interview with a "Climate Change Skeptic" request

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 41 - 53 of total 53 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Feb 9, 2015 - 03:16pm PT
Yah Dingus, you're one I would cite as honestly skeptical here.
CAC

Gym climber
Clairemont
Feb 9, 2015 - 04:47pm PT
Are there any specific people who have influenced your opinion on this topic?

Surprisingly (just because I don't completely understand) Jesus has taught me that I need to think for myself and rely on my own beliefs.


are there any specific informational sources that have influenced your opinion on this subject?

Yes. Facebook is a big one.

Great stuff! I'd love to hear more...
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Feb 9, 2015 - 05:07pm PT
And the typical "Do you believe in the IPCC" litmus test offered by the true believers in this thread is super annoying.

Um, I believe that would be me where I've been saying "Do you believe the findings of the IPCC..." I do this to be specific about a group of international scientists, and specific about their publication(s). Sorry to annoy you bro. From here on I'll just say "the global community of climate scientists."

I see that Chiloe just says "active scientists," as in the following:

... the strong consensus among active scientists today that human activities are changing the climate -- agreement on this point ranges from the high 80s to the high 90s depending on who and what you survey.


And it's a funny thing, but I find the word "annoying" to be really annoying.
rbord

Boulder climber
atlanta
Feb 9, 2015 - 05:28pm PT
Lol CAC!

We're humans. We have human belief systems. Sure, there are rocket scientists amongst us, but they're few and far between. I know rocket scientists. Rocket scientists are friends of mine. Sir, I'm no rocket scientist. Seriously, check Facebook and see what you see. Praise Jesus!

I'm being completely sincere. Take it or leave this information according to what conforms to your pre-existing beliefs. Why not, it's what the rest of us do.

Man if I'm not a skeptic I'd hate to see the even more dysfunctional person who is! De nada :-)
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Feb 9, 2015 - 05:31pm PT
The statement that it is scientific fact and a consensus. Anyone who has studied atmospheric chemistry knows how intensely complicated it is and to assume anyone can be certain about models is absurd. Is it likely that our contribution to greenhouse gasses directly effects the climate? Absolutely. Is it certain that this will happen and the planet does not have mechanisms to mitigate the change? Absolutely not, so people shouldn't attack those who are not completely convinced.

Perhaps the strongest statement so far in defining how one can be skeptical of the claims that we need to do something about AGW now.


In response, I would argue that we might have very much to loose by not taking an aggressive approach to the AGW problem. On the flip side, we have very much to gain in beginning a shift away from our strong dependance on fossil fuels.
rbord

Boulder climber
atlanta
Feb 9, 2015 - 07:28pm PT
Come on people! Don't be skeptical of his intentions! I mean do be skeptical. He wants people with poorly informed opinions about climate change so he can parse our words for science. Kind of like we do. Can't you help a brother out? If I can do it you can.

I had an interaction a little while back with a phd nutritionist which amused my contrarian nature to no end. He sent an email out to my sons sports team advocating that the kids get out and exercise, a virtual unsolicited tome of useful scientific information on nutrition etc. At the start he talked about a recent research project on the effects of sitting, and he said that the recent research showed "quite logically" that sitting was bad for your health. That quite logically intrigued me especially from a person of his distinguished scientific background and training, so I asked him what was so logical about it. Was it logical that the research confirmed his existing belief, and it wouldn't have been quite so logical if the recent research had refuted his existing belief? I'm sorry to say that it didn't surprise me that even with his expertise in science and the scientific process, he still seemed to misunderstand the idea of a hypothesis and the basis of science and logic. Kind of like Praise Jesus! But from a phd in science perspective. I think that it's just a human thing. I'm human. Maybe you are too. Yes it's a crazy idea :-)
zBrown

Ice climber
Brujò de la Playa
Feb 10, 2015 - 08:17am PT
Light alkane hydrocarbons are present in major quantities in the
near-surface atmosphere of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas during
both autumn and spring seasons. In spring 2002, maximum mixing
ratios of ethane [34 parts per 109 by volume (ppbv)], propane (20
ppbv), and n-butane (13 ppbv) were observed in north-central
Texas. The elevated alkane mixing ratios are attributed to emissions
from the oil and natural gas industry. Measured alkyl nitrate
mixing ratios were comparable to urban smog values, indicating
active photochemistry in the presence of nitrogen oxides, and
therefore with abundant formation of tropospheric ozone. We
estimate that 4–6 teragrams of methane are released annually
within the region and represents a significant fraction of the
estimated total U.S. emissions. This result suggests that total U.S.
natural gas emissions may have been underestimated. Annual ethane
emissions from the study region are estimated to be 0.3–0.5
teragrams

Conclusion
By comparison to the calculated 4–6 Tg of CH4 released
annually from the study area, global natural gas drilling has been
estimated to release 45 Tg of CH4 per year (16), of which the U.S.
natural gas industry alone has been credited with 6  2 Tg of
CH4 per year (4). These results show that the southwestern states
account for a significant portion of U.S. CH4 release from
natural gas sources. Because only 37% of the U.S. natural gas
industry is located in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, with
another 25% offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, our results suggest
that the actual CH4 emissions from the fossil fuel industries may
be larger than currently estimated. Using similar conditions to
the CH4 calculations, an emission rate of 0.3–0.5 Tg per year is
calculated for ethane. By comparison, global natural gas emissions
are believed to release 6 Tg of ethane yr1 out of a global
ethane budget of 13–15.5 Tg per year (17, 18).
In this study, the elevated light alkane levels were measured
within a region that encompasses the Anadarko Basin, which
contains one of the largest natural gas and oil reserves in the
continental U.S. Whereas individual sources of alkane emissions
from this region (e.g., natural gas andor oil production, natural
gas storage, and perhaps natural gas seepage from the ground)
are poorly quantified, sampling this region in a grid configuration
was very effective in identifying locations with elevated
alkane mixing ratios. Similar studies of natural gas and oil
regions in other countries would help to constrain global emission
estimates for methane and other light alkanes.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Feb 10, 2015 - 08:39am PT
Do scientists look for security and money to supplement their lives and can science be politicized?

Some really informative and civil posts here that is appreciated by this non-scientist.
The climate is doing what nature does...going through cycles, long and short, on multiple layers.

How much of climate change is caused by man?
I don't have a clue.
What I think I know (at least I'm pretty sure) is that my car exhaust is not vitamins for the atmosphere.
Yeah CO2 and botany come into it, so maybe some hotsauce on my foot please.

Ultimately it will come down to what Dingus wrote:
"We aren't going to do the Big Bite changes until momma nature forces our hands."
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Feb 10, 2015 - 11:58am PT
How does DMT's statement above differ from what I said on the other thread"do you believe that something bad(or really unexpected) will happen?

Curious is all.
rbord

Boulder climber
atlanta
Feb 10, 2015 - 08:14pm PT
Chief how many times would it bear repeating? Given the three studies, would 3 times be a good number? If three of us each get 3 friends to repeat it three times to three different people, would that be about right? If only it had been 4 studies I would have been convinced.

Kman please forgive me I'm with you, but I've also heard that there's a very big downside to not believing in Jesus (eternal damnation) and a very big upside to believing in Jesus (salvation). What's a human to do?
ryankelly

Trad climber
Bhumi
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 10, 2015 - 09:15pm PT
well. thats about it for this thread. Unless you want to answer the questions keep the back and forth to the other climate thread if you don't mind...

EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Feb 11, 2015 - 04:47am PT
Ryan Kelly - Are you still looking for more skeptic input? If so, when is your deadline?
elAndy

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Feb 11, 2015 - 05:41am PT
Nice going buddy.
Messages 41 - 53 of total 53 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta