credibility as saying, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".
Ad hominem comments don't help. Discerning readers will recognize this and dismiss it.
Consensus does not determine fact. It attempts to recognize it, but has been proven wrong often enough to question it.
Everyone has an agenda. For some, it's the truth. For others, it's what someone else convinces them of. And yet, for others, it's their own for various reasons.
Universities train with an agenda, often set by those who fund them the most. We see this perhaps most clearly in the medical field, but it's also evident in agriculture and other sciences.
If we read the headlines and "just trust the general consensus of the community", we will be lead by our noses wherever the most visible "community" cares to take us. We'll think that a carb rich diet is the most nutritious and that animal fat causes obesity, for example.
So, no, I won't buy that for a second. I will, however, concede that I do not have enough information to form a solid opinion (as I shared with Brian). Rather, I will read such claims with doubt and continue to watch until I am more confident that conclusions drawn are not just part of a narrative, but are indeed true.
Even if the increase in CO2 is mainly from man, the solutions proposed by the scientific "community" are often political in nature and sometimes nonsensical. Carbon sequestration is actually quite simple and better for everyone involved, from the smallest microecosystem to the atmosphere in general. And it helps remediate flooding and topsoil loss. This much I do understand. It costs nothing while offering everything. But it doesn't fit anyone's agenda unless they can charge for it, or at least tax it.
The increase in CO2, is not entirely caused by humans, it is worsened by our activities but there are a variety of natural factors involved in these processes. The consensus is that humans are contributing to the warming, not that we are the sole controlling factor. The Earth's temperatures is dictated through such a large number of complex equilibria CO2 is just one component. Methane is actually a significant greater concern, and if current warming trends continue, and current ice composition restructuring continues it will lead to the release of significant pockets of methane. This will result in more drastic changes to the temperature, at least models indicate that the quantities of methane available to be released will. This is just one contributor to people's doomsday talk. In reality our influence on climate change isn't huge, but we are pushing things to a point where other factors will have larger results. Keep reading about the subject. It's not a joke, and there is no scientific conspiracy. The data is legitimately troubling, and at least my colleagues and I don't understand why people are so resistant to the data. Many I know are tired of arguing about it, that much is certain. It really gets irritating, and it's a huge struggle to not get defensive about this sort of stuff as one can only be called a shill so many times.
A few crackpots don't make up the consensus of the scientific community. Just because a conference has climate in its name doesn't make it legitimate. You will be able to find a ton of bullshit in the world to support your viewpoint, that doesn't make what you are thinking in this regard true. I can't ask people who lack training to try to decipher actual scientific literature because it's written in a bunch of jargon and jibberish and is hard to make sense of unless you have been forced to learn it. So you just have to trust the general consensus of the community. To choose to believe the fringes is to fall prey to those with an adgenda.
Thanks for the explanation. I understand the basis of the argument, including the methane aspect, at least to some degree.
Here are some reasons some people are very resistant:
Add to this asinine legislation such as carbon taxes, fart taxes and myriad other fees, regulations and draconian impositions, and people are fed up. Scientific consensus has lied to us and been wielded as a mechanism of control by the state, as well as corporations, often for cronyistic reasons and to both the physical and financial detriment of those who buy into the claims.
Al Gore.... not much more needs to be said here.
This isn't an attack on your personally. But you and your colleagues would do well to be empathetic to folks who are sick of being yanked around by the nose by so-called science. It's incredibly difficult to know who to believe. And just claiming credentials and expertise simply isn't enough, especially when someone is attempting to wield the claimed results in a way that's detrimental to most of us. It has as much credibility as saying, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".
Ad hominem comments don't help. Discerning readers will recognize this and dismiss it.
Consensus does not determine fact. It attempts to recognize it, but has been proven wrong often enough to question it.
Everyone has an agenda. For some, it's the truth. For others, it's what someone else convinces them of. And yet, for others, it's their own for various reasons.
Universities train with an agenda, often set by those who fund them the most. We see this perhaps most clearly in the medical field, but it's also evident in agriculture and other sciences.
If we read the headlines and "just trust the general consensus of the community", we will be lead by our noses wherever the most visible "community" cares to take us. We'll think that a carb rich diet is the most nutritious and that animal fat causes obesity, for example.
So, no, I won't buy that for a second. I will, however, concede that I do not have enough information to form a solid opinion (as I shared with Brian). Rather, I will read such claims with doubt and continue to watch until I am more confident that conclusions drawn are not just part of a narrative, but are indeed true.
Even if the increase in CO2 is mainly from man, the solutions proposed by the scientific "community" are often political in nature and sometimes nonsensical. Carbon sequestration is actually quite simple and better for everyone involved, from the smallest microecosystem to the atmosphere in general. And it helps remediate flooding and topsoil loss. This much I do understand. It costs nothing while offering everything. But it doesn't fit anyone's agenda unless they can charge for it, or at least tax it.
The increase in CO2, is not entirely caused by humans, it is worsened by our activities but there are a variety of natural factors involved in these processes. The consensus is that humans are contributing to the warming, not that we are the sole controlling factor. The Earth's temperatures is dictated through such a large number of complex equilibria CO2 is just one component. Methane is actually a significant greater concern, and if current warming trends continue, and current ice composition restructuring continues it will lead to the release of significant pockets of methane. This will result in more drastic changes to the temperature, at least models indicate that the quantities of methane available to be released will. This is just one contributor to people's doomsday talk. In reality our influence on climate change isn't huge, but we are pushing things to a point where other factors will have larger results. Keep reading about the subject. It's not a joke, and there is no scientific conspiracy. The data is legitimately troubling, and at least my colleagues and I don't understand why people are so resistant to the data. Many I know are tired of arguing about it, that much is certain. It really gets irritating, and it's a huge struggle to not get defensive about this sort of stuff as one can only be called a shill so many times.