Is it reasonable to be a global warming skeptic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter iggypkrebsbach
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JButky said:
The model predictions of global warming are statistically insignificant and should be disregarded as such. Long term trends have also been proven to be negligible also insignificant.
Click to expand...
Just think of the Nobel prizes waiting to be awarded to those few honest scientists who would point this out. They would be hailed as our saviours.
 
Is it reasonable to be a global warming skeptic?
Click to expand...
Nobody knows what “global warming” even means (because it is defined so many different ways and constantly re-defined).

I affirm everything Pope Francis has officially taught about this but many here would still call me a “skeptic”.

Ask em if a tax increase will cool off the planet.

If they think global warming is about MORE GOVERNMENT and more taxes and international control of people, don’t take them seriously.

There are many partial truths in the “global warming” community.

They take these partial truths and try to put forth things science doesn’t say, and things the Church doesn’t teach. Beware of such shenanigans.

The global warming game in its fullest sense is about population control, more government, more taxes and control, and get-rich-quick schemes. Pope Francis WARNS against taking such people seriously in the environmental movement.

(Ask yourself why the “warmists” never quote Pope Francis on THAT type of Papal warning?)

God bless.

Cathoholic
 
Last edited:
the way I see it…as long as I have clean air and water, the Mother Earth can let herself go.
Mother Earth is not your real mother. She cares very little of your suffering. In many cases, she actually causes it. Most recent examples being hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Not to mention other natural disasters around the globe.

PS

You know climate change and global warming were cooked up by Al Gore to get votes from environmentalists, right? LOL
 
LeafByNiggle and I have been discussing the 97% consensus myth, in particular the Cook et al 2013 study. I have accused Cook of cooking the results. In short, Cook et al only found that 2% of the articles analyzed fell in the highest level of endorsement. In other words, only 2% explicitly endorsed the proposition that human activities are causing most of the global warming (explicit endorsement with quantification). However, this result was not published in the article. Instead, they lumped the 2% in with the 95% of the papers which either implicitly or explicitly endorsed the proposition that human activities are causing some global warming. The resulting 97% has then been represented by the authors, implicitly in the 2013 paper and explicitly in other publications and statements, as exemplifying the highest level of endorsement. They turned 2% into 97%.

Leaf said:
I don’t think the phrase “most of the warming” was ever identified with the 97% figure.
Click to expand...
Again, the 97.1% comes from Table 3. It is the percent of the 4000 articles which “Endorse AGW.” How do they define AGW? The “scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW.” So they want us to believe that 97% of the articles not only endorse the idea that human activities are contributing to global warming, they also want to convey that human activities are causing most of it. In other words, they want us to believe that 97% were Category 1…And Cook himself continues the deception in another paper, Bedford and Cook (2013) which says: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97% endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook explicitly misrepresents his own results.
But once again, I ask you, if the surveys I have mentioned are fatally flawed surveys, which survey is a better, more accurate survey? It seems that doing a good survey would be the best way to discredit the Cook survey.
Click to expand...
There have been other surveys which reveal more tepid support among scientists for the claim that human CO2 emissions are driving the climate. See, e.g. Bray and Von Storch and another survey by Klaus-Martin Schultz. However, I don’t cite them as being definitive, just as evidence that the consensus is not as overwhelming as portrayed by establishment researchers.
 
Last edited:
There is an author who publishes articles by scientists AFTER they retire and get their pension.

When they are ON the payroll, they are very much in favor of global warming.

After they retire and get their pensions, they all of a sudden are skeptics.
 
Rhubarb said:
It’s as reasonable to reject global warming as it is to reject the germ theory of communicable diseases, the theory of evolution, and the theories of relativity.
Click to expand...
Oooh… You left out motherhood and apple pie.

Which raises a point.

When proponents of “global warming” begin to endorse motherhood instead of abortion on demand, perhaps they will attain a modicum of moral authority, enough so that their vested interests don’t align so blatantly with their message.
 
Rhubarb said:
t’s as reasonable to reject global warming as it is to reject the germ theory of communicable diseases, the theory of evolution, and the theories of relativity.

They’re just THEORIES after all. And I’ve cherry picked like, 6 articles from fishy journals to back me up so it seems like I’m arguing properly.
Click to expand...
Hi Rhubarb,

Comparing the CO2 theory of climate change to well-established theories like the theory of relativity is silly. You are inferring that because one part of the theory which is pretty solid (CO2 is a greenhouse gas which traps heat in the atmosphere), how that affects the climate system is also well understood. Not so.

CO2 is a trace gas which comprises a tiny 4% of 1% of the atmosphere. What’s more, it only has third-rate greenhouse properties. Believe me, all the assumptions which it requires to turn CO2 into the thermostat or control-knob of the climate system are not well-established.
 
Last edited:
iggypkrebsbach said:
See, e.g. Bray and Von Storch and another survey by Klaus-Martin Schultz. However, I don’t cite them as being definitive, just as evidence that the consensus is not as overwhelming as portrayed by establishment researchers.
Click to expand...
Bray and Storch:
New survey of climate scientists by Bray and von Storch confirms broad consensus on human causation | My view on climate change.

Since 1850, it is estimated that the world has warmed by 0.5 – 0.7 degrees C. Approximately what percent would you attribute to human causes? 84% >50% (ie most); 95% in with >25%. Notably <1% said responded with 0%; IOW the consensus behind AWG is >99%.

Can you link to Klaus-Martin Schultz?

Have you looked at the PNAS paper?
 
Last edited:
lynnvinc said:
Denialist is an appropriate term. Skeptic refers to a person who does not accept something due to lack of evidence, but is willing to accept it if good evidence and theory are given. For CC such has been given since 1995, when warming reached 95% confidence, and the theory has been with us for some 200 years and is solidly accepted by science. Since then the evidence has become much stronger, and the last of the skeptics switched to accepting anthropogenic CC by 2005.
Click to expand...
Hi Lynnvinc,

Your name-calling is exactly the kind of behavior which caused my BS detector to go BEEP BEEP, back in the day when I first started investigating this.

Climate science is an infant science. Apart from the greenhouse properties of CO2, very little is settled.

One of the pillars of the global warming hypothesis is the proposition that the warming experienced in the second half of the 20th century is unprecedented. This is highly controverted given the corrupt state of the modern temperature record, thanks to Phil Jones, James Hansen, Tom Karl, and the rest. For some entertaining reading which reveals the sheer irreproducibility and bad quality of our temperature data sets, see the Harry Readme files.

Perhaps your reference to “95% confidence” refers to the level of confidence assigned by the IPCC. This is a subjective judgment by a corrupt political organization and not an objective statistical level of confidence.
 
HarryStotle said:
When proponents of “global warming” begin to endorse motherhood instead of abortion on demand, perhaps they will attain a modicum of moral authority, enough so that their vested interests don’t align so blatantly with their message.
Click to expand...
And also with you.
 
dvdjs said:
BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP
Click to expand...
Hi dvd,

He He. Yer right, I need to watch my own name-calling. But I reserve the right to violate this rule when it comes to the IPCC, which richly deserves all the opprobrium I can muster. It is indeed a political, not a scientific, organization. And it is indeed corrupt.
 
iggypkrebsbach said:
… the climate models can’t predict, even short term.
Click to expand...
You do understand that for long-term trend subject to short-term fluctuations, one can predict the long-term effects far more accurately than the short-term effects.
 
iggypkrebsbach said:
He He. Yer right, I need to watch my own name-calling. But I reserve the right to violate this rule when it comes to the IPCC, which richly deserves all the opprobrium I can muster. It is indeed a political, not a scientific, organization. And it is indeed corrupt.
Click to expand...
BEEP BEEP BEEPBEEP
 
Hi dvd

If the models are so darn good, 95% of them shouldn’t have failed in their short-term predictions. If they are going to get anything right, it should be their short-term predictions, just as with weather predictions. The farther out you go, the more chaos comes into play.
 
Last edited:
Hi dvd,

What do you question? That the IPCC is a political organization is undeniable. I describes itself as an organization whose members are governments of countries. It is not primarily a scientific organization. The politicians, not the scientists, are in charge. That the IPCC is corrupt and biased is also undeniable. See climategate. Read Donna Laframboise’s books. Watch this:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top