5 ms·

I think my problem with the whole thing is how politicized AGW has become. There are supporters saying 'temperature is not climate when it comes to disproving

I think my problem with the whole thing is how politicized AGW has become. There are supporters saying 'temperature is not climate when it comes to disproving climate change, yet try to use the same argument when proving that it exists. Many supported laws for trying to reduce emissions are nothing more than wealth transfer schemes used by one group to take power from another. I also would like to know how so many experts in their field missed the fact that they were using incorrect data sets for so many years. Google 'climate gate'. Nobody talks about it anymore, but it was a serious enough problem that hundreds of universities had to come out with retractions/explanations. If you are a scientist that doesn't support the current narrative about climate change, you will have a difficult time getting funding and your career will most likely be over the second you submit anything for review. I've noticed that scientists that do have contrary theories are either retired or plain on retiring..for this very reason. If scientists are going to be the authority now, what about things like the definition of sex/gender? Is it only an authority when it suits our political needs? I don't deny that climate change is happening. There is just too much noise to really know the actual truth about the extent of the damage and what we can do to prevent it.

peterashford 7y ago
Dunning Kruger
snowwrestler 7y ago
> Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_c...
photojosh 7y ago
> There are supporters saying 'temperature is not climate when it comes to disproving climate change, yet try to use the same argument when proving that it exists. Everywhere I've seen both these arguments used, the attempted-disprovers are using something like "worst snowstorm ever in X location means it can't be getting warmer", whereas the supporters are talking about the average temperature of the whole planet, and how the increase in energy in the system is causing extreme weather, both hot and cold. tl;dr– local temperature vs average temperature: not the same argument. If you have counter-examples, I'd welcome them.
tasty_freeze 7y ago
I was away for a few days so I didn't respond to your comment immediately. Yes, AGW has become a political football. The fact that Al Gore is a democrat and popularized the issue has probably hurt the issue more than anything. But politics is beside the point. What does the science say? The peer-reviewed stuff where they publish there data and methodology? You say you don't deny that climate change is happening, yet everything you point to are talking points of deniers. Climate gate was a non-scandal. Yes, data collection is a messy and expensive business, and a lot of reconciling of various data sets has to be done. Yes, one of the people doing that work found a "trick" to figure out how the unannotated data set could be interpreted to explain why the paper which was associated with that data set arrived at the conclusion it did. That doesn't mean they were tricking the public. Then you go off on a tangent about scientists and gender issues, which makes me think that you are really trying to address some wider point than that of climate change denial. You conclude with the same FUD that the smoking lobby used -- sure there are lots of studies that seem to indicate that smoking causes cancer, but you know there are some studies (paid for by the tobacco industry) that show it isn't a problem, so geez, it seems like we don't know enough yet to do anything about it. I thoroughly reject that stance. Businesses of all kinds have to make decisions based on incomplete and even contradictory data every day; we put people in jail for life or even kill them based on evidence which is not 100.00000% proven. Why, when it comes to climate change, are some people holding out for a mathematical proof or something? Why shouldn't we proceed based on the best available information? Why should the claims of climatologists, with thousands of man-years of research and published data be insufficient, yet a nay-sayer can say without any proof that addressing climate change would be disastrous to the economy?

peterashford 7y ago

Dunning Kruger

snowwrestler 7y ago

> Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_c...

photojosh 7y ago

> There are supporters saying 'temperature is not climate when it comes to disproving climate change, yet try to use the same argument when proving that it exists. Everywhere I've seen both these arguments used, the attempted-disprovers are using something like "worst snowstorm ever in X location means it can't be getting warmer", whereas the supporters are talking about the average temperature of the whole planet, and how the increase in energy in the system is causing extreme weather, both hot and cold. tl;dr– local temperature vs average temperature: not the same argument. If you have counter-examples, I'd welcome them.

tasty_freeze 7y ago

I was away for a few days so I didn't respond to your comment immediately. Yes, AGW has become a political football. The fact that Al Gore is a democrat and popularized the issue has probably hurt the issue more than anything. But politics is beside the point. What does the science say? The peer-reviewed stuff where they publish there data and methodology? You say you don't deny that climate change is happening, yet everything you point to are talking points of deniers. Climate gate was a non-scandal. Yes, data collection is a messy and expensive business, and a lot of reconciling of various data sets has to be done. Yes, one of the people doing that work found a "trick" to figure out how the unannotated data set could be interpreted to explain why the paper which was associated with that data set arrived at the conclusion it did. That doesn't mean they were tricking the public. Then you go off on a tangent about scientists and gender issues, which makes me think that you are really trying to address some wider point than that of climate change denial. You conclude with the same FUD that the smoking lobby used -- sure there are lots of studies that seem to indicate that smoking causes cancer, but you know there are some studies (paid for by the tobacco industry) that show it isn't a problem, so geez, it seems like we don't know enough yet to do anything about it. I thoroughly reject that stance. Businesses of all kinds have to make decisions based on incomplete and even contradictory data every day; we put people in jail for life or even kill them based on evidence which is not 100.00000% proven. Why, when it comes to climate change, are some people holding out for a mathematical proof or something? Why shouldn't we proceed based on the best available information? Why should the claims of climatologists, with thousands of man-years of research and published data be insufficient, yet a nay-sayer can say without any proof that addressing climate change would be disastrous to the economy?