An Engineer's Critique of Global Warming 'Science'

[Nate]

Would this be at all similar to, say, "believing" in Keynesian economics because a majority of economists are Keynesians?

Yes, it's an appeal to the majority & to the experts all wrapped up into one hell of a logically fallacious argument. Even if AGW is happening it is not a serious threat to life on this planet as one volcanic eruption releases more greenhouse gases than all of human activity in history combined. Climate change is the norm, it will never achieve stasis. It's nothing more than a scare tactic, just fear based politics used to push a ideologically totalitarian agenda.

@ reillym Stop with that label of "climate change DENIER". That is a rhetorical tool used to discredit the opposition by using the "Label, Dismiss, Ignore" tactic instead of actually presenting your case. Am I & others here SKEPTICS? Yes, because the majority of the people pushing the AGW meme are totalitarian statists who push SCIENTISM & not science. The record of most of these people is one of lies, manipulation of data, corporate cronyism & totalitarian statism so you'll have to excuse many of us who question both their "science" & agenda.

 

[silverhandorder]

Guys don't bring in evolution. No one is talking about it here. Besides not everyone agrees on both being false or both being true.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Blindly? The only blind people are the ones without science on their side, the deniers. Following expert advice is not blindly following. Do you follow your doctors advice? What about the weather man?

I don't follow the advice of experts necessarily. For example, if a doctor tells me to shove ritalin down the throat of my eight year old, I'm not going to do it. These scientists have a lot of power to gain if they can get the public behind this global warming story. Holding scientists to some high standard when the rest of our culture is poisoned and fucked is not wise IMO.

And please, show me an example of rampant government indoctrination at colleges. PLEASE I BEG YOU.

Have you been to a campus recently? Have you looked at the results of the education system? It's not good. Personally, I have been taught ridiculous falsehoods and a skewed statist version of history at my college.

 

[Nate]

Guys don't bring in evolution. No one is talking about it here. Besides not everyone agrees on both being false or both being true.

+rep
No need to get off the topic at hand. There are other threads discussing evolution, join in those discussions.

Just like I don't deny that AGW could possibly be happening on some scale, I'm just skeptical about the severity of it due to my own training in archaeology/anthropology & paleontology where I learned that climate change is ALWAYS happening throughout the entire history of this planet & will always happen as long as the Earth exists. The question at hand is what is the primary cause? Is man the driving factor or is it a natural cause? If man is contributing, to what extent is he contributing? I despise this either/or false dichotomy pushed by the quasi-religion of scientism. This "the debate is over" mantra pushed by the AlGoreans is bullshit & unscientific. The debate is never over, that is the point of science, to question. Labeling the skeptics posing questions as to the validity of the theory being proposed as unscientific is borderline Orwellian.

 

[wowrevolution]

Saying climate change is a real phenomenon is a convoluted way of saying and contributing absolutely nothing. The Earth has been warming since the Ice Age and every planet in the solar system shows climatic activity. The simple fact of the matter is that neither democrats, republicans, or even Bill Nye himself understand science. All sides still peddle discredited notions like the Big Bang, Black Holes, the Nuclear Model of the Sun, the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and a whole host of other junk science that every scientist of merit has abandoned. While Bill Nye continues to peddle discredited notions of global warming, at the same time he ignores the real causes that are due to interactions between the Sun and the Milky Ways central Galactic Plasmoid. Nye also constantly ignores our current position within the Milankovitch Cycle. His constant failure to address the Milankovitch Cycle and the decrease in activity of the Galactic Center as determined through core samples of cosmic ray activity shows conclusively that Bill Nye and indeed half of his cheerleaders haven't the faintest idea about the real mechanisms behind climate change.
AGW proponents of radiative forcing which has failed to show proof in an increase global cloud coverage by even a percent that accounts for virtually all global warming.

Let's face it, these models don't even take into account the ionic interactions of oxygen with the solar wind in the plasma fountains of the earth. Who is bill Nye to tell us about climate chane when he advocates the birth of the oceans through Dirty Snowball Comet Theory while the Earths plasma fountain of plant produced oxygen and solar wind interaction stares him in the face with the emergence of our modern atmosphere and the epoch of the global rift all pointing to the undeniable truths. As far as Venus and the greenhouse effect goes? The mechanisms proposed by people like Velikovsky are every bit as legitimate with the Venus as Captured Comet Theory.
Come now, let's see the Sunshine.

 

[KhunJean]

For me it was easy. The moment cap&trade was mentioned and GS was the one that would do the trades it became clear it was for only one reason and that was to make loads of money.
In the meanwhile we pay (at least here in The Netherlands) extra taxes on energy use to minimize co2. Goal achieved.

 

[Verrater]

LOL. He starts his "argument" by saying we need more CO2 so plants grow bigger? A 4th grader can debunk that claim. Growth of vegetation depends on many many things, not just CO2.

That's not what he said.
He said a CO2 rich atmosphere allows plants to thrive in environments with less water, which is true.

 

[jmdrake]

..

 

[jmdrake]

The "global cooling" science of a few decades ago.