Login

MalabarJag · 10-26-2019, 06:19 PM

(10-26-2019, 07:18 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: How did a scientific question become a political argument? Why are non-scientists arguing against a well-supported scientific theory, and why are they arguing about this particular one- the existence and effects of man-made climate change?

The answer is, because if the scientists are correct, then we should probably do something about it. And the denialists don't want to shift the discussion to solutions. They prefer to fight it out over the science itself.

And that tells you all you need to know about the reason a particular segment of the political spectrum, in spite of having no scientific knowledge or background, wants to argue about this particular scientific theory. Because they don't like the implications of admitting that the scientists are correct.

Imagine if the world's astronomers told us that a huge asteroid is going to hit the earth in 20 years. That would not be a political issue at all. But then if they said it would take 50 trillion dollars and a major international effort to deflect this asteroid, what would people say then? Would they say there was no asteroid, it's all a hoax, a major international scientific fraud? That's what's happening with the climate change question. Some people don't like considering solutions to the problem, so they deny that there is a problem. Add to that the fact that most proposed solutions involve painful adjustments and shrinking of some major industries who have a lot of political influence, and you see where all this denialism comes from. Denialism originated in the oil industry.

You're standing in the road. I tell you there is a car coming, you better get out of the road. You say, I don't want to get out of the road, therefore, there is no car coming. Is that a logical response? It's a response based on your desire to avoid dealing with the question.

There is so much wrong with this.

First off, calling people "deniers" is just a means of trying to disparage the scientists who disagree with the dogma by equating them with holocaust deniers. It's a clue that the alarmists don't actually have a scientific basis for their claims. If you want to use a better term, try "skeptics." If you want to call me a name, "heretic" is probably the best, since Climastrology is more of a religion than a science.

Secondly, blaming "the oil industry" is a lie. The oil industry has donated far more money to Climastrology labs than they have to scientist who disagree with the alarmism. It's sort of hard to make the case for Climate Realism when over 99% of the funding goes to the alarmist side.

I like the claim that it's OK for windmills to kill birds because millions of birds are killed by windows and cats. That's as valid as the argument that it's OK to kill rhinos because millions of mammals are killed by rat poison. Killing eagles is not the same as killing sparrows.

There are enough provable lies coming out of the alarmist camp that you should be very skeptical of them.

Note that I have mentioned that not all scientists are on board with the alarmist rhetoric. Most aren't, they are on board with warming, and consider it mostly from CO2, but they are not on board with the disaster scenarios you read about in the NYT. However, they benefit from the continued flow of money to support their research and will not criticize the lies the mainstream media publishes. In the world of acadamia, no research grants == losing your faculty position and flipping hamburgers. Here is a list of 31,000 scientists who disagreed. And before Mikey comes to claim that there are "Mickey Mouse" names on the petition, a handful of jerks does not invalidate the 31,000 actual scientists who signed it. Of course, they are not the ones riding the Global Warming gravy train. So no, the 97% claim is just another lie.

Orbital mechanics has a solid basis. It's not handwaved like climate "science." I'd be the first to be in favor of stopping the asteroid, but be sure the measurements have been validated before we spend the 50 trillion dollars. In the case of climate, warmer is better.

As far as sea level rise, the claim that it is accelerating is just a proof that the alarmist side is flat out lying. Here's the Key West tide gauge (chosen for longevity). It shows a constant rate of sea level rise since the beginning over 100 years ago, long before humans were adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

[Image: 8724580_meantrend.png]

Here is the link if you want to check out other stations. Link

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"