Man-made climate change? This has not been proven. Period.
If you embrace the man-made climate change position, consider what you are doing:
- You are trusting Al Gore and Barack Obama (can I stop now);
- You are trusting what many scientists propose might happen, even though their predictions over the past thirty years have all been erroneous;
- There has been no change in average temperature since 1995, and barely an increase in temperature of 1 degree since 1970, yet you are saying that man has caused global warming;
- You are taking as truth the suggested hypothesis that greenhouse gases cause global warming, even though the scientist that first proposed the theory all but retracted it, cautioning the world that we had taken his ideas past their intended limits and purpose.
- You are believing the same scientists whose hacked emails exposed their frustration, worry, and ensuing shenanigans upon discovering that their data didn't support their claims.
Consider this:
- The earth has been through many ice ages. Does not that fact alone logically debunk the theory of man-made global warming. The earth heats up just fine without our SUVs.
- It used to be called global warming, now it's called climate change -- precisely because scientists understood that global warming was a misnomer with the lack of data to prove their argument;
- The "97% of scientists agree" argument stated by Obama, and clung to by natural climate change deniers, came one Cooke, a scientist in Australia. When his methodology was questioned as flawed, the university he worked for threatened a lawsuit on the person who challenged him. It's actually 0.3 percent of scientists in Cooke's study that agree in man-caused global warming.
- Polar bear scare = completely false
- ice coverage decreasing = completely false
- Over 4.5 billion dollars in government grants go to climate change research
- How does this impact the tax-payer? One example: Solyndra
And finally:
- Being that men live on earth (not as intruders, mind you) we obviously contribute in some way to the earth's ecosystem;
- It simply has not been proven that man's activities contribute to climate change in the way the computer models have tried (and failed miserably) to predict. Just because a bunch of "smart scientists" think something is going to happen, it does not make it so;
- I support reasonable efforts to reduce pollution
- I oppose government subsidies for green energy
The very tangential fine-print post script stuff:
- I believe in the the revlations of John, as noted in the Bible, and crazy climate changes will abound in the last days. Hmmm?
- There are some who assert that civilizations far more advanced than us have lived and died on this planet. Could they have caused global warming in the past?
For your consideration: http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/
ReplyDeleteInteresting read, Mike. I've been engaged in a debate of sorts on this topic with some others, and I wrote this post to put down a quick and dirty of my current thoughts on the matter. The consensus argument is still shaky to me, considering that some who reviewed Cook's research invalidated his data and argue that his (Cook's) own research only proves a consensus of 0.3% of scientists. I am currently against the natural-climate-change-deniers (see what I did there?), yet I maintain my right to change my opinion as I learn more about it. Thanks for commenting, by the way. Make sure you don't move too close to the beach; I'd hate for you to get flooded by the rising sea! :)
ReplyDeleteRead #4 on that list, and tell me the author is not tackling the issue as a politician, rather than a scientist.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I just consider the source of the article. Bill Moyers and company have their own axes to grind, and I reserve the right to my own synthesis of opinion. I consider it naive to believe that people have nothing to do with climate change, but I also think that factors beyond our understanding are at play as well. The mainstream scientific community outright dismisses any supernatural (or as I prefer to state it, natural but not yet measured/measurable) causes out of hand, while a small but significant segment of the community retains a willingness to suspend some doubt and acknowledge our lack of knowledge. I think we all know that we need to care for our home, regardless of why. It's just the right thing to do. At the local level, we see what people's neglect does to homes, neighborhoods, etc. It stands to reason that similar behaviors on a large scale will have measurable impacts on the larger environment. Couple that logic with straightforward empirical evidence, and the case is clear that we are doing something negative that could be mitigated by more responsible behaviors. What I resent is the use of compulsion rather than persuasion to get people to change.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement, but I am still skeptical about "straightforward empirical evidence." To oppose the religious zealots who preach man made climate change is not to say that I oppose habits that will promote a cleaner environment.
Delete