baldeagle wrote:
The vast majority of scientists are not with you, and James Hansen is one of the perpetrators of the hoax.
So NASA is lying to me? There are no less than 12 references cited.
baldeagle wrote:
And please don't give me the tired old excuse of consider the sources. The chances of an alternative story about global warming being publicized in the mainstream media is so close to zero it is effectively zero. The only way you're going to find opposing views is to search them out.
OK, so the rules are:
1) Look for alternative opinions to the list in the NASA article I provided, which lists sources.
2) I don't get to consider the source of the information, I just have to consider contrary opinions.
I'm generally pretty good at searching for opposing views. A few things sink in with me, outside of the citations of most of the (source considered) scientific community:
1) I'm an engineer, so I understand energy. We've been converting mass into heat for a really long time. It makes sense to me that there might be an impact.
2) I also understand statistics, so regardless of 2014 being the "hottest year" or not, it's statistically meaningless.. (see, I did look at what you provided). Honestly, what you and I notice in our relatively short lives isn't enough evidence of anything.
3) Although I agree the cycles of climate are "normal", that doesn't allow me to rule out the massive impact that we as humans have as part of carving up the earth.
4) We haven't been here that long geologic timeline speaking, so I admit that our impact on the earth is fairly hard to prove with 100% certainty. The question is, would I be willing to change my behavior without being 100% factually-infallible certain?
The sources you cited largely point out that NASA and another agency are manipulating temperature data. So, lets accept that as true... How do you account for another 200 reasonably credentialed agencies that have come to the same conclusion without NASA data? You cited people poking holes in NASAs data set and I see legitimate concerns in that data set based on what you posted. But the link I provided was scientific consensus outside of that data set. At random, I looked at MITs papers on the subject.. I can't exactly find a lack of consensus there...
Is it all a grand conspiracy of the federal government? OK, I could buy that. How about a grand conspiracy in most well respected institutes of higher education? That one is a bit harder for me to buy.
Thinking about it other way, I consider the following:
Say you're right. Climate change is all fallacy and the "science" behind it is a grand conspiracy of epic proportions. Or, well, maybe it's less drastic than that and the scientists that study it are just wrong:
If we do nothing and continue on our ways, we're no worse for wear.
If we do something to reduce our environmental impact, we're also no worse for wear.
Say that you're wrong. And humans are contributing to climate change at a rate that will have substantial (negative) consequences:
If we do nothing and continue on our ways, we're messing up the earth for everyone else. Perhaps irreversibly.
If we do something and reduce our environmental impact, we just make sure that the planet works well for everyone for a much longer period of time.
Assuming you're not 100% sure... And honestly, I'm not 100% sure as it's not factually proven (yet), which choice would you pick?
