This is an actual greyed out comment at this article which I think contains all the climate contrarian talking points in one 2000 word screed.
Collex, when you asked "Why does people disagreeing with you bother you so much"? Imagine that this rant was about your peers. Now imagine that this style of rant is being posted online dozens of times an hour, every hour on the clock, for the past decade or so. Please explain whether you would, or would not, be bothered by this form of "disagreement".
I love how people instantly jam on this stuff and call anyone who simply
states: "Ok, I've seen your models today, I've also watched other
similar ones get "adjusted" almost annually for the last decade or
three, and I've even seen data and models that completely contradict
Yours. Show me how You got there today, how you extrapolated your
conclusions from that data, and how it proves anything more than the
fact that Climate CHANGES... and Always has, always will. Convince me.
And..: Go!", ....a "Denier".
"Begone..Denier!!!", they cry. (Oooh! The new dirty "I'm better than you" word of choice on today's internet!)
Geez guys, we're not denying the Holocaust here, or claiming that Santa is real: we're just logically questioning a lot of "obvious" science - that's not necessarily so obvious (or even objective science in many cases) - and the various non-scientific pressures that created and fuel this particular train. In short, we're asking questions. That shouldn't be a crime, and was once even a virtue in Science and in a rational society.
First, for every post like the above, there is a counterpoint instance of IPCC "adjusting" their findings, "correcting" their models, (have you seen their pre-release report that was leaked last year prior to the final Release?), discounting the findings of anyone that doesn't agree with them in the scientific community, and basically seeming kinda shady and bullying all around.
Add the stigma, very real attacks, and career repercussions for any Researcher or Individual committing the modern day Heresy of publicly challenging the new Holy Word. (Anyone remember a guy who once said "Hey, it's round, and nope, it isn't the center of the universe" - and got the big arm-twist from Rome?).
Mix with a "doom sells", soundbite-driven Media Machine that makes much of one side of the Conversation, ..while remaining strangely silent about any opposing positive findings.
Sprinkle and bake with personal agendas of both the Political and "I need a grant for my 'Study on X Beetles'...er ..better make that 'How Climate Change affects X Beetles' to secure funding" varieties.
...If any logical person isn't purposely denying and ignoring all of the above factors, they SHOULD probably have a few questions, (or at least raise a skeptical eyebrow), by this point.. because things are obviously skewed here - whether the "popular" cool-kid science is correct or not.
Here are some other factors to consider which could make one conclude: "There's more going on here than what you see on the News and the Blogs":
*** For over 2 decades there has been a steadily-growing "see how Green I am" agenda that's been espoused by many Public figures for no better reason than to further their own political ends. It became "cool" and politically-expedient to be on the eco-train, and this one subject of man-made global warming somehow took over the entire platform.
[Oh, and for all the "eco-warriors" out there: one of the bloody Founders of GREENPEACE itself has publicly stated that he left the org in disgust over how THIS issue had hijacked the works - and furthermore, that many of the elements responsible flooded in after the Cold War ended, simply looking for a replacement "Cause" that had potential for political traction and could thereby command vast
contribution and lobbyist dollars.]
*** A disturbing number of the same Political figures that push publicly for such "solutions" as Carbon Tax Credits on the West and Exceptions for the so-called "underdeveloped countries" (which include China and India, crazily and insultingly enough) have been (and are being) exposed as the very individuals that stand to profit MOST from their heavy personal and business investments in those very same Excepted regions: IN heavily-polluting technologies such as Coal-fired plants, unregulated mining, maufacturing, etc.
*** Discounting the conspiracy theorists and secret society buffs alike, there IS a vast amount of money being made, and to be made from this agenda. It's a real business. If the science was refuted conclusively tomorrow - and it turned out that we AREN't causing significant global warming - do you honestly think that gravy train would stop willingly?
*** Take ALL the CO2 that ALL of Humanity produces in a year. Stack it against the CO2 produced annually by natural and eternally-occurring phenomena such as volcanoes, chemical processes and breakdowns, off-gassing, respiration, etc. It's a drop in the bucket. Hell, a drop in an Ocean.
Factor in water vapor, which is a vastly greater percentage of the atmospheric makeup - and traps a disproportionately larger amount of global heat - than CO2.
Next, think about the SUN. Variable activity, output, solar flares, our proximity to it in a given year(no, we aren't in a perfect, static orbit around the sun. Our orbital path takes us closer or further at certain times of the year, varying slightly from year to year), the varying angle of solar influence (heat) due to the movement of the Earth on its axis, etc. [Oh, and if anyone tells you the Sun Isn"t THE Prime driver of ALL Heat/Warming factors on this planet - like a ridiculous recent paper about how the Sun's effect is "negligible" on global warming factors and change in the climate - please go outside on any given day, anywhere, any season, at dawn or at dusk. 8 light-minutes away, and being JUST on one side or the other of that shadow line makes a pretty palpable and noticeable difference in temperature, no? (That sound you hear would be would be the Obvious calling to reassert Common Sense).] Also consider the fact that weather NEVER HAS or WILL stop changing. Ice ages come and go (and in fact 70's scientists "knew" we were going into an Ice Age), as do warming trends. Many sources say global temps have actually cooled and flattened over the last decade - including the findings of the IPCC, which were referenced in their own report when they called it a "warming pause". Now, WHY is a decade of cooling "insignificant", when the previous decade of warming trend was hailed as SO important? Why is one a "pause" or "anomaly", and the other Time sample called an "obvious indicator". Why do we only hear soundbites about "disappearing polar ice" and never "oh yeah, it froze again - in record thickness for several years running". Why are studies that determine sea levels and ice sheets are actually NOT doing what models predicted 10 years ago never blasted in your face on the nightly news in the same fashion? (No, we aren't underwater yet!)
To put forth an analogy: are we warming this "Ocean" a proverbial drop at a time? Are we actually making a dent with our CO2, of all things? Or is our tiny percentage of input on this ONE vector actually having no measurable effect at on the giant climate machine that is Earth. If not, are there better places that all the money and resources and resolve should go to make real changes for us and our children? If we ARE causing changes in the System, IS CO2 the prime driver? Should we be looking deeper for other factors?
Pollution is real. Our environment, our water...these are in very real danger and being affected in very real ways - TODAY. The population is growing exponentially, and far too many already don't have the food or care they need - TODAY. Perhaps finding immediate answers to these concrete and measurable problems would be a better use of resources than massive carbon tax schemes based on a popular theory - because no matter what you think: it's still just that, a theory.
Simply put, there is a LOT of speculation going on here, and much of the tone and direction of this Scientific discussion is propped up and heavily-influenced by very UN-scientific drivers - many of them, the folding kind. There is much contradiction in both the Results of various research projects and the often-convenient Interpretation of said data to align with less-than-pure motivations. Division in the
scientific community itself still abounds - although due to the aforementioned stigma, fewer and fewer are willing to publish those unpopular opinions in recent years. (Perhaps this might account, at least partially, for the recently-touted decline in outspoken opposition to man-made CC within traditional Peer-Reviewed publications and journals over the last few years, hmm?) Do you really think we're getting the whole picture from an oversimplified nightly News tagline or News site, considering?
Most rational people agree that climate CHANGES, that it is obviously changing year to year, whether warming or cooling overall during this particular decade / century / millenium, etc .. but as to whether WE are making a significant impact, (and if so, is CO2 even the prime vector we should be concerned about)...we're simply not ALL 100% sold yet.
Many of us also agree that, regardless of THIS issue, we SHOULD be better stewards of the planet than we've been. If not for us, then for our descendents: Even if the global temp is fine in 100 yrs, it would kind of suck to have lost untold plants, animals, mutated ourselves, and basically lost much of what we currently love about the planet.
There are a significant number of us that care about the planet, want to do what we can for the better, but simply look at all of the above and want more info. It all seems a bit dodgy. Let's have some balance in the process. In the media. And try to remember that science IS about asking questions and being objective. And that what was popularly accepted at any goven time in history often seemed ludicrous a few short years later.
We aren't all crazies, fanatics, or nutters chasing UFOs and waiting for the Rapture or the mother-ship. We aren't all calling the Martians or wearing tinfoil hats. It gets a bit irritating to see this witch-hunt mentality in the 21st century, especially in a so-called "educated" populace.
So please, can we forgo all the self-aggrandizing finger-pointing and just start getting everyone together to objectively search for some straight answers soon? This is kind of an important issue for the planet and mankind. For the scientific discovery process and the discussion to be allowed to founder when it should just be getting started - all because of the popular story being packaged and sold Today, (largely brought to you by a need to get elected and to line pockets) - is a travesty we CAN't afford.
I, for one, want to be a part of a balanced and effective solution that explores and addresses all root causes. So forgive me for being a skeptic about the CO2 bandwagon for the moment. I'm not denying anything: I just remain unconvinced that we understand the whole picture, or anywhere near it, as yet. I'm following the facts as they emerge on both sides, and making reasonable consideration of all sources and findings - not just those For or Against the status quo man-made CC Gospel. Healthy skepticism SHOULD be a hallmark of an educated society and good science - not a dirty word used to denigrate and ostracize.
And to the many overly smug, self-assured, unquestioning hordes who blindly claim: "I "know" the truth, and I'm safely in the majority so I MUST be right and all others MUST be ridiculed" - 1) Go read a paper on primate behavior regarding group acceptance and blending dynamics - it might give you some insight into your psychology. 2) Start actually digging and actively following the results from all sides of this `conversation. Weigh respective sources, motivations, credibility, and approach. Build a considered, informed, and continually-developing picture of emerging research findings - objectively. Go from there. 3) Think for yourself. Don't just catch the latest sensationalist soundbite and accept the latest viral meme as Truth Eternal.
4) Review ALL that you "know" Today. Now just imagine what you will "know" tomorrow, or in 10 years.
If you read this, thanks. If you agree or don't, thanks for taking the time.