How should I educate myself on climate change? Which scientists are climate change skeptics?

ralfy

Robin

Watched this yesterday. They discuss the scarcity narrative regarding oil, how Rockerfeller lobbied to have it called "Fossil" fuel, how oil wells seemingly refill over time, and carbon based lifeforms, among other things. Very interesting.

Do not mind the FE in the headline. They never mention it.
The real headline is:

Abiogenic Petrouleum: Peak Oil and "Fossil Fuels" - Debunked

Flat earth. That says it all.
 

ralfy

Robin
Hello Kiwiinbudapest...Here is how I deal with this question step by step.

A) Climate change is not considered scientific.
For something to be concidered scientific it has to be proven with the scientific method. The scientific method steps are

1) State a hypothesis
2) Pick a control and a variable
3) Vary the variable and record the results. Repeat the experiment to validate the results
5) Prove or disprove the Hypothesis

So the question the climate change activists need to answer is very simple.

How much of what should be varied, and by how much, for the dire results predicted by the climate change people to happen in say 3 months from now? If its man made then we should be able to do it. Right?

The punch line of course is that if you don't know, what the heck are you doing recommending the solution?

The real reason this has not been done is that not even the craziest of crazies will let any scientist make the climate that unbearable in 3 months. The real problem being that no one knows how to reverse it once it has happened.

So to sum up... There is no primary research that is available to prove climate change or how it is caused.

The above will shut up about 90% of the climate change people who just parrot the "climate change" line just because it's cool to say that it's scientific and they are scientists. I recently made this case on a sierra club hike that I did and you should have seen the stunned silence. Here is how the conversation actually went.

Person A: If the climate deniers would shut up we could actually have an earth that is good to live in!
Me: I heard climate change is not scientific
Person B: What?? Are you a climate denier? Over 98% of the scientists agree to climate change!
Me: But science does not advance by consences right?
Cute girl on the hike: Thats true
Person C: Youre not saying there is no climate change, right?
ME: No no. What the other side is saying is that for something to be called science they have to follow the scientific method. (and then I explained the scientific method as stated above, fully knowing that they couldn't have gotten out of elementary school without knowing the scientific method or at least having heard about it)
Me again: So thats why you will hear the opposite view stated as "How much of what should be varied, and by how much, for the dire results predicted by the climate change people to happen in say 3 months from now?"

Person D: Are you a climate denier?
Me: Of course I am not a climate denier. Everyone who is living in the times we are knows there is something going on with the climate. But we cant just make changes by something thats not scientifically proven.
Silence.........
Cute girl on the hike: So whats the answer to that question?
Me: No one knows. No one knows what should be varied by how much. But the followup is naturally that if you don't know, what the heck are you doing recommending the solution?

You have to handle any other question that comes up but thats how it went down for me. There were a couple of blustering remarks that made no sense that I ignored. No one brought up the topic for the rest of the hike.

B) The secondary research to prove climate change is rife with questions.
The most common one that I have heard is that the heating is caused by the C13 isotope of carbon. Plants prefer to take in the C12 isotope of carbon over the C13 type although in the absence of C12 they take the C13. C13 in my understanding is emitted by fossil fuel industries while C12 is naturally produced by plants during photosynthesis. C14 is emitted by volcanoes. So by measuring the carbon signatures of the heat that is radiated, they are saying that the heat is primarily attributed to man-made sources. However, the point is not what is being emitted but rather that we can determine that its the only cause considering that it's a trace gas. (Trace gas means that in the atmosphere, Nitrogen -- N2 -- 78.084%, Oxygen -- O2 -- 20.9476%, Argon -- Ar -- 0.934%, Carbon Dioxide -- CO2 -- 0.0314% and the rest by other elements.) Co2, in all its isotopes contribute to such a small % of the atmosphere. Hence a trace gas.

The problem is that any alternate studies against man-made climate change do not get funding. For instance, one theory states that volcanic action contributes more to climate change than industrial emissions. There has been an increase in volcanic activities recently but more importantly, they could be contributing to the north pole melting due to underground volcanoes starting to simmer. Nobody gets funding if you want to do some non "climate change" research. We should push for more climate change research that shows other causes just to make sure we aren't doing wrong by people.

So to sum up... Secondary research is not the same as primary research and is not as conclusive till we do more research into other causes.

C) The models are extraordinarily off.

The above is from Vox. A left-leaning publication. Don't get fooled by the headline. You have to read into it but they acknowledge that the real science is lacking. But the real revelation that I took from it is simple. They started doing models of prediction in the 1970s or so. Of the 1200 models they started off with only 17 were even close to predicting the climate of today and none of the 17 are used as current models. Clearly due to flaws.

The problem is that even the hurricane models that our meteorologists use are so notoriously wrong that they can't even predict 3 days out. Seriously they want us to believe they can predict 100 years out? And they have been wrong the last 50.

So thats why I think we need more climate research before we start doing any climate engineering. No one is against climate change. Its just that the science isn't there, the data isn't there, and the models arent there yet.

So to sum up...It is unconscionable that we should take away peoples livelihoods based on so little evidence. That's just not compassionate.

Thats my 3 pronged reasoning for why I don't agree with the climate experts.

That makes no sense whatsoever because even the theoretical sciences are called such.

Climate science refers to analysis of data gathered from instrumentation and other processes, as well as observation of effects.

Given that plus the fact that businesses operate through the same (see, for example, actuarial sciences) plus the obvious point concerning ecosystem protection, then it's obvious that climate science is not only perfectly reasonable but critical. In fact, deniers even prove that by stating that the science is "complex," which means it requires continuous study.

Concerning evidence, not only has the NAS but even groups supported by deniers, such as Berkeley Earth, have concluded on the matter, but organizations ranging from military forces and intelligence agencies to multinational banks to even insurers have started acting on the same. Even oil and car companies are moving to other forms of energy, and ironically not only because of climate change.
 

ralfy

Robin
Here is the general rule:

Whenever the "solution" to any "problem" is more taxes and less freedoms, you should be very sceptical

Definitely, especially when there is no solution. That's why governments agree on only slight cuts in emission increases, even as various companies move towards the "magic" of renewable "game changers" with no prompting from the former, and more opportunities for financial gambling through carbon trading.

In the end, it becomes easy to see who really pulls the strings in the global economy: the ones who own it.

 

ralfy

Robin
Christopher Booker's two books on the climate change hoax are very entertaining: "The Real Global Warming Disaster" & "Global Warming: A Case Study in Groupthink." The latter is basically a long essay and was one of his last publications before he died.

Another good book is "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by Andrew Montford. This book destroys the arguments by Paleo-Climatologists that catastrophic, human-caused warming is currently happening.

And then there's Berkeley Earth, which was funded by deniers with the intention to debunk AGW but ended up confirming it.
 

ralfy

Robin
That's the author of this article. Kinda cute, would date, but like nearly all "science" journalists, a BA in English/Journalism who probably thinks a "cosine" is someone who signs on another person's contract.

Y-BCLeK-.jpg


"Newark" addressed these fake talking points pushing the notion that CO2 isn't good for plant growth, which is a notion so stupid it needn't be addressed again.



Nonsense, Berkeley Earth was never funded by skeptics, it is run by Muller, a Berkeley physics prof and his daughter, who together rake in millions in grants every year. I remember Muller called out the fraud that was Climategate, stating that the work of Michael Mann and his British collaborators amounted to "drylabbing", meaning their research was faked and fraudulent. He then walked it back and took the money.

Typical illogical response: look at the author and not who were interviewed. Why am I not surprised?

As for Berkeley Earth,

 

typtre

Robin
Do not mind the FE in the headline. They never mention it.
Flat earth. That says it all.
Interesting take from the one who supposedly relies on 'evidence' and links to Scientific this and Scientific that.
You are a prime example of what is wrong with modren Science - you only believe what you already believe.

In fact, deniers even prove that by stating that the science is "complex," which means it requires continuous study.
And then there's Berkeley Earth, which was funded by deniers with the intention to debunk AGW but ended up confirming it.
That's why when skeptics and deniers funded Berkeley Earth to counter NAS, they ended up with the same conclusions:
I find your choice of words noteworthy.


Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.
 
Last edited:

911

Peacock
Gold Member

NASA Vegetation Index: Globe Continues Rapid Greening Trend, Sahara Alone Shrinks 700,000 Sq Km!​


From The NoTrickZoneBy P Gosselin on 24. February 2021

Looking at NASA’s Vegetation Index data, the news is good: the globe has greened 10% so far this century.
That’s good news because we know this ultimately means greater crop production area and forest expansion. Ironically, what many “experts claim to be a huge problem (CO2) is in fact one of the major reasons behind the greening.
Zoe Phin has a post on this topic at her site which really warrants attention.
Global Vegetation Index surges 10% in 20 years
Zoe downloaded all of NASA’s available 16-day-increment vegetation data from 2000 to 2021. Here’s her result:
“10% global greening in 20 years! We are incredibly fortunate!” Zoe comments on the results. “I just wish everyone felt that way. But you know not everyone does. To the extent that humans enhance global greening is precisely what social parasites want to tax and regulate. No good deed goes unpunished.”
Been greening 30 years!
This is not unexpected news to cool-headed climate realists. In August, 2019, we reported on a German study showing how the globe had been greening for 3 decades. Based on satellite imagery, German Wissenschaft reported, “Vegetation on earth has been expanding for decades, satellite data show.”
Sahara shrinking, becoming greener

Also not long ago a study by Venter et al (2018) found the Sahara desert had shrunk by 8% over the previous three decades. This is profound because the Sahara covers a vast area of some 9.2 million square kilometers. Eight percent means more than 700,000 square kilometers more area that’s become green – an area almost as big as Germany and France combined.
So in terms of vegetation, the planet probably hasn’t had it this nice in about 1000 years.
70% driven by CO2
And there’s more good news if you think CO2 is a problem as a greenhouse gas (it isn’t).
Last August, NTZ weekly contributor Kenneth Richard cited a study by Haverd et al, 2020), and wrote that “about 70% of the Earth’s post-1980s vegetative greening trend has been driven by CO2 fertilization” and that this greening will offset 17 years (equivalent) of the Earth’s anthropogenic CO2 emissions by 2100.


 
Last edited:

ralfy

Robin
Interesting take from the one who supposedly relies on 'evidence' and links to Scientific this and Scientific that.
You are a prime example of what is wrong with modren Science - you only believe what you already believe.




I find your choice of words noteworthy.


Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.

In contrast to a flat earth theory? What do you think?
 

ralfy

Robin

NASA Vegetation Index: Globe Continues Rapid Greening Trend, Sahara Alone Shrinks 700,000 Sq Km!​


From The NoTrickZoneBy P Gosselin on 24. February 2021

Looking at NASA’s Vegetation Index data, the news is good: the globe has greened 10% so far this century.
That’s good news because we know this ultimately means greater crop production area and forest expansion. Ironically, what many “experts claim to be a huge problem (CO2) is in fact one of the major reasons behind the greening.
Zoe Phin has a post on this topic at her site which really warrants attention.
Global Vegetation Index surges 10% in 20 years
Zoe downloaded all of NASA’s available 16-day-increment vegetation data from 2000 to 2021. Here’s her result:
“10% global greening in 20 years! We are incredibly fortunate!” Zoe comments on the results. “I just wish everyone felt that way. But you know not everyone does. To the extent that humans enhance global greening is precisely what social parasites want to tax and regulate. No good deed goes unpunished.”
Been greening 30 years!
This is not unexpected news to cool-headed climate realists. In August, 2019, we reported on a German study showing how the globe had been greening for 3 decades. Based on satellite imagery, German Wissenschaft reported, “Vegetation on earth has been expanding for decades, satellite data show.”
Sahara shrinking, becoming greener

Also not long ago a study by Venter et al (2018) found the Sahara desert had shrunk by 8% over the previous three decades. This is profound because the Sahara covers a vast area of some 9.2 million square kilometers. Eight percent means more than 700,000 square kilometers more area that’s become green – an area almost as big as Germany and France combined.
So in terms of vegetation, the planet probably hasn’t had it this nice in about 1000 years.
70% driven by CO2
And there’s more good news if you think CO2 is a problem as a greenhouse gas (it isn’t).
Last August, NTZ weekly contributor Kenneth Richard cited a study by Haverd et al, 2020), and wrote that “about 70% of the Earth’s post-1980s vegetative greening trend has been driven by CO2 fertilization” and that this greening will offset 17 years (equivalent) of the Earth’s anthropogenic CO2 emissions by 2100.



That's because plants act as a carbon sink, but not an unlimited one:


Meanwhile, there are more positive feedback loops to consider, which even studies once promoted by deniers, like Berkeley Earth, consider.

 

DanielH

Pelican
Everyone's gonna feel pretty dumb arguing about climate change when we're facing food shortages not because of the climate but because Bill Gates and others are buying up the farmland and our impending economic collapse.

Rareseeds.com for heirloom seeds. Free shipping. If you have a lot of land find a better source.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
That's because plants act as a carbon sink, but not an unlimited one:


Meanwhile, there are more positive feedback loops to consider, which even studies once promoted by deniers, like Berkeley Earth, consider.


I am posting FACT-based observations, like how higher CO2 levels are greening the deserts, with a land mass the size of France and Germany put together turning green in the Sahara, and you're replying along Gaia cult theology lines saying what amounts to "the plants are suffering from carrying our carbon sins".

You don't understand the facts, the science or the human dynamics in the global warming theater, at this point this is devolving into a debate with Greta's older brother...
 
Last edited:

ralfy

Robin
I am posting FACT-based observations, like how higher CO2 levels are greening the deserts, with a land mass the size of France and Germany put together turning green in the Sahara, and you're replying along Gaia cult theology lines saying what amounts to "the plants are suffering from carrying our carbon sins".

You don't understand the facts, the science or the human dynamics in the global warming theater, at this point this is devolving into a debate with Greta's older brother...

If you want fact-based observations, then you need to do more than post arguments from a weatherman! At least consider the peer-reviewed study that he ironically endorsed before the results went against what he wanted to see.
 

typtre

Robin
Since when did flat earth theories even become part of science?
You keep bringing FE up. Are you a closet FE:er?

I must have missed the memo on Modern Science.
I thought Science was this:

The_Scientific_Method_(simple).png


But I see we now only use the Conclusion part and disregard everything else.

My mistake.

--------------
I have to say this thread right now encapsulates the entire Climate Change debate perfectly.
 
Last edited:

ilostabet

Pelican
The ‘scientific’ method illustrated in the circular image (or in the more detailed sequential one) is itself a complete repudiation of true science: which does not start with a question about particulars, but with an affirmation of absolute principles. This method, which was the first stage of inversion, was never to last and those who still cling to it as explanatory are surely behind the times. It reached its peak in the 19th Century, and henceforth it has started to dissolve (this same process can be seen in other areas too, such as music, architecture and really in every other sphere). The only area in which such a limited method can provide anything is not in explanation but in application. Thus, that side has continued to work as expected (that is, industry).

In the realm of explanation, it has been abandoned almost completely, as it was only required to destroy the traditional understanding. The next stage (which we are at) is now the complete inversion, which starts, not from the question, but from a parody of the absolute –instead of true spiritual, super-human absolutes, it starts from pure human and sub-human ‘absolutes’ and ‘principles’ (the gender question is really the best illustration of this). This is why, despite the pretense of rationality and science, it is possible for the powers that be to go against the most basic understandings of human and non-human nature to the most irrational and unreal degree, and yet at the same time the application (that is, industry) to still remain intact.

And this explains the red herring of this whole question: it starts from the fake absolute that CO2 is the problem, to which a solution must be provided. This also explains the ‘religious’ nature of its manifestation (really, anti-religious, because again it is merely an inversion of it, a parody of its most outer forms): with dogmas, ‘prophets’, sins, atonement, heresy.

This is not its only manifestation – in fact, all ‘scientific’ questions of our time outside of pure industrial application exhibit the exact same inverted pattern.

Clinging to the ‘scientific’ method of the 18th Century when dealing with the current situation, in any of its particulars, is fighting a shadow. Just like clinging to the republican and liberal ideals of the 18th century are in the political realm. Both cases (as all things coming from the humanism of the Renaissance), were merely a stage required for the complete inversion, since it could not be achieved overnight.

This ‘religious’ character to modern questions is recognized quite often, but not its true significance. For in a normal, traditional society the religious does indeed permeate everything. The problem is not that such questions are imbued with a religious character, is that they are imbued with an inverted religious character, which is the true face of the antichrist.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
Well yeah, science (as I have always known it anyway) was always about explaining the facts - finding meaning there (a priori or a posteriori) was the responsibility of philosophy.

I think the problem the problem you mention (which is very real) started when the philosophers stopped being able to understand science (because it became too complicated for them - or they became stupid ? I don't know).
At this point they turned philosophy into bullshit self-centered argumentation (some might call it pilpul), which also stopped being interesting for the scientist.

Unfortunately I don't see this split being resolved anytime soon.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
I think the problem the problem you mention (which is very real) started when the philosophers stopped being able to understand science (because it became too complicated for them - or they became stupid ? I don't know).
At this point they turned philosophy into bullshit self-centered argumentation (some might call it pilpul), which also stopped being interesting for the scientist.

From my religious perspective, I view that as a remake of the Babel episode. Science became too compartimentalized and specialized because scientists became atheists. Religion is the glue that binds people together (that's the etymological meaning of the word), same thing for scientists.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
I just see that as the limits of the human brain.
Science always got wider and deeper, and there's only so much you can master.
Plus the demand for science always grew bigger, so we had to embark always more of the less smart ones.
At some point the two curves crossed, and here we are :)
 
Top