Climate

From iGeek
Revision as of 20:29, 5 July 2018 by Ari (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

I don't care if people believe in, or disbelieve in AGW theory: there's evidence to support at least some of both sides points. I do care that we can't even talk about it, because so many people are 100% sure that anyone who doesn't agree with them is greedy, evil, uninformed, and destroying the planet. The truth is far more nuanced.

Most Climate Skeptics I know, came to their position by being more informed than the other side. They understand the basics of CO2, where the entire Greenhouse Effect ranks in the list of Climate Forcing Factors, or the facts about our Climate History, Ocean Rise, Glacial Melt, and Hurricanes. Whereas I can't say the same for the other side. (To be fair, it's the 95% of vocal Climate Advocates that give the rest a bad name).

What the AGW advocates know is:

  • what the media and celebrities like Leonardo Dicaprio have told them
  • since they don't check facts, they believe there's unanimity in AGW theory (some 97% Climate Consensus) which is completely debunked.
  • many have been trained to reflexively write off all Climate Skeptics as kooks or paid shills, without ever looking at their Resume's of achievements, and why they put their reputations on the line
  • most ignore that the Climate Industrial Complex is a bunch of scientists and politicians that can parlay fear-mongering into votes, money and power (the modern snake-oil salesman).

Thus when we have a non-event like backing out of the Paris Climate Accord, even though it did couldn't have made the slightest difference in the actual climate, the seals have been trained to bark on cue.

Years ago, I did a Toastmasters Speech on Climate Change. There was a Documentary called The Climate Hustle (2016): while only OK, if a viewer isn't bored by the ground it covered, then they are not qualified to have an informed opinion.

Here's a few Climate Links and Climate Quotes, and finally Climate Memes. The Meme's aren't very constructive (just humorously mocking the hypocrisy and ignorance of the loudest advocates). But if you the other side is comparing scientific skepticism to Holocaust denial, then all that's left is to mock them back.

A question I often ask, is if I can point out anything that the other side doesn't know, is why? If we were having an honest discussion, then the best way to address that, is to present the other sides strongest arguments, then refute it. Why then has the AGW not done that, and gone with exaggerations, constructs and ad hominem's instead?

Climate Articles


If you believe a slew of articles that are out there like these Tipping Point articles , then earth has passed the carbon tipping point (400 ppm of CO2, which we cross the other day), which means 6-7° of more warming is coming, which will; destroy humanity, cook off the planet, flood our cities, and we're doomed. Good, now maybe the know-nothings will shut the hell up and let us get on with our lives, while they're repeatedly proven wrong over the coming decades, just like they have been for the last couple hundred years.

Climate.png
  • CO2 has never caused any global warming (that we can tell) in the historical record. None.
  • Historically, warming causes the oceans to release more CO2, and then we saw CO2 rise as a result of the other warming.
  • Some speculate that the CO2 released from this warming magnified the warming that was happening, but that doesn't explain why we cooled down again (even with higher CO2 levels).
  • Remember, we had ice ages with 7,000 or 8,000 ppm of CO2, and for the last few million years the average CO2 level has been over 1,000 ppm (twice the current levels).
  • We’ve gone up from 300-400 PPM in the last 200 years -- however, half of that happened before man contributed much to the CO2 cycle at all (beginning around 1950 when man first crossed the 1 gigaton/year level), and much of the rest was due to the Oceans releasing CO2.
Some articles debunking common climate "truths", that aren't so true.
Climate-quotes.jpg
So much wrongness. From the contradictions between cooling vs. warming, the devastation caused by the pollution or warming/cooling that never came, to the ice caps that are still fine, to the glaciers that never went away, or the plants and animals that are still thriving and so on. Malthusian catastrophe's predicted since time immemorial. The point isn't that we shouldn't study this stuff, it's that we should look at it with the skeptical eye of mature adults who have a clue as to how wrong the religion of Science has been in the past, to know to not overreact like gullible emotional children today.
  • What impacts the climate? In order of importance they are: Solar output, variations in the Earths Orbit (Milankovitch cycle), Volcanism, Meteorological events, Plate Tectonics, Ocean Variability, Radiative forcing (greenhouse effect is a small part of this), Flora and Fauna
  • Radiative forcing is one of the weakest of the forcing factors impacting the Earth's climate. The greenhouse effect is a second weakest part of radiative forcing. And CO2 is a very small part of the greenhouse effect. And man contributed a minuscule amount of CO2.
  • Every part of forcing factors are still debated, especially the important ones carbon sequestration, cloud albedo, and CO2 scrubbing (how fast can the earth correct for increases in CO2). If the earth wasn't a self-balancing system, then why didn't we cook-off in the last 4.5B years, or back when we had 10x the CO2 we have today?
  • Radiative forcing is one of the weakest of the forcing factors impacting the Earth's climate. The greenhouse effect is a second weakest part of radiative forcing. And CO2 is a very small part of the greenhouse effect. How small? Mankind contributes 14Gt of the 22,056,773+ Gt of all greenhouse gasses in our system (about .0004%).
PoleDancer.png
Remember when Katrina happened and all the networks were predicting more and stronger hurricanes. Ignoring the math of the situation (that global warming was supposed to impact the upper atmosphere and poles first, not the heat-sync of oceans -- and that would actually reduce storms), they were still trying to scare their most gullible rubes. Since 2005, we've had an almost drought of strong/big hurricanes. But if another one hits, we can bet regardless of the statistical realities, that the media will blaming it on Climate Change. Just like they did the California Drought, Fires, or the best chicken-little imagineering that I heard recently: Syria and ISIS.
Kaczynski.jpeg
Science is skepticism. If someone isn't a skeptic, then they're not a scientist: they're a politician. So the point isn't who is on this list, but who isn't. While I believe people are entitled to their own opinions (pro/con on this issue), if someone is dismissing Nobel laureates and career scientists like Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever, or the ex heads of NASA, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and so on, then I want to see their pedigree, or evidence for thinking those folks are ignorant deniers that don't know what they're talking about.
ParisClimateAccord.png
Trump withdrew from Obama's non-binding agreement (either that unconstitutional treaty). And agreed to consider future ones, if there's a better deal. This was because anyone that glanced at it, knew it wasn't a good deal or about climate but wealth redistribution (from America and American businesses/jobs). And of course the left/media that disliked it under Obama, suddenly loves it, lies to its base about what it means, and their followers are in hysterics about something that did no good, a lot of bad, and since they can't argue on the merits, they use fallacies and lies to tell each other about what a big deal this is. This article covers the details.



ParisClimateAccord.png
Trump withdrew from Obama's non-binding agreement (either that unconstitutional treaty). And agreed to consider future ones, if there's a better deal. This was because anyone that glanced at it, knew it wasn't a good deal or about climate but wealth redistribution (from America and American businesses/jobs). And of course the left/media that disliked it under Obama, suddenly loves it, lies to its base about what it means, and their followers are in hysterics about something that did no good, a lot of bad, and since they can't argue on the merits, they use fallacies and lies to tell each other about what a big deal this is. This article covers the details.
Skeptical.png

Psychology Student and Climate Activist behind the fraudulently named and often discredited Skeptical Science blog, John Cook, did a couple of "Studies" to try to prove the 97% consensus.

  • 2013 Cook selected 11,944 abstracts of papers, from pro-AGW journals, then cherry picked 64 papers for their use of sensationalist terms (like "Global Warming"), and found that 63 of those 64 agreed that "most" of the warming was from man: that's where his 97% number came from.
  • No credible author, scientist or statistician could look at the methodology and not scoff. Quickly Director of the Center for Climatic Research at University of Delaware, David Legates, did a peer reviewed rejoinder that detailed many of the errors in Cook's methodology, including showing that 23 of the 63 paper’s authors disagreed with Cook’s conclusions that they supported Climate Consensus. Resulting in 41 of 11,944 abstracts agreeing with Global Warming (a 0.3% consensus, not 97%). Thousands of FakeNews sites cite Cook and 97% anyway, without mentioning Legates rebuttal.
  • 2016 Cook decided to double-down on his fraud by doing a synthesis study, of adding up the totals of his, Oreskes, Doran, Anderegg studies together: ignoring all of those studies were discredited for the same methodological flaws of his 2013 Study. But now FakeNews outlets could more easily cite his 2016 "study" without mentioning Legates refutation, and only the truly curious would discover that all the studies that made up the 2016 Cook study had been discredited.
TOC.jpg
We often get dire warnings about Malthusian Catastrophes, Ehrlich's population bombs and how individuals can't be trusted to manage shared interests. We need government to protect us from ourselves. History shows the opposite: individuals form small governments for common interests better than big governments, unless big government stops them.