Philosophy: New Climate Problems

Philosophy is one of my interests. To discuss philosophy requires good debating skills and open minded skepticism.  Both things I find those recently educated in the public school systems lack. Skepticism also needs a good measure of critical thinking ability.

Climate Emergency - Families facing Climate Change

Climate Emergency – Families facing Climate Change by Takver, on Flickr

Every so often I am moved to point out the fallacies in subjects considered by many to be truisms. Man made global warming is a wonderful subject for dividing the thinkers from the gullible. 

Consider. Why do people believe there is Manmade Global Warming or aka Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)? The talking point answer is: science proves it. But… more and more big name scientists are disputing what has been labeled settled science. More former warmers are becoming skeptics. More and more scandals in climate data are coming to light. If the base data is false, how can you believe any conclusion based on it?

The simple fallacy in the warmers claim that deniers/skeptics refuse to believe in climate change is so blatantly false and an overly obvious projection it should embarrass them. All the warmers ideas are based on the idea that change from their 1970’s starting point is bad. Who is it that denys climate change? Hasn’t climate been changing for hundreds of thousands of years? Warming, cooling, higher and lower CO2 concentrations? Isn’t that a natural thing that was happening well before mankind reached the 7 billion population mark? And weren’t we to have world wide famine long before we got to 7 billion? Why is it that natural climate change is supposed to have stopped in 1970 so the current changes are manmade?

Today this article was published in The Telegraph (UK) titled: Top Scientists Start to Examine Fiddled Global Warming Figures. What if the science you believe proves AGW has been faked? Do you examine the evidence? If it stands up, do you change your opinion? Or deny the facts and go with the fiction?

We no longer have a question of whether the base temperature data has been manipulated. The question now is how much and which way? That is what this newest scandal and resulting study is about.

If you wonder why there is even a question about data manipulation, look at who is collecting and processing the data. We have two separate measuring groups. Those that measure surface data and those that measure from space, the satellites. The question comes up because the disagreement between the two groups is getting larger. Surface data is said to show marked warming. Satellite data show no warming and possibly recent cooling. Why the disagreement in a stated settled science?

There are three main surface measurement records: the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), the US National Climate Data Center, and Hadcrut. The Hadcrut measurements are compiled by the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (Cru), in conjunction with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction.

An interesting point is all of the measurement compilation groups are run by believers in man-made global warming. Does this mean the data convinced them? Or is it something else?

There is an old cliché to follow the money. If you want funding for climate research you have to be on the warming side. Look through the government funding records and compare the money going to the warming side verses objective study. It is hugely lopsided. It is to the governments’ benefit for there to be global warming. (They collect the carbon taxes.) Consider the 50:1 video for why that works… or doesn’t.

Look at the scandals that break. All are on the warming side. Climategate I, II, & III… and 129 more… See: 129 Climate Science Scandals.

Then there are the failures to predict what will happen climate change-wise based on current theories. Any hypothesis gets developed into a theory that must be able to predict future events. But, the warmers have not been able to predict anything. See: Seven Big Failed Environmentalist Predictions. You can’t have these failures and claim the state of climate science is settled science and be taken seriously.

So, what would it take to convince me AGW is real? Science… put more eloquently… See: What It Would Take to Prove Global Warming? It sums up my thinking and reactions pretty accurately. It is actually very easy to change my mind. But, warmers just can’t pull it off.

5 thoughts on “Philosophy: New Climate Problems

  1. With statistics can prove anything. It is good that more scientific team studying the facts bases, there is a clear risk that \deep believers’ encounter confirmation bias. That is, only pay attention to the facts that support their theses.

    Ice caps in the Arctic has melted so much that large parts of the Swedish west coast, including Gothenburg would be under water today as a modern Atlantis according to predetermined tales 30-40 years ago. It has not happened, the water level is affected more if the wind westerly or easterly winds. Bridges is not under water. However, noticeable another climate impact that milder winters. Snowline has moved 500 km north of 75 years in Sweden.

    The major reason for the need to distinguish apart what is fact, faith and wild guess in the climate debate is that Al Gore’s best friend is a major player in the trade of emission rights. Which he started with just before Al Gore presented his famous movie.

    • Statistics are statistics. Anyone can say anything about what they prove and what they prove is often debatable. Applying critical thinking usually provides a reasonable insight to what the stats actually prove. For this old cliche on stats remember it is the one making the stateent of their meaning that has to be looked at. – Example: a survey of prison inamtes show 99.9% of inmates eat potatoes. Thus, potatoes obviously influence people toward crime… One has to think about what they hear.

      By 2012-13 there was to be no ice at the north pole – per Al Gore, ice at the south pole was to be greatly reduced, and Greeland was to have lost most of its ice and the sea was to rise however many feet causing big problems. In 2014 there was more than in the last 10 (? I need to look the actual number up) years. The latest sea level studies say any rise in level is still within the margine of error.

      While the snowline may move north in Sweden it has moved south in the USA. Our northen states are still getting snow in April.

      There is a lot of money in global warming from carbon taxes. Watch 50:1 if you haven’t.

  2. re. “follow the money”; one of the things that biases my judgment toward the human contribution to climate change is that those who shout the loudest against it have the most to loose if we take the necessary corrective action (or are their political surrogates). A prominent example is the coal mining industry, who would be completely shut down if we were to take seriously reducing CO2 emissions.

    • I think you have not seriously considered who it is that has the most to loose. It is private citizens.

      Almost all the skeptic commentary is funded by private citizens. Coal and Oil are not funding those on the skeptical side, at least not to any significant extent. Look at their funding. Most are non-profit and mush file open tax returns.

      Look at what governments are spending to sell the idea of warming as a disaster. They are investing billions to justify taxing trillions.

      • Agreed, but Big Coal and Oil are funding and lobbying most aggressively the politicians who actively obstruct a serious climate debate.
        I am skeptical of all sides in this debate but especially those with money or power in the game.
        Given a choice I distrust government marginally less than big business, that is just who I am.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.