THE thread for climate skeptics.

[Teallaura]

I ignored your previous posts to me because I figured you'd drop this.

The evidence for climate change has been presented on this site for years by people like Sylas, Kerb, Loe, shunny, and myself to name a few. Everything from Urban Heat Islands to Milankovitch cycles has been discussed ad-nauseam. I've personally been down these roads too many times to count since the early 2000's, and the more I interact with 'skeptics' the more I become disgusted with the whole thing. People on the left-wing haven't made this anywhere near as political as the right-wing - which have made it completely political in order to play on their bases emotions, and fool the media.

My track record on here as someone that can understand and explain the data speaks for itself. Outside of my training in physics and astronomy, I've personally studied atmospheric physics, as well the climate change issue in general. Go back and look trough this forum and you'll find plenty of times I explained the science for laymen to understand. Leo and Sylas also have done a good job of explaining these issues, so there really is no excuse to go out and claim we haven't answered the skeptics - we most certainly have.

The reason I'm not going to bother with a deep discussion is because you pretty much said you don't trust the researchers, and are unable to tell the difference between good science and bad science anyways. It seems you don't trust researchers because you see them as political adversaries, so there's nothing I can to ever do to persuade you, and so I decided to simply move on. I'm not going to argue politics because that's just rubbish on this forum, and I don't have the time for the way it always goes. If that makes me 'foolish' then so be it.

I tried to make this easy but you kept pushing.

Oh good grief. Lurch was making his argument based on my response to you which was the reason we were still discussing it. I wasn't harping on you - I simply do not agree with you.

I have explained multiple times now and more than made clear the distinction. I have not rejected every scientist/researcher/ et al - I have formed an opinion based on what I see in the public square which also happens to be what I can best interpret. I am not saying climate what-ever-we're-calling-it is false because I distrust anyone - I'm saying that the way this has been presented in the public square and the behavior I've seen exhibited by the public proponents (read that as guys turning up on MSN, CNN, Fox, et al) gives me cause for skepticism.

Now, instead of a really bad appeal to authority or another round of claiming I reject science that hasn't even been discussed, tell me what scientific facts you find so compelling that I should dismiss behavioral clues in their favor?

[Teallaura]

You can't judge by local conditions, but those conditions are noticeably changing nonetheless. No one is judging by what happened in a given year, either.

The thing is, that is the norm in my experience. Winter was colder when I was a girl; warmer in my teens and twenties and a mixed bag in my thirties and forties with a turn toward colder in the last few years. Conditions always seem to noticeably change. Either that's evidence or it isn't - and 90% of Nat Sci's crew was screaming that it wasn't just a few years ago. Okay, I accept the premise - but that cuts both ways and it shouldn't be considered as a point of evidence at all.

[Sea of red]

I have explained multiple times now and more than made clear the distinction. I have not rejected every scientist/researcher/ et al - I have formed an opinion based on what I see in the public square which also happens to be what I can best interpret. I am not saying climate what-ever-we're-calling-it is false because I distrust anyone - I'm saying that the way this has been presented in the public square and the behavior I've seen exhibited by the public proponents (read that as guys turning up on MSN, CNN, Fox, et al) gives me cause for skepticism.

This is double talk. You can't use poor public relations by climate scientists as a fair reason to ignore the research, then make an about-face that you're not actually denying the science for that reason. It's obvious that what's going on here is identity politics clouding a fair assessment of the results, not skepticism. Every post you make further runs this point home for me - especially when you use these red-herrings about Al Gore.

Now, instead of a really bad appeal to authority or another round of claiming I reject science that hasn't even been discussed, tell me what scientific facts you find so compelling that I should dismiss behavioral clues in their favor?

Behavioral clues? Teal, you don't have a clue what's going on here and you don't have a good methodology for telling good science from bad either. I'm sorry you find that arrogant or rude, but I'm sure others see it too.

If you do actually wish to find out the facts then you can start with this thread here: Climate change: Stratospheric cooling Then move on to this one when you're done with that: Climate-change-Milankovitch-cycles-Ice-ages-and-Greenhouse-Gases. I explain how the Earth comes into and out of ice ages, how GHG's are related to Earths temperatures, and I explain how stratospheric cooling can not be explained by natural forcing alone. I tried to make these easy reads for a general audience. I'd also take a look at this discussion I had with MM a few months back where he came in swinging with the typical skeptical talking points here, here, and here. Though MM was in typical form it was fun to show just how awful these arguments really are, and I think you'll enjoy the discussion about satellite data sets and historical temperatures readings.

That's all I can do for you.

[Teallaura]

This is double talk. You can't use poor public relations by climate scientists as a fair reason to ignore the research, then make an about-face that you're not actually denying the science for that reason. It's obvious that what's going on here is identity politics clouding a fair assessment of the results, not skepticism. Every post you make further runs this point home for me - especially when you use these red-herrings about Al Gore.

It's perfectly valid to determine trustworthiness by behavior - which is not the same thing as tossing everything. You are conflating 'skepticism' with 'utter refusal to consider'.

I didn't bring up Gore except to say that his introduction of the issue has forever made it a political issue. That's a fact - period. I never used it as an argument pro or con - merely as an observation of reality - you're inability to understand that notwithstanding.

Behavioral clues?

Yep - goes to trustworthiness - this is self evident.

Teal, you don't have a clue what's going on here

Sure I do - you get mad and don't bother to read what's written. Which is why you go off on tangents. Politics is what will - or will not - save the planet, presuming you're right and it needs saving. Absent political reality and you've got squat for methodology to actually get any compliance with whatever solution. That's life in the real world.

and you don't have a good methodology for telling good science from bad either.

I SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT MYSELF!!!!!! What I DO have is an ability to interpret and analyze political behavior. Like it or not, humans are human, they behave politically when in groups of more than two (arguably even just two) and how they behave politically is an indication of whether or not they trust what they are saying to you.

I'm sorry you find that arrogant or rude, but I'm sure others see it too.

I find it exasperating that you keep getting angry but won't engage enough to understand the actual points I make - even if you don't agree. I don't care if you don't agree - that's what debate is for - but it's truly irritating to have you yell at me when you clearly aren't grasping - or in some cases bothering to read - what I said.

If you do actually wish to find out the facts then you can start with this thread here: Climate change: Stratospheric cooling Then move on to this one when you're done with that: Climate-change-Milankovitch-cycles-Ice-ages-and-Greenhouse-Gases. I explain how the Earth comes into and out of ice ages, how GHG's are related to Earths temperatures, and I explain how stratospheric cooling can not be explained by natural forcing alone. I tried to make these easy reads for a general audience. I'd also take a look at this discussion I had with MM a few months back where he came in swinging with the typical skeptical talking points here, here, and here. Though MM was in typical form it was fun to show just how awful these arguments really are, and I think you'll enjoy the discussion about satellite data sets and historical temperatures readings.

That's all I can do for you.

Argument by weblink - but okay, I'll look at them.

I am curious as to why you bother to start threads about skepticism if you have no intention of understanding why someone is skeptical? Do you really think you can win anyone over by yelling at them?

[Sea of red]

It's perfectly valid to determine trustworthiness by behavior - which is not the same thing as tossing everything. You are conflating 'skepticism' with 'utter refusal to consider'.

I didn't bring up Gore except to say that his introduction of the issue has forever made it a political issue. That's a fact - period. I never used it as an argument pro or con - merely as an observation of reality - you're inability to understand that notwithstanding.

Yep - goes to trustworthiness - this is self evident.

Sure I do - you get mad and don't bother to read what's written. Which is why you go off on tangents. Politics is what will - or will not - save the planet, presuming you're right and it needs saving. Absent political reality and you've got squat for methodology to actually get any compliance with whatever solution. That's life in the real world.



I SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT MYSELF!!!!!! What I DO have is an ability to interpret and analyze political behavior. Like it or not, humans are human, they behave politically when in groups of more than two (arguably even just two) and how they behave politically is an indication of whether or not they trust what they are saying to you.

I find it exasperating that you keep getting angry but won't engage enough to understand the actual points I make - even if you don't agree. I don't care if you don't agree - that's what debate is for - but it's truly irritating to have you yell at me when you clearly aren't grasping - or in some cases bothering to read - what I said.



Argument by weblink - but okay, I'll look at them.

I am curious as to why you bother to start threads about skepticism if you have no intention of understanding why someone is skeptical? Do you really think you can win anyone over by yelling at them?

Teal, I think you need to calm down. I was direct with you and told you how you were coming across to me. I figured you would be able to handle the criticism without getting upset - it wasn't my intention to do so.

[Teallaura]

Teal, I think you need to calm down. I was direct with you and told you how you were coming across to me. I figured you would be able to handle the criticism without getting upset - it wasn't my intention to do so.

Other than being mildly irritated to have you repeat what I already acknowledged, in my first post, I'm not upset at all.

I honestly don't think you understand what I'm telling you. Maybe I'm not getting you either. I'm really just waiting for Leo to get back to me.

[shunyadragon]

https://weather.com/storms/hurricane...canes-typhoons

A record 22 hurricanes or typhoons have reached Category 4 or 5 strength in the Northern Hemisphere this year.

The record was broken on Oct. 17 when Koppu became the nineteenth storm to reach this intensity prior to slamming into the Philippines as a super typhoon. Since then, Super Typhoon Champi, Hurricane Olaf and Hurricane Patricia added to the total.

The old record for the Northern Hemisphere was 18 set in 2004, according to Dr. Phil Klotzbach of Colorado State University and blogger for wunderground.com. For perspective, an average of 12.5 Category 4 or 5 storms have been recorded during the 1990-2014 period, Klotzbach added.

I thought I would add a comment here concerning the intensity of hurricanes. I believe there is a difference between the Pacific and the Atlantic hurricanes, possibly a different relationship, concerning the response to El Nin/La Nina cycle and Climate change.

There is an increase in the frequency of hurricanes in the Atlantic that correlates with global temperature increase, but not an increase in intensity like the Pacific.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical...storm-records/

[TheLurch]

Sorry, had a busy few days.

If i can try to summarize here, the issue seems to be: Teal doesn't really know a lot about the underlying science, and doesn't feel in a position to evaluate it. She does have strong negative feelings about some of the people she views as advocates for the science, and how some weather events have acted as bad PR for them.

One thing that immediately suggests to me is asking whether Teal has looked into the behavior of the people who are advocating against the science? How much oil and coal money that the people in Congress have taken? The fact that they've named an ex-Chevron exec to a senior position on the staff of the House Science Committee? The fact that Exxon used to support climate change research, which reached the exact same conclusions as other scientists - then they stopped and put all their money into lobbying instead, and never disclosed any of this to their shareholders? The fact that many of the scientists now arguing against climate change were once being paid by cigarette companies to argue against limits on second-hand smoke?

I could go on, but it seems to me there's a double-standard being applied.

[Wally]

I would love to say that this is oversimplifying their stance, but sadly it's not.

Most AGW "skeptics" arguments boil down to:

Al Gore is a poopy head, therefor AGW is a lie.

[oxmixmudd]

I would love to say that this is oversimplifying their stance, but sadly it's not.

Most AGW "skeptics" arguments boil down to:

Al Gore is a poopy head, therefor AGW is a lie.

Errr. ... no.

[Teallaura]

Sorry, had a busy few days.

If i can try to summarize here, the issue seems to be: Teal doesn't really know a lot about the underlying science, and doesn't feel in a position to evaluate it. She does have strong negative feelings about some of the people she views as advocates for the science, and how some weather events have acted as bad PR for them.

One thing that immediately suggests to me is asking whether Teal has looked into the behavior of the people who are advocating against the science? How much oil and coal money that the people in Congress have taken? The fact that they've named an ex-Chevron exec to a senior position on the staff of the House Science Committee? The fact that Exxon used to support climate change research, which reached the exact same conclusions as other scientists - then they stopped and put all their money into lobbying instead, and never disclosed any of this to their shareholders? The fact that many of the scientists now arguing against climate change were once being paid by cigarette companies to argue against limits on second-hand smoke?

I could go on, but it seems to me there's a double-standard being applied.

Hi,

No prob - real life happens!

Nitpic: I don't have issue - or particularly care - that the weather hasn't always cooperated with the alarmist claims. It came up only because it was part of the change in dialog that happened pretty early in the public debate. I have long since accepted the premise that weather in isolation isn't evidence either way. I do note that there are a number of proponents that only accept that premise one way (and likely the reverse is true and I just haven't noticed) which weakens the argument in my opinion.

That's a perfectly fair point - and yes, I have paid attention to where the money comes from. You'll notice I haven't bothered parroting arguments from opponents or posting competing links - precisely because I don't find their behavior a heck of a lot better. They do win (they being a really broad brush here) on the not pulling the 'you don't believe X so you're a poopie head denier' thing. But yes, I've seen bad political behavior on both sides - which is why I don't bother with a lot of the public face of skepticism, either. (Incidentally, I find the hired gun argument pathetically weak - it applies so readily both ways that it's a pointless rabbit hole at best.)

But you're making a big leap going from a debate centered on skepticism to a double standard - no one had brought that point up before.

But you just validated my methodology seeing as you are evaluating me - albeit incorrectly - by my alleged behavior!

[TheLurch]

Incidentally, I find the hired gun argument pathetically weak - it applies so readily both ways that it's a pointless rabbit hole at best.

So why doesn't everybody -including yourself - just listen to the actual scientists, then?

As for the double standard, i'd just note that, until now, all your statements have been directed at one side of the debate. It may be that your opinion is different from that, but it's been impossible to tell based on what you're saying here.

[shunyadragon]

Incidentally, I find the hired gun argument pathetically weak - it applies so readily both ways that it's a pointless rabbit hole at best.

The above highlighted statement reflects the problem with your posts in this thread. Regardless of what motivates the anti-climate change advocates (there are several, industry, economic, religious, or just plain anti-science), I do not believe your accusations can apply to the 'nuts and bolts' scientists that are researching climate change and the aspects of science involved. One very important point you are side stepping is that the agenda of the anti-climate change advocates is not based on science.

[oxmixmudd]

So why doesn't everybody -including yourself - just listen to the actual scientists, then?

As for the double standard, i'd just note that, until now, all your statements have been directed at one side of the debate. It may be that your opinion is different from that, but it's been impossible to tell based on what you're saying here.

Just as with the sorts of protests we are seeing this week, when there is a large amount of mistrust of the source, the facts are not necessarily the facts. Why would black people protest a policeman firing on a fellow brandishing a gun and refusing to put it down? Because they don't trust that is what ACTUALLY happened. Likewise here. The liberal side's politicalization of the science creates just as much mistrust in those on the conservative side of the political fence as big oil's corporate funding of anti-climate change science and websites does on the liberal side. As long as we only look at it from our side, the other side's mistrust or lack of understanding of our mistrust remains inconcievable.

Those of us with strong science backgrounds can look carefully at the science independent of its source and begin to form an objective opinion that is independent of the medling of politicians, environmental groups, and big oil. But those that don't can't.

It does no good whatsoever to help clear the air for those with a strong scientific background to look down their noses at those without, or to lose patience with them. Likewise neither does digging in ones heals and refusing to listen. Getting everone on the same page starts with honest, respectful dialogue between all sides, and patience when a hotbutton produces a rush of emotion. It requires recognizing the reasons for mistrust, respecting those reasons, and taking steps to heal them.

Do we want progress, or just more fighting?

Jim

[seer]

Those of us with strong science backgrounds can look carefully at the science independent of its source and begin to form an objective opinion that is independent of the medling of politicians, environmental groups, and big oil. But those that don't can't.

Well that is the problem isn't it. Most of us could never understand the science around this issue. They could be telling us anything. But what I do understand are leftists - and this is primarily their issue and they will use it as just another means of population control and wealth redistribution. All the while flying into conferences on their private jets, living in mansions, staying in high end hotels, eating the best food and being driven in limos. They tell us to drive Priuses - yet they will not do one thing to cut their carbon footprint.