Posted on 04/30/2016 6:51:22 AM PDT by rktman
Here are some questions for the man-made or Anthropogenic Global Warmers. Since I have taken up the cudgels on various Facebook pages I am screamed at by numerous sycophants who declare that I am a simpleton and totally ignorant. I confess! But here are some questions for the man-made Global Warmers:
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Thank you for stating this. Reading the excerpt at the end of the article was like fingernails on a chalkboard. The author should have stuck with the list of questions.
Hahaha!
I don’t know about whether human activity has any effect on climate. What I do know is that:
a.) The climate has been changing cyclically since the beginning of time.
b.) There is a lot more money to be made convincing the rubes that it is their fault than in allowing them to believe it is caused by natural events beyond anyone’s control.
c.) If enough of the rubes can be convinced climate change is caused by Western Civilization, they will vote themselves back into serfdom and servitude in order to “Save the planet”.
Could some people be suffering from “climate guilt”? Prius and tesla come to mind. I’m sure there are more like the volt. Me, being a denier means crankin’ up the Hemi.
For those who accept the AGW construct, the first 6 questions miss the point that an ideal level of these phenomena is not the issue. The problem is change within an interrelated, dynamic system, that occurs too unevenly and/or rapidly for the system to adapt and maintain a critical balance. The assumption is that we would prefer not to have the biological system collapse abruptly. That the climate changed before without human intervention (as suggested in Question 7) does not make rapid climate change desirable now. Just as Edmund Burke realized about politics, too much change too fast crashes the whole system, with disastrous results for society (example: Bolshevik Revolution massively changed Russian society and economy resulting in collapse, starvation, massive die-offs — I was too much of a bad thing too fast).
AGW theory has an internal logic that is compelling — if all factors of an extremely complex system have really been considered. As always, GIGO happens.
For me the difficult questions for AGW are:
1) How do we know that all the data has been collected accurately, and weighted properly, as opposed to having been massaged (or effected by confirmation bias) to create outcomes that fit the theory?
2) How do we know that all effects of a dynamic system have been considered, when the system is subject to natural inputs that are not fully known or anticipated (effect of future solar activity, oceanic CO2 and heat absorption, heat dissipation into outer space, etc.), and the manner in which climate change itself changes the way the climate changes?
3) The killer: What evidence is there that ANY of the proposed remedies for AGW will have the anticipated effect on the climatic stability. What is the total cost? Does it make sense to incur such enormous costs entirely on speculation? Have prior attempts to manipulate nature of a vast scale worked out as anticipated, or were there unintended consequences?
Politicians ignore the fact that there is absolutely ZERO information on item 3. This is all about redistribution of wealth for political benefit.
You don’t have to be factually incorrect to be a simpleton or uninformed. Just by questioning the premise you are in disagreement with a consensus of 97% of all scientists.
“There is no change to the heat captured or to the mechanism that heat is radiated back into space. “
Correct. The claim is that CO2 SLOWS the heat loss to space.
“3) The killer: What evidence is there that ANY of the proposed remedies for AGW will have the anticipated effect on the climatic stability. What is the total cost? Does it make sense to incur such enormous costs entirely on speculation? Have prior attempts to manipulate nature of a vast scale worked out as anticipated, or were there unintended consequences?”
Cost of mitigation is enormous. And given that some regions will cool while others warm, and those regions are as yet vague or even unknown, adaptionm rather than expensive preemptive mitigation, if even needed, is the wiser more cost effective path.
“Politicians ignore the fact that there is absolutely ZERO information on item 3. This is all about redistribution of wealth for political benefit.”
There has been a multitude of UN officials who’ve openly admitted it.
De Nada!
You got that right.
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.