Posted on 12/28/2016 12:58:10 PM PST by MtnClimber
Scott Adams -- known, among other things, as the cartoonist behind the Dilbert series -- has an excellent blog on which he posts something thoughtful nearly every day. His particular interest is in the arts of persuasion. Recently he has dipped his toe into the subject of "climate science," with a focus on the apparent inability of partisans on either side of the debate ever to convince a single person to come over from the other side. .....How are you to supposed to evaluate the arguments and come to a view? Adams comments:
My bottom-line belief about climate science is that non-scientists such as myself have no reliable way to evaluate any of this stuff. Our brains and experience are not up to the task. When I apply my tiny brain to sniffing out the truth about climate science I see rock-solid arguments on both sides of the debate.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with Adams on this one. If you are a reasonably intelligent person, and you are willing to spend a few hours on an issue, there is a very workable method to discern which side of a debate is not playing straight with you. This method is the same method generally used by judges and juries in deciding which side is going to win a trial. The method is this: look to which side has and provides the best answers to the hard questions posed by the other side. If one side refuses to answer hard questions, or is evasive, or refuses to provide the underlying methodology by which it came up with its answers, then that side has a problem.
(Excerpt) Read more at manhattancontrarian.com ...
An excellent article. Well worth the read and worth passing to any “warmists” you may know.
Ping.
The truth is probably between the more extreme positions on either side. There is a slight human effect on climate. It is not as great as claimed by some, but more importantly, the rate of change in the future will be far more conservative. The atmosphere has ways of feeding back against attempts to warm from below.
Nor is there much real evidence for increasing frequency of severe weather events. The truth is probably steady state or maybe even a slight reduction over historical levels.
On the other side of the coin, there is no natural trend towards an impending ice age just because of a few winters with unusually cold temperatures recently in a few places. While that counter-attack is understandable from a political point of view, it is no more scientific than the IPCC hysteria.
The best guess is probably that temperature trends will be very slowly upward against chosen 30-year normal periods in the past, 1951-80 is what the science is using as their comparison on the assumption that greenhouse gas levels in that era were not very much increased over previous decades.
That is the period against which you hear all claims made about this or that year being 0.8 degrees warmer than average globally. And I think this is probably not being manipulated, the whole debate in this complex field is about future trends anyway, not so much about present indications. If we stayed close to the current modest increases for 20-40 more years and phased out of fossil fuel use, there would be no huge impact on polar ice and therefore only marginal sea level rises.
This is what I expect to happen and I believe that dislocating the economy to guard against fictional alternative outcomes is dangerous and pointless.
[[How To Tell Who’s Lying To You: Climate Science Edition]]
It’s very simple to tell who’s lying by doing two simple things-
1: calculate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as a direct result of man- (The amount is just 0.00136% of the atmosphere)
This alone proves that man could not possibly be responsible for climate change because there is nowhere near enough CO2 to capture enough heat to warm anything-
2: Note that ice core samples prove that CO2 rises 100’s of years AFTER temperatures rise-
This alone is proof enough that CO2 does not cause warming- Warming happens first, then CO2 rises
Combined together- These two fact prove that it is IMpossible for man to be causing climate change- Period- There is nowhere near enough CO2 in our atmosphere to be capable of capturing enough escaping heat in order to create a thick blanket of warmth needed to heat the earth- the numbers don’t lie- it’s impossible- can’t be done- won’t ever happen EVEN IF we increase our CO2 production 100- nay, even 1000 fold
CO2 does not cause warming- Warming causes a rise in CO2-
Great article, I have been looking for years for a simple explanation for low information friends and family that concisely lays out the fraud and coverups that are well documented.
The problem is that there is a lot of great info but it is way to complex for regular people to comprehend.
I think that variations in average temperature are almost entirely caused by changes in solar activity.
The IR absorbtion spectrum for CO2 is two very narrow frequencies. On the other hand, the IR absorption of H2O (water vapor) is very broad and includes the two frequencies that CO2 will absorb.
At sea level a photon of IR energy will be absorbed within 100 meters of travel, on average. So IR energy in the two bands absorbed by CO2 would be absorbed by H2O even if there were no CO2 at all. And, since water vapor is a much greater percentage of the atmosphere, the CO2 won’t get a chance to absorb much IR. That is why I think atmospheric CO2 has almost no effect on the Earth’s temperature.
bfl
Actually, believe it or not, the honest climate changers know CO2 alone is not enough to produce the warming they claim. They state there is a positive feedback with water vapor. So a minor CO2 warming gets amplified by increased water vapor. Of course the fools do not even take into account that water evaporating is also cooling the Ocean. Fools will always be fools I guess.
Thanks for the post.
When I read that when Mt. Saint Helens erupted and the following week, it spewed more smoke and more ash and more greenhouse gasses than all the humans up to that point had created and emitted — I stopped worrying about human caused global warming.
Now I’m more concerned with universal entropy.
What is your evidence for this assertion? It has been both colder and warmer before SUVs, and the Sun's cycles and volcanic eruptions are more strongly correlated with these cycles than anything else. My evidence: the research cited by Lord Monckton and The Farmer's Almanac.
I listen to Coast to Coast radio at night sometimes. George Nouri (sp?)
He had a guy on about two weeks ago who said there are over 11,000 volcanos active under the pacific ocean. These would effect water temp and possible air temp, but there was nothing that could be done about it.
Scott Adams is demonstrating how to begin persuading someone. You start where they are and begin a process.
Yes, I have been folling the Scott Adams Blog through the election. I think you may be right about the new series on persuasion and climate change.
incorrect. Its not that much
What is your evidence for this assertion?
We exist therefore we create heat. Direct heat we create about 0.6 deg C.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.