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.
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.