The judge and jury have spoken regarding climate change: why is the gallery still seating in their seats?
In the real world, questions have been asked and answered and many countries are making good preliminary progress in acknowledging the problems that exist and will unfold due to human influenced climate change. Why are so many members of the gallery in Yahoo Q&A glued to their seats and protesting the verdict?
They’re not only friends and associates of the convicted killer, but they’re quite happy to carry on the work themselves for personal gain. That violates the values that hey believe that they hold (but fail to live up to), so they have to make the mental leap to deny the charges, in spite of any and all evidence confirming heinous crimes against humanity and nature.
For many, ignorance is bliss.
A consensus of idiots is no consensus. There is no proof that man is the cause of climate change. Climate change has existed since Day One on this planet, long before there were any humans.
My question back to you is why should we fight something that does not exist. The current concerns about the hypotheses of human caused global warming comes from a poor understanding of the worlds natural processes and their cycles and a desire by some greedy individuals to profit from this. Humans have had absolutely nothing to with any warming period and there has been no warming for over 70 years now. Well up until 1934-40 it was real and it happened because of the end of a period of low sun spot activity and the beginning of a more active period of solar output in the 19th century. It has been well proven now through current and historical records that the overall temperature average or climate of the earth is closely tied to the sun spot activity that directly affects the earth’s climate. Real global warming is a natural cosmic event, the global warming currently in the public spotlight is a fictional event brought about for political and economic gains by an elite group of con men.
The whole concept that this global warming scam is built on comes from a mistake in logic by a chemist back in the late 1800s when things started warming up at the end of the 2nd half of the little ice age. His arguments were adopted by a group of anti-industrial/anti-technology religious fanatics known as Luddites after their prophet to try and return society to its grander days in the early medieval period when nobility meant something. Oh yes, just like today the major adherents of this cult were the 2nd and 3rd sons of the minor nobility and in some cases the 1st sons who had squandered their inheritances on life style instead of productivity.
The anti Co2 cult was enhanced again when the argument was taken up during the late 20s when warming became noticeable and a industrial chemical firm had come up with a fluorocarbon instead of an oxycarbon refrigerant they claimed was not only superior to Co2 as a refrigerant it also would end the threat of global warming caused by Co2. This refrigerant was known as Freon and was in recent years banned because it was suspected of damaging the ozone layer. Now because of the low performance of other substituted refrigerants Co2 is making a huge comeback in the refrigeration industry, especially in newer auto air-conditioning systems that are more compact and efficient.
In the 1970s the Co2 equals warming theory was once again brought forward by a couple of low end climate scientists Mann/Hansen to first warn of the immanent plunge into a new and disastrous ice age because of the production of Co2 by vehicles and industry. This even though it got major media news play flopped like a lead balloon. Then they got involved with a shyster politician that had major oil company connections dating back to his fathers involvement with them who said clearly people are not afraid of cold but they are of heat.
So this politician writes a disaster is coming because of the warming that will be caused by the huge amounts of Co2 the world is pumping into the air. Mann/Hansen then revised their materials to forecast ever rising temperatures in sync with rising Co2 levels. Well when they checked closely they found that world temperatures had no relationship with Co2 levels and instead followed sun spot activity so they had to alter world temperature records to reflect a temperature increase matching the Co2 increase. This worked fine up through 2000 because things were warming up after the 70s cool period at that time. Then after 2000 temps leveled off and started dropping a little and their altered temperature curve that matched the increasing Co2 curve began to radically separate from reality even more than it had from the beginning of the scam when they had interjected an artificial .5C jump that placed the current 1998 peak well above 1934 when it was actually about .1C below 1934. This radical difference between actual recorded temperatures and reported ones quoted by Mann/Hansen is what brought about NASA action to review national and international records. The US national records have been repaired and now reflect the fact that global warming is more than a myth, it is an outright con game played for profit at the highest political and economic levels
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm#
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/1425chap4.htm
There is a vested interest and big money to be made by promulgating the climate change theory.
In truth, climate change can not be avoided… it has been going on since the earth began.
The debate is whether humans have a significant impact on climate. Some believe so and are very vocal and get lots of money. Others don’t thing so and believe that serious efforts to ‘fight global warming’ will be extremely expensive and have no or immeasurable impact.
Scientific consensus is reported, but there are lots of scientists and climatologists who do not believe the hype. So… there is no consensus and there is no proof. Yet we are being asked to make huge sacrifices for somethnig that will turn out to be a total waste.
The judge and jury have NOT spoken. There is no verdict. But the media would have you think so. And the people with lots to gain financially are motivated to perpetuate this theory.
You could just as easily ask why the folks promulgating the man-made climate change theory refuse to consider evidence that refutes their theory. Should we not seek the truth?
Believe what U want to. That is your problem.
Who knows, nice to see their numbers are so small though
Because we want a front row seat when it turns out you believers are wrong.
The verdict is not public opinion but temperature data. The sun has entered a period of low activity, the PDO and AMO has shifted phases. The severe drop in temperatures that we saw this past year is not noise. Expect temperatures to continue falling.
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.
"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."
Michael Crichton
I know this quote has been overused on this site, but I think it is quite valid in exposing your question for what it is, a potentially false premise.
Please don’t be a Lemming. The primary data used to promote the AGW cause is in a word…. Worthless. The Warmers will not acknowledge that fact because of the serious damage that would be done to their reputations and income.
I refuse to fall for this ‘man-did-it’ nonsense!
Would this be the same judge and jury that warned us that a global cooling was coming in the 70′s? Maybe thats why.
The consensus of leftist that believe that America is bad and to blame for the world’s problems including global warming and the consensus of leftists that believe the only solution is growing government. Is that the consensus you are referring to? It is not a consensus. It is an opinion and a ignorant and unwarranted one at that.
You know what my answer is going to be. It’s denial, pure and simple.
Case and point, look at a recent question I asked about a new study which concluded that humans have caused most of the global warming oover the past century and essentially all of it over the past 30 years. The study was published in a well-respected scientific peer-reviewed journal (Geophysical Research Letters), written by two scientists from respected institutions (the Space Science Division of the Naval Research Laboratory and NASA GISS), who have well over 200 scientific publications between them.
These were the words the deniers used to describe these scientists and their research:
"Garbage," "idiocy…idiots," "obscenely stupid," "preposterous," "They want more tax dollars," "herd mentality," "voodoo science," and "hogwash."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhirIqT9ws4T7dLUxTYoQEsFxgt.;_ylv=3?qid=20080930100924AAUaUwM
I even asked a question as to why the deniers react so strongly and negatively to this kind of science, and got more of the same insults.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsvgW.yxjm.fll_aeYxXNQfsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080930122614AAIksKW
These folks are just completely closed-minded. They have no interest in the science, facts, or reality behind global warming. The reason they’re still in their seats is that it’s a comfortable spot to sit. You can just sit there, calling everyone else idiots, making them do all the work to solve the problem.
Well no, see you’re not the judge and jury, you’re only the prosecutor, and you haven’t made out a prima facie case.
You believers continue to just "declare victory" without having proven your case. You in particular post this line of reasoning – "debate’s over, nothing more to discuss."
It’s called a defense mechanism – you want the debate to be over because you never had it, because you can’t win it.
science: c02 is one of several gases that contribute to GW
denier: No it isn’t
science: c02 is a warming gas known as such for a century
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
denier: ?, No it isn’t
denier: The Sun is causing warming on Mars and Pluto in the last 20 years.
science: Solar monitoring satellites show the Sun hasn’t increased output since the 70s
denier: wheres the evidence of AGW is happening
science: well over the last century sea rise of 6in
denier: wheres the evidence of AGW is happening
science: temp rise of 0.6c
denier: wheres the evidence of AGW is happening
science: c02 level have risen as human production of c02 increased
denier: wheres the evidence of AGW is happening
science: Arctic ice levels are at all time recored lows and the NW Passage was open to direct sailing for the first time
denier: thats not true what about the vikings and the MWP
science: The viking only ever occupied the SW of Greenland which is as ice free today as it was then.
denier: wheres the evidence of AGW is happening
science: The majority of the climate science community think, based on the research they have been doing over the last 40 years that AGW is a high probability, better than 90%
denier: we have this petition from the OISM with 31000 signers
science: Whats the OISM
science: We’ve never heard of most of the names on this petition.
denier: You are all in on a conspiracy to make millions and control the world
science: can I suggest a good psychiatrist
denier: we hate Al Gore We Hate Al Gore WE HATE ALL GORE
science: ?
Discernment should require finesse, not generalized blanket statements. I’m fairly lousy at it myself, but take a little pride on awareness. Maybe most of us had been lead down paths that constituted poor judgment in the past. I certainly have, and for once in my life, I want to make my own decisions for a change. You can call it a stigmatic mistrust for those that say, ‘it’s for the better good of all.’
One area I’ve always had problem in, is expressing animated conclusions. I just wouldn’t feel any comfort in telling someone they only have a certain amount of time left in the world. Unless I have assurance that the problem had a solution. It serves no purpose to promote panic and usually produces the opposite desired effect.
edit: something else I’m aware of, you’ve collected a large audience but no star. Life confuses me, but here’s one for a honest, but open ended question..
I think curtisports2 is on to something. There is a "consensus of idiots" among the denialist. Read the references. James is going to be really embarrassed when his course gets to greenhouse gases (not yet on line) and it says that people are a major contributing factor and that there is a high degree of certainty (90%) that human activity is causing global warming and climate change.
The Roy Spencer stuff has long ago been discredited by scientists. That is why no journal will publish his trash. It can’t pass a peer review.
I think it’s a good thing that people didn’t just accept what science said about the shape of the universe when Copernicus doubted that whole "The earth is the center of the universe" thing.
Science isn’t about deciding things with a jury, it’s about figuring out what is true.
I would offer two answers that are not mutually exclusive.
First, many people experience cognitive dissonance about beliefs, behaviours and consequences that they find difficult to live with. For instance, people who smoke do know that it is harmful but they ‘discount’ the evidence for this because they want to keep on doing what they do. The self-same internal conflict, or dissonance, exists around the sustainability of our own lifestyles for the majority of people living in the developed world. To acknowledge our responsibility for the current global warming, and the catastrophic consequences that it will cause, forces us to confront our own contribution to this problem and to question almost every aspect of our Western lifestyles.
It’s only when you give up the tobacco – or the profligate use of fossil fuels – that you become free to evaluate objectively. That’s why ex-smokers are usually the harshest critics of other smokers.
Second, it is well established that climate change denial has, in the past, been stoked by scientists, politicians and other opinion-formers who are in the pay of the oil companies. Just like the tobacco industry on the smoking debate in previous decades and, probably, the food industry on obesity today. It seems reasonable and logical to suppose that those who continue to deny man’s role in Earth’s current warming (or even the very fact of the warming) might have some vested interests in maintaining our continuing dependence on fossil fuel. For example, their career aspirations, a family’s fortune made in the oil or petrochemical businesses or simply a love of high performance cars. I am making up these examples and am not suggesting that they relate to anyone using this website.
So those of us who don’t but into AGW are living in a different world, and believers live in the real world or in fact I would say they live in a make believe world and call it real.