I’ve talked personally to climatologists. My mother minored in meteorology. I’ve read the articles, I’ve watched the documentaries, I’ve seen Bill Nye. The “evidence” can point to many conclusions. Also, from personal experience, I’m not at all convinced we are causing global warming. And I’m not even convinced the earth, on average, is warming rather than cooling.
What is a fact is that people/politicians (those with power) have agendas, and they will steer beliefs about our climate/atmosphere with all their might to meet these agendas. There are many sheep that will buy into these beliefs and repeat them as if it were an original idea of their own. Don’t be sheep, don’t let them make you into a solder for their agenda. Be careful, be discernful. Stay beautiful.
I’ve talked personally to climatologists. My mother minored in meteorology. I’ve read the articles, I’ve watched the documentaries, I’ve seen Bill Nye.
The first paragraph was candid self evaluation and my personal speculation. The second paragraph was commentary on politicians and political agenda. I could have written the 2nd paragraph better. The sheep I meant to represent are those who adopt the narratives of these political agendas without realizing that that is what they have done. They have unknowingly joined a political agenda. And it’s absolutely both sides, left and right.
The topic of climate change has unfortunately become a tool for politicians, whether it be the right or left. This is bad. It is bad because it muddies the water, it muddies the the real scientific facts, what what those facts suggest. I honestly didn’t mean to only suggest that those who subscribe to global warming were sheep. Rather, it’s both sides pushing a narrative for an agenda. To buy into a narrative because “the experts said so” isn’t always a good idea. Personal exploration, research, and observation are very important. Even “scientific consensus” needs to be weighed and judged soberly. Very much, “Scientific consensus” can, and does change over time.
There was “scientific consensus” in that 80s that because of the polar ice caps melting, newyork would be underwater by now…
Note, that in writing down this post, you haven’t brought forth any objective argument to justify your skepticism. Your argument that because people have agendas, you should be skeptical could be ok if the goal is to get objective information, not form a reactionary opinions.
A strong scientific consensus over this topic is not the result of some political agenda but of the scientific method. One of the central parts of it, is that any claim must be falsifiable through experiment. When anyone comes with a claim, others will try to reproduce or falsify it. Depending on the results the claim is either rejected or used in further research. With vasts of experiments explaining the effect or verifying the effect to better explain what was previously known, a consensus is formed. Politicians are only involved when it comes to appropriating public funding for research. That doesn’t corrupt the research itself, but hinders it if research can’t be done. When industry funds it though, then it does degrade the research very often (see tobacco industry in the 1920s-1980s, the food industry until today, or oil&gas industry which have known about the effects for at least the 1970s through their own research and have not published it).
For some more factual things you can read up on:
That CO2 gets warmer when subjected to light is known since the 1850s when Eunice Foote did experiments with water vapor and CO2 and made this observation and roughly quantified it.
John Tyndall did incorporate this effect into a first, very rudimentary, climate model of the atmosphere in 1862. The global temperature projections of that model for 1950 aren’t perfect, but still astonishingly precise.
Planck in 1900 formulated the Planck Postulate as part of his work concerning black body radiation. Quantization he thought of as a mathematical quirk. Einstein a few years later proposed that the energy of light or photons to be more precise is itself quantized. Einstein got his Nobel Prize in 1923 adopting this to not only explain the Plack Postulate (radiation) but also the photoelectric effect, i.e. that a molecule such as CO2 can absorb energy from the electromagnetic radiation interacting with it.
The scientific community was not convinced of the anthroposophical nature of the warming of the climate until in 1957 Roger Revelle and Hans Suess use the C14-method to show that the ratio of C-isotopes in the atmosphere is shifting towards those of fossil fuels. Since then more measurements have been done using this method to date things and reconstruct atmospheric composition (e.g. through ice-coring).
Since then technology such as satellites have improved the overall quality of measurements. And all of them show a clear tendency. With more computational power climate models have become more powerful and the projections are very good. The differences to measurements, when they happen are usually underestimating because the models are conservatively developed. You can refer to the IPCC reports which show you the data pretty clearly. If you want, then look at data from your local weather station, if it existed over 100 years ago, but even if only 50 years and you’ll probably see a difference even locally. Do that for all stations in the world and you can see a clear trend.
These are only a fraction of topics which anybody can read up on to form an informed decision, rather than opposing something just because it is consensus.
Yeah, it’s called an opinion. I used to have the opinion that global warming was a serious concern. After learning more and more life experiences, my opinion has changed.
The only fact I claimed is that politicians have political agendas, and that is a fact. Some politicians promote that the earth is getting warmer, some say that it isn’t, but if it comes from a politician, it comes from an agenda.
I appreciate that you came with some scientific facts, surely. And you’re right I brought forth no objective argument, it was subjective. Maybe I should have started my comment with “IMO”. I assumed everyone would catch on to that since I was relating my own personal experience with the topic.
Your opinion on climate science (or any science for that matter) can be disregarded out of hand. Your comment history reveals you are a far-right conservative troll who makes far-right conservative statements and then claims to be a centrist who “hates politics” because they are so divisive.
Every word uttered by a conservative is deception or manipulation. Every word.
Also, from personal experience, I’m not at all convinced we are causing global warming. And I’m not even convinced the earth, on average, is warming rather than cooling.
I’ve talked personally to climatologists. My mother minored in meteorology. I’ve read the articles, I’ve watched the documentaries, I’ve seen Bill Nye. The “evidence” can point to many conclusions. Also, from personal experience, I’m not at all convinced we are causing global warming. And I’m not even convinced the earth, on average, is warming rather than cooling.
What is a fact is that people/politicians (those with power) have agendas, and they will steer beliefs about our climate/atmosphere with all their might to meet these agendas. There are many sheep that will buy into these beliefs and repeat them as if it were an original idea of their own. Don’t be sheep, don’t let them make you into a solder for their agenda. Be careful, be discernful. Stay beautiful.
Is this satire? It has to be satire.
The first paragraph was candid self evaluation and my personal speculation. The second paragraph was commentary on politicians and political agenda. I could have written the 2nd paragraph better. The sheep I meant to represent are those who adopt the narratives of these political agendas without realizing that that is what they have done. They have unknowingly joined a political agenda. And it’s absolutely both sides, left and right.
The topic of climate change has unfortunately become a tool for politicians, whether it be the right or left. This is bad. It is bad because it muddies the water, it muddies the the real scientific facts, what what those facts suggest. I honestly didn’t mean to only suggest that those who subscribe to global warming were sheep. Rather, it’s both sides pushing a narrative for an agenda. To buy into a narrative because “the experts said so” isn’t always a good idea. Personal exploration, research, and observation are very important. Even “scientific consensus” needs to be weighed and judged soberly. Very much, “Scientific consensus” can, and does change over time.
There was “scientific consensus” in that 80s that because of the polar ice caps melting, newyork would be underwater by now…
Note, that in writing down this post, you haven’t brought forth any objective argument to justify your skepticism. Your argument that because people have agendas, you should be skeptical could be ok if the goal is to get objective information, not form a reactionary opinions.
A strong scientific consensus over this topic is not the result of some political agenda but of the scientific method. One of the central parts of it, is that any claim must be falsifiable through experiment. When anyone comes with a claim, others will try to reproduce or falsify it. Depending on the results the claim is either rejected or used in further research. With vasts of experiments explaining the effect or verifying the effect to better explain what was previously known, a consensus is formed. Politicians are only involved when it comes to appropriating public funding for research. That doesn’t corrupt the research itself, but hinders it if research can’t be done. When industry funds it though, then it does degrade the research very often (see tobacco industry in the 1920s-1980s, the food industry until today, or oil&gas industry which have known about the effects for at least the 1970s through their own research and have not published it).
For some more factual things you can read up on:
That CO2 gets warmer when subjected to light is known since the 1850s when Eunice Foote did experiments with water vapor and CO2 and made this observation and roughly quantified it.
John Tyndall did incorporate this effect into a first, very rudimentary, climate model of the atmosphere in 1862. The global temperature projections of that model for 1950 aren’t perfect, but still astonishingly precise.
Planck in 1900 formulated the Planck Postulate as part of his work concerning black body radiation. Quantization he thought of as a mathematical quirk. Einstein a few years later proposed that the energy of light or photons to be more precise is itself quantized. Einstein got his Nobel Prize in 1923 adopting this to not only explain the Plack Postulate (radiation) but also the photoelectric effect, i.e. that a molecule such as CO2 can absorb energy from the electromagnetic radiation interacting with it.
The scientific community was not convinced of the anthroposophical nature of the warming of the climate until in 1957 Roger Revelle and Hans Suess use the C14-method to show that the ratio of C-isotopes in the atmosphere is shifting towards those of fossil fuels. Since then more measurements have been done using this method to date things and reconstruct atmospheric composition (e.g. through ice-coring).
Since then technology such as satellites have improved the overall quality of measurements. And all of them show a clear tendency. With more computational power climate models have become more powerful and the projections are very good. The differences to measurements, when they happen are usually underestimating because the models are conservatively developed. You can refer to the IPCC reports which show you the data pretty clearly. If you want, then look at data from your local weather station, if it existed over 100 years ago, but even if only 50 years and you’ll probably see a difference even locally. Do that for all stations in the world and you can see a clear trend.
These are only a fraction of topics which anybody can read up on to form an informed decision, rather than opposing something just because it is consensus.
Yeah, it’s called an opinion. I used to have the opinion that global warming was a serious concern. After learning more and more life experiences, my opinion has changed.
The only fact I claimed is that politicians have political agendas, and that is a fact. Some politicians promote that the earth is getting warmer, some say that it isn’t, but if it comes from a politician, it comes from an agenda.
I appreciate that you came with some scientific facts, surely. And you’re right I brought forth no objective argument, it was subjective. Maybe I should have started my comment with “IMO”. I assumed everyone would catch on to that since I was relating my own personal experience with the topic.
Yeah, it’d be a real shame if we made the world a cleaner place for no reason!
Wasn’t my point at all… but ok.
Your opinion on climate science (or any science for that matter) can be disregarded out of hand. Your comment history reveals you are a far-right conservative troll who makes far-right conservative statements and then claims to be a centrist who “hates politics” because they are so divisive.
Every word uttered by a conservative is deception or manipulation. Every word.
Coming from the person who said
… did you have anything intelligent to add? Nevermind… I don’t even know why I asked…
A person on the internet whose mother minored in meteorology doesn’t agree with scientific consensus! How do we move forward now?
Not when reviewed objectively.
Global average surface temperature has been rising since 1850. The ten warmest years in the historical record have all occurred in the past decade.
The earth is getting hotter. This is an objective fact. Facts don’t care about your feelings.
Yall are tiresome…
Better then being ignorant
Well, I do agree, but alas, it’s kinda both.