Anthropogenic Climate Change: Skepticism and why science is never settled

**b_9904** · December 30th, 2015 12:36 AM

Your conclusions will be faulty if you build upon the wrong assumptions.

Example: assuming we understand climate science, or CO2 is a major greenhouse gas (by effect), or by failing to use your ACE or any other historical data (to verify an assumption).

**b_9904** · December 30th, 2015 12:39 AM

Safeorigin why not post the NASA finding that the polar ice caps increased its surface area in 2014?

**dr. d** · December 30th, 2015 12:44 AM

no one has lived long enough, to assume anything as correct.
we are all guessing here.

**b_9904** · December 30th, 2015 12:46 AM

Originally Posted by dr. d

no one has lived long enough, to assume anything as correct.
we are all guessing here.

Yup. Because we do not understand the science yet, which is the point.

**dr. d** · December 30th, 2015 12:55 AM

Originally Posted by b_9904

Safeorigin why not post the NASA finding that the polar ice caps increased its surface area in 2014?

surface area is fine..
but what about volume? after all, this is what determines whether our coastline gets changed or not..

**b_9904** · December 30th, 2015 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by dr. d

surface area is fine..
but what about volume? after all, this is what determines whether our coastline gets changed or not..

You missed my point, you use it to debunk many assumptions about climate change.

Check your ACE, temp history, etc. Same story.

All in all, the science is not settled. If so, we cannot use what we currently know for policy making.

At most, what we MUST DO is to ensure our immediate environment is livable; an issue that is different from climate science.

**BratPAQ** · December 30th, 2015 01:09 AM

currently watching years of living dangerously series. puro effect ng climate changes ang pinakikita, there was this pastor theyre trying to convince. the pastor is asking for the proof that the co2 is the culprit? what do they do to convince him? give him the effect of the climate change and not the cause. they even said "im willing to give my life for this cause". my philosophy 101 is almost 20 years old, but im sure the arguments they are giving the pastor are full of fallacy. not that i dont believe in climate change, yes there is a climate change, yes polar caps are melting, radical changes in weather, but they need to come up with better proof that the co2 is the culprit.

**b_9904** · December 30th, 2015 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by BratPAQ

currently watching years of living dangerously series. puro effect ng climate changes ang pinakikita, there was this pastor theyre trying to convince. the pastor is asking for the proof that the co2 is the culprit? what do they do to convince him? give him the effect of the climate change and not the cause. they even said "im willing to give my life for this cause". my philosophy 101 is almost 20 years old, but im sure the arguments they are giving the pastor are full of fallacy. not that i dont believe in climate change, yes there is a climate change, yes polar caps are melting, radical changes in weather, but they need to come up with better proof that the co2 is the culprit.

Short answer, co2 is NOT the only culprit.

**safeorigin** · December 30th, 2015 01:11 AM

Originally Posted by b_9904

Yup. Because we do not understand the science yet, which is the point.

indeed. this is exactly the point I was making. climate "scientists" and political figures are insisting that the science is settled when it's definitely not. there aren't any climate models they've made that I am aware of that justifies their fear mongering.

in fact, if one checks polar sea ice extent from both poles...

there's no reason for alarm. but then people will say that antarctic ice is melting rapidly. Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below

and no, polar bears aren't going extinct because of "melting polar ice" Global polar bear population size is about 26,000 (20,000-32,000), despite PBSG waffling | polarbearscience

**safeorigin** · December 30th, 2015 01:20 AM

Originally Posted by BratPAQ

currently watching years of living dangerously series. puro effect ng climate changes ang pinakikita, there was this pastor theyre trying to convince. the pastor is asking for the proof that the co2 is the culprit? what do they do to convince him? give him the effect of the climate change and not the cause. they even said "im willing to give my life for this cause". my philosophy 101 is almost 20 years old, but im sure the arguments they are giving the pastor are full of fallacy. not that i dont believe in climate change, yes there is a climate change, yes polar caps are melting, radical changes in weather, but they need to come up with better proof that the co2 is the culprit.

CO2 only becomes a major greenhouse gas in a greenhouse where there's sufficient quantity of it to make it have a significant effect.

BUT

people are forgetting about water vapor...

NASA - Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change

water vapor drives climate change vastly more than CO2. El Nino/La Nina oscillations alone can cause major changes ranging from years to decades.