You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Global Sea Ice Area - This chart should worry you...
There is a great deal of conflict in the science community regarding this. Political ends tend to bring certain perspectives to the foreground. But little is conclusive, other than the raw data that can be obtained. Even then, there are some disagreements. And the interpretation of the data is anything but consistent across the scientific spectrum.
What you will see are calm, dispassionate presentations by serious, pedigreed scientists discussing and explaining reams of data. In sharp contrast to these climate realists, the climate alarmists have long admitted that they cannot defend their theory that humans are causing catastrophic global warming in public debate.
No, there no conflict in the scientific community about this. Speaking as a member of said community in contact with a plethora of other scientists the consensus is as close to universal as any other scientific topic. Climate change is exacerbated by human actions. We all agree.
Anyone who would have you believe otherwise is pushing an adjenda. Pure and simple.
http://climateconferences.heartland.org/iccc7/
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.
I'd love to see some studies by truly idependent researchers...those who have not been funded by university grants or direct government money. I'd bet the "consensus" would evaporate rapidly under a true market economy analysis such as that. To take the 180 years of climate data we, as humans, have amassed and say that it is somehow representative of the Earth's 4.5 billion years is absurd at best and criminal at worst. Since when can a legitimate scientist say that a 0.000004% sampling means more than nothing?
Since when does being funded by government grants induce bias? Those are completely without strings. Your talking nonsense about things you clearly don't understand. We have a lot more than 180 years worth of data. Through ice core samples and other techniques we can get a picture of Earth's temperatures over significantly longer periods of time. Your reasoning is completely off base, and illustrates a complete lack of understanding of the topic at hand.
government grants do not induce bias?...are completely without strings?...HA! You sir are the one who is either completely ignorant or extremely un-informed. There is a huge community of debate around that very issue. Further, like most climate extremists I find it pathetic that the first course you have elected to take is to insult those with differing opinions. If you can't speak to the topic resort to insults...I'm probably a racist too.
I don't know anything about your opinions on race to pass judgement. With climate change things either are or they are not. The facts show that warming is occuring and that it is exacerbated by human production of green house gasses. Your opinions don't have any bearing on the reality.
Yep...typical. "the science is settled". No room to discuss. Those who think differently are not to be taken seriously...for I am a scientist and you are not... Your piousness does not help you sell your opion nor make you automatically correct. And by the way, since when does someone with a bio-chem background have more credence than another person with an unrelated science background? Which I happen to have but typically don't feel the need to be holier-than-though about it.
I am in disagreement. The scientific community has reached consensus.
When it comes to this issue a quote from the blog of some lawyer (opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own) doesn't hold much weight. Post an article from a scientist and present their data/findings and I will consider it closely.
Thanks for the comment @anotherjoe.
That's kinda nuts Brian. It's like saying that this author doesn't have anything to say since he's not a scientist and his opinion is his own, even while offering your own opinion as a non-scientist. He did research and provided insights from scientists. He also provided a link to scientific claims that prompted him to write what he did, giving him just as much credibility as you have. Even the quote does nothing more than point out what this particular group of scientists is saying.
But, to provide some scientific rebuttals to any claims of consensus (which, IMO, is a crazy assertion), here are 48 speeches from scientists who do not accept what you claim to be consensus. I'll let them share the data of their own research.
http://climateconferences.heartland.org/iccc7/
Thanks Joe. I'll definitely watch some of the videos over the holidays - not all 48 though!
I respect your opinion so let me ask, do you have any comment on the data in the chart?
I gotta let this thread go though. My wife is yelling at me telling me to help get ready for the xmas eve dinner tonight.
Happy holidays.
Oh, I have no problem accepting that the ice being measured is in fact not increasing this year. I sure know that we've had a wacky year in our part of the world. Even deciduous trees are still green, in spite of a few hard freezes. It's just odd.
And my comment wasn't meant to discredit the data. It was to "discuss", as you requested. The verity of the conclusions that many reach is what is not conceded. I can see that this may not have been clear in my initial response.
Honestly, I have no opinion in regard to how much climate is really changing (or varying from historical norms of change). And I have even less of an opinion regarding how much, if any, is caused by man. My contention is that there is no consensus, specifically in regard to man's involvement. Claims that there are, IMO, are highly exaggerated and disingenuous.
Disclosure: I wouldn't listen to all those either. :)
Have a great Christmas.