A Few Honest Questions for the Climate Hoaxers?

[grainfedpraiboy]

A few simple and honest questions (nothing tricky) that kind of perplex me that I'd love to see answered by the 'climate change is a hoax' crowd. Let's see if we can stay on topic for just a bit. This isn't a debate about whether climate change is real or a conspiracy, this is a discussion on the core of the belief itself.

Is there a single climate scientist you are aware of who is condensed a spokesman for 'your side'? If so.....who is he or she? Is there more than one? If none or not many why does this not concern you?

Why do most of you not believe climate scientists about present warming, but do believe them when they say the climate has changed in the past?

 

[JLM]

A few simple and honest questions (nothing tricky) that kind of perplex me that I'd love to see answered by the 'climate change is a hoax' crowd. Let's see if we can stay on topic for just a bit. This isn't a debate about whether climate change is real or a conspiracy, this is a discussion on the core of the belief itself.

Is there a single climate scientist you are aware of who is condensed a spokesman for 'your side'? If so.....who is he or she? Is there more than one? If none or not many why does this not concern you?

Why do most of you not believe climate scientists about present warming, but do believe them when they say the climate has changed in the past?

There's no doubt that climate is changing and there's no doubt man plays a part. We just don't know how big of a part. Climate has always changed. Check out the Summer of 1816.

 

[mentalfloss]

There's that Watt douche and the morans at sda.

I think Roy Spencer might qualify, but he could also be a meteorologist.

And some Tim something or another coming to mind as well.

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

There's no doubt that climate is changing and there's no doubt man plays a part. We just don't know how big of a part. Climate has always changed. Check out the Summer of 1816.

Right. So again one of the questions, why do you believe climate science from the past but not the present or future? It's the same guys in part using the same data. There doesn't seem to be much protesting or dismissing of the research or claims of conspiracy and hoax for climate models from say100K years ago from pretty much the exact same experts telling us what they think is happening now and what might happen in the future. I just need someone on the other side of the issue to explain to me why interpreting science that way makes sense.

There's that Watt douche and the morans at sda.

I think Roy Spencer might qualify, but he could also be a meteorologist.

And some Tim something or another coming to mind as well.

Are these climatologists engaged in independent research?

 

[JLM]

It was on the news just tonight that World wide, this past June was the warmest month in recorded history. I have no reason to doubt it.

 

[petros]

Recorded. Meaning about 110 -120 years in you neck of the woods from there records are replaced by proxies such as tree rings, sediments and ice cores.

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

It was on the news just tonight that World wide, this past June was the warmest month in recorded history. I have no reason to doubt it.

I'm not debating the actual science so much as the concept of 'cherrypicking' (for lack of a better term) bits and pieces of the science one finds agreeable and discarding the rest.

 

[petros]

Why do you deny a warmer past?

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

Recorded. Meaning about 110 -120 years in you neck of the woods from there records are replaced by proxies such as tree rings, sediments and ice cores.

Most people who believe climate change is a hoax perpetuated by conspirators accept the science behind tree rings, sediments and ice cores. The part that perplexes me is those are by and large the same people making the future projections. Why believe some of what they say but not other parts?

Why do you deny a warmer past?

I accept what research tells me was the likely temperature and climate for any point in the Earth's history. I do not dispute mainstream science in any capacity.

 

[petros]

Why does the geological, glacial, dendrological evidence of a warmer past go whooshing over your head?

It has been warmer in the proxy record hasn't it? We are blessed to live in an interracial period of the current ice age. If you want to see wild swings, go back 30,000+ years and you will find a climate that had crazy swings in climate that make the past 10Ka look smooth as glass.

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

Why does the geological, glacial, dendrological evidence of a warmer past go whooshing over your head?

It has been warmer in the proxy record hasn't it? We are blessed to live in an interracial period of the current ice age. If you want to see wild swings, go back 30,000+ years and you will find a climate that had crazy swings in climate that make the past 10Ka look smooth as glass.

I'm well aware that during warm periods the equatorial regions of the planet have been uninhabitable. I know at some points the planet has been locked in a ball of ice. I think where your confusion comes in is speed of the change. Generally significant changes to the climate have taken thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years to occur. Extinctions are measured over thousands of years too. The changes we see today are measured in decades and even years. That is what is unprecedented in the earth's climate history.

 

[JLM]

Why does the geological, glacial, dendrological evidence of a warmer past go whooshing over your head?

It has been warmer in the proxy record hasn't it? We are blessed to live in an interracial period of the current ice age. If you want to see wild swings, go back 30,000+ years and you will find a climate that had crazy swings in climate that make the past 10Ka look smooth as glass.

I'd guess present weather records are only valid for a couple of hundred years at the very most, just from the point of view that thermometers could be suspect further back than that. Was the criteria for measuring temperature the same 200 years ago as it is today like 5' off the ground etc. etc.?

 

[captain morgan]

Most people who believe climate change is a hoax perpetuated by conspirators accept the science behind tree rings, sediments and ice cores. the part that perplexes me is those are by and large the same people. Why?

Untrue. Your mistake here is that you want to divert the focus of the AGW/climate change failures onto conspiracies... The answer is far simpler.

Most people believe that climate change is a fantasy due to the overzealous demands by an anomalous body that claimed it existed... This was followed up by numerous, literally thousands, of failed models, predictions that never materialized and of course, a number of high profile scandals.

The 'truther crowd' imploded and to put it simply, wore-out their legitimacy with the public based on the aforementioned circumstances.

I accept what research tells me was the likely temperature and climate for any point in the Earth's history. I do not dispute mainstream science in any capacity.

Another major failing in the 'climate change is real' camp is based on the belief that taxing one group (the West) in order to subsidize another part of the world will somehow reduce emissions... As EagleSmack puts it, 'how many bank transfers are required to stem climate change?'

No one buys the logic anymore, not even the AGW hardliners

 

[petros]

I'm well aware that during warm periods the equatorial regions of the planet have been uninhabitable. I know at some points the planet has been locked in a ball of ice. I think where your confusion comes in is speed of the change. Generally significant changes to the climate have taken thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years to occur. Extinctions are measured over thousands of years too. The changes we see today are measured in decades and even years. That is what is unprecedented in the earth's climate history.

Rapid change is NOT unique to today AT ALL nor are extinctions.

You presumptions are mind blowingly waaaaaay off of reality.

As I said the interglacial we are in is very stable. There is oodles of data on the past 17 interglacials. ALL OF THEM have climate variations as seen in ours, gases and all.

150 years is nothing in the grand scheme of things so its very easy to believe it's some crazy time if all you focus on is that 150 years.

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

Untrue. Your mistake here is that you want to divert the focus of the AGW/climate change failures onto conspiracies... The answer is far simpler.

People on this site have stated repeatedly they believe climate scientists are part of a global conspiracy. If I turn on something like Fox News I'll hear a similar line of thinking.

Most people believe that climate change is a fantasy due to the overzealous demands by an anomalous body that claimed it existed...

That is outright absurd. Most people in fact believe in climate change: Most Americans Believe in Climate Change, But Give It Low Priority | Pew Research Center

What would be more accurate for you to state is that most people who share your political viewpoint believe that climate change is a fantasy....................

This was followed up by numerous, literally thousands, of failed models, predictions that never materialized and of course, a number of high profile scandals.

That is a bit of an exaggeration. Science evolves and self corrects. Research today may or may not be subject to change in the future. Eggs were good, eggs were bad, eggs were good. we go with what we know at the moment. Few people are claiming there is a scandal in the food sciences.

The 'truther crowd' imploded and to put it simply, wore-out their legitimacy with the public based on the aforementioned circumstances.

That is wishful thinking on your part. All evidence in all societies and academic circles around the world suggest the exact opposite of what you stated is happening.

Another major failing in the 'climate change is real' camp is based on the belief that taxing one group (the West) in order to subsidize another part of the world will somehow reduce emissions... As EagleSmack puts it, 'how many bank transfers are required to stem climate change?'

I oppose carbon taxes but have accepted their inevitability and will learn to profit from it. 'Adapt and overcome' as we say in the military.

No one buys the logic anymore, not even the AGW hardliners

Again that is just your bluster unsupported by any real or empirical evidence. Everywhere you look Canadian society is moving towards mitigating it's carbon footprint from industry to individuals. The AGW hardliners in reality believe we are in fact moving too slow. The profit potential in a green and clean environment is huge and appeals to my capitalist bent.

Regardless, how about considering the actual questions and maybe answering them?

 

[petros]

Since you brought up the critterverse and the horrors involved lets have a look into the millions and millions of nonreturning salmon.

I have heard this is because of global warming and pollution. Is that the reason they aren't returning to their home rivers to breed or is it something else? Any idea?

 

[damngrumpy]

First of all NO I do not believe the climate scientists the reason they are in it for the money.
David, Gore and the rest like to hear themselves talk. Climate Scientists were claiming an
ice age was coming then some time in the mid seventies it changed.
We heard Global Warming and all the chicken little warnings.
Now its climate change sure what ever. Climate changes all the time that is why Alaska
was once a tropical landscape.
If you wonder what is going on look at the weather channel. They give you the record high
from years past and we seldom get that hot today some of those years date back before
our time
This is all nonsense to sell more fridges and stoves, and heaters and light bulbs that used
to be sixty nine cents now twenty five bucks. Every time I hear this crap I want to go out
and fire up the V8 engine on my Chev truck.
Climate scientists are losing the credibility like many other scientists because their funding
comes from a corporate agenda

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

Untrue. Your mistake here is that you want to divert the focus of the AGW/climate change failures onto conspiracies... The answer is far simpler.

People on this site have stated repeatedly they believe climate scientists are part of a global conspiracy. If I turn on something like Fox News I'll hear a similar line of thinking.

Most people believe that climate change is a fantasy due to the overzealous demands by an anomalous body that claimed it existed...

That is outright absurd. Most people in fact believe in climate change: Most Americans Believe in Climate Change, But Give It Low Priority | Pew Research Center

What would be more accurate for you to state is that most people who share your political viewpoint believe that climate change is a fantasy....................

This was followed up by numerous, literally thousands, of failed models, predictions that never materialized and of course, a number of high profile scandals.

That is a bit of an exaggeration. Science evolves and self corrects. Research today may or may not be subject to change in the future. Eggs were good, eggs were bad, eggs were good. we go with what we know at the moment. Few people are claiming there is a scandal in the food sciences.

The 'truther crowd' imploded and to put it simply, wore-out their legitimacy with the public based on the aforementioned circumstances.

That is wishful thinking on your part. All evidence in all societies and academic circles around the world suggest the exact opposite of what you stated is happening.

Another major failing in the 'climate change is real' camp is based on the belief that taxing one group (the West) in order to subsidize another part of the world will somehow reduce emissions... As EagleSmack puts it, 'how many bank transfers are required to stem climate change?'

I oppose carbon taxes but have accepted their inevitability and will learn to profit from it. 'Adapt and overcome' as we say in the military.

No one buys the logic anymore, not even the AGW hardliners

Again that is just your bluster unsupported by any real or empirical evidence. Everywhere you look Canadian society is moving towards mitigating it's carbon footprint from industry to individuals. The AGW hardliners in reality believe we are in fact moving too slow. The profit potential in a green and clean environment is huge and appeals to my capitalist bent.

Regardless, how about considering the actual questions and maybe answering them?

 

[petros]

Climate changes all the time that is why Alaska
was once a tropical landscape

that is because of continental drift not climate. The high latitudes. had the same light cycle as today which means conditions were not conducive for tropical flora and fauna.

 

[grainfedpraiboy]

Since you brought up the critterverse and the horrors involved lets have a look into the millions and millions of nonreturning salmon.

I have heard this is because of global warming and pollution. Is that the reason they aren't returning to their home rivers to breed or is it something else? Any idea?

I know Inuit and many FNs and speak with them regularly as I like to hunt and fish and canoe on reservations when I can get permission. I know farmers and trappers and hunters and have been all three myself at different points. So I can talk about polar bears, musk ox, caribou, beavers and especially bees. But I do not know any fishermen and know nothing of whether salmon issues are due to climate change, natural phenomena, pollution or other human related activites such as dams, over fishing etc. For all I know they are doing better these days since I was last in salmon river a couple years ago for the big run.

Anyways. No idea.

that is because of continental drift not climate. The high latitudes. had the same light cycle as today which means conditions were not conducive for tropical flora and fauna.

I don't know who you are quoting to come up with that statement but your answer isn't entirely accurate. The poles have been ice free and filled with a variety of flora and fauna that had absolutely nothing to do with plate tectonics. However, plate tectonics has also played a role.