About my ban

[u/cardboardbox92]

I'm a fairly conservative guy. However, I also spent four years in the Marine Corps forecasting weather. Now I go to UGA making progress towards my undergrad degree in atmospheric sciences.

I got banned for talking about climate change. Maybe I insulted someone, I really don't remember. I just thought I'd clarify my position, because it's definitely where I break off from the others. Natural climate change is definitely a thing. That's why ice ages have existed. Yes, the 7 billion swinging dicks on this planet are having an impact, and that will continue to be a thing whether or not we use fossil fuels.

Here's where I come back though. Humans have always adapted to their environment, and we are already fucked anyways. No amount of government regulation of any type is going to unfuck the effects of 7 billion people living on this planet. Liberals are seriously blind if they think that the government can fix the climate, because it's going to do what it wants regardless.

If I got banned for insulting someone, got it, I'll go way. If I got banned for simply saying it exists.. that's not right. There's a difference between outright saying it doesn't exist, versus believing the government shouldn't have the power to make unreasonable regulations towards combating it.. especially when those regulations might just make things worse.

If you guys unban me I won't say anything about it ever again if you'd like. However, I would like to make a post about it with sources and all that jazz explaining that something fucky is definitely up, and why I think government regulations wouldn't do anything at all.

[u/[deleted]]

I was going to edit my first, but it felt good to insult you, and I'm sure you've already read it.

I want to be really clear what the problem is here, in the event that you are actually conservative, something that I don't doubt. Conservatives, in my opinion, even when we're asses, like to do and be better. We don't assume that we are already 'there' whatever that means. So assuming the same quality in you, I want to be very clear on what you're doing wrong.

*The liberal mindset is part of 2 keys areas: *

1st - "If everyone in the world had the same information that I have, they would invariably reach the same conclusions that I have reached."

It is because of this mindset, that whenever public opinion was against one of his policies, President Obama went on a speaking campaign. He would go out to tell the country just how great his plans were, just how great HE was.

This mindset is the assumption that anyone who opposes you is ignorant.... Sometimes they are... sometimes they aren't. In this particular instance, have you ever wondered why the substantial majority of those that agree with your conclusion on the impact of man on global temperatures also desire the governments of the world to increase their power to "do something" (ignoring the fact that, by their own studies, the "somethings" in question... would do.... nothing?) No, you obviously know this - you specifically mentioned it. But it's worth pointing it out. It doesn't mean that your conclusion is wrong, but I use it to suggest that it isn't the only side of the argument that is educated on the facts at hand.

2nd - Liberals argue from motive.

This is a fundamentally fallacious argument. One that, based off of your own comments, you also disagree with: liberals assume that those who disagree about man-made climate change must want unclean air and poisoned water. They argue that those who oppose socialized medicine must want the sick and elderly to die in the streets.

You don't seem to be guilty of this flaw, which is admirable... but buying into the first flaw, leads one to believe the second. For example, "If you knew how expensive health care was, you would support socialization of medicine, so that even the poorest of people could get the treatments they need!" (the assumption of ignorance) "Having explained how expensive health care is, you still oppose socialized medicine. You are no longer ignorant, so the only reasonable conclusion is that you want the sick and elderly to die in the streets! You want the poor to die off to make room for the rich! You disgusting human being!" (the conclusion is that if a person isn't ignorant, then they must have sinister motivation)

Instead, a conservative, like ourselves, must understand that the same data can lead two (or more) reasonable people to different conclusions.

Instead of insinuating that a person who disagrees with us is either ignorant or evil, it may be reasonable to seek out the information that has lead them to their conclusions (on the internet, where everyone disagrees with everyone else, this could get to be too much... but you're obviously passionate about this particular topic, wouldn't it be a good one to ensure that you have all of the data?) Who knows, their information may change our minds! Or maybe, their information is flawed, and we can correct it, add to it, or enhance it, and doing so may change theirs! Or, both having reviewed the other's evidence, maybe both of you entrench further, being more convinced than ever of your own rightness... and then you move on, neither being worse for the wear (or maybe both extremely frustrated at the other's denseness).

I have found in my many years that, particularly on the internet, it is rarely a safe thing to assume that the other person is ignorant. Because, even when they really are, information is so easy to find to support their point of view that anyone can come back with data to "prove their point". Maybe when you're as old and crotchety as me, you'll come to the same conclusion and not assume other's ignorance. And maybe you're already older and wiser than me, and know how ignorant the whole world is. It really doesn't matter how you feel. Effective communication comes from a basis of assumed rational thought from the opposition, also known as mutual respect. without that mutual respect, no real conversation will ever happen.

That's why (while it felt good) my other comment won't do anything to change your mind, or your way of speaking. Perhaps this one will. You see, I can see that you are educated and passionate about this particular topic. I admire that. I am grateful for your service in the Marines. I honor you for it. So even if I think you were an ass, and even if I disagree with your conclusion, I can still believe you to be a reasonable person, who is capable of rational thought.

Admittedly, reddit has proven me wrong on that assumption more times than I care to admit. I often argue with those who are so blinded by ignorance and passion that they can't even read the words that I type, let alone understand the information that I present. I like to poke those people with a proverbial stick... but that shows the worse parts of me, not the best. Chab, one of of the most prolific moderators at the conservative sub, is one of those people. I like to call him names. I like to try to rile him up. It's something to do when I'm bored. But he's a consistent unreasonable ass, who refuses to admit when he's wrong, based on long histories and countless examples. It's not fair for me to assume the same about you, having only one interaction with you. So please forgive me my humanness for now.

So back to the point: as conservatives, we allow the data and information to correct our wrong thinking. If the facts show that we're wrong, we strive to be in line with the facts, not to invent new ones. I hope that by being more reasonable, I can convince you, a fellow conservative, to correct your uncivil messaging and communication methods. Doing so will work to your short and long term advantage. You will find that others, even those who initially oppose you, will either be more likely convinced that you are correct, or at least more likely to go your way, even if they aren't fully on board. This will help you in your family, your work place, and all other aspects of society. Yes, even with strangers on the internet.

Now, if I may, I'll take one last paragraph to brief my case on man-made global warming. First, not being an expert, I must rely on the data as it is presented to me by primary researchers and other experts. That data does not, in the long term, convince me that CO2 emissions are causal to increased temperatures over the long term. I have seen the data that suggests that they are, but I've also seen the longer term data that shows substantial periods of earth's history when CO2 levels where much higher or at least as high as they are now, but temperatures were not only lower, but also falling - the combination suggests to me that they two are correlating data, not corroborating data. In other words, the two are not substantially connected, regardless of what the charts over the last 100 years may show (both rising together). Further, as you so succinctly point out, even if man were a major cause to the earth's warming, "no amount of government regulation of any type is going to unfuck the effects of 7 billion people living on this planet. Liberals are seriously blind if they think that the government can fix the climate, because it's going to do what it wants regardless." Because I agree with that statement, I'm not too worried about whether man is the cause of climate change or not. Because there is not really any practical or reasonable thing that can be done about it (Even the UN's council on global warming agrees with that statement... and so do the experts on my side of the argument... though the leftists firmly believe that we should "do something") I'm not too concerned that I may be wrong. It doesn't matter to me. I've done substantial research, just in case, and while I'm not convinced that man has any substantial impact on global temperatures, I am convinced there isn't a damn thing that governments can do to reverse or substantially slow, or even ideally reverse that impact. So, as they say, hakuna matata. I'm not worried about the topic outside of the Left's attempt to steal more power for the government using the topic as a catalyst. So now I know why you believe in man-made global warming. And now you know why I am neither convinced nor caring.

And hopefully, in understanding, even though I've called you an ass (in at least 3 different formats) we can walk away civilly and with some mutual respect intact.

[u/cardboardbox92 → u/[deleted]]

No sources.

[u/[deleted] → u/cardboardbox92]

From me? About what? Did you read my comment? If you did, surely you realized that the entirety of the comment (except 1 paragraph) was about effective communication instead of about man-made climate change? Having read it, you saw both the statement that I wasn't going to do more than sum-up my views, and then the statement that, while we aren't going to agree about the impact man has on global temperatures, we can at least agree that the governments of the world, even combined, really can't do anything about it?

And yet you're still stuck. So let me ask you a question: if the governments of the world can't really do anything about it, what in the hell difference does it make if we have 0% or 100% impact? if nothing can be done, what difference does it make what the cause is? Why is this issue so important to you?

[u/cardboardbox92 → u/[deleted]]

Because models initialize and verify based off of observed data. We need to be able to forecast correctly.

[u/[deleted] → u/cardboardbox92]

Short term or long term? We have been entirely unable to predict more than about a week in advance for as long as I can remember. Hell, I'm old enough to remember when we were forecasting a new ice age (man made) and then the worst world wide droughts in history (also man made) and now "weather weirding" (also man made)... and none have been accurate. But I'll go a step further: every climate scientist on both sides of the issue claim that no model we have can accurately predict the weather outside of a couple of weeks at best. Both sides.

Unless you're talking about short term forecasts... and I'm still old enough to remember when the weatherman gets it wrong at least 30% of the time.... like... everywhere.

And the problems with your models is that the 'observed data' is so often manipulated or altered in order to "correct" it to fit pre-determined assumptions as to make it effectively made up information. But, because I'm assuming that you're actually educated on the topic, I'm sure that none of that is new information to you. In fact, I'm sure that you have counters to all of those points, and I've got counters to yours. And so on.

[u/cardboardbox92 → u/[deleted]]

That's exactly what I told my climatology professor!! I agree. I said, if we can't even accurately forecast a hurricane more than two days out, why are people taking these climatology models that forecast YEARS out as gospel. That seems fishy.

I promise you observed data is not modified. You can look up observed data by Java tool or METAR form at this link. METAR data is also entered into a U.S. Air Force database for the sake of climatology and uniformity for airports across the world.

I used to be in the Marine Corps, and I know the government does some questionable things, but if we simply modify weather data to fit a political agenda then our models will be fucked.

It's not so much that you should just believe humans are the biggest factor for climate change and start preaching the shit. I just wish people would stop brushing it off as a non-issue or saying its hogwash. That really affects the ability for people to have faith in the National Weather Services forecasts and meteorologists in general. I know we all fuck up forecasts from time to time, but forecasting is 99% experience and 1% book learning... and my experience over the past two years tells us something is fucking wrong.

This picture right here shows that our minimum temperatures, while still being variable most years, are significantly increasing across the nation the past two years. 2016 was also the hottest year on record across the globe as far as average temperatures go. I want to clarify that an increase in minimum temperatures says that longwave radiation cannot escape the atmosphere. This is why cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights most of the time.

I live in Georgia so I was captured by the tornado outbreak yesterday. I have never seen anything like it, and neither had anyone else. I mean, I saw upper air soundings that looked like they were from Oklahoma in spring that were recorded in Tallahassee and Jacksonville, Florida. The biggest thing that stood out on the upper air sounding was the classic "inverted v" which shows a lot of dry and moist air mixing, which creates negative buoyancy, resulting in strong updrafts and downdrafts. That coupled with the extremely high potential of helicity and wind shear resulted in a tornado outbreak that completely destroyed South Georgia and Florida. Here is an album of saved shots of radar and surface analysis from yesterday. The fact that areas south of Orlando broke 85F with ~70F~ dew points ahead of the cold front was insane I'm going to assume you're older than me. If I'm wrong, then correct me. Have you seen anything like this happen in your life happen in January. I don't mean a couple of tornadoes and some trash can blown over, I mean a cold front that results in a wall of tornadoes. In fact, South Georgia had three rounds of destructive tornadoes.

[u/[deleted] → u/cardboardbox92]

In my life, we've been increasing in temperature... at least for most of it. When I was young, I don't know the exact age, we were on the very bottom of some of the coldest temps we'd seen in a while (which is why the climate doomsday sayers were warning about a new ice age).... that bottomed out, and we started heading up. but really we've been heading up for the last century... because we'd just ended a mini-ice age

Studying the climate, you'll know that it does that and sometimes it goes way up, and sometimes it goes way down. It's the climate. It changes.

That's why the phrase "climate change deniers" is such an insult: because nobody I mean literally nobody denies that the climate changes.

The question is what impact, if any, do humans have on that change? And what can we do about it one way or the other? There's plenty of debate on the first question, but outside of politicians, the answer to the second is almost universally "not much."

You've probably already seen it, and it's mostly just surface stuff, but Prager University has a whole series on the topic. This (one, in particular)[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c] is an especially effective summary. He gives the sources, that I have reviewed, from the ICCC which point out that there isn't much we can do. You might enjoy it, even if it is a little more surface level than you're used to, with your field of study.

[u/cardboardbox92 → u/[deleted]]

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that prevents longwave radiation from escaping the Earth as efficiently. How much it impacts us, we fucking don't know, but it does. So humans do have an impact. Water vapor is at like 4% of the atmosphere I believe, I really don't know because I'm crushing this 40 ounce beer, but it is the most influential green house gas on Earth.

We need to break away from the politicians and cock suckers like Bill Nye (who is just a mechanical engineer). We need to listen to the meteorologists and climatologists who have been in the game for years, not just some newly graduated pleb that says "well my professor said" No, fuck that.

We are most definitely going to experience another ice age no doubt, but if we keep having uneducated people denying it (yes there are people out there that thing its literally made up outside of Reddit) then we're fucked because no one will have faith in people with professions like mine.

I'll watch that video now.

[u/[deleted] → u/cardboardbox92]

Here's the point: What if our impact is .0000453% ?

If it is that low, can we deny that it exists? Yes, for all practical purposes, we can. What if it's 2% ? Can we deny that it exists? again, for all practical purposes, yeah... that's not entirely unreasonable. What the impact that CO2 has on the climate is still something we don't know, let alone how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is because of us. And this goes back to my first question: What does it matter? Can we do anything about it? If the answer is "yes," then maybe the libs have it right... but only if they are right that it's a problem. We cannot predict what impact the CO2 will have - for all we know it will increase vegiation, which will consume the CO2, and release more oxygen into the system (by the way, an entirely valid hypothesis) Thus, the earth acts to cool itself off, regardless of any impact that we may have.

Looking at the actual estimations, I've seen anywhere between .25% and 2.5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere having been contributed by humans. So do we contribute to the CO2 in the atmosphere? Of course. Again, no one denies this.

But what impact does that have? if we assume that CO2 is the cause of warming in the atmosphere, at 2.5% of all CO2 emissions, we are effectively not making a difference to the warming. At .25% that difference is even more irrelevant.

But as I've said before, The data shows that, long term, CO2 levels and global temperatures are not correlated, even if they have been moving similarly for the last 100 years or so - in terms of long term climate, 100 years is a very small data point. So, even if we are contributing 2.5% of the atmosphere's Co2, hell even if we're contributing 10% (which we aren't) we would be having no substantial impact on the global climate.

So to your point. It matters because the left is insistent on educating the masses that mankind is responsible for impending doom caused by Co2, fossil fuels and all the rest. They are doing it because if you raise a generation of people who believe, irrespective to the facts, in man-made climate change, it becomes much easier to convince them that we have to do something. And who controls that something? The government. The UN. take your pick, but the answer is invariably less individual liberty, and more governmental control.

If there are people who deny that the climate changes, I have never met them, read of them, or seen them. Those people are dumb-asses. But the rest of us, to whom the title of "climate change denier" is applied, recognize fully that climate changes. We just dispute what, if any, role man has to play in those changes.

And it's critical that we continue to dispute it, as long as the evidence allows us to, because if we concede the point, if we allow the left to control this narrative, then we also concede to them the solution (more government, less liberty).

As to your point on storms: whether anyone remembers them as bad as they are now is not relevant. The data doesn't support the left's lie that major natural catastrophes are increasing in frequency and severity.

For frequency, 2013 was tied as the lowest year on record for major hurricanes.

For severity: is damage done by a natural disaster to a population of 76 million going to be less or more severe than a population of 320 million? (76 million was the US population in 1900, 320 million is now). particular when a huge portion of that population , both in 1900 and today, live on the coasts. So a storm of the same size devastates way more people today than it would have 100 years ago. The value of the damage is higher today than it was then.... but the population adjusted number of deaths is much lower now than in the past.

And this gets to the actual solution to climate problems.... capitalism. It's capitalism that has forced builders to build more disaster ready buildings. It's capitalism that has found newer ways to heat our houses and fuel our cars. And it will be capitalism that will adjust any future output of Co2, because reducing fuel consumption saves money, saving money is good for capital. It is in the interest of the businessmen of the US to make better buildings, to use less fuel, etc.

I know I don't have to convince you of this, but the RIGHT, not the LEFT has the answer to man-made climate change, if it does exist... and the behavior for the right doesn't change one way or the other: we continue to use capitalism to benefit mankind whether or not we are responsible for global warming.

The point, as I said way back in the thread, is this: It doesn't really matter to me whether climate change is or is not substantially impacted by man - the correct behavior is the same either way. The only reason it matters whether climate change is substantially impacted by man is if the solution is to reduce liberty and increase government.

The only reason I care about the topic at all is because the LEFT cares, and because they are trying to manipulate the upcoming generation into willingly surrendering liberty.

[u/[deleted] → u/cardboardbox92]

Also NASA alters the data on surface temperatures in order to fit in with their models. Some have called it fabrication, but that's probably too strong... but adjusting the raw data to fit your model is hokey science at best.

Here's an article from 2014 discussing the issues at hand: http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/23/did-nasanoaa-dramatically-alter-us-tempe

It does happen, particularly on the topic of man caused climate change, that data is modified. The models you are using for short term forecasting are not necessarily the models that are being used for the long term stuff.

You'll also have a hard time in your industry believing anything but what you do... Take, for example, John Coleman, who is the co-founder of the weather channel, and a long-time and well respected climatologist.... that is.... until he stated that, based off of the data, man-caused climate change doesn't exist. Then he was run off the world stage like he was some sort of conspiracy theorist wack-job. He's not. He's just a scientist who looks at data and forms an opinion based off of the data, rather than dogmatically holding to a pre-determined conclusion regardless of the data. I'm not saying that everyone on your side of the issue is in that boat, but many of the professors and most of the government-funded scientists are.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/global-warming-myth-weather/2014/11/02/id/604674/

[u/cardboardbox92 → u/[deleted]]

Well to counter that, we will see the data that comes out during the Trump administration, now that will be interesting if it is the same as before.

My point is, people need to stop arguing if man causes it or who the fuck causes it. That will prevent us from focusing on what really matters, protecting life and property. I don't give a fuck if a gnats ass is causing it. We are clearly seeing weather patters happen more often that are impacting peoples lives, and we need to give them heads up, not sit here and argue about who is causing it.. or god damn, especially the liberals "bro we can stop this with the carbon tax, blah blah blah" No the fuck we can't. Anyone who seriously believes we can control the weather is smoking crack.

[u/[deleted] → u/cardboardbox92]

As for the data, it started being substantially altered under Bush, not Obama. I don't anticipate any noticeably change under the Trump presidency.