|
|
Post by questioneverything on Mar 31, 2009 0:06:43 GMT
I was reading an interesting book on the web today that discussed skepticism and it was a fascinating read. tinyurl.com/dx7tfuI am interested in what your stories are. When did you become a skeptic and why? If you do hold with the AGW idea, how did you come to this? Is there anything that you are skeptical regarding AGW? |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 31, 2009 3:48:43 GMT
I was reading an interesting book on the web today that discussed skepticism and it was a fascinating read. tinyurl.com/dx7tfuI am interested in what your stories are. When did you become a skeptic and why? If you do hold with the AGW idea, how did you come to this? Is there anything that you are skeptical regarding AGW? I've always been somewhat skeptical. I didn't really give AGW much consideration either way for a long time. As such I just gave it a lackluster, "I suppose it would happen" sort of support. Then I noticed there was an unusual solar minimum going on and some suggesting solar activity might be a cause of temperature so I glanced over the material... Imagine my horror when I discovered a catastrophic failure of climate "science". The "correlation" between CO2 and temperature was surrounded by a much longer period of negative correlation. The "obvious" driving of climate by CO2 in ice cores turned out to be "obvious" that it was backward (CO2 is driven by climate). The temperature increase was far from "unprecidented"...it was downright unremarkable, looking just like the increase before it during a period of essentially no CO2 increase. The more I looked, the worse it got. They'd gone about their "research" backward. They'd made the assumption that CO2 was the only significant force driving climate and wrapped their tiny little model worlds around that assumption. The AGW concept has gone from a testable hypothesis to an unverifiable religion with devout following of zealots, many of them spouting blatant lies in the press. "Global warming is accelerating!" "Sea levels may rise 20 feet by 2100!" "Antarctica's ice is decreasing!" "Polar bears are drowning!" "This is the warmest it's ever been!" "CO2 is dangerous to public health!" It is always a good idea to be skeptical of a cause that spouts obvious lies as the main reason to act. |
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 31, 2009 3:55:14 GMT
epistemology (The theory of knowing) is an interesting subject, but few modern scientists have read outside their narrow interests. Specialization does allow greater progress, but at the risk of the specialist being easily misled in areas outside his specialty. But let us not confuse philosophical skepticism with the normal scientific need to question everything. One can be skeptical of something without being a philosophical skeptic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticismen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticismIn any case, my epistemological method (my theory of knowledge) is that of the philosopher, Van Til: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_TilAs to AGW: Mankind has and does mess up the environment. The fact that CO2 is probably NOT linked to climate change is no excuse for greed, mass consumerism, destruction of habitat and a rape of the Earth's resources. We should see ourselves as God's appointed stewards of the Earth, who will be held accountable for what we do (and not just with the environment.) |
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Mar 31, 2009 4:59:52 GMT
I didn't particularly like Michael Crichton's fiction, but I picked up a copy of "State of Fear." It was a great read and he converted me to a complete skeptic. If that hadn't done it, then the propagandists' change of terminology from AGW to MMCC would have. It's blatantly clear that AGW proponents are driven by a combination of socialist agendas, Messiah complexes, scientific elitism, and just plain GWeed.
Watch Crichton's interviews on YouTube and compare him to, say, Al Gore. Whose side would you rather be on?
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 31, 2009 7:25:28 GMT
As to AGW: Mankind has and does mess up the environment. The fact that CO2 is probably NOT linked to climate change is no excuse for greed, mass consumerism, destruction of habitat and a rape of the Earth's resources. We should see ourselves as God's appointed stewards of the Earth, who will be held accountable for what we do (and not just with the environment.) Agreed but that's one of the reasons I'm so strongly against the AGW belief that verges on a religion. It takes away from the REAL environmental problems. It sets the bar so high that there's no way we could even try at this time. The cost of the developing world installing hardware to scrub sulfur dioxide and fly ash from their coal fired plants is actually not all that bad and gives immediate, significant benefits. On the other hand, halting CO2 emissions amounts to backtracking on most development...with a resulting rise in human suffering (and death). |
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Mar 31, 2009 11:14:05 GMT
I learned when I was at university that the infra-red absorption of CO2 in the atmosphere was saturated. The claim that it is not saturated is based on computer models, with no experimental evidence to support them. As such, these models must be liable to the Kelvin fallacy. When I couple this with the claim that "the science is settled", then it is obvious to me that the warmaholics are advocates, and have no interest in science. AGW is at best a myth, and at worst a hoax.
|
|
|
|
Post by rustyphillips on Mar 31, 2009 16:49:10 GMT
what got me to question that truth of all this is that my current house (South Carolina) - a hundred miles inland - and 314 feet above sea level, has sand going down a hundred or more feet, and I have been told that 55 million years ago it was ocean front property
on top of this - my childhood home in Ohio was once covered in glaciers
The climate has been changing long before mankind showed up with his Ford Excursions, and the climate will still be changing long after Algore is forgotten.
Im more worried about home warming, than global warming.
|
|
|
|
Post by zer0th on Mar 31, 2009 19:21:04 GMT
|
|
dc51
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 97
|
Post by dc51 on Mar 31, 2009 22:37:43 GMT
like most people I swallowed the GW story because there was an observable difference in the climate since I was a child. It seemed to make sense. That is until the last too lousy summers and I read something about sun spots and thanks to this machine, I'm now better informed. I'm not convinced one way other, but at least with the reduced solar activity we're getting a chance to test the alternative theory. But I'm not looking forward to it.
DC
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 1, 2009 0:34:46 GMT
I used to believe in AGW until empirical evidence started disagreeing with the models. Upon further reading and learning, it appears that AGW is only a political item, and not one based on sound science at all.
Kinda like my model of my finances when I start the year. The weather will determine the outcome, but the model usually looks good. (I am a farmer). The unknown variables control the outcome, not the pre planned ones.
And to top it all off, where I live we have been setting records for cold. Several this winter that have broken the 130 year history on paper. And of course, where I farm in the Red River Valley, we had a huge glacier in the recent past.
|
|
|
|
Post by msphar on Apr 1, 2009 4:58:52 GMT
I was exposed to solar cycles as a child in the late 1950s...My father had begun working for some radio astronomers at Stanford University. His job was to engineer some radio telescopes. The first one was a simple little single dish affair. The next project was a 32 dish array planned to monitor the sun during the IGY. Some of the scientists at that time were talking about sun spots effect on weather. I was not yet a teenager and just picked up on the idea. Since then I have been watching weather as it applied to skiing in the Sierra's and to glider flying in the desert beyond. More recently I became aware of the Global Warming belief when some well meaning liberal relatives dragged me to see the Gore movie back in 2006 down in the Socialist Republic of Santa Cruz. I remember thinking this stuff was nuts on the face of it, and started reading and expanded my personal research as well as world weather cognizance over the past few years. This is somewhat coincident with buying a boat down in Florida in 2003 and becoming painfully aware of hurricanes starting with Charlie in 2004. I've been in and around more than a dozen hurricanes, since then trying to prepare my boat for each eventuality with their destructive forces, moving it about, seeking safer shelter, studying the models, and watching the satellite imagery. All of this weather related exposure has convinced me to be quite skeptical of smart people with computers trying to model climate or weather. If they can't forecast a simple weather event such as a typhoon more than a few days in advance how can I trust those same global models into the far distant (100 year's out) future? As for CO2, I live in the West and drive an SUV due to snow and safety. In another 30 years I'll be dead and this debate will probably be dying off as well. It will still be snowing in the Sierra, hurricane will be blowing in the Caribe and the arctic will still be cycling between ice bound and summer melt and a couple more low amplitude solar cycles will be history. Wait and watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 1, 2009 12:28:13 GMT
When I was a kid my mum used to buy a right-wing newspaper and my later realisation in life that they were happy to lie to me to convince me of their opinion encourages me to look at the expert evidence before I take a strong view. At the moment, for example, one of the anti-science campaigns of this widely read British rag is causing kids to die from measles in the UK.
Although I typically pose the argument from the side of an advocate, I am sceptical about a number of aspects of AGW. Not because I don't believe they could happen, but because I don't believe the projections prove that they *will* happen. It is almost certainly true that the majority of alarmist claims won't happen. But I think it is true that enough of them will happen such that we should be concerned.
I also recognise that the nature of the media and, to some degree, the motivations of the scientists, mean that some claims are or sound more alarmist than can be justified by the evidence.
On the other hand, it is quite clear that their are some utterly bogus arguments against AGW that deserve to be shot down, and sometimes the unspoken agreement among many sceptics not to disagree with each other can be irritating.
|
|
shm6666
Level 2 Rank
The Sun :-)
Posts: 98
|
Post by shm6666 on Apr 1, 2009 12:40:33 GMT
I was looking at the solar records for the last centuries. The sunspot disappeared from 1645 to 1710, and then it got real cool here on earth. The Thames in London froze in the winters and in and in 1658 the Swedish army crossed “Stora Bält” and beat the crap out of the Danish army regaining Skåne, Blekinge, Halland and Bohuslän. For “Stora Bält” to freeze it must have been real cold. There was no sunspot then.
Then between 1800 and 1820 we entered the Dalton minimum. Again it got cold and the Thames froze over some winters. There where sunspots present but under an SSN of 50.
Now since 1945 till 2005 we have had a total of 20+ years with an SSN over 100. But we have only had a total of 2+ years where the SSN have been fewer than 10. Since April 2007 we have had an SSN under 10. We are now in a deep minimum. It is possibly that we will have since 2007 equal or more number of month in minimum in row as we had under 60 years. It seems to leave a mark.
Since 2005 the SSN have been declining. So has also the global temperature. 2006 was cooler than 2005, 2007 was cooler than 2006, 2008 was cooler than 2007. We also have an back to back La Nina present. AGW:ers my say that El Nino / La Nina is a cycle. I think not. I think the sun is controlling.
If we now are entering a Dalton like minimum like some over on the SC24 discussion thinks. We don´t need to worry about global warming. When the AGW movement discovers that they are losing the argument they will start to “aggressively argument ” for there cause.
Unfortunately I don´t think the politicians will be ready to face the music in December in Copenhagen. They will probably make a document “in the snow” in Copenhagen that will have no effect because we can’t do anything to the sun
/Sven
|
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Apr 1, 2009 14:51:27 GMT
I was a skeptic about AGW since I first encountered it, because of who introduced it to me.
A large number of the 'environmentalists' I grew up with seemed to believe that 'pure' nature was inherently stable, not cyclical, and that humans were not part of nature. Thus, any change must be bad, and must be the fault of humans one way or another.
I remember when I was growing up seeing commercials on TV that said that deforestation would lead to massive, destructive wind storms. I remember reading that the hole in the ozone layer would expand to cover the earth and let in radiation that would kill us all.
I believe humans do impact the world we live in, but that our impacts are typically less than the inherent variability in the system at the macro level. We may make the ice age come ten years later (or sooner) by our actions during the ten thousand years of an interglacial period, but we won't prevent it.
I'm still only skeptical of AGW, not sure it is completely wrong. I am sure that there are much more serious and urgent threats facing us than AGW even if the worst-case scenarios come to pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Apr 1, 2009 17:38:24 GMT
It is April. It is snowing. There is no record of it ever having snowed here this late in the new year. I mean, ever. Usually, we are in t-shirts and shorts on April 1. I have photos going back 80 years to demonstrate. Someone said that C+ students rule the world. I think it is now the C- students. AGW? Who's kidding who?
|
|
