Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
Still waiting for that research showing that this recent warming trend is related to solar activity there Hack&Lube.
I agree with you that there are very complex feedback mechanisms built into the biosphere and that those are the dominant climate altering mechanisms. I don't think any climate scientist would argue otherwise. What they are point out is the role of 'forcing' that GHGs play. The most sophisticated models and historical research of course tries to account for the natural feedback mechanisms. They then overlay that with the current conditions and find the forcing from GHGs.
So my point is that you're just side stepping the difficult points. Infact, what you're saying is mostly platitudes designed to obfuscate the debate. The earth is very old, we are only observing a very small part of the climate timelines, we are too small to have big impacts, all of your arguments have been summarily addressed in the literature. It's you who has the onus of proof to show me that this literature is, in fact, untrue.
Then the other conjecture you throw out, climate scientists have bias, there's momentum to climate research is just plain old conservative blog garbage. The science stands on its own merit. The broad conspiracy theories are just mind bogglingly stupid. Who has a vested interest in climate change? Who stands to gain? Where's the motive? It's not there.
|
I don't appreciate the goading.
I've said time and time again. My issue is not with the science. My issue is with climate change activism. With people like you. With the argumentative stance. With the ideology. With the pragmatism. With the politics. I cannot stand it.
I am not going to give you links and evidence to prove one aspect of the things that I have read over many years. If you want, go and look yourself but the business of posting graphs and charts and studies on internet forums is pointless to me. That it exists is true. That evidence of climate change due to emissions exists is also true. I do not accept one science and discount the other or claim there is no shred of evidence to either of them as you do. I'm pretty sure you are not actually waiting for it anyway as much as you are waiting to discount it. I did post a link to google scholar as I don't have access to my UofC academic journals account anymore, nor would most people not currently in University or academia.
The thing I've learned from this thread is not to play devil's advocate on internet forums as that has a statistical 0% probability of actually changing the world. Rarely, it may change minds.
I have said time and time again, I believe in climate change. I believe in decarbonization and protecting the environment. While the earth and certain hardy species and systems may not be as fragile, biological life and ecosystems are always in danger.
I am simply not on the bandwagon because I cannot stand people who demand answers and action and who are zealous and get combative about their position in internet threads and real life discussions. My experiences with this are that some people just cannot accept that you don't have to be for or against everything in black and white. The amount of emotion and pathos that people put into these things (in my experience) astonishes me. I always seek compromise as the best way to sooner-than-later solutions.
The real way to get change is to get people to work together and find economic incentives as positive feedback to get businesses and industrializing countries to see decarbonization as financially viable. Not to argue about one thing or the other or to get flippant or fanatical about ideology to force regulation down people's throats.
I started off by explaining that my stance on this issue is driven by the social and political implications, not the science. I have repeated that over and over again. We are arguing about completely different things.