6 reasons that climate-change skeptics are correct in their thinking

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by Robert in Roanoke, Jul 26, 2017.

  1. Robert in Roanoke

    Robert in Roanoke Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    1
    0
    0
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    For nearly 30 years, some scientists and many liberal activists have been alleging that the world is on the verge of collapse because of humans’ use of fossil fuels, which they say have been causing global warming.

    For example, the San Jose Mercury News (Calif.) reported on June 30, 1989: “A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human [control.]”

    1. Climate alarmists’ temperature-predicting track record is abysmal.
    Most people don’t know anything about climate science, and with all that’s going on in the world, who can blame them? Instead of studying the issue for themselves, people rely on the media and the scientists the media has promoted to provide them with scientific conclusions. In other words, to the extent the public believes in the theory humans are responsible for global warming, it’s because they trust the scientists and media outlets they hear from most often on this issue, but should they? Based on climate-alarmist scientists’ track record, the answer is clearly “no.”


    Over the past three decades, many climate scientists have repeatedly made a number of significant and alarming predictions about global warming, and the vast majority of the time, they’ve been wrong—really, really wrong. As Roy Spencer—who earned his Ph.D. in meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981 and previously served as the senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center—wrote in 2014, greater than 95 percent of the climate models through 2013 “over-forecast the warming trend since 1979.”


    2. Climate alarmists’ predictions about extreme weather and other crises have also failed.
    It’s common for climate alarmists to argue that global warming has caused and will continue to cause a significant increase in extreme weather events, including hurricanes, and that sea levels will eventually rise to the point that massive cities will someday be flooded and uninhabitable, but the available data say otherwise.

    H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., a research fellow specializing in environment and climate issues for The Heartland Institute, where I work as executive editor, wrote in January for Red State, “For instance, climate models predicted more intense hurricanes, but for nearly a decade, the United States has experienced far fewer hurricanes making landfall than the historic average, and those hurricanes that have made landfall have been no more powerful than previously experienced.”

    “Additionally,” Burnett continued, “while scientists have claimed anthropogenic warming should cause sea levels to rise at increasing rates—because of melting ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica and the thermal expansion of water molecules under warmer conditions—sea-level rise has slowed. Sea levels have always risen between ice ages or during interglacial periods. Indeed, sea levels have risen more than 400 feet since the end of the last interglacial period. However, the rate of sea-level rise since 1961 (approximately one-eighth of an inch per year) is far lower than the historic average (since the end of the previous ice age), and sea-level rise has not increased appreciably over the past century compared to previous centuries.”

    3. There are many unexplainable problems with the theory rising carbon-dioxide levels have caused global temperature to increase.
    One of the most common misconceptions in the climate-change debate is that skeptics reject the claim global temperatures have risen in recent decades. Virtually everyone agrees temperatures have increased, the primary issue is the reason or reasons for those increases. Climate-change alarmists say humans are to blame, and skeptics believe, to varying degrees, humans’ responsibility is relatively minimal or nonexistent. One of the reasons, but not the only reason, many skeptics have rejected the assertion carbon-dioxide and temperature are linked is that there have been periods during the past two centuries in which global temperature has dropped or paused.

    For instance, from the 1940s to the 1970s, Earth experienced a global cooling period, even while carbon-dioxide levels continuously rose. In the early 21st century, global temperature “paused” for 18 years, again during a period in which carbon-dioxide levels increased.

    4. It’s not clear the most widely used climate data are accurate.
    For many years, climate skeptics, concerned by numerous leaked documents showing climate data had been unscientifically altered to make it appear as though warming had been more significant than it actually was, have argued many of the climate datasets advanced by prominent organizations, including NASA, are not accurate. A new peer-reviewed study by prominent researchers James P. Wallace III, Joseph S. D’Aleo and Craig Idso seems to support that belief.

    In their study, titled “On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data and the Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding,” the researchers “sought to validate the current estimates of GAST [global average surface temperature] using the best available relevant data,” the authors wrote. “This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts.”

    They concluded—by comparing trusted raw climate data with the widely used altered datasets, which have been adjusted to account for numerous problems, such as contamination from heat in urban areas—the datasets used by NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Met Office in the United Kingdom “are not a valid representation of reality.”

    “In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data,” the researchers wrote. “Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever — despite current claims of record setting warming.”

    5. Even if humans are creating a slightly warmer climate, it’s not necessarily a bad thing.
    The underlying assumption that virtually all climate alarmists operate under is that the warming Earth is experiencing now is harmful, destructive and dangerous, but there is much evidence to suggest that moderate warming benefits most plants, animals and humans. We know, for instance, that plants grow significantly better with higher carbon-dioxide concentrations, which is why many greenhouses pump additional CO2 into their buildings.

    It’s also been confirmed by multiple studies that greening has increased in recent decades — and likely because of higher carbon-dioxide concentrations. According to a study by Martin Brandt et al., published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution in May, 36 percent of the continent of Africa became greener over the 20-year period from 1992 to 2011, while only 11 percent became “less green.” Interestingly, the researchers found the increased greening was likely “driven” by higher carbon-dioxide levels and precipitation, and the decreased greening was largely a result of humans cutting down vegetation.

    A greener planet means there is more food for humans and animals to consume, but a cooler global climate has historically been associated with significant food shortages and, in extreme cases, starvation. An article in the influential journal The Lancet,published in 2015, examined health data from 13 countries, accounting for more than 74 million deaths. The authors concluded cold weather, directly or indirectly, kills 1,700 percent more people than hot weather.


    6. There’s no reason to believe humans won’t develop cheap energy alternatives during the next century.
    Let’s assume the climate is warming because of human action and will eventually become problematic. The most serious problems are still a century or more away, even under some of the most dire, scientifically unsupported models. That means the world has at least a half-century to come up with alternate energy sources and determine once and for all whether fossil-fuels are truly causing the problem.

    A century ago, civilized nations were still fighting each other on horseback and traveling using steam engines. Fifty years ago, cellphones were the stuff of science fiction. Thirty years ago, the average American household didn’t have a computer. Today, people fly across the world in a few hours on planes equipped with Wi-Fi, allowing them to access a nearly endless supply of news, information, and entertainment using pocket-sized super computers. Does anyone really think energy won’t change over the next century as well?

    Being a climate-change skeptic doesn’t mean you deny Earth’s climate has warmed or scientific findings. It simply means that you let facts, not speculation and fear-mongering, guide how you view the debate. If that sounds reasonable, then you’re probably a climate-change skeptic too.

    Justin Haskins is executive editor and a research fellow at The Heartland Institute.
     
  2. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web i3 and Prime

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    22,774
    12,683
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL with 2014 BMW i3-REx
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Welcome to the environmental forum, first post, apparently quoting Justin Haskins. As a recommended practice, you might include the source URL.

    I'm more interested in your background:
    • education
    • occupation
    • details about your 2010 Prius II
    BTW, I'm a fan of polar ice studies.

    Bob Wilson

    ps. I've often driven through Montvale, VA.
     
    #2 bwilson4web, Jul 26, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2017
  3. fuzzy1

    fuzzy1 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    12,773
    6,308
    90
    Location:
    Western Washington
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius
    Model:
    Three
    We already have some success at that. Which is one of the factors in the decline of the coal industry.

    My house has been upgraded to Net Zero Energy Use. Part of the change was from improved efficiency, cutting energy consumption in half compared to a decade ago. This was achieved through more efficient appliances (mostly by converting electric space and water heating to heat pumps), upgraded building envelope (mostly reduced air infiltration and upgrade of inadequate ceiling insulation), and improved home operation (e.g. increased intake of winter solar heat, and increased rejection of summer heat.).

    The other half is from home energy production, from rooftop solar. A self-designed, self-installed starter system went live in spring 2013. An expansion to produce all my home power went live on June 1, 2015. I no longer pay for any home energy.

    (Because my production doesn't happen at the same time I use the energy, I am still tied to the electric grid, and must pay an account/connection charge. That is currently covered by production incentives, which are temporary.)
     
  4. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web i3 and Prime

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    22,774
    12,683
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL with 2014 BMW i3-REx
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    I hate double negatives and suspect this was just quoted from another source:
    In addition to PriusChat, another excellent source is the US Energy Information Administration: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

    For example: https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_4.pdf
    [​IMG]


    I wish but it looks like fracking production of natural gas and oil had a larger impact. Renewables continue to increase in an area of rapidly advancing technology. Better, they have not ramped up as fast as fracking.
    Could we get some technical details?

    From time to time, I have looked at eBay solar cell technologies. Apparently there are three flavors that tradeoff efficiency vs cost. Which one(s) are you using and typical $/W (or however they are rated?) Living in 'hail' country, what provisions are there to protect the array from damage, not just hail but biologicals and dust?

    My understanding is to avoid the impacts of partial shade, solar panels are configured with a network of inverters versus a single large one. But the theory does not necessarily describe a working system. What approach are you using?

    Could you describe your battery storage system(s)? I am a great fan of redundancy because it means parts can be taken 'offline' for maintenance or repair without losing all capacity.

    At one time there were companies that would 'lease' the solar setup but I never really trusted them. Too often they looked like marginal power savings for a monthly fee greater than my current electric bill. Worse, a little too dodgy for my taste. Are you dealing with a national company or something just local?

    Were you able to add a water cooling loop for the cells to preheat feed water to the hot water subsystem? I don't know if you're in an area that has freezing weather but we do in Huntsville.

    Thanks,
    Bob Wilson
     
  5. bisco

    bisco cookie crumbler

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    83,701
    36,619
    0
    Location:
    boston
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    climate concerns are one reason we've developed as much clean energy as we have.
     
    mmmodem likes this.
  6. RCO

    RCO Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2016
    3,708
    5,153
    0
    Location:
    Cornwall
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Ah, not business incentives and profit then? :rolleyes:
     
    bisco likes this.
  7. bisco

    bisco cookie crumbler

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    83,701
    36,619
    0
    Location:
    boston
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    they are a result of climate concern.
     
    RCO likes this.
  8. fuzzy1

    fuzzy1 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    12,773
    6,308
    90
    Location:
    Western Washington
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius
    Model:
    Three
    I have a 7 kW DC-rated / 6 kW AC-rated PV system, made up 26 pairs of SolarWorld monocrystalline modules and Enphase microinverters. It was installed in three phases (6, 10, 10 units) over 2013-2015, for a total cost of $17,000. (i.e. total cost about $2.40 per peak watt.) Self designed, self installed. The first phase was coordinated with professional reroofing, though the higher cost of the standing seam steel roof, chosen for longevity and PV installation (for both mounting ease and lack of roof penetrations) is not included in that above cost.

    My site has significant tree interference from six neighboring properties, so microinverters were selected over string arrays. East and west tree banks clip morning and evening sun year-round, while individual trees to the south sweep shadows across the system for up to six months. One of those trees has since been culled.

    Production incentives would have been much higher had I acquired Made-in-Washington equipment. However, the WA panels were commanding a serious premium when I started, enough to consume nearly the entire incentive boost, and were not readily available to Do-It-Yourselfers. So I ended up with Made-In-Oregon panels. The WA inverters were rumored to still have reliability problems. That fear was partially validated by later information showing the Enphase products giving a far lower failure rate.

    From 1989 until serious home energy conservation (i.e. more than just swapping incandescent lights to CFL) started in 2006, my all-electric house burned an average of 10,600 kWh/year. In the first two years since reaching Net Zero (June 2015-May 2017), it has burned an average of 5250 kWh/year, while producing 6100 kWh/year. I.e. I have produced all my home's energy, plus put a small surplus back into the grid. My net billing meter had rolled backwards 1700 kWh over those two years.

    No on-site storage at this time. While nice to have, that is an additional cost / design / regulatory / permitting hurdle that I am not ready to address.

    My system is strictly grid-tied. It won't even operate when the grid is down. Hybrid equipment that operates both ways does now exist for string arrays, but at higher cost.

    My local climate is not friendly to off-grid systems, as heavy overcast causes abysmal winter production. But the local grid is powered 90% by major hydroelectric sources. My seasonal solar production complements that seasonal hydroelectric supply fairly well. My poor solar season corresponds to good hydro water flow. Then my high solar production season comes as the river flows decline, so my solar system effectively takes two house, mine and someone else's, off the demand for that diminishing water flow.

    (Whatever hydro I free up now gets shipped to California. But somewhere, somebody gets a bit more carbon-free energy.)

    I didn't trust them either, their deals looked much more attractive for them than for me. For various state regulatory reasons, they also never established much foothold in my state.

    These lease programs also appeared to be an easy payment plan targeting customers who lacked resources to buy a system outright. I had the capital to pay for a system upfront, so had no reason to add these middleman costs and dilute the benefits.

    The current hot real estate market also reveals that leased systems are a negative factor on the resale market. Wholly owned system with no contract entanglements are far more attractive to home buyers.
    I had been looking at evacuated tube arrays for solar domestic hot water since the start of this century. But my house was not well configured for it (long pipe run from south side collectors to north side storage location, precluding the easiest freeze protection), costs were high ($9k estimate, and local weather precludes getting 100% of year-round need), and I am an electrical guy, not a plumbing guy. When later figuring out that a heat pump water heater plus solar PV could supply all my hot water year-round at lower cost, the solar thermal collection idea died for good.

    Solar thermal water will work better in other climate zones.

    I don't remember seeing any integrated PV + thermal water systems on the consumer market.
     
    #8 fuzzy1, Jul 27, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2017
  9. bisco

    bisco cookie crumbler

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    83,701
    36,619
    0
    Location:
    boston
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    is the 'heartland institute' funded by the coke brothers?

    good article in forbes, does a decent job debunking all 6 of the o/p's points. not that many in the 'heartland' care.
     
    #9 bisco, Jul 27, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2017
    RCO likes this.
  10. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web i3 and Prime

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    22,774
    12,683
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL with 2014 BMW i3-REx
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus

    Would you have a link or the title and author?

    Bob Wilson
     
  11. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2016
    2,036
    996
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius c
    Model:
    Four
    First post here and he manages to sniff out the "off topic" sub-forum and post his propaganda denying Global Climate change.

    I propose that he has no place here.......unless and until he demonstrates that he will participate in the main forum purpose........and not just spout biased controversial flame bait.
     
  12. bisco

    bisco cookie crumbler

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    83,701
    36,619
    0
    Location:
    boston
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    july 26, 2017: heartland's '6 reasons to be climate-change sceptic' are six demonstrably falsehoods'.

    contributor: ethan siegel.

    google 'heartland institute' it's pretty eye opening. koch is just the tip of the iceberg.
     
  13. fuzzy1

    fuzzy1 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    12,773
    6,308
    90
    Location:
    Western Washington
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius
    Model:
    Three
    bisco likes this.
  14. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web i3 and Prime

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    22,774
    12,683
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL with 2014 BMW i3-REx
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Hey, @Robert in Roanoke , this is worth reading: Heartland's '6 Reasons To Be A Climate-Change Skeptic' Are Six Demonstrable Falsehoods

    I'm not going to cut-and-paste the article except within what is called 'fair use' but it pretty well demolished your original cut-and-paste job. Still, here is some new information:

    . . .
    At a time where science is critical to the future of humanity, it's important that we all agree on the facts. We may disagree on policy, on the best course of action for society or the world, or on which concern is most paramount in terms of importance. But we have to agree on the same facts as a starting point. If the only way you can make your argument for your desired policy position is to tell lies or distort what we actually know, then no amount of reasoning will change your mind. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. The only reason to write about validating climate skepticism is to reinforce pre-existing beliefs. That's not science, nor is it science communication. We have to do better. We are the world, and we have to demand accurate information.


    The author has reached out to Justin Haskins, Executive Editor of the Heartland Institute, over phone and email with questions about his article. He has responded, but requested not to be taken out-of-context, so the entirety of his responses will be printed in a future article.
    Bob Wilson
     
    RCO likes this.
  15. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    7,140
    2,490
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    Recycling is generally a good thing. But is it sensible to go other these same matters again and again? I see the point of course. Repetition as best available plan where demonstration fails.

    I'd be perfectly pleased for new posters (as well as old) to look through earlier discussions here.

    Siegel's latest is grayed out for me because I would not turn off ad blocker. But he likely went through these 6 at a level appropriate for non-technical readers. I'm not quite on board with one phrase quoted above:

    "But we have to agree on the same facts as a starting point." Things arise from concordance of evidence; ideally from more than one type of investigation. To continue, "lies" might be better stated as selective disregard of a concordance of evidence. Yes perhaps I am splitting hairs. I should like to give 'alternative views' every opportunity to make their case.

    Facts vs. lies
    Believer vs. denier

    polarities just don't rise to the occasion. This is important stuff.
     
  16. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web i3 and Prime

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    22,774
    12,683
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL with 2014 BMW i3-REx
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    I agree that 'lies' is a bit harsh but we've seen that rhetoric used by the 'honorable competition' in the past. The reason for at least one of my 'ignore user' entries is their low threshold for such terms combined with their inability to discuss technical issues.

    To quote Bill Clinton,
    [​IMG]

    Source: The Pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the Rivalry that Defined a Generation - Steven M. Gillon - Google Books

    If we are discussing a technical issue, 'lying' and 'ad hominem' attacks have no place. But when dealing with someone who: (1) uses such assertions, and; (2) shows no understanding of physics, chemistry, and math. Sorry, my Marine skills come into play.

    Bob Wilson
     
  17. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    7,140
    2,490
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    Sadly I am convinced that such churning is exactly what Heartland et al. hope for. Beyond those they may convince with lightheadedness, others are arguing about arguing about it.
     
  18. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web i3 and Prime

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    22,774
    12,683
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL with 2014 BMW i3-REx
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    I have to meditate on this.

    Bob Wilson
     
  19. bisco

    bisco cookie crumbler

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    83,701
    36,619
    0
    Location:
    boston
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    probably just an alias for the mojo.
     
  20. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    7,140
    2,490
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    I doubt that bisco. Robert in Roanoke deserves to be and speak here just as much as we. I have no reason to doubt there is more to him than a Heartland link. Let's just wait and hear.
     
    bwilson4web likes this.
Loading...