Not!
Your typical climatologist couldn’t engineer their way out of a paper bag!
This is my point. Their “science” is JUNK!
This is why so many REAL scientists and engineers who who ACTUALLY read the science become skeptics.
Most of us started out as true believers based on what we read, the coverage of the science.
When you dig into the actual papers, you start realizing that it’s a house of cards, more propaganda than science.
They love the coverage (and grant gravy train) they get from making apocalyptic prognostications.
Their predictions are always wrong BTW!
The ice caps were going to be gone in 1999, 2008, 2014, 2020, but it never happened.
It is an Apocalyptic cult cloaking itself as science.
Ok since you already accused me of logical fallacy...
First, you are making ad hominem attacks on the individuals involved. Apparently, all these scientists are totally wrong, and you magically know better. I say "magically" here because all your claims are
totally unsubstantiated .. where is the peer-reviewed research to back your claims? If there is none, then they are merely random opinions.
Second, you keep using the term "skeptic". Do you understand the difference between a skeptic and someone in denial? (Clue, I'm the one being the skeptic here, not you.)
Third, have you looked at a thermometer recently? We are beyond theory now .. we have record highs all over the planet. Every year average temperatures hit new highs. Australia is struggling with record temperatures and forest fires the like of which they have never seen before. Parts of the middle east were so hot last summer they were essentially uninhabitable. Hurricane seasons are breaking all records. Can you show me one factual, reliable, counter-example? Oh, and as for those ice-caps, would you care to comment on
these photos?
Finally, your claims in other posts are so wild as to be barely comprehensible. Adiabatic heating by gravity and the mass of the atmosphere? (which, if it existed, would occur at night as well). Irrelevant graphs of absolute CO2 levels in geological time (which dont matter since it is not the absolute CO2 level, but the
change in the CO2 level, that matters). Confusion between conductive/convective heat transfer (which goes from hot to cold btw, not the other way around) and radiative (which goes from point to point regardless of the thermal gradient just like light does, because .. er .. it
is light). And on and on. (and no, this is
not ad hominem, I am attacking your arguments, not you).
To clear up one point that seems to baffle you. Yes, over geological time the earth has had many different atmospheric compositions, with O2 and CO2 levels very different from today. If global warming is real, will the earth be devastated? Not from a biological standpoint, no. Sure, many species will be stressed, and may go extinct. Others may/will flourish. New forests will appear where there were once deserts. New rivers appear as rainfall patterns change, while old ones dry out. All this has happened many times in the past.
But that is all beside the point. The point is that climate change is going to have devastating effects on
civilization, not the biosphere. We are not equipped to deal with massive crop failures and famine/starvation as rainfall pattern change and monsoons fail (permanently). Most major cities are close to sea level, as they arose from maritime trading centers. What happens when they all start flooding .. permanently?
One way to reason about an argument is to ask what are the consequences of being
wrong? If the climatologists are wrong, and we attempt to address global warming when we dont need to, what happens? Well, we lower CO2 emissions and pollution in general, which puts some stress on the economy (but other parts thrive). Overall, maybe, we waste some effort, perhaps a lot of effort, that could have been skipped. But what happens if
you are wrong? We have the collapse of food production as crops fail leading to starvation for perhaps hundreds of millions of people. Then huge displaced populations as rising sea levels displace millions more when coastlines and cities become uninhabitable. Global conflicts as governments fight bitterly over the control of the remaining resources.
So, are you
so so certain of your position that you are willing to risk these truly terrible consequences? You are playing Russian roulette with my children lives as well as yours. You had better be right, as otherwise you will be the scourge of humanity.
(I'm going to step out of this discussion now, as I have said all that needs to be said, and this is probably not the forum for this debate to go further.)
