Is it reasonable to be a global warming skeptic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter iggypkrebsbach
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We’ll see what happens when they come for movie screens, laptops and cell phones.

And don’t worry, they know what’s best.
 
If “they” go after anything, it’ll probably my burning brush to keep the kids’ country place looking good and healthy, the fact that I don’t wash the stuff I put out for recycling, and my gas-guzzling ten year old truck. I got rid of my money-pit hot rod, myself. I’m more likely to reduce the usage of my computer with all the garbage on it, and give it up, before anyone takes it away from me. I think “they” want me to continue using it, one more happy consumer. They already can grab my cell phone and demand the password when I cross most borders, so that’s already happened. If and when it happens to me personally, as with other past indignities, it will be because individuals don’t use common sense and are on power trips. Bottom line: I don’t trust you. In large part it’s because don’t know you. But, I probably wouldn’t trust you anyway, with anything of importance at least. In order of trustworthiness, I trust God, the Church, my wife and most of my family as the people in the Church who are closest to me, some friends, and that’s pretty much it. That is, other than what I see with my two eyes, such as receding glaciers, whose water ends up in the oceans and atmosphere. I trust my knowledge of industry, the consequences of putting junk into the atmosphere, and that not everything is inevitable, we can do something about the state of the world. You have a right to your opinion and I find it interesting or else I wouldn’t have responded. May God keep you in His grace.
 
Last edited:
Roseeurekacross said:
It’s stupid to be a skeptic
Click to expand...
I am skeptical of your claim that it is “stupid to be a goal warming skeptic.”

Does that make me “stupid,” too?

To make the first claim, you would have to know more than all of the global warming skeptics and be correct on everything they are skeptical about while they must be wrong on all of their reasons for being skeptical.

Call me skeptical about that.

Does that make me stupid?

Are you correct on all the issues and they, wrong? Seems a bit of a bold and pretentious assumption, no?
 
You have every right to be. It’s all good.

But what are the issues? The question the Op asks is the one I answered.

Is it reasonable to be a global warming sceptic.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Since I do not fully understand the role of residence time of CO2 in the application of isotope analysis and fossil fuels, I don’t know if an incorrect assumption here says anything against the theory that modern CO2 comes mostly from fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
In order to prove the global warming hypothesis one has to prove that human CO2 emissions are causing the rising CO2. The IPCC says isotopic evidence is conclusive that our emissions are the main cause of rising CO2. But scientists such as Carter, Segalstad, and Jaworowski say “not so fast.” The vast majority of studies show the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere 5-10 years, at most 12. This means that humans haven’t been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere fast enough to account for the claimed increase of atmospheric CO2. The IPCC knows this, so they claim a residence of 50-200 years or even higher. Segalstad says they have no empirical evidence to support their claims. Neither have they shown that the traditional 5-10 year view are wrong.

Carter also argues that the isotopic evidence is only conclusive if you assume there are no natural sources affecting the C13/C12 ratio, which is not realistic.
Also, it seems the question can be answered approximately by calculating the amount of CO2 that would come from the fossil fuels that we know about. We have a pretty solid estimate of that, don’t we? If it isn’t going into the air, where is it going?
Click to expand...
Yes, our emissions are going into the air. Some is staying in the atmosphere for a time. The rest is going into some sink or other. They think they have a good estimate of annual CO2 emissions. They also know that they are rising. However, atmospheric CO2 does not move in lock-step with human emissions. Murry Salby has a good lecture on this. For a given time period, he shows that while human emissions increased sharply, the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 did not change.

Overall, Carter argues, we know too little about the overall CO2 budget to make hard and fast conclusions that humans are the main cause of rising CO2. What we do know is that the human contribution, in the context of the overall budget, is small, and there are large uncertainties with regard to the contributions of natural sources.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
In reading the testimony given by Jaworrowski, it became apparent to me that his argument turned on highly technical details of instrumentation techniques that only an expert in the field can rightly confirm or deny. Therefore it is important for me, as one who is not an expert in CO2 reconstructions from ice cores, to see whether or not his argument stands up to scrutiny by his peers. If you could please cite where this has happened I would then know whether to give his opinion real consideration, or to temporarily discard it pending such review.
Click to expand...
Hi LBN,

Maybe dvdjs, with his greater research know-how, can help us out here. I am unable to find studies critical of Zbig’s main contention that ice is not a closed system which allows us to measure the contents of ancient air.

One of his contentions is that if ice core proxy measurements are reliable, then they would agree with other proxies, which is not the case.

Apart from his views on the unreliability of ice core proxy measurements, his revelations about the data manipulation of the Siple Curve are pretty straight forward. The IPCC’s narrative takes a pretty big hit there.
 
iggypkrebsbach said:
Apart from his views on the unreliability of ice core proxy measurements, his revelations about the data manipulation of the Siple Curve are pretty straight forward. The IPCC’s narrative takes a pretty big hit there.
Click to expand...
That is not so straightforward because to conclude fraudulent manipulation one needs to be able to evaluate the author’s technical reasons for aligning the data as he did. I doubt the author came out and said “I did it for purely fraudulent reasons.”. What explanation does the author give?
 
So let me get this straight:
  1. You trust your eyes. Well, your eyes are being deceived.
  2. IF they go after anything---------wake up. They’re already coming after you and your homely family regardless of what you think you’ve given up—it’s still not enough. Granted, the main force behind that now is social justice. The whole environmentalism thing didn’t quite go as planned.
  3. You say you don’t trust me…that’s too bad, because if you push on like this, I’ll be one of the ones who decides what you get to keep and do with your land and how your family lives.
  4. The Church, namely the USCCB and the Vatican, are wrong on this.
 
Roseeurekacross said:
You have every right to be. It’s all good.

But what are the issues? The question the Op asks is the one I answered.

Is it reasonable to be a global warming sceptic.
Click to expand...
No, it is not. If you think it is unreasonable to be a skeptic, the answer would be, “It is unreasonable to be a skeptic, and here is why:…”
Your answer has nothing to do with the reasonableness of skepticism regarding ACC.
 
SuperLuigi said:
So let me get this straight:
  1. You trust your eyes. Well, your eyes are being deceived.
  2. IF they go after anything---------wake up. They’re already coming after you and your homely family regardless of what you think you’ve given up—it’s still not enough. Granted, the main force behind that now is social justice. The whole environmentalism thing didn’t quite go as planned.
  3. You say you don’t trust me…that’s too bad, because if you push on like this, I’ll be one of the ones who decides what you get to keep and do with your land and how your family lives.
  4. The Church, namely the USCCB and the Vatican, are wrong on this.
Click to expand...
  1. You don’t believe what I said, and which I again affirm having seen the receding of glaciers over time since my youth, both in the Rockies and the Alps. So I am either deluded, correct or lying. I am guessing that you trust me more than I trust you, by saying I am being deceived.
  2. I have no idea what you are talking about.
  3. How are you going to ever do that? Empires come and go. America is on a downward path. People do all sorts of bad things when that happened, witness Austria and Germany as the Twentieth century progressed. So I don’t doubt the possibility that people will be intruding upon my autonomy and that of those I love. Ultimately, what is Caesar’s belongs to Caesar. Everything we have is given by God, but usurped by society. I own what I own because of documents filed somewhere and, being man-made they can always be changed by man.
  4. And, you would seriously expect me to trust a person who says he knows better than not only the Bishops, but the Pope himself. if you dreamed this all up yourself, you are in need of a heavy dose of humility. If someone else told you these things, you might want to think twice as to what makes them more trustworthy than the USCCB and the Vatican.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
That is not so straightforward because to conclude fraudulent manipulation one needs to be able to evaluate the author’s technical reasons for aligning the data as he did. I doubt the author came out and said “I did it for purely fraudulent reasons.”. What explanation does the author give?
Click to expand...
Hi LBN,

I gather from Solomon and from reading Zbig’s articles [http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles 2007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf] that Friedli et al 1986 and Neftel et al 1985 made an ad hoc assumption that the average air trapped in the ice cores must be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped. On the face of it, even to a layman, this seems dubious.

I couldn’t find free access to the articles. Anyone already a subscriber to Nature? The article cites are:

Friedli, H., Lotscher, H., Oeschger, H., Siegenthaler, U. and Stauffer, B., 1986. “Ice core record of the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 in the past two centuries.” Nature, Vol. 324, pp. 237-238.

Neftel, A., Moor, E., Oeschger, H. and Stauffer, B., 1985. “Evidence from polar ice cores for the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the past two centuries.” Nature, Vol. 315, pp. 45-47.

Zbig doesn’t use the F word to describe what these authors did. He uses words like “ad hoc”, “arbitrary”, and “data manipulation.” Solomon reports that in 1993 researcher attempted to prove empirically the authors’ age assumption but they failed to do so. No references cited in the book about the 1993 article.

Regardless of how one characterizes what Friedli, Neftel, et al did, Zbig’s allegations are incendiary. However, I can find no rebuttals of his allegations. It would be good to read the articles. Maybe interlibrary loan. Wait! My daughter is a liberian. Maybe she can help.
 
Aloysium said:
You don’t believe what I said, and which I again affirm having seen the receding of glaciers over time since my youth, both in the Rockies and the Alps. So I am either deluded, correct or lying. I am guessing that you trust me more than I trust you, by saying I am being deceived.
Click to expand...
Antecdotal evidence makes for terrible policy.
Aloysium said:
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
No doubt. Maybe you should listen more carefully then.
Aloysium said:
How are you going to ever do that? Empires come and go. America is on a downward path. People do all sorts of bad things when that happened, witness Austria and Germany as the Twentieth century progressed. So I don’t doubt the possibility that people will be intruding upon my autonomy and that of those I love. Ultimately, what is Caesar’s belongs to Caesar. Everything we have is given by God, but usurped by society. I own what I own because of documents filed somewhere and, being man-made they can always be changed by man
Click to expand...
The Caesar quote is often misread by Christians. It means that Jesus told Caesar’s tax collector not to worry about His dues and he’ll take care of it.

It doesn’t mean give your freedom to the government because it’s a sniveling institution studded with people who are supposedly prim and proper with a suit and tie and promise behind fake tears to “help” the people.
Aloysium said:
And, you would seriously expect me to trust a person who says he knows better than not only the Bishops, but the Pope himself. if you dreamed this all up yourself, you are in need of a heavy dose of humility. If someone else told you these things, you might want to think twice as to what makes them more trustworthy than the USCCB and the Vatican
Click to expand...
The Pope and the bishops don’t know jack squat about climate change, so your argument is just an appeal to authority, and I can only guess it’s so you can virtue-signal to some liberal in your life you are trying to impress.

In fact, even REAL scientists, not the fake ones with low-quality resumes on the IPCC, don’t know exactly what is going on, but most of the process is natural.
 
SuperLuigi said:
The Pope and the bishops don’t know jack squat about climate change, so your argument is just an appeal to authority, and I can only guess it’s so you can virtue-signal to some liberal in your life you are trying to impress.

In fact, even REAL scientists, not the fake ones with low-quality resumes on the IPCC, don’t know exactly what is going on, but most of the process is natural.
Click to expand...
Luigi,

I am afraid that the Holy Father and certain bishops are have let the wolves into the sheepfold. They have invited Ehrlich, Klein, and Schellnhuber to speak before the pontifical academy. God help us. Who next?
 
My liberian failed me. Help!

Anyone have access to these articles?

Friedli, H., Lotscher, H., Oeschger, H., Siegenthaler, U. and Stauffer, B., 1986. “Ice core record of the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 in the past two centuries.” Nature, Vol. 324, pp. 237-238.

Neftel, A., Moor, E., Oeschger, H. and Stauffer, B., 1985. “Evidence from polar ice cores for the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the past two centuries.” Nature, Vol. 315, pp. 45-47.
 
I wouldn’t quite put it that way. You don’t cite someone else’s research to signify its significance. You cite their research because you used it as background knowledge or a baseline from which you conducted your own research. That way people don’t constantly have to run the same experiments to verify data that others have already done.

So you might say, “Bananas contain potassium (Brooks & Dunn 1998). I predict feeding bananas to babies increases brain function.”

If lots of people cite your research, it means that (1) they are also doing research in that particular area and (2) they consider your research to be generally reliable and trusted. And as with anything involving humans, the more your research is cited by others, the more likely even more people will cite it because they see that lots of other people have used your research to conduct their own research.

🙂
 
FirstFiveEighth said:
I wouldn’t quite put it that way. You don’t cite someone else’s research to signify its significance. You cite their research because you used it as background knowledge or a baseline from which you conducted your own research. That way people don’t constantly have to run the same experiments to verify data that others have already done.

So you might say, “Bananas contain potassium (Brooks & Dunn 1998). I predict feeding bananas to babies increases brain function.”

If lots of people cite your research, it means that (1) they are also doing research in that particular area and (2) they consider your research to be generally reliable and trusted. And as with anything involving humans, the more your research is cited by others, the more likely even more people will cite it because they see that lots of other people have used your research to conduct their own research.
Click to expand...
I am not sure about the distinction. People find your work "generally reliable an to be trusted AND have "used it as background knowledge or a baseline from which [they] conducted [their] own research. That shows its significance - “the quality of being worthy of attention; importance”.

So you “don’t cite someone else’s research to signify its significance”, but in citing someone’s work, in this positive way, you do show its significance.
 
dvdjs said:
I am not sure about the distinction. People find your work "generally reliable an to be trusted AND have "used it as background knowledge or a baseline from which [they] conducted [their] own research. That shows its significance - “the quality of being worthy of attention; importance”.

So you “don’t cite someone else’s research to signify its significance”, but in citing someone’s work, in this positive way, you do show its significance.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but if your intention of citing particular works is to “show” their significance, this is where confirmation bias begins to sneak into the process of research and particular views begin to be cited in order to surreptitiously add significance to a particular viewpoint rather than others. This means as more and more researchers with conscious intent push to demonstrate the significance – the quality of being worthy of attention – of a particular viewpoint or conclusion, for example, their selection of those cited works begins to promote that viewpoint rather than alternative viewpoints until, worse case scenario, it becomes the consensus view, not on merit but on the conscious intent to push its significance. The antidote is to leave open the door to critique and skepticism no matter how inane the counterpoint appears to those who have already “decided” on what is or is not significant.

This is why calls to fine or jail ‘deniers’ of AGW are so pernicious and undermine the very foundations of good science, which is to remain neutral with regards to its conclusions. This is why a focus on “significance,” even with a merely glancing eye, might not be such a good idea.
 
HarryStotle said:
… if your intention of citing particular works is to “show” their significance, this is where confirmation bias begins to sneak into the process of research and particular views begin to be cited in order to surreptitiously add significance to a particular viewpoint rather than others.
Click to expand...
If …
'nuff said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top