Disco Boy wrote:
Caputh wrote:
As an explanation for why climate change is a "scam", I find them utterly unconvincing, particularly from clip 3 onwards, as they merely repeat themselves with an increasingly unqualified cast. I've already talked about #1 and #2 - here's the rest...
Video #3 (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrQxidb4xSQ) is by the retired weatherman John Coleman, who begins his clip by employing the reassuringly scientific language: 'The name of this presentation is "There is no significant global warming" and I'm the guy that is just doggone sure of that'. Unfortunately, asking a weather man about long-term climate change is like asking a modern-day plumber about the aquaduct system of ancient Rome. Plus, he makes the claim that the
arctic ice shelf is increasing, a claim that is manifestly untrue.
Video #4 (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cxdzm2fnA4) is David Wilcock "debunking" Al Gore. Wilcock's scientific credentials also include the belief in ancient aliens, reincarnation and ancient prophecies that predicted quantam physics: I didn't find him terribly convincing.
Video # 5 (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0) is at least a Nobel prize winner! Unfortunately, he got the prize for 'experimental discoveries regarding tunnelling phenomena in superconductors'. Ivar Giavever got interested in the topic of climate change by googling it in 2008. He has done no real research on this topic, is not an expert in this field and confines himself to manipulating statistics whilst reciting boring anecdotes about some trip he made to Berlin.
Video #6 (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35pasCr6KI) is an interview with Garth Paltridge, Peter Reid and Bob Carter, all Australians. The first, actually has some qualification to opine on climate change. Paltridge believes that climate change is happening, was caused by man but that its effects are not significant. Here is a link explaining why he is probably wrong in his final conclusion...
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/ ... estion-17/. Peter Reid's conclusions are of a limited value as he is a marine biologist. Bob Carter, a marine geologist, has been effectively debunked here...
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Bob_Carter_arg.htmVideo #7 (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFK-UTGH1Zw) is a hearing in which the "well-known scientists", Democrat Al Gore and Republican Steve Scalise, get into an argument. Scalise offers the equivalent of Trump's estimate of crowd sizes by denying that there is a scientific consensus. Neither he nor Gore are really scientists, but I suppose that in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
Video #8 (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7VUg7nG3lw) is that other "well-known scientist" Newt Gingrich. How can I trust anybody whose Christian name is that of an amphibian?
Also some of them videos are a tad, er, old.
You appear to be of the opinion that the more youtube videos you post, the more convincing your argument is. Unfortunately, repetition of conclusions gleaned through transparently skewing statistics by a bunch of non-experts does not make those conclusions more convincing - at least not for me.
Despite your desire that one should be convinced without consulting any other outside sources, I found the following site to be rather useful in proving that all 8 clips contained no conclusions of value whatsoever.
The basic claims made in your clips about the climate ("Climate's changed before", "It's the sun", "It's not bad", "There is no consensus", "It's cooling", "Models are unreliable", "Temp record is unreliable" "Animals and plants can adapt", "It hasn't warmed since 1998", "Antarctica is gaining ice") are all debunked here...
https://www.skepticalscience.com/BTW, did you hear about the draft report, published Monday, by scientists from 13 federal agencies that '[t]he average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years...“Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate change,” they wrote.'
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/clim ... v=top-newsYes, this
was off-topic.
The argument has more to do with global warming being a scam and that climate change isn't happening as quickly as the left think it is. Anyway...
If you did in fact watch all the above clips, that's admirable. But 90% of the above is cherry-picked and indulgent in character assassinations, claiming that because some of the people, even though they are experts, are not scientists, therefore, they have no credibility. Instead of perusing the information presented - which you've only scratched the surface of (for example, you fail to debate the fact that many governments don't fund scientists if they don't conform to global warming beliefs, or that Al Gore's claims have thoroughly been discredited). Because with that 'criteria', then theoretically, Frank Zappa couldn't have been a respected musician or composer, because he wasn't traditionally trained as such. I could continue posting 1 clip per day like I did for the first week or so, but you'd just indulge in the same character assassination diversion tactics by either not looking at or ignoring much of the information presented. So why should I bother?! Oh and btw, last winter, Vancouver got hit by the hardest snowfall we've had in nearly a DECADE, and we just got hit with snow earlier this morning, even though it's only early November - which I don't believe has ever happened in my lifetime. And over the past 4-5 years, we've also had some of the coldest winters in DECADES. It must be global warming!!! ROTF!!!
In other words, Caputh, and as usual, you include verbosity over substance. I've got one word for you...
...pathetic.
I, personally, could not care less about what Al Gore has to say about climate change. The reason for this should be obvious - he is not an expert. I am not an expert on climate change, neither are you. Nor is your dog, your mother, or your pet hamster. This is why I, as somebody who is not an expert, tend to let my views be shaped by those who I would consider to be experts. This is also why I refer to people who might be able to interpret data better than myself, you, your dog, your mother, or your pet hamster.
Your comparison with the academic qualifications of Zappa as a composer and the individuals you claim to be authorities on climate change is interesting, but, unfortunately, utterly false.
The reason for this conclusion is that Zappa, as a composer, was somebody involved in what one might call the arts. In the arts, creative impulse is the major criterion for determining value of the product. There is no physical risk involved in allowing the fruits of the composer's invention in being presented to a wider public. In fact, musical risk was what made Zappa's music so unique IMHO. In the case of scientific conclusions in whatever form (physics, engineering, chemistry, even history, if you like) there is a risk involved.
Nor was Zappa concerned with proving an objective truth. What he produced was "art for art's sake". One was not compelled to follow his philosophy (e.g. his views on sex would make most spouse's marital life extremely difficult), nor did one have to objectively equally appreciate all of his compositions.
Let me give you an analogy. Let's assume a city is building a new shopping centre. Why is that they are unable to accept the building design proferred by the architect who has no professional qualifactions, no matter how groovy it might look and prefers that of the architect who has actually studied the subject and is legally allowed to actually present a design? Obviously, because the possibility that the building might fall down is more likely in the former case, than in the latter.
Another, more specific, analogy. In 1988 there was a trial of the well-known Holocaust denier, Ernst Zündel in Canada. Zündel called as a witness an "execution expert", Fred Leuchter. Leuchter had gone to Auschwitz, hacked brick samples from the walls of the gas chambers and revealed that there was no significant traces of cyanide in the walls, thus no Holocaust. The court rejected his testimony as he was neither a qualified engineer, nor a chemist, nor an architectual historian - and rightly so. He had e.g. no knowledge of the chemical conditions under which cyanide reacts with plaster, nor of how the gas chambers were constructed, nor of the amount of cyanide needed to kill the people in the gas chambers. Therefore, his testimony was utterly irrelevant and unqualified.
Experts in climate change are experts for a very good reason. Last weekend, I brunched with an Italian geophysicist. I wanted to hear, as somebody who would appear to be an "expert", what his view might be on climate change, in particular how residues of carbon dioxide in mineral deposits are evaluated to create a picture of carbon dioxide levels throughout the world's history. His reply showed that he was a true scientist in that he said "My opinion on this is not worth very much, as it is not my field of research. I examine how crystals grow". Let me add that he was of the (unqualified) opinion, having talked to other geophysicists who were studying climate change, that the current climate change was massively influenced by man and that it
might be too late to halt it.
Academics tend to be like that: most of them are true experts in a very narrow field, to which they devote their life. This is generally true, even in academic fields that are ostensibly "non- scientific"; I would not necessarily trust Ian Kershaw (a scholar of the history of the Third Reich), to give me any valuable opinions on the Roman Empire.
Thus, if you are going to challenge the view that global climate change is a lie, not caused by human beings or is somehow ineffectual, then I think that the quality of your witnesses should at least match up to the 97% of scientists who consider that the opposite is the case.
In consequence, I am not engaged in "character assassination" as you put it, rather I think it is important to know how qualified the statements made in the videos you posted might be. The answer would seem to be - not very.
Your claim that I have not engaged in the arguments offered in the 8 videos is equally inaccurate. I watched the videos, looked up background information about those who gave their opinions and consulted a site (
https://www.skepticalscience.com/) that specifically refutes the claims made in the videos. If you want to refute those rebuttals, go to the site, read them and do so. The alternative is that I repost the entire site here, which would be extremely tedious.
I find it particulary curious that you seem to believe that there is some kind of academic conspiracy to propagate one scientific view and that this is motivated by the scientists' greed. It would seem blatently obvious that the people with the real money are sitting in the oil, coal, and car companies and that they are in a far better position to bribe climate change scientists to falsify conclusions. If something is accepted as scientific fact by nearly all scientists, why
should funding be provided for those who challenge it? Should there be funding for research into the flatness of the Earth, the "fact" that the Earth was created in 6 days or that the Holocaust never happened? Surely that would be waste of funds?
Your final paragraph indicates your inability to look out beyond your personal experience and expect that the world reacts accordingly. Is the rest of the world really supposed to deal with the possible ramifications of climate change on the basis of your subjective experience that it has been a bit chilly in Vancouver for the last 10 years? Here, let me disprove you: "Winters in central Germany have been much warmer in the last 10 years".
Have you ever thought of the reason for why this phenomenon might be referred to as "global climate change" and not, at least recently, as "global warming"?
Substance, as you define it, would seem to consist of posting 8 random youtube videos, from extremely dubious sources, that deny that climate change is happening. Well, if that is enough for you...
I'm sorry that many of the words I have used have more than 2 syllables.