Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[gwhite78]

This is absolutely false.

 

No it isn't. It is completely true.

 

---------- Post added 13-07-2015 at 05:01 ----------

 

It depends on what time period we're talking about and what you define as pollution. Clearly, MAN MADE pollution accelerated from the start of the industrial revolution but this is nothing compared to the cataclysmic climate change caused by pollution from volcanic gases etc millions of years ago.

 

Just our smog alone declined by over one-third alone from 1960. And our air pollution fell by 96% between 1980 and 2005. Since industrialisation our cities, cars, factories, canals, rivers, ponds, woods, parks etc etc are the least polluted now than what they have ever been. Despite us all driving, producing and using more energy than ever before.

Edited July 13, 2015 by gwhite78

[Cyclone]

We are statistically speaking, overdue an ice age.

[unbeliever]

We are still finding new natural cycles. So it's entirely likely that there are cycles that we haven't yet identified.

There are also long historical periods where the climate changed and we don't know why.

 

So regarding catastrophic anthropogenic global warming the argument runs something like this:

The world got warmer.

Something must be causing it.

This is something.

So that must be it.

[truman]

What failed prediction, the earth was predicted to get warmer and it's got warmer, the ice was predicted to melt and it's melting, sea levels were predicted to rise and they have risen, all these predictions were based on the indisputable fact that burning fossil fuels causes atmospheric CO2 to rise and that is known to trap more of the heat generated by the sun.

 

Have you heard of the Maunder cycle?

[unbeliever]

What failed prediction, the earth was predicted to get warmer and it's got warmer, the ice was predicted to melt and it's melting, sea levels were predicted to rise and they have risen, all these predictions were based on the indisputable fact that burning fossil fuels causes atmospheric CO2 to rise and that is known to trap more of the heat generated by the sun.

 

You've not been reading my posts.

The difference between AGW and CAGW is the key. AGW is obviously true. CAGW is failing standard scientific tests for acceptance.

[El Cid]

The sea level has been rising for centuries.

It's a serious mistake to assume that if anything the climatologists say is true, then it all must be true.

In normal science any failed prediction would invalidate a hypothesis, and one would recent to the null hypothesis.

 

The reason for this is that a hypothesis is required as I said before to make testable predictions different from the predictions of the null hypothesis.

The CAGW hypothesis does not do this so in principle a scientist is ethically bound to disbelieve it.

 

You believe what the science that says - "has been rising for centuries", but when they tell you its been rising at at faster rate due to climate change, you dont believe them; how strange.

It is not "climatologists" that say this, its oceanographers, specialists that study measuring the oceans.

[unbeliever]

You believe what the science that says - "has been rising for centuries", but when they tell you its been rising at at faster rate due to climate change, you dont believe them; how strange.

It is not "climatologists" that say this, its oceanographers, specialists that study measuring the oceans.

 

So now I have to believe all scientific hypotheses or none?

I also seem to have lost the right to question data quality.

What kind of nonsense is this?

[convert]

So now I have to believe all scientific hypotheses or none?

I also seem to have lost the right to question data quality.

What kind of nonsense is this?

 

It's the kind of nonsense that the 'warmists' call settled science.

 

 

Question everything, and follow the money.

[Phanerothyme]

I think it's plausible enough to want to do something to limit carbon emissions.

 

Essentially, it's an energy equation. We know that the global climate is a complex system with certain stable attractors built on variances caused by factors like orbital inclination, precession, sunspots, etc.

 

If energy in > energy out, then the global climate system will gain energy. The more energy that is sequestered in the global climate system, the less stable these attractors will necessarily become. There will come a point where very few of them can maintain stability. It's not cooler or hotter per se, it's just that the climate will become much more unpredictable and extreme.

 

This has serious consequences for all our lives.

 

Magnitude of change is less important than rate of change.

 

There's no need to delve into the data IMO, unless you're a climatologist trying to prove something one way or the other, this is a simple beermat calculation that can be worked out from first principles with nothing more advanced than a good calculator.

[Cyclone]

You believe what the science that says - "has been rising for centuries", but when they tell you its been rising at at faster rate due to climate change, you dont believe them; how strange.

It is not "climatologists" that say this, its oceanographers, specialists that study measuring the oceans.

 

"It's been rising" - Objective measurement.

 

"It's due to CAGW" - Subjective analysis.

 

Can you see why you could believe the measurement and not the explanation why?