Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ‘Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science’

[MoonlessNight]

Ok. Fair enough.

Do you believe there's enough science out there to suggest it isn't happening and that our expanded use of CO2 isn't causing problems?

It's not an issue that I have studied in enough detail to make a judgment.

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

I am in this field and I have studied the peer reviewed science and attended the meetings like AGU. I have a graduate degree in numerical math and a terminal degree in engineering with significant work in modeling and simulation. If any of you think I'm missing the facts and can point to better quality research and data than I have access to, I'll look at it.

 

[Fantine]

A globe can show you some of what you need to know.

The southern hemisphere has significantly less land mass than the northern hemisphere, and the countries there are significantly less industrialized.

And that difference shows up--global warming has been much more active in the northern hemisphere than the southern, along with destruction of coral reefs and other plant and animal life, etc.

That certainly debunks the idea that the earth is in some sort of cyclical weather pattern. If that's the case, why is the northern hemisphere affected so much more severely?

 

[brewmama]

Ok, you got me. Let me say it right:

97% of published peer-reviewed scientific papers that took any kind of a stance on climate change has stated that it is occurring and it is man made. Once people like this astronaut start publishing peer-reviewed papers that show his findings, methods of finding the data, and drawing proper conclusions from them, I will pay attention to him.

If your response is some kind of conspiracy theory in the scientific community, save your breath.

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer: The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' - WSJ


This is pretty interesting too.. I am mystified why you people find these "experts" credible.
NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As Hottest Month On Record | The Daily Caller

 

[LoAmmi]

Sorry, can't see the WSJ article due to their paywall (and I'm not paying for it) and the second story is from the Daily Caller. I've read enough of their drivel to last a lifetime on this board and don't need the blood pressure rising.

 

[classicalhero]

Anyone who takes the 97% seriously is not worth talking to, since it is a myth based on extremely poor methodology.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis

A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.

But you do realise that it was once scientific consensus that diseases were caused by an imbalance in one of your four regions of the body and thus when you got sick the cure was to bleed the sickness out. What was once scientific fact one decade is often considered science fiction the next.

 

[LoAmmi]

Unlike some others, I'm willing to accept correction
I'll look into what was posted and see what I think.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

The climate actually changes from one day to the next and from month to month. It gets colder, then hotter, then colder, then hotter, etc. One year there's a harsh winter. The next year it's a mild winter. Then it goes back to a harsh winter, and then back to mild the next year. So my question is how can weather scientists know with certitude what the weather is going to be 1,000 years from now when they are often wrong in predicting weather that is only one or two weeks away?

 

[Needing_Grace]

The climate actually changes from one day to the next and from month to month. It gets colder, then hotter, then colder, then hotter, etc.

That's called weather, not climate. They are related but they are not the same thing.

What I can't understand is how the weather scientists can know what the weather is going to be 1,000 years from now when they are often wrong in predicting the weather that is only one week away.

Climatology is not the same a meteorology.

 

[LoAmmi]

You are describing weather, not climate.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Climatology is not the same a meteorology.

They have both been proven wrong in their predictions. They used to say that another ice age was coming. Then they changed it to "global warming" when it started getting warmer. Then when it began to cool down they changed it to "climate change." Whatever happens they shift their theory in accordance and then claim that this time they know what they are talking about. And each time they change it they expect everyone to accept and follow it as dogma. And most people do accept everything they say as if scientists are infallible.

 

[MoonlessNight]

To illustrate what I mean by the issue being too complex for me to understand: I can't quite figure out how we measure global mean temperature now. The issues in definitions (surface temperature, or air temperature? If air temperature, what altitudes? If surface, does matter that the surface is composed of different substances? In either case, how do the oceans factor in, etc.) are non-trivial, and after you come to a definition you still have to measure the thing, given only a tiny fraction of the total information which is often measured locally in different situations (ex. proximity to cities, shade, height, etc.) How do you take all of that and get a single good number?

I do understand that there is a lot of modeling that goes into weighting averages, making sure that data is collected in a more standardized measure and so on. I am not saying that people are not making good efforts in this area, but that it is too complex for me to fully understand.

And that's just for measuring (really modelling, since there are never exact measurement. Even the reading of my thermometer on the wall is a model of the temperature in my room, not the real value) the current temperature. To fully discuss the problem you must also model the historical value of the temperature, dealing with the fact that it is impossible for the historical data to be measured the same way as the current data (since you can't change the protocols of the past).

And all that (hopefully) happens before there is any discussion of finding trends and causations and the like. And for that you only have to consider everything that has ever happened in the history of the Earth.

It's a mammoth problem, and the fact that we have made any progress is nothing short of amazing.

 

[LoAmmi]

Thanks for that post.

Does anybody have a reason why we shouldn't try for alternative sources of energy or better emissions?

 

[LivingWordUnity]

The thing that's easy for me as a simple man to understand is that these guys have been wrong in their predictions. How ever hard they try, they have been proven wrong. And they they don't like to admit when they are wrong. Instead, they do sneaky things like going from "global warming" to something vague like "climate change" when their error starts to become easily apparent so that they don't lose their funding.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Thanks for that post.

Does anybody have a reason why we shouldn't try for alternative sources of energy or better emissions?

Because innovation is expensive and there is no proof that many of the alternative sources of energy would be able to meet current demands.

Of course, if the alternative was more expensive in the damage, then it would be worth switching. But that would require a cost analysis based off current climate predictions which adds another level of uncertainty and complexity to the scenario.

Another problem is that if such a push is done as a government initiative, the tendency is for such programs to continue and expand even if they fail completely. I mean, look at ethanol. Even the environmentalists don't think that it is helping, but due to corn industry getting so much of a payout from it, there is no sign of ethanol subsidies disappearing.

 

[jacks]

Thanks for that post.

Does anybody have a reason why we shouldn't try for alternative sources of energy or better emissions?

From a business standpoint oil is a mature industry with massive profits, huge barriers of entry and reward systems based on short term gains. Change will only come about after massive internal problems occur within the industry or technological changes they can't control makes oil less profitable than other energy sources.

From a long term good standpoint: none.

 

[Wolseley]

My 2¢ worth:

A) Is the climate changing? Yup.

B) Is mankind the cause? In the face of astronomical cycles, volcanic eruptions, etc., unlikely.

C) Is there anything we can do about it? Nope.

 

[MoonlessNight]

To put things in perspective: we are also in danger of being hit by a meteor which could end life on Earth. Certainly such astronomical events do happen, and the fallout of such an event would devastating.

But there is uncertainty as to whether we will get hit because of the difficulties in tracking celestial objects.

So how much are we willing to sacrifice to prevent this outcome?

I don't think that the answer is nothing. Better telescopes for tracking and the like are a good investment.

But what if the solution was to handicap our economy in some way (i.e. by constructing an expensive orbital laser)? Then the answer is not so obvious.

 

[Needing_Grace]

To put things in perspective: we are also in danger of being hit by a meteor which could end life on Earth. Certainly such astronomical events do happen, and the fallout of such an event would devastating.

But there is uncertainty as to whether we will get hit because of the difficulties in tracking celestial objects.

Oh, we'll get hit again. That's an absolute 100% certain thing.

Actually, the planet takes hits every day but they usually burn up in the atmosphere (which is part of the planet) and are seen as "shooting stars." Some even make it to earth as small meteorites. Meteor Crater in Arizona is the result of a 50 meter nickel-iron asteroid striking the earth.

If you're ever in LA, make it a point to visit Griffith Observatory, go the information desk downstairs and ask to see "germy." It's a meteorite that you can hold in your hands.

I'm sure you know about Apophis? In 2029, this asteroid will pass very, very close to the earth. It will pass by closer than our communication satellites. Now, if it passes through a very small, I believe 600m wide "keyhole," it WILL strike the earth in 2036.

So how much are we willing to sacrifice to prevent this outcome?

Considering the survival of our entire species could be in play, the resources of the entire planet must come into play.

I don't think that the answer is nothing. Better telescopes for tracking and the like are a good investment.

Absolutely, more and better telescopes are needed because the further out an object is, the better chance we have to change its trajectory so we don't arrive at the same place at the same time. The answer would NOT be to blow the object up rather you want to deflect it. The further out, the smaller amount of deflection (thus less resources and energy) is necessary to accomplish this goal.

But what if the solution was to handicap our economy in some way (i.e. by constructing an expensive orbital laser)? Then the answer is not so obvious.

So, slight comfort while waiting for the annihilation of homo sapiens or fighting like hell as a species for survival.

I'd rather not lie down and die, thank you very much!

I am a bit of a geek when it comes to astronomy and cosmology, so sorry if I geeked out too much here.

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says
This site is a useful reference. It addresses common statements made by those skeptical of climate change. It is easy use, well referenced and goes into different levels of detail based on the depth the reader is interested in. Things like 'Could it be volcanic activity?' are addressed clearly and with ample references.

I've shared this a few times here, but it's worth bringing up again.