It’s not just non-scientists who don’t buy in to claims of AGW. And how many of the predictions about today’s environment that were made in the 70’s are completely off base?
Are we increasing global warming? Perhaps. But, I’m not as trusting about scientist who say they can predict the temperature of the world 50+ years from now when scientists can’t predict the path and what the storm surge will be from hurricanes now. And I’d be more trusting of the people who promote climate change if their ACTIONS said they were concerned and trying to do something about it – thinking Al Gore and his HUGE house that needs plenty of AC and BIG swimming pool and the people who go to the conferences on small/private planes instead of just appearing at them via Skype/something similar….
If you take the numbers that the UN and EPA give for carbon emission by humans, use the known percentage of co2 in the atmosphere and calculation of the volume of that co2 you will find that humans only contribute slightly less that 0.015% of the existing co2. You can’t convince this scientist that is significant. Global warming should be measurable. That it is caused by humans, not so much at this rate.
I like science, REAL science. I agree that when CO2 is introduced into a bell jar in a laboratory, and the sun shines on it, the temperature inside goes up, but that scientific fact has not proved to be applicable to world conditions. After all these years all of their computer models regarding what “will happen” in say 5, 10, or 20 years have all been wrong. There has been NO increase in Global Average Surface Temperature for the past 20 years which has confounded climate scientists and which has caused some of them to re-do past temperature data so their hue and cry about doom and gloom can continue, along with their funding.
I see it didn’t take long for the people who prefer never to believe something that makes them uncomfortable to come out of the woodwork.
Hate to break it to you, but:
1. Knowledge of climate change is based on observation, not just models
2. The models are mostly flawed in that they have underestimated the degree of change
3. Yes, we do actually know that human activities cause a lot of it
4. No, it is not what we would see from natural changes, from which we would actually expect a mildly cooling climate right now
5. Yes, it is happening a lot faster now than it has happened in the last 10,000 or so years
6. No, it’s not all going to be beneficial because plants love CO2 (because that’s not the whole story, and they don’t love more heat and drought cycles)
and
7. On topics like this, insisting that there is no science behind something does not mean there is no science behind that thing. It usually means you don’t know what the science is, and have never tried very hard to check.
When this strip ran, it was rather frighteningly prescient. But the people who profit the most from the status quo have succeeded in planting doubt about the science, just like tobacco companies worked to do with data on cancer, to the point that they can and have maintained the status quo.
@Barry Hiebert I suspect that you may be honest about your beliefs, but may not have that good of information.
I’ve often found https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ to be helpful.
Check the Conspiracy, Pseudo science button and find “Zero Hedge”
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: Zero Hedge is a financial blog that aggregates news and presents editorial opinions from original and outside sources. In between the aggregated news there are crazy economic conspiracies and general right wing biases. (8/18/2016)
Click around the site and find the Left Wing and the Right Wing versions. If you Search for a site. You will first land on a short blurb about the site. Click on the “[…]” to get the details.
As far as the PDF, I suspect you, nor I am qualified to evaluate it.
“Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX) rarely expresses his true feelings in public. But speaking yesterday to a like-minded crowd of climate change doubters and skeptics, the chairman of the science committee in the U.S. House of Representatives acknowledged that the committee is now a tool to advance his political agenda rather than a forum to examine important issues facing the U.S. research community.”
Oh, and the Mediabiasfactcheck on sciencemag.org?
These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence based through the use of credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias, but adhere to scientific principles. See all Pro-Science sources.
Daeder over 7 years ago
Which is fine if you don’t run the government…
BWR over 7 years ago
It’s not just non-scientists who don’t buy in to claims of AGW. And how many of the predictions about today’s environment that were made in the 70’s are completely off base?
Artrina over 7 years ago
Are we increasing global warming? Perhaps. But, I’m not as trusting about scientist who say they can predict the temperature of the world 50+ years from now when scientists can’t predict the path and what the storm surge will be from hurricanes now. And I’d be more trusting of the people who promote climate change if their ACTIONS said they were concerned and trying to do something about it – thinking Al Gore and his HUGE house that needs plenty of AC and BIG swimming pool and the people who go to the conferences on small/private planes instead of just appearing at them via Skype/something similar….
Barnabus Blackoak over 7 years ago
and back in the 70’s scientists were saying we’d be in another ice age about now.
Qiset over 7 years ago
If you take the numbers that the UN and EPA give for carbon emission by humans, use the known percentage of co2 in the atmosphere and calculation of the volume of that co2 you will find that humans only contribute slightly less that 0.015% of the existing co2. You can’t convince this scientist that is significant. Global warming should be measurable. That it is caused by humans, not so much at this rate.
Gameguy49 Premium Member over 7 years ago
I like science, REAL science. I agree that when CO2 is introduced into a bell jar in a laboratory, and the sun shines on it, the temperature inside goes up, but that scientific fact has not proved to be applicable to world conditions. After all these years all of their computer models regarding what “will happen” in say 5, 10, or 20 years have all been wrong. There has been NO increase in Global Average Surface Temperature for the past 20 years which has confounded climate scientists and which has caused some of them to re-do past temperature data so their hue and cry about doom and gloom can continue, along with their funding.
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-15/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-new-report-not-reality-totally-inconsistent-
Silly Season over 7 years ago
https://twitter.com/scottwesterfeld/status/446805144781348865?lang=en
Plot idea: 97% of the world’s scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.
(The same ignorant talking point deserves the same silly answer.)
Texanna Premium Member over 7 years ago
BORING!!!
Night-Gaunt49[Bozo is Boffo] over 7 years ago
I see it didn’t take long for the people who prefer never to believe something that makes them uncomfortable to come out of the woodwork.
Hate to break it to you, but:
1. Knowledge of climate change is based on observation, not just models
2. The models are mostly flawed in that they have underestimated the degree of change
3. Yes, we do actually know that human activities cause a lot of it
4. No, it is not what we would see from natural changes, from which we would actually expect a mildly cooling climate right now
5. Yes, it is happening a lot faster now than it has happened in the last 10,000 or so years
6. No, it’s not all going to be beneficial because plants love CO2 (because that’s not the whole story, and they don’t love more heat and drought cycles)
and
7. On topics like this, insisting that there is no science behind something does not mean there is no science behind that thing. It usually means you don’t know what the science is, and have never tried very hard to check.
When this strip ran, it was rather frighteningly prescient. But the people who profit the most from the status quo have succeeded in planting doubt about the science, just like tobacco companies worked to do with data on cancer, to the point that they can and have maintained the status quo.
http://nsidc.org/soac
Silly Season over 7 years ago
@Barry Hiebert I suspect that you may be honest about your beliefs, but may not have that good of information.
I’ve often found https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ to be helpful.
Check the Conspiracy, Pseudo science button and find “Zero Hedge”
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: Zero Hedge is a financial blog that aggregates news and presents editorial opinions from original and outside sources. In between the aggregated news there are crazy economic conspiracies and general right wing biases. (8/18/2016)
Click around the site and find the Left Wing and the Right Wing versions. If you Search for a site. You will first land on a short blurb about the site. Click on the “[…]” to get the details.
As far as the PDF, I suspect you, nor I am qualified to evaluate it.
Silly Season over 7 years ago
Oh, and your .gov link yesterday?
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/lamar-smith-unbound-lays-out-political-strategy-climate-doubters-conference
“Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX) rarely expresses his true feelings in public. But speaking yesterday to a like-minded crowd of climate change doubters and skeptics, the chairman of the science committee in the U.S. House of Representatives acknowledged that the committee is now a tool to advance his political agenda rather than a forum to examine important issues facing the U.S. research community.”
Oh, and the Mediabiasfactcheck on sciencemag.org?
These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence based through the use of credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias, but adhere to scientific principles. See all Pro-Science sources.
Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH
Gameguy49 Premium Member over 7 years ago
Obviously you don’t get the gist of most of what I say. Could be the blinders on your eyes, there is more than one way to look at things.