As an energy market professional, I felt the need to analyze as much data as I could get my hands on about a year or so ago and really devoted a few months to reviewing as much of it as possible. I’m not a scientist, but that’s not required to analyze data. The science takes place in the collection and synthesis of that data in the first place.

You can find some conflicting data out there, but the conclusion I came to is that it appeared reasonably supported in the data that there’s some correlation between CO2 and warming. So that component of the global warming theory I came to agree with.

It’s everything after that where the science completely breaks down and it becomes the Wild West of alarmism, scare tactics and questionable motives. In other words, I came to feel they’ve gotten the diagnosis right enough to be taken seriously, but they’ve totally exaggerated the symptoms, the necessary treatment and the prognosis. By symptoms, I mean the reckless (even intentional) conflating of weather and climate (to be fair, skeptics do this, too). By necessary treatment, I mean the rapid decarbonization despite any negative economic impacts. And by the prognosis, I mean all of the apocalyptic Hollywood blockbuster type scenarios they’ve painted for a few decades now.

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by GumboPot

Member since Mar 2009

119031 posts

Posted on 6/6/19 at 9:26 am to RedStickBR

quote:
The science takes place in the collection and synthesis of that data in the first place.

Not to be a jerk but this is exactly where "climate scientist" get it wrong.

Collection of data does take place in science. However in science you develop a hypothesis (usually a model), test the model (by collecting data), and adjust the model.

Climate scientist are agenda driven. Climate scientist have cooled the past and warmed the near present to make the data fit their models. That is not science. That is fraud. Real scientists would adjust their models to fit the data. Not adjust the data to fit the models. In fact more and more temperature recording stations are being eliminated and the data is being replaced by modeled temperature data. More fraud.

The ultimate goal is to tax carbon on a global scale. There are many winners in this scheme and one big loser.

Winners:

Brokers on the carbon exchanges.
Governments that get to collect and redistribute the taxes.
Low class people that receive most of the benefits.
Climate alarmists who peddle the propaganda for grants from governments.

Losers:

Middle to upper middle class workers, which is most all of productive society.

Neutral players:

Oil & Gas companies...it's just a pass through cost to them.
The environment. Nothing will change.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Diamondawg

Mississippi

Member since Oct 2006

32359 posts

Posted on 6/6/19 at 9:29 am to RedStickBR

quote:
It’s everything after that where the science completely breaks down and it becomes the Wild West of alarmism, scare tactics and questionable motives. In other words, I came to feel they’ve gotten the diagnosis right enough to be taken seriously, but they’ve totally exaggerated the symptoms, the necessary treatment and the prognosis. By symptoms, I mean the reckless (even intentional) conflating of weather and climate (to be fair, skeptics do this, too). By necessary treatment, I mean the rapid decarbonization despite any negative economic impacts. And by the prognosis, I mean all of the apocalyptic Hollywood blockbuster type scenarios they’ve painted for a few decades now.

I am not a scientist either nor have I done the research that you have done but that's about as well put as I've seen. These threads on here aren't going to change the minds of the readers on here because everyone has their minds made up, already. It would take a fool to believe that man has had no impact on the earth since our beginning. But, if you fudge the numbers once then you've pretty much lost my support for any and all the numbers. If we are going to die in 12 years, then fudging numbers should not be necessary.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by LakeCharles

USA

Member since Oct 2016

5067 posts

Posted on 6/8/19 at 11:19 pm to RedStickBR

quote:
You can find some conflicting data out there, but the conclusion I came to is that it appeared reasonably supported in the data that there’s some correlation between CO2 and warming. So that component of the global warming theory I came to agree with.

And here is the problem. The data you are seeing is not data - it is data that has been tweaked and corrected and manipulated to show what they want you to see - which is a correlation of temperature to rising CO2. NASA and NOAA announce corrections fairly often, and every correction I am aware of either increases recent temperature or decreases historic temperature. Here are a couple of links that explain some of the problems -

61% made up data

More about made up data

quote:
It’s everything after that where the science completely breaks down and it becomes the Wild West of alarmism, scare tactics and questionable motives.

As an engineer - when you frick with the data, it is no longer science. When data is blatantly made up and added in a way to drive a conclusion and that conclusion is used to extract money from companies, governments, and individuals, many words can be used and science is not one of them.

0 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board