zappepcs's Journal: Global Warming - Myth? or Hysteria?

Disclosure: I am not a scientist. Hell, I'm not even a college graduate ... yet. I am however what I think of as a reasonable and thinking man. Please, if you are a climate scientist do speak up here. Even if you are a non-climate scientist, please speak up.

I have presented poorly my beliefs on global warming and climate change on several occasions in the past. I have finally found someone that seems to speak in accord with my understandings of the matter. Despite the fact that this has a particular Australian slant, the reasoning behind it applies to any country.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2008/451/the-futile-quest-for-climate-control

In this article Robert M. Carter addresses the politics and rumor that permeate almost every discussion of climate change, and of ALL discussions of global warming.

His is a reasoned voice of calm analysis, taking time to note the politics and history of the current 'out of control' debate. He does not delve into the science as I like to, but he does calmly discuss the politics of the discussion. When politics are in the way, science can make no progress as he notes:

The basic flaw that was incorporated into IPCC methodology from the beginning was the assumption that matters of science can be decided on authority or consensus; in fact, and as Galileo early showed, science as a method of investigating the world is the very antithesis of authority. A scientific truth is so not because the IPCC or an Academy of Science blesses it, or because most people believe it, but because it is formulated as a rigorous hypothesis that has survived testing by many different scientists.

emphasis is mine.

The big problem with self confessed experts on climate change that I have is this: If you can tell me when and why of global warming, why can't you tell me the when and why of global cooling? Surely if you understand the Earth's climate mechanism(s) you should be able to tell me both, and consequently why and how much carbon dioxide will affect that balance. (if we choose to call it a balance of warming and cooling)

Clearly, since we have not been able to disprove gravity, the law of gravity stands as has been stated... even if we suspect there are subtle differences between reality and that law due to new information. Clearly, many other scientific laws and theorems have withstood much criticism and testing, and they remain the best explanation that we have. I have yet to see anything that even intimates that it is as strong a proof of global warming as these other things have. That is to say, if there were inarguable proof in abundance about this global warming, we would not still be discussing it. Do you argue with coworkers about whether gravity exists or not? Whether the world is flat or not? We don't yet have that kind of proof, so I think that alarmist attitudes are unnecessary and cause discordant and counterproductive discussion and activities.

I have searched for some time now and have yet to find cogent argument for or against global warming. There is some for climate change, but it is incomplete and often hijacked by global warming alarmists for their own purposes. The ONLY critical thinking that I've seen to date is that of people like Robert M. Carter who advocates a more calm, scientific approach to determining exactly how the Earth's climate mechanisms work before deciding that we are in dire need of making drastic and exorbitantly expensive changes to save the planet. More specifically, he concludes in part with:

Natural climate change being an important human hazard, research funding for climate change issues should be maintained at a healthy level. But the focus of the spending needs to be shifted from its present overemphasis on "greenhouse" alarmism and computer modelling research to a balance of: (i) documentation and analysis of modern weather patterns (earth observing systems), and patterns of past climate change (stratigraphic study); and (ii) deepening our understanding of all mechanisms of climate change, not just radiation theory .

emphasis is again mine

Can anyone out there, who happens to have enough spare time to read this journal, explain to me why it is that we should vary from this conclusion and move directly to alarmist reactionary wasteful efforts to change something we have very little real understanding of? While you are explaining things, please also explain how and why what you think we must do today to save this planet from global warming will not cause greater harm in 10 years or some other future date.

Please feel free to agree or disagree, but if you wish to state your belief that global warming is man made or not, please provide some links or cogent argument as to why. I'd rather see something that takes me hours of reading to understand than someone simply telling me that I'm stupid because I don't want to buy into the alarmist ideals of CO2 obviously causing harm because of SUVs etc.

I truly want to understand the global climate mechanism(s), not just your argument of why we need to drive smaller cars or use nuclear power. I'm actively seeking help in understanding the Earth's climate mechanisms.

Your JE and the linked article

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Are priceless.

Right on

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You're coming at it as a skeptic, but you've hit upon the right conclusions from what I've seen, almost by accident.

What you have to remember, however, is three things in all of this:

1. The average and the data points are drastically different.
2. Statistics can be manipulated to say anything.
3. Be wary of those who would restrict data points *especially* if they have a financial stake in the outcome (on both sides of the argument).

That last includes both the young "climatologists" whose model

Re:

[zappepcs]

Just about every "personal reduction in carbon footprint" idea I've seen increases efficiency and reduces cost, and there's plenty of good economic reasons to do THAT.

That is a point I can not labor long enough on... all the things that people want to claim that we HAVE to do to save the planet from global warming are pretty much all things that we have much better reasons for doing in the first place. Global warming is not a reason to do them. Finding 50+ mpg cars that Americans will drive has immediate and current financial reasons for it. Global warming is just icing on the cake for that. Pollution does not need global warming as a reason to clean it up.... and on and