Another Global Warming Study Casts Doubt On Media's Climate Change Fairy Tale
Back to our good friend Global Warming, here is a study claiming to hve addressed some of the issues I have heard members bring up in discussions. And the news is....really not news....But I wouldn't be doing much carbon trading yet...
How does anyone persuade anyone ?
It's good for anyone who wants to get into a policy matter to re-examine their premises. If you have facts to back up the argument you favor, those facts aren't going to change and you've only prepared yourself for a healthy debate. If you don't have facts (and you're willing to acknowledge that), then you have to make the decision on how you're going to get your facts and how you're going to arrive at your resulting conclusion or whether you are just going to jump in and pick a side before thinking about it!
We all want to feel validated in our decision-making: to know we did something right. That's part of being human. But it is also dangerous. If you allow the conversation to revolve around how others think about your decision, the real morality becomes irrelevant. That should be the first thing debunked in that sort of conversation.
I use the "Huckleberry Finn" method: showing people how amazing, fun and satisfying it is to watch these daily reports, video of events around the world and to try and grasp what is actually is happening in the solar system.
Eventually, it'll dawn on them.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/2...
The sign that this issue has become a secular religion is the fact that there is a willingness to falsify or cherry pick the data to fit the dogma. Watching testimony before Congress by climate change proponents was amazing. When confronted by a knowledgeable representative about the fact the satellite data was not supporting the model predictions, the advocate simply said, "Well, then the satellite data is wrong." The representative followed this up by asking "How about the ocean buoy data?" The advocate then said "We believe that's wrong as well." The representative didn't let up, saying "I notice your data shows preference for urban heat islands, rejecting rural temperature data. Why is that?" Without blinking, the advocate said "The urban stations are better maintained."
The statement often heard that "97% of all climate scientists attribute climate change to human causation" is itself based on very questionable data. First, the numbers were based on a poll of about 10,000 scientists who studied some aspect of climate. Pretty impressive number, right? However, there are a few problems with that poll. I give the pollsters a partial credit when they weeded out all but the 1,200 or so who wrote papers that were peer reviewed and addressed climate change. Then they had to recognize that only about 290 of those even considered possible causes of climate change, so they sent the poll to those 290. Only 79 of those to whom the poll was sent took the time to respond, and 76 agreed that climate change was almost entirely due to human activity. That was about 96.2%, which they rounded up to 97%. So the reality of the study is that it is based on an insignificant percentage of the world's climate scientists, discrediting it entirely (contrast with the over 34,000 scientists who signed a document refuting the idea that humans cause climate change in any significant amount).
If you've ever tried to raise questions about a fervent follower's religious scripture, you begin to realize the futility of arguing with climate change faithful. Most of them have no science training, so they rely on those proponents who have such education and/or experience, just like Catholics who depend on their priests to tell them what is right or wrong.