Chaard, what you've written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent blog post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone who has read it is now dumber for having read it.
Fill the kettle or get a keg, this may take even longer...
Firstly I aprove of the term climate change denier. To take current scientific evidence (and not some graphs that someone has put on the Internet) and disagree with it is denial. The reason we are encouraged to use this term, is to get rid of tge term global warming non-belivers. This is a scientific matter, belief does not belong here. You may choose not to believe that germs exist. Fine, but science currently suggests they do and you'll still get sick. Washing your hands from time to time would probably make things nicer anyway.
Your first paragraph really is dumbing down the argument. Firstly, not a single soul on Earth can deny climate change. Its not some scientific theory, nor is it up for debate. Climate change is what happens on most planets depending on their orbit around the sun and the natural cycle of the environment on that planet. There is evidence of climate change on Mars, on Venus and even the ice moon of Jupiter. The scientific study of climate change, again, isn't up for debate. Arguably the migrating humans from thousands of years ago knew of climate change... hence the reason they migrated.
What you really meant was global warming deniers. So lets take that current scientific evidence and see if we can justify whether the science should be believed or not. The argument for global warming is a fractional increase in temperature over 135 years... an increase of 0.8c. Coupled with this is the rising level of CO2, some 72ppm over the period since 1880 to 1998, then a further 36ppm (approximately) from 1998 to present day.... and the suggestion has been made by certain scientists (not all) that the CO2 is driving temperature increases. Taking your statement of "This is a scientific matter, belief does not belong here", you have to accept the simple truth, which is that multiple sources have reported that the temperature has flat-lined for the past 18 to 19 years, while at the same time CO2 being released into the atmosphere has exploded. If the science of the global warming alarmist (just as you approve of 'denier', I approve of 'alarmist') is to be believed, then since 1998, if there is a correlation between increasing CO2 and temperature, we should have seen an increase of 0.4c in that period.... and the data sets by various organisations do not show that, nothing even near it.
The alarmist points to the receding ice fields of the north, whilst conveniently ignoring the extra 220 billion tons of ice in the south. The alarmist points to so-called 'extreme' weather events, when historic record shows us that this isn't the most turbulent time for weather events, not by a long way. And the alarmist is quick to point to the NASA data, demanding that you agree with the 'rise' in temperature that is shown there, but not taking into account that the land temperature that has been used as a standard for the past 135 years shows flat-lining, but the recently introduced land and sea temperature scale, shows an overall increase. Why? Because the data sets used for gathering are not evenly spread. For instance, there are 167 measuring stations in the north to get the best readings possible. In the south, there are 8.... not 80.... eight!
To the layman, if you add 2 and 2, you get 4... but then the alarmist argues that this data must be 'corrected' through homogenisation. This is done with the best of intentions, but data sets taken for decades and are proven to be accurate are altered to harmonise them with other data sets. It happens in other areas of science without any fuss because its not dishonest, it is simply correcting for localised variations. The problem is though, when you do it with temperature data in particular, a steady temperature can be made to look very much like an increasing temperature. Again, nothing wrong with that, unless that data set is to be used as evidence so governments can tax based on that evidence. It then becomes very wrong.
But you don't need to be told by me. The IPCC themselves know that the temperature rise expected since 1998 hasn't happened, and they are honest about the fact that they don't expect any further rises for the next decade. Respected climate scientists, the very people who suggested the CO2 theory in the first place have publicly stated that their models were wrong, that the expected temperature increase hasn't happened and the science is back to square one. If you'd like a list of their names and their statements, I'll be more than happy to get them if there is any doubt in your mind.
So, why, if the IPCC and the very climate scientists who began the 'alarmists' on their journey agree that the science needs looking at again, do we have thousands of people still believing that we're heading for an apocalypse? Very easy. The governments, who at first were reluctant to accept the early science, now accept that early science and are determined to act on it by taxing it. They've worked out a carbon credit system that will have developing nations paying a tax to the already developed nations. Not only that, but they've calculated a way to allow big business a way out of doing any environmental improvement, because big business can 'buy' carbon credit from companies or organisations who are not using their full allowance of carbon credit.
Minor flaw is, the science has done what science does best. Its proved the early science wrong, the models to be flawed and the CO2 theory to be on shaky ground to say the least. Nobody predicted that increasing CO2 would actually be beneficial to plants and cause areas of the planet to bloom. Few predicted that the warming oceans would prove beneficial to the coral reefs, arguably the 'liver' of the sea.
Politics meanwhile has done what it does best. It has taken a scientific theory which was believed true, a theory that has been proven incorrect by the very people who stated it, and it has corrupted it. Turned it into a sound bite message that it pumps through its media outlets whilst at the same time feeding the scientific organisations which profit nicely by sticking with the early science and trying desperately to prove it to be true by whatever means necessary. Huge conspiracy surrounding global warming? Nope... just greed and politics have taken science and corrupted it as has happened again and again throughout history.
Back to climate change. Nobody can deny the climate is changing and it will for as long as this planet remains. We, the humans, who live here don't own the planet, we have no control over it. That rather large volcano in Yellowstone Park in America... if that puppy decides its time to come out and play, nobody will have the luxury of discussing the wolves or anything else for a good couple of centuries. Its unlikely, but not impossible.
What is infinitely more possible is that sea levels will rise and fall. Temperatures will rise and fall. And just as the green fields around Egypt turned to dust, so will many others, whilst elsewhere on the planet a dust bowl will become green again. Our influence on that is debatable. Should we be polluting the waterways with chemicals? Should we be polluting the soil with chemicals? And what about the air?
The real enemy is pollution, the poisoned rivers, the mismanagement of finite resources... none of this is addressed by the current political push on manmade global warming. Their solution isn't to decrease pollution, but to tax it... and frankly if you're earning a billion pounds for dropping chemicals into the sea, and the government demands 100 million, then gives you permission once you've paid.... you still earn 900 million! The sea is still polluted, the chemicals still being dumped, but the government is 100 million better off... thats it.
Rather than fight the impossible... the change of climates... the environmental movement should switch back to what it should have been doing all the way along. Highlighting the pollution, highlighting the waste of natural resources.... applying pressure for renewables to replace finite resources... but most of all not letting the politicians get away with allowing their big business buddies to pollute our planet for a few silver coins. Not allowing the politicians to distract from the real environmental issues by using a debunked scientific theory from two decades ago.
Now... I'll go sit over in the corner and wait for the inevitable 'alarmists' who will now claim I'm not a climate scientist... that I should blindly believe the media and political hype surrounding their ''preferred' scientific reasoning.... and reaching out for links that often have already been proven to be flights of fantasy. As was highlighted in another thread on this subject... the alarmist can rant... the alarmist can rave... but they have a tough time arguing the facts because to them there is nothing else to prove... the 'science' is proven we're told.
Chaard said:
This is a scientific matter, belief does not belong here.
