What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

Medium ^ | Oct 16, 2015 | David Siegel

[Izzy Dunne]

What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?

If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.

More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.

Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.

[garyb]

And this trow away line at Rush Limbaugh is buried in there:

“The word “denier” lumps legitimate skeptics with wing nuts like Rush Limbaugh.:

Mr. Seigal may have applied his “critical thinking” to Global Warming but it looks like he hasn't gone much beyond that to the usual liberal tropes he's carrying around.

[fatnotlazy]

Climate change is also a plot to extort still more money from an already financially strapped consumer and taxpayer in the form of higher and/or new taxes and higher prices for energy and those goods which are manufactured using any form of energy. This is income redistribution — taking from anyone with even the smallest assets and giving them to slackers, friends, relatives, cronies and supporters.

[Lisbon1940]

At best such a skeptic might become libertarian. He will never convert to full-on conservatism.

[rktman]

LOL! Kinda. Dumb asses who scream about climate differentiation (my new name for it) have about as much chance of bringing a new “cold spell” to a halt as they do a new “warm spell”. Kinda like the geico commercials. It’s what they do. If we had ‘urinalists’ around to write/report 20,000 years ago, which phenom would they be crying about? Fookin’ idjits.

[G Larry]

Consider for a moment that the author is writing for the benefit of committed liberals, wedded to the AGW hoax.

This article is the best weapon to disarm those liberals.

It is very well written and sourced for that audience.

[sauropod]

bflr

[SoFloFreeper]

Death to the infidel!

[jonascord]

"Because maybe, just maybe, this is the camel's nose under the tent."

Democrats are either stupid or evil, based on empirical evidence. Statistically, if one out of 10,000,000 has an partial epiphany, that's not even a nose.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Outstanding article... Thanks

Will add this to my common sense library.

[Bob434]

Tell your friend there is NOT enough CO2 I n the atmosphere to do ANYTHING regarding the climate- man’s contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere ma9unts to just 0.0036% of the atmosphere- Ask your friend to explain to you how just 0.0036% of the atmosphere can capture enough escaping heat to cause ANY kind of fluctuation In temperatures back on earth- especially when the piddly amount of heat captured by the CO2 only back radiates a fraction of the small amou8nt it captures (CO2 radiates the captured heat out in all directions- not just back towards earth- most of the heat captured goes right on out into space

Also explain to your friend that temperatures rise 800 to 1400 years BEFORE CO2 rises, so CO2 can’t possibly be the cause of warming

Also inform your frie4nd that temperatures have remained flat for 2 decades now despite rising CO2 levels- again, proving that CO2 does NOT cause warming

These 3 facts are enough to convince anyone that the claim that ‘man is almost entirely responsible for climate change’ is a colossal LIE-

The LIARS want everyone to believe there is this big thick blanket of CO2 encapsulating the earth where heat can not get past, and is ‘bounced back to earth’, and this is a major LIE. the atmosphere has only 0.0036% CO2 due to man- this means that either there are tiny little pockets of CO2 I nthe atmosphere while the rest of the atmosphere is free from CO2, OR that there is such a thin blanket of CO2 that it is IRRESPONSIBLE to suggest that it can capture enough heat to cause ANY kind of change at all

[dsrtsage]

“Notwithstanding that comment though, his conclusion that “climate change” is bullshit is one I became in sync with about 30 minutes after I first heard the term years ago. “

Similarly, I knew in 30 seconds, however. I like to know things and I have a hight science, engineering, and math background and so I enjoy investigating these things. So for the last 20 years, I have read and read at least an hour or two every day. It fascinating to learn about the complexity of the things we do know, but also how much we do not know that we do not know of planetary functions and cycles between the atmosphere and the oceans and space and the stars. It is amazing to watch how shoddy measuring methodologies are, and untrue assumptions that are made, and the sloppy statistics used to analyze all of which are locked away from public analysis like fort Knox, and FOI requests are fought bitterly, while data is adjusted year after year with no accounting, but the original data magically gets destroyed. It amazes me how any with any valid questions people gets shut down so quickly and legions of dogs appear with the most vicious invective and ad-hominem, and today the powers that be not only will work to remove you from any position of authority, but they are now floating criminal prosecution for questioning the “science”. Don’t even get me started on the personalities of the key actor “scientists” in this play, as bubbly as a palestinian on a day of rage. But after all this, the thing that pisses me off most and makes me grind my teeth, is even after 20 years, of daily investigation and research, I know, and understand, the science, the math, the people involved, I know every subject, controversy, and player intimately, I can never ever bring this up in a conversation with libs as they will immediately circle the wagons, and there is not a single bit of evidence that I can bring forth that will make a difference. I will be called a neanderthal, anti-science, religious nut (I don’t even believe in religion), and after being called names and ridiculed for trying to educate people about something I have decades of knowledge and understandinc about, I will be considered the bad guy.

[Colinsky]

“The word “denier” lumps legitimate skeptics with wing nuts like Rush Limbaugh."

Mr. Seigal may have applied his “critical thinking” to Global Warming but it looks like he hasn't gone much beyond that to the usual liberal tropes he's carrying around.

Perhaps he is merely demonstrating his knowledge of Mr. Limbaugh's well-known jet aircraft expertise.

But, most of the people who off-handedly dismiss Limbaugh as a wing nut have never listened to his show. Perhaps Mr. Seigal should devote 400 hours of research into finding out what Limbaugh is actually saying.

[tophat9000]

Yes i read it.. it like he just found out the earth is round.....really when dealing with the left you can not assume the know the most basic of things...

[Eagles6]

It has been the dream of politicians since the time of Plato. They have now taxed everything including the air that you breathe.

[tophat9000]

You got that right.. its criminal what they done to science right now

[DH]

When you hear a statement like “It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled.” GIVE UP.

You are talking to a liberal programmed robot that simply repeats what’s in the recording in his head. You are not going to win any logical argument with the robot.

Give it a “wedgie” and simply walk away. You will save yourself a lot of misery.

[JimRed]

Give him credit for changing his mind. Not a lot of them do.

An understatement. Most will not even listen to the evidence let alone research it for themselves.

[JimRed]

Bookmark bump. Worth reading.

[Henry Hnyellar]

Yet he still writes silly things like this.

“It’s sad that only FOX News is on the other side of this debate, since they are also politically motivated and can’t possibly understand the science.”

This after he nails CNN, etc for shilling for global warming. Does he not realize that these other “news outlets” are politically motivated? Once a koolaide drinker, always a koolaide drinker. OH YEA!

[Iron Munro]

If we had ‘urinalists’ around to write/report 20,000 years ago, which phenom would they be crying about?