Report: No "Global Warming" for 325 Months...

[chipbennett]

There's not a single dissenting scientific organization, your not putting forth a single shred of evidence doesn't prove much either.

So, your claimed "90+%" consensus is not of experts, but of organizations?

Fine; point conceded.

Now, about those experts...?

 

[chipbennett]

Of course not, science is above politics.

Except, all of those organizations that you listed are primarily political entities. They exist to push political agendas, and to use political agendas to solicit public funding.

I didn't think this needed to be spelled out quite so explicitly, but: just because an "organization" makes a position statement does not indicate that any certain percentage of its members agree with that position. To make matters worse, the very act of forming, then announcing, a position statement is an exercise in politics, not science.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

QUICK! Someone take away his shovel.

 

[Jludo]

This better?
http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/download/?id=c94cb1b0-747e-4d6b-984a-f27664a23831&download=1

My apologies. I should have linked the US Senate Minority Report originally, rather than a blog post quoting it.

So this is your non-political evidence for why global warming is a hoax?
Here's a quick overview of what's wrong with that report,
https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/650Skeptics.HTM

 

[Jludo]

Except, all of those organizations that you listed are primarily political entities. They exist to push political agendas, and to use political agendas to solicit public funding.

I didn't think this needed to be spelled out quite so explicitly, but: just because an "organization" makes a position statement does not indicate that any certain percentage of its members agree with that position. To make matters worse, the very act of forming, then announcing, a position statement is an exercise in politics, not science.

I have to ask where you're getting your evidence to the contrary of climate change?

 

[eldirector]

I don't know about Chip, but I have no issue with "climate change". I have issues with the lies, issues with it being used as a political weapon, issues with the assumed cause, and issues with the assumption we can (or even should) "fix" it.

 

[jamil]

I know that's what I'm saying, it's a green energy plot to destroy our economy. Clearly most all climate experts and organizations are in on it. I'm just glad we have the experts here to parse the raw data and tell us what it really means.

I'm not saying the earth isn't warmer than it was 40 years ago. I AM saying that I'm appropriately skeptical of the climate hysteria.

I'd be less skeptical if there wasn't a **** ton of money to be made in the "green" industry. You have to admit that the elite few really need global warming to be a thing, because green market can't exist without it. GE needs global warming.

I'd be less skeptical if yesterday's models that implied that scary hockey stick were actually verified by today's results. But instead. Pause. The stick apparently broke. The scientists' predictably manipulating the data and the message certainly doesn't alleviate my skepticism.

I'd be less skeptical if the few secretive gods of climate change were completely transparent in their internal workings. Email-gate certainly didn't help alleviate my skepticism. The global warming branch of SJWs trying to pass laws against skepticism of "established science" (an oxymoron in itself) doesn't help my skepticism. Mob-shaming dissenters doesn't help alleviate my skepticism. Refusing to obey congressional subpoenas for data, records, and electronic conversations, doesn't help alleviate my skepticism. Behaving like you have something to hide makes me think you have something to hide. Behave like you're telling the truth and I'll be much more likely to believe it.

 

[findingZzero]

https://youtu.be/ChMj-9yCcWw

 

[Jludo]

I don't know about Chip, but I have no issue with "climate change". I have issues with the lies, issues with it being used as a political weapon, issues with the assumed cause, and issues with the assumption we can (or even should) "fix" it.

You just posted a senate minority report that was just that, using climate change as a political weapon.
So far as it's being used as a political weapon, you're saying green energy is using it as a weapon and fossil fuel industry is just laying out the truth?
I'm making absolutely no claims about what to do about climate change but I don't understand where anyone is getting the idea that it's not happening.

 

[Jludo]

I'm not saying the earth isn't warmer than it was 40 years ago. I AM saying that I'm appropriately skeptical of the climate hysteria.

I'd be less skeptical if there wasn't a **** ton of money to be made in the "green" industry. You have to admit that the elite few really need global warming to be a thing, because green market can't exist without it. GE needs global warming.

I'd be less skeptical if yesterday's models that implied that scary hockey stick were actually verified by today's results. But instead. Pause. The stick apparently broke. The scientists' predictably manipulating the data and the message certainly doesn't alleviate my skepticism.

I'd be less skeptical if the few secretive gods of climate change were completely transparent in their internal workings. Email-gate certainly didn't help alleviate my skepticism. The global warming branch of SJWs trying to pass laws against skepticism of "established science" (an oxymoron in itself) doesn't help my skepticism. Mob-shaming dissenters doesn't help alleviate my skepticism. Refusing to obey congressional subpoenas for data, records, and electronic conversations, doesn't help alleviate my skepticism. Behaving like you have something to hide makes me think you have something to hide. Behave like you're telling the truth and I'll be much more likely to believe it.

Alright so you have no problems with the science, you see that global temperatures are increasing, you just have a problem with the politics that surrounds it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You just posted a senate minority report that was just that, using climate change as a political weapon.
So far as it's being used as a political weapon, you're saying green energy is using it as a weapon and fossil fuel industry is just laying out the truth?
I'm making absolutely no claims about what to do about climate change but I don't understand where anyone is getting the idea that it's not happening.

In all discussions about "climate change", very few people have I ever heard/read contend it was not happening. The vast majority of people will concede it's been happening since God created earth. The question seems to be to what degree man has to do with it relative to the effects of the sun, seas, volcanos, etc---and to what degree we're willing to concede liberty and standard of living to stop something we're not sure we even started.

 

[Jludo]

In all discussions about "climate change", very few people have I ever heard/read contend it was not happening. The vast majority of people will concede it's been happening since God created earth. The question seems to be to what degree man has to do with it relative to the effects of the sun, seas, volcanos, etc---and to what degree we're willing to concede liberty and standard of living to stop something we're not sure we can even stop.

The title of the thread is " no global warming for 228 months " All arguments I've come up against are that it's not happening/it's a conspiracy perpetuated by green energy. Not the degree to which man is responsible or what the proper response is. That's a separate thread called 'the proper response to climate change related issues'

 

[eldirector]

You just posted a senate minority report that was just that, using climate change as a political weapon.
So far as it's being used as a political weapon, you're saying green energy is using it as a weapon and fossil fuel industry is just laying out the truth?
I'm making absolutely no claims about what to do about climate change but I don't understand where anyone is getting the idea that it's not happening.

1) I posted that report to refute consensus. That is all.
2) Many so-called green energy companies and their investors are most certainly cashing in on this hysteria. I wouldn't normally mind, and have no issues with private industry chasing a dollar, but when the heavy hand of government becomes involved, that is a problem.
3) I've made no claims on the fossil fuel industry
4) The various climates are most certainly changing. They always have, and always will.

 

[Jludo]

1) I posted that report to refute consensus. That is all.
2) Many so-called green energy companies and their investors are most certainly cashing in on this hysteria. I wouldn't normally mind, and have no issues with private industry chasing a dollar, but when the heavy hand of government becomes involved, that is a problem.
3) I've made no claims on the fossil fuel industry
4) The various climates are most certainly changing. They always have, and always will.

So really your only concern is that green energy companies seem to be no better than most other business' which benefit from our politicians in this crony capitalist system we have? You're simply saying that green energy crony's are no more preferable than coal and oil crony's ?

 

[eldirector]

Of those 4 points, yes.

My actual concerns with "the next ice age is coming", or "global warming", or "climate change":

1) people within otherwise well respected organizations are manipulating data to confirm desired results. That is a problem.
2) they are doing so because there is money attached. That is a problem.
3) politicians are being paid to make policies, supposedly based on this manipulated data, that support the folks wanting this money. That is a problem.

These 3 are not unique to the "green energy" industry. It cheeses me off regardless of what industry is propped up with taxpayer's hard-earned money.

4) Previous climate models are not holding against real data. We need to update the models, and advance the science. Instead, we are suing people that don't toe the line. That is a problem.
5) We jump from crisis to manufactured crisis (in the 80s we were going to freeze to death. In the 90s all coastal cities would flood. Now we are all going to die of CO2 poisoning). This erodes trust. Also a problem.

Now, for my own opinions:

6) Thinking that we humans are the root cause borders absurdity
7) Thinking that changing the energy source for 7+ billion people (and growing) will have any impact is absurd.
8) Rather than wasting time and resources on something that we cannot hope to control, we should be using that time and those resources to adapt and evolve.

I am actually a fan of energy research and development. Not because some bureaucrat told me so, and not because all this CO2 is making me dopey, but because the days of cheap carbon-based energy are numbered.

I've got some other theories (more like conjectures, not even really hypotheses), but you would have to subscribe to my newsletter.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The title of the thread is " no global warming for 228 months " All arguments I've come up against are that it's not happening/it's a conspiracy perpetuated by green energy. Not the degree to which man is responsible or what the proper response is. That's a separate thread called 'the proper response to climate change related issues'

There hasn't been global warming in something like 15 years now. Even your scientists are forced to reluctantly admit that and come up with excuses for it. But let's call a spade a spade here: This whole effort is a guise for tearing down capitalism and stymying the US economy. That's all this is.

 

[Jludo]

There hasn't been global warming in something like 15 years now. Even your scientists are forced to reluctantly admit that and come up with excuses for it. But let's call a spade a spade here: This whole effort is a guise for tearing down capitalism and stymying the US economy. That's all this is.

Alright we're back at it, where is this evidence that the earth hasn't warmed in 15 years? A Republican aides blog?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Alright we're back at it, where is this evidence that the earth hasn't warmed in 15 years? A Republican aides blog?

Even if it has, where's the proof you and I are responsible for it and we'll be able to reverse it by being forced to give up our incandescent light bulbs and have to skyrocket the price of electricity by ridding ourselves of significant portions of our electrical generating capacity? Whose to say a couple tenths of a degree warming isn't the correct temperature of the earth?

 

[jamil]

Alright we're back at it, where is this evidence that the earth hasn't warmed in 15 years? A Republican aides blog?

According to the graphs published by these agencies, the hockey stick broke several years ago. Skeptics point that out and the environmental industrial complex goes into full saul alinsky mode. And then not surprisingly the numbers get "revised" to come closer to the prediction. And I'm not too alarmed when numbers are revised a realistic way. But when the regularity is such that their actions are predictable, I'll just remain skeptical, thankyouverymuch.

 

[chipbennett]

I have to ask where you're getting your evidence to the contrary of climate change?

And I have to ask why you decided to trade in your appeal to authority logical fallacy to this non sequitur logical fallacy? Your question has absolutely nothing to do with the claim of "90+%" consensus of experts (based on a claim of "90+%" of organizations - most of which are as political as they are scientific) regarding climate change.