Climate Change & Skepticism

[CostcoSamples]

Not sure if this topic is OK here, but it's hard to discuss because people are often so emotional about it.  I stumbled on this interview with a climate expert who basically disproved the concept of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.  If you are interested in the topic, you need to watch this (it's long, so get cozy.  Also don't mind the click bait title, it's legit info)

 

 

Summary of main points:

1) Nobody disputes CO2's direct warming effect.  Only the "feedbacks" are disputed, which climate alarmists insist are real.  They are like when you put a mic next to the speaker and you get loud noise (feedback).  

2) The out of control/catastrophic warming that is predicted relies on math taken from a famous electronics engineering manual.  A careful review of the math shows that runaway feedbacks are mathematically incorrect.  They are also impossible because complex systems generally always have some sort of damping built in, especially systems that are proven stable over time.

3) The climate alarmists base their predictions on computer modelling, but their predictions have not agreed with observation.  The recorded warming is less than half what was predicted.

4) A computer model is only as good as the inputs.  Garbage in = garbage out.  By tweaking input parameters you can easily get any result you want.  Climate models agree very well with each other, but do not agree with observed reality.

5) Even if we take the alarmists predictions as fact, it is possible to calculate the economic cost of trying to prevent it vs. adapting after the fact.  Based on some well established techniques of cost comparison, it is two orders of magnitude cheaper to adapt after the fact.

6) Fossil fuels are the cheapest, most reliable source of energy.  The UN estimates that approx 6 million people die each year due to a lack of access to cheap energy.  By cutting access to fossil fuels, we are causing these deaths to continue and worsen. 

7) The "97% consensus" was a fallacious claim made by John Cook who quite literally "cooked" the data.  His paper has been thoroughly disproved yet his claims get parroted around the globe.

8) The atmosphere is at an all time low for CO2 levels (in terms of geological time).  Sufficient concentrations are required for plant growth, and optimum is well over 1000 ppm (we are currently near 400 ppm).  Increased CO2 has already been a significant boost to global crop production, and we are seeing a greening of desert areas.  Higher CO2 means crops need less water and can grow faster.  More CO2 is extremely beneficial.

 

Conclusion:

Yes, global warming is "technically" true.  CO2 does indeed cause some minor warming, but the runaway apocalyptic warming is impossible.  Think of it this way - the earth's atmosphere has been stable for millions of years, and relatively stable for billions of years.  It has been stable through periods of extremely high CO2 (as proved by fossil records).  

[Mooshi]

Man creates polution, a volcano naturally erupting puts harmful polution into the sky. Im due time, the sun will swallow Earth anyway so... 

[Space Reptile]

people saying that climate change is not a real thing are fucking stupid ,

its like saying the earth is flat

 

http://xkcd.com/1732/

[samcool55]

Well i'm happy somebody looks at the good things of global warming.

 

Also, hotter earth = less heater useage = less pollution

It will eventually stabilize. It's sad so much diversity will die but it will stabilize eventually.

Before humans existed there were stable ecosystems out there so it's not like they need our help.

 

It's weird somehow that we are scared of what has been clearly proven.

The strongest survive and evolve, the weak ones die and go away.

That's how it has been since the moment life existed.

[captain_to_fire]

1 hour ago, CostcoSamples said:

Summary of main points:

1) Nobody disputes CO2's direct warming effect.  Only the "feedbacks" are disputed, which climate alarmists insist are real.  They are like when you put a mic next to the speaker and you get loud noise (feedback).  

2) The out of control/catastrophic warming that is predicted relies on math taken from a famous electronics engineering manual.  A careful review of the math shows that runaway feedbacks are mathematically incorrect.  They are also impossible because complex systems generally always have some sort of damping built in, especially systems that are proven stable over time.

3) The climate alarmists base their predictions on computer modelling, but their predictions have not agreed with observation.  The recorded warming is less than half what was predicted.

4) A computer model is only as good as the inputs.  Garbage in = garbage out.  By tweaking input parameters you can easily get any result you want.  Climate models agree very well with each other, but do not agree with observed reality.

5) Even if we take the alarmists predictions as fact, it is possible to calculate the economic cost of trying to prevent it vs. adapting after the fact.  Based on some well established techniques of cost comparison, it is two orders of magnitude cheaper to adapt after the fact.

6) Fossil fuels are the cheapest, most reliable source of energy.  The UN estimates that approx 6 million people die each year due to a lack of access to cheap energy.  By cutting access to fossil fuels, we are causing these deaths to continue and worsen. 

7) The "97% consensus" was a fallacious claim made by John Cook who quite literally "cooked" the data.  His paper has been thoroughly disproved yet his claims get parroted around the globe.

8) The atmosphere is at an all time low for CO2 levels (in terms of geological time).  Sufficient concentrations are required for plant growth, and optimum is well over 1000 ppm (we are currently near 400 ppm).  Increased CO2 has already been a significant boost to global crop production, and we are seeing a greening of desert areas.  Higher CO2 means crops need less water and can grow faster.  More CO2 is extremely beneficial.

I don't have the time just yet to fully watch the video so I'll comment on your summary as well as from the video description.

 

First, Stefan Molyneux is known for his quasi-scientific videos and from what I can tell, it looks a lot like Alex Jones and something alt-right Milo Yiannopoulos would watch. Secondly, who are they citing? Just because they came across with someone who has credentials related on the subject matter doesn't mean they're true experts on climate change. Have they looked into the methodologies and experiments that verified that climate change is real? Appealing to someone else's credentials alone to verify a claim constitutes a logical fallacy.

 

In refutation of point 8, where did they got the idea that desert greening is due to CO₂? Are they citing this 2009 NatGeo article? Furthermore, point 8 argues that the greening of desert areas is due to CO₂? If they have actually read the NatGeo article, it says that the greening of Sahara desert is due to rain, not by CO₂? There's this one journal that Natural News cites as evidence for climate change being a hoax, little do they know that the journal only discussed greening in Sahel which is known for its vegetation for years already, not the entire Sahara desert especially the upper portions. That is cherry picking, also known as the Texas sharp shooter This is not something new. This is an example of a false cause.

 

For point 6, it's an example of Appeal to Emotion. First of all, no one is disputing that we need cheap energy. But by attributing the restrictions to fossil fuel to deaths of millions is a slippery slope. Secondly, why would people die if they don't have access to cheap energy due to fossil fuels? A lot of untouched tribes are living just fine without fossil fuels. They burn wood for heat and cooking but that's it, they live just fine. I tried to look at that UN data which says that 6 million people died due to lack of energy access. I can't seem to find it. You know what I found, WHO data that says 7 million people in 2012 died due to air pollution. And what else would cause air pollution? Of course, the burning of fossil fuels. And let's face it, what is more likely to kill a five year old kid in a third world country, is it the lack of air conditioning/centralized heating or asthma, COPD, and lung cancer?

 

Remember that burning fossil fuels doesn't just result to the release of CO2, it also releases carcinogens like benzopyrene and Carbon Monoxide which can cause breathing problems even death due to the lack of oxygen. CO is a competitor of Oxygen when it comes to binding to hemoglobin. Once CO binds to hemoglobin, oxygen can't attach so the body's supply of essential oxygen is reduced. 

[CostcoSamples]

7 hours ago, hey_yo_ said:

I don't have the time just yet to fully watch the video so I'll comment on your summary as well as from the video description.

 

First, Stefan Molyneux is known for his quasi-scientific videos and from what I can tell, it looks a lot like Alex Jones and something alt-right Milo Yiannopoulos would watch. Secondly, who are they citing? Just because they came across with someone who has credentials related on the subject matter doesn't mean they're true experts on climate change. Have they looked into the methodologies and experiments that verified that climate change is real? Appealing to someone else's credentials alone to verify a claim constitutes a logical fallacy.

 

In refutation of point 8, where did they got the idea that desert greening is due to CO₂? Are they citing this 2009 NatGeo article? Furthermore, point 8 argues that the greening of desert areas is due to CO₂? If they have actually read the NatGeo article, it says that the greening of Sahara desert is due to rain, not by CO₂? There's this one journal that Natural News cites as evidence for climate change being a hoax, little do they know that the journal only discussed greening in Sahel which is known for its vegetation for years already, not the entire Sahara desert especially the upper portions. That is cherry picking, also known as the Texas sharp shooter This is not something new. This is an example of a false cause.

 

For point 6, it's an example of Appeal to Emotion. First of all, no one is disputing that we need cheap energy. But by attributing the restrictions to fossil fuel to deaths of millions is a slippery slope. Secondly, why would people die if they don't have access to cheap energy due to fossil fuels? A lot of untouched tribes are living just fine without fossil fuels. They burn wood for heat and cooking but that's it, they live just fine. I tried to look at that UN data which says that 6 million people died due to lack of energy access. I can't seem to find it. You know what I found, WHO data that says 7 million people in 2012 died due to air pollution. And what else would cause air pollution? Of course, the burning of fossil fuels. And let's face it, what is more likely to kill a five year old kid in a third world country, is it the lack of air conditioning/centralized heating or asthma, COPD, and lung cancer?

 

Remember that burning fossil fuels doesn't just result to the release of CO2, it also releases carcinogens like benzopyrene and Carbon Monoxide which can cause breathing problems even death due to the lack of oxygen. CO is a competitor of Oxygen when it comes to binding to hemoglobin. Once CO binds to hemoglobin, oxygen can't attach so the body's supply of essential oxygen is reduced. 

Thanks for the response!  

 

The video is an interview with a climate expert, Christopher Monckton who has significant background in climate research and Molyneux actually doesn't talk very much.  Monckton is a very talented speaker, making the video an easy watch.  The video is not at all an appeal to credentials though, as the expert provides many arguments supported by data.  I agree that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, which is why we should not implicitly trust that the IPCC is correct.  Further, the IPCC has significant incentive to push the narrative that will get them more funding.  

 

I do a lot of computer modelling in my engineering profession.  It is no secret that you can get any answer you want from a computer model.  My models use up to a maximum of about 15 to 20 parameters.  Climate models can use upward of 600 parameters!  That's not to say they are useless - on the contrary.  But one must acknowledge the significant limitations.  Error is cumulative as you increase the number of inputs, each of which has a probability curve of values.

 

Thank you for the info about desert greening, I will look into it.  In the video, he talks about how increased CO2 makes it easier for plants to grow even if the amount of water stays the same.  This is a well known process that is employed by green houses who will pump CO2 to increase production.

 

For point 6, it's not so much an appeal to emotion as it is a moral argument.  If we have the resources to allow poor people to lift themselves out of poverty, restricting access to those resources would be an immoral action.  And thank you for the information about air pollution, it reminded me that they do talk about it in the video. I've forgotten all of his points on that topic but he does get into air pollution and death from cooking with wood etc.  Coal burning power plants are low tech and could be maintained by a relatively low IQ population as in 3rd world countries.  This would give cheap electricity to people for cooking and eventually perhaps they could build up their slums into safer cities.

 

There is a book called The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.  The author talks about this aspect in great detail and provides sound very sound arguments.  

 

I don't pretend to be an expert in climate science, but there are strong technical, economic, and moral arguments to oppose political action such as carbon taxes, fossil fuel restrictions, etc.

 

And again, nobody is denying that warming is occuring.  The debate is on the rate of warming and whether the feedbacks are damped or will cause runaway catastrophe.  Politicians want more power and money so they love the catastrophe narrative and see to it that those researchers supporting it get funding, while those who do not are ousted. 

 

 

[CostcoSamples]

9 hours ago, Space Reptile said:

people saying that climate change is not a real thing are fucking stupid ,

its like saying the earth is flat

 

http://xkcd.com/1732/

It's funny, I was the same way while at university.  Every professor told me global warming was going to be massive.  I was told within 5 years the ice caps would melt and coastal cities would be under water, and I believed it because they were my professors.  That was 8 years ago and nothing has happened.  I was also told that if we surpass 300 ppm it would be the apocalypse.  We are currently at 400.

 

The scary hockey stick graph at the end of the xkcd comic has been disproved many times.  It is based on an old IPCC report which used some very shoddy papers (to put it mildly).

[Space Reptile]

2 minutes ago, CostcoSamples said:

It's funny, I was the same way while at university.  Every professor told me global warming was going to be massive.  I was told within 5 years the ice caps would melt and coastal cities would be under water, and I believed it because they were my professors.  That was 8 years ago and nothing has happened.  I was also told that if we surpass 300 ppm it would be the apocalypse.  We are currently at 400.

 

The scary hockey stick graph at the end of the xkcd comic has been disproved many times.  It is based on an old IPCC report which used some very shoddy papers (to put it mildly).

well it might not be DOOM in 5 years , but shit i still happening , no doubting that 

and if its just us killing off a fucktoon of species w/o really noticing 

 

[Donut417]

I believe that climate change is a thing. Weather has been too weird for it not to be. Also, NASA scientist have come out and said they believe we are the cause. NASA is government funded and put a man on the moon. I trust their word. The only reason why members of Congress dont believe is because the corporations are paying them not to believe. 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/james-hansen-extreme-heat-events-connected-to-climate-change/

On the link above is a video watch it. Jim Hansen who worked for NASA gave a explanation about how climate change works. Basically in a normal environment We have equal chances for cold temps, Normal Temps and Higher temps. About 33% chance of each. Due to the pollution we produce and the greenhouse gases how its more like a 60% change of higher temps. Jim Hansen uses dice to explain this. In a normal climate 2 sides of the dice would represent each out come, of cold, normal and hot. In the current climate we live in 4 sides are hot which the other two outcomes only get 1 side a piece. This explains why we still have normal and colder than average temps. I mean shit, it didnt really start getting blistering cold here in Michigan until December. Thats pretty damn unusual for us. 

 

I think Climate Change is real. I think that BIG oil and BIG coal are trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Because the think we are all ignorant. They have bought our Government so they dont have to change. At the end of the day, we will have to pay for our actions. It may not be today or tommrow, but some time in the future we will have to change or shit will hit the fan. 

[Misanthrope]

1) Many scientists of different political views agree there is climate change and see a strong correlation with man activity

2) Some scientists deny the correlation is strong and often point at perceived methodology flaws even after explanations for those "flaws" are given

3) Almost all people who think 2) are conservatives, many that take lobbying money from biased parties like big oil.

 

Conclusion: Skepticism is good but climate change denying is mostly political dog whistling.

[TetraSky]

Does that video explain why this is happening?

 

[CostcoSamples]

1 hour ago, Space Reptile said:

well it might not be DOOM in 5 years , but shit i still happening , no doubting that 

and if its just us killing off a fucktoon of species w/o really noticing 

 

Lol seriously?  So tighter regulations, carbon taxes, billions on research which produces nothing, massive subsidies to expensive and unreliable wind/solar production, all of these things are going to magically make us wealthy and healthy? 

 

It sounds like you are mixing the CO2 problem with other environmental issues.  They are not the same.  Good environmental stewardship is important.  But there is a clear distinction to be made here.  The thing that is disputed is runaway catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.  That is a very specific item but everybody wants to muddy the conversation by throwing in other issues at the same time, or throwing accusations of science denier etc.  If you'd like to make an actual argument that would be great.

 

I will repeat this once again, because you have been so heavily propagandized on the topic:

 

Nobody disputes anthropogenic global warming.  The only part being disputed is the "catastrophic" bit.  That part comes from predictions that are based on some very specific mathematics that govern feedbacks.  Think of it this way - global warming can be broken into two parts: direct warming; and feedback or 'amplification' effects.  Direct warming is not disputed.  It is a proven fact. 

[CostcoSamples]

23 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

1) Many scientists of different political views agree there is climate change and see a strong correlation with man activity

2) Some scientists deny the correlation is strong and often point at perceived methodology flaws even after explanations for those "flaws" are given

3) Almost all people who think 2) are conservatives, many that take lobbying money from biased parties like big oil.

 

Conclusion: Skepticism is good but climate change denying is mostly political dog whistling.

Again, nobody disputes climate change.  See my previous post.  We must use very precise language here because this topic has been very badly muddied by sophistry. 

[Space Reptile]

22 minutes ago, CostcoSamples said:

because you have been so heavily propagandized on the topic: [...] The only part being disputed is the "catastrophic" bit.

1 hour ago, Space Reptile said:

well it might not be DOOM in 5 years , but shit is still happening , no doubting that 

 

reading is hard , the earth is flat 

 

22 minutes ago, CostcoSamples said:

Lol seriously?  So tighter regulations, carbon taxes, [...] all of these things are going to magically make us wealthy and healthy? 

not wealthy , but those living in big cities can shure use a bit less smog 

 

22 minutes ago, CostcoSamples said:

billions on research which produces nothing, massive subsidies to expensive and unreliable wind/solar

do some research on wind and solar please , i lived a rock-throw away from the HQ of enercon , and they make wind turbines wich produce up to 5MW , and those are onshore ones , the offshore ones manage an almost constant (24/7) 8mw per mill , have a set of 20 and power about 160000 households , aka a city of decent size 

 

edit : i totally forgot to mention that those millions spend on developing more efficient cars and engines for those was totally wasted , i mean a modern sedan only uses 50% less fuel , nothing saved there at all ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Nup]

Man this thread. 

 

Even if the earth has sustained greater level of whatever gas, it's the speed at which this is happening that has an effect. 

Its the rapid change in climate that isn't ok, and will cause a domino effect in the world around us. 

[BleakMaker]

As a Dutch person I notice global warming everyday our government is continuously trying to make better defences against the water and it is getting harder and harder in about 50 years if continuous at this rate we would probably need one high big concrete wall so please let this guy come here and tell us why we should not worry about global warming and show us that it's stabilizing cause I don't want to move to Germany in a few years.

[CostcoSamples]

6 minutes ago, Nup said:

Man this thread. 

 

Even if the earth has sustained greater level of whatever gas, it's the speed at which this is happening that has an effect. 

Its the rapid change in climate that isn't ok, and will cause a domino effect in the world around us. 

This domino effect you speak of generally refers to the feedbacks which is the part that is disputed.  

[Guest Kloaked]

11 hours ago, Space Reptile said:

people saying that climate change is not a real thing are fucking stupid ,

its like saying the earth is flat

 

http://xkcd.com/1732/

I don't think people wake up in the morning and say "How can I cripple my knowledge today?"

 

The problem is, a lot of narratives are being shoved down people's throats all of the time, and in the case of climate change there isn't some clear cut answer that someone has given to the "deniers" to convince them.

 

I don't think anyone is denying the climate is changing. That would be literally ignoring the change of how cold it is during the winter and how hot is gets in the summer compared to 10 years ago. The thing people are skeptical about is if people are even contributing to the problem as "scientists" (I put that in quotes because /r/atheism users don't count) keep saying we're releasing too much pollution from fossil fuels and whatnot into the atmosphere; that the ecosystem cannot keep up enough to not allow it to do damage to Earth's ozone and such. This is one of the concerns that I brought up to a friend who works in one field that studies stuff like this, and he assured me that what they're finding is that we are contributing way too much CO2 and other forms of pollution that our ecosystem is essentially dying.

 

So again, the problem is these clear answers aren't being given to the right people, and aren't being told in a manner that they're not being told that they're "fucking stupid" for not knowing or understanding something that goes above their head. 

[Misanthrope]

45 minutes ago, CostcoSamples said:

Again, nobody disputes climate change.  See my previous post.  We must use very precise language here because this topic has been very badly muddied by sophistry. 

I think I did: point 2 mentions "deniers" question the methodolgy to attribute the impact and the correlation to man made changes, not the change itself. It it wasn't clear it should be clear now.

 

Now have you consider my point: Libertarians like Molyneux have an underlying agenda with their minimal government and interventionism in ther desire for rampant capitalism.

 

More traditional conservatives who also find themselves allies to Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists in this climate change issues are even more simple to explain: they believe in less regulation sure (not to the Libertarian extremes) but also they like the money they get from oil industry lobbyists.

 

I unfortunately can't watch your video but I am somewhat familiar with many of the talking points: How certain comission stated that there were incosistencies with the methodology and measurement and henceforth contradicting the predictions and climate models. What these critics do not mention however is that most of those points have been addressed: The measurements that where questioned have since been adjusted, and the incosistencies on those measurements is precisely because those measurements usually from almost 100 years ago were taken with old technology that just wasn't accurate. They adjusted the models sure, but not out of a desire to manipulate the numbers to push an alarmist agenda but out of an honest, scientific interest in maintaining the results consistent the next best thing to going back in time and re-measuring with more precise equiment is to infer the more accurate numbers through mathematical models that use very complex statistical calculations to estimate the margin of error in the previous measurements and adjust them accordingly.

 

So seemingly, the criticism seems valid. In actuality one is very complex but scientifically founded and the "denier" side is basically laymen trying to cry foul at mathematical models they couldn't possibly understand (let's be honest here) to serve their political agendas more than out of concern or scientific curiosity and rigor.

 

Now, care to refute this?

[Misanthrope]

5 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

I don't think people wake up in the morning and say "How can I cripple my knowledge today?"

 

The problem is, a lot of narratives are being shoved down people's throats all of the time, and in the case of climate change there isn't some clear cut answer that someone has given to the "deniers" to convince them.

 

I don't think anyone is denying the climate is changing. That would be literally ignoring the change of how cold it is during the winter and how hot is gets in the summer compared to 10 years ago. The thing people are skeptical about is if people are even contributing to the problem as "scientists" (I put that in quotes because /r/atheism users don't count) keep saying we're releasing too much pollution from fossil fuels and whatnot into the atmosphere; that the ecosystem cannot keep up enough to not allow it to do damage to Earth's ozone and such. This is one of the concerns that I brought up to a friend who works in one field that studies stuff like this, and he assured me that what they're finding is that we are contributing way too much CO2 and other forms of pollution that our ecosystem is essentially dying.

 

So again, the problem is these clear answers aren't being given to the right people, and aren't being told in a manner that they're not being told that they're "fucking stupid" for not knowing or understanding something that goes above their head. 

Read my post above: the science is clear but difficult for most to comprehend. The people causing the confusion usually do so out of a political interest not out of scientific rigor.

[Nup]

9 minutes ago, CostcoSamples said:

This domino effect you speak of generally refers to the feedbacks which is the part that is disputed.  

But its happening!! 

All you have to do is look around.

Birds come earlier and leave later, look at their their migrations. Look at swallows in Ireland and the UK. 

Frogs too, very high temp peaks in December and November will cause them to lay eggs early, and subsequently die with frost not long after. 

 

A local graph shows a net increase on 75% of a degree. over 80 years. 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Kloaked]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Read my post above: the science is clear but difficult for most to comprehend. The people causing the confusion usually do so out of a political interest not out of scientific rigor.

That is a major problem and I don't it's going to go away.

 

Personally, I would love to just take people's word for everything since I cannot study in these scientific fields and pursue my own passions at the same time - I just tend to trust people that I'm actually friends with even though we have differing political opinions. Even though we have differences in political opinions, I would trust their actual opinion on their trade that they studied and worked for (one I know has a doctorate in his field of research) since they're actually out and observing/testing this stuff.

 

I think some people have trust issues when it comes to major topics like this, especially when there are narratives being spun constantly. People don't know what to believe.

[AresKrieger]

Quote

 

Yes, global warming is "technically" true.  CO2 does indeed cause some minor warming, but the runaway apocalyptic warming is impossible

 

 

 

 

This is the only part of any of this that matters to me the rest of this discussion is meaningless from both sides unless you live in a place that already floods like Venice (though even in that case the north ice sheet is melting but currently the south is expanding so meh)

[CostcoSamples]

8 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I think I did: point 2 mentions "deniers" question the methodolgy to attribute the impact and the correlation to man made changes, not the change itself. It it wasn't clear it should be clear now.

 

Now have you consider my point: Libertarians like Molyneux have an underlying agenda with their minimal government and interventionism in ther desire for rampant capitalism.

 

More traditional conservatives who also find themselves allies to Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists in this climate change issues are even more simple to explain: they believe in less regulation sure (not to the Libertarian extremes) but also they like the money they get from oil industry lobbyists.

 

I unfortunately can't watch your video but I am somewhat familiar with many of the talking points: How certain comission stated that there were incosistencies with the methodology and measurement and henceforth contradicting the predictions and climate models. What these critics do not mention however is that most of those points have been addressed: The measurements that where questioned have since been adjusted, and the incosistencies on those measurements is precisely because those measurements usually from almost 100 years ago were taken with old technology that just wasn't accurate. They adjusted the models sure, but not out of a desire to manipulate the numbers to push an alarmist agenda but out of an honest, scientific interest in maintaining the results consistent the next best thing to going back in time and re-measuring with more precise equiment is to infer the more accurate numbers through mathematical models that use very complex statistical calculations to estimate the margin of error in the previous measurements and adjust them accordingly.

 

So seemingly, the criticism seems valid. In actuality one is very complex but scientifically founded and the "denier" side is basically laymen trying to cry foul at mathematical models they couldn't possibly understand (let's be honest here) to serve their political agendas more than out of concern or scientific curiosity and rigor.

 

Now, care to refute this?

Thank you for your response and clarification.  I agree that there is a strong political influence and I would go further to say it is highly politicized on all sides of the political spectrum.  Leftist politicians work hard to push the catastrophic narrative, as well as those who receive a lot of government funding such as universities and government subsidized media.  I had professors in university who had little or no knowledge or expertise in climate science tell me as matter of fact that we're all doomed unless the government steps in.  

 

And I think that is the crux of the issue for me.  Anytime somebody puts forward a claim that there is impending doom and only an elite group of politicians has the power to save us, and all we need to do is accept reduced freedom and pay higher taxes, my default position is skepticism.  I think conservatives, libertarians, and anarcho-capitalists would all fall into that line of thinking as well.  Left leaning individuals tend to give a lot more trust to government so naturally they are more open to such ideas.

 

I think the oil and coal lobby is a lot less influential in this than you think.  I live in an oil rich province and have never seen any such lobbying or influence peddling.  The only thing I've seen is a modest effort to portray Alberta oil sands as environmentally responsible because they have a bad rep despite spending billions on enviro stewardship programs etc.

 

There is some dispute on the analysis of temperature data.  It is not as easy as simply recording the temperature and plotting it over time.  As you said, measurement technology has changed over time a great deal.  Tweaking historic readings through statistical analysis is quite difficult indeed.  But you don't have to dig into the complexities of how the models work to disprove them - all you need to do it compare prediction with measurement to see if they are accurate.  As I said, I have a fair bit of experience with modelling.  I do stability modelling of natural and man made soil and rock slopes.  Natural systems are extremely complex so there are a lot of simplifying assumptions that must be made.  The input parameters are tweaked based on a combination of lab testing, field testing, experience, and a host of other factors.  It requires a good engineering judgement to combine these factors into a model that produces a useful result, but it is considered bad practice to take the model's output as anything more than a crude estimate.

 

My point is this:  If I put too much reliance on the output of my model, I could end up losing my license to practice and face a serious lawsuit because the limitations of modelling are well known among engineers.  Yet I am supposed to hand over my freedom, pay higher taxes, walk to work, and turn down the heat because somebody modeled an end of the world scenario in a system that has remained stable for billions of years?  It's absurd.  

 

 

[Misanthrope]

While I realize the "green" politicians do have a vested interest in alarmism, ultimately there's other good reasons to opt for other sources of energy: It's not entirely "Let's do what Captain Planet commands!" all of the time fosil fuels are a limited resource and things like solar, geothermal and yes even thermo-nuclear power are viable (as you don't fucking build nuclear power plants on a fucking fault like Japan)

 

I am all for a more moderate approach on all sides yes, but renewable sources just seem like a better idea overall. Yes costs might be initially higher but flipping around that argument: the global dependancy on fossil fuels has had more than a significant hand in geopolitical conflicts for example, still does today (One could say an important factor in the Syrian conflict today is who gets to build a very strategic gas pipeline). So looking at all concerns should be the approach instead of "Nope, not happening let me remove all environmental provisions on my truck so it looks like an 1820 factory chimney!" on one side or "OMG are you using a plastic bottle you fucking PLANET MURDERER???!" on the other.