Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
SC

AGW: When realist start speaking up

Recommended Posts

This article really says it all.

Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/

It's not a long read. I can mostly agree with this argument. Where I won't outright deny that humanity has contributed to global warming, I just don't think it's as big of a deal as it's being made out to be in some instances and I'm uncertain of the actual contribution CO2 has when compared to the unknown number of other factors. As the author points out here, the alarmist rhetoric typically drives me further away from the AGW narrative because it is so baseless. If the point of money being invested in alternative green energy is really to save human lives, it could be better spent many different ways. I'd propose that the major suppliers and beneficiaries of renewable energies care less about facts than they do about subsidies and market share though, so the circus continues. 

Anyhow, I'll prepare myself now to be educated on why this is all wrong. For the sake of fair discussion though, please refrain from baseless attacks on intelligence based on someone's writing ability or choice of words. If the message isn't clear, ask them to clarify and make an effort to understand their point of view so you can refute it accordingly if you see fit. Have fun and happy trolling!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2019 at 2:35 AM, PE Scott said:

This article really says it all.

Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/

It's not a long read. I can mostly agree with this argument. Where I won't outright deny that humanity has contributed to global warming, I just don't think it's as big of a deal as it's being made out to be in some instances and I'm uncertain of the actual contribution CO2 has when compared to the unknown number of other factors. As the author points out here, the alarmist rhetoric typically drives me further away from the AGW narrative because it is so baseless. If the point of money being invested in alternative green energy is really to save human lives, it could be better spent many different ways. I'd propose that the major suppliers and beneficiaries of renewable energies care less about facts than they do about subsidies and market share though, so the circus continues. 

Anyhow, I'll prepare myself now to be educated on why this is all wrong. For the sake of fair discussion though, please refrain from baseless attacks on intelligence based on someone's writing ability or choice of words. If the message isn't clear, ask them to clarify and make an effort to understand their point of view so you can refute it accordingly if you see fit. Have fun and happy trolling!

Agreed entirely.

Any argument I've seen in favor of AGW has been horribly - and very obviously - flawed.  The most damning evidence is that the models don't work.  Scott Adams summarized their behavior brilliantly:

image.png.b28fea542e2c8311e2fe213e88abaad5.png

The simple fact of the matter is that until they're consistently producing models that predict future climate, they have nothing.  As of right now, they have nothing. 

Digging deeper into the "science", I discovered stunning incompetence.  I've lost the link, but the most interesting example was a computer scientist who worked for a climate agency noting that their programming skills were non-existent.  Simple errors in the code (E.g. off-by-one errors, which are covered in CS 101) led to such results as the hockey stick graph.  My own discussions with climate "scientists" revealed that while they understood fundamental phenomena, they were remarkably bad at understanding systems.  E.g. they consistently failed to account for all possible inputs to a system (Modeling 101), choosing instead to fixate on their pet phenomenon.  When it comes to system modeling, they have no idea what they're doing - and they're doing a lot of it. 

The "science" was so sloppy I became suspicious and dug into the politics of it.  The screeching environmentalists at the bottom are fearful pawns who don't know any better.  The people formulating these ideas and feeding them to the pawns are making a killing.  This, in my opinion, is the most likely explanation for why climate "science" continues to be funded. 

To summarize, I started with an open mind, continually stumbled into sloppy work, eventually became suspicious of the motivations behind that work, and discovered that there is, in fact, a financial motive for funding bad science.  The climate "science" community has exhausted my patience for incompetence and zealotry.  IMHO, climate "scientists" are frauds.  As with any other fraud, their claims should be ignored until they produce extraordinary, independently verified evidence. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0